And battleships
I’m still mad about Warspite
1 Like
That is unless you count the vikrant, which was scrapped in 2014
Yeah, personally I hope they make at least one nuclear carrier a museum ship
1 Like
They cant
Maybe not for enterprise since it had 8 reactors, but maybe for newer CVN’s once they are fully retired
the problem with nuclear carrier is how comically expensive a decommissioning of the reactor is, plus generic fearmongering about the safety of nuclear power from the last 60 years would make it a media nightmare to get one of them opened to the public
They already do defuel the reactors on older CVN, happened 2010s for the Enterprise
1 Like
its not just defueling for a decommission, you have to do a lot of contamination cleanup which is very expensive to do.
plus to make it a museum vessel you have to be super OCD with the decontamination just to be safe for the public, even if the boiler rooms are locked away for everyone.
1 Like
I’d be excited for this normally but since you have destroyed Naval AB in the last update, I really don’t care about what new ships you bring out.
Just make visitors sign a waiver
and be torn to shredy by the media that took the simpsons nuclear plant as a realistic depiction of how nuclear is? wouldn’t happen mate
Mk XVIIB APC had been already implemented along with Warspite in the last major. Historically there was no so called “high hardness” version of 15" APC. The “high performance” APC made by Cardonald was never put into mass production as the existing stocks were considered sufficient. After all, there’s no plan for implementing quality factors in penetration calculations.
So the only possible improvement on firepower in the future would be the introduction of supercharge.
I’m sure this will be paired with several BRs of decompression right?
Surely this wouldn’t be like a 0.3 increase where you’ll ‘‘monitor’’ the situation without ever actually doing anything no matter how bad it is like has been done for the last 10 years, right?!
Okay, if i remember you had data on the performance of the 15" apc rounds, and said they were underperforming, is there anything we can do there?
1 Like
1 Like
So that you gonna do with torpedo boats ruining Battleships gameplay(capturing points in invisibility) with the patch?
Does this really count as a quality thing when its stated that they changed the way the shell was made (by altering the metal composition). We might say it has higher penetration qualities but it’s using a fundamentally different meturology composition? I’m not doubting what you’re saying about quality but I don’t know if i’d call this one shell having better quality but more one shell using a different design that they just couldn’t be bothered renaming.
Even if you read Nathan Okun’s extract he says ’ Confusingly, these shells did not get their own Mark number designation, meaning that there were other shells in service with the Mark XVIIb designation that did not have the better penetration capability.’ Which strongly implies they should have had their own designation and were fundamentally a different shell and not just a quality improved shell.
Also limited service I don’t think should count against it? HE-VT was only in limited service etc…
I also second Fireball’s question. Sorry for the grilling but I would very much like Vanguard added at her peak.
Yes, probably yes…
It is easy to evaluate it from a distance of more than 80 years…
And we will never know many things…
It was then that aircraft carriers appeared, against the reluctance of the supporters of the “gun club” to give up the primary role of battleships in battle…
1 Like
Yes. They joke us.
“superior, iconic, big, vast and yottabyte ships”
This is not first letter.
Ok, we knew from 2025 decal about Richelieu
what more?
I have read all the original memorandum on armour and shells regarding the 15" from 1939-1946, and the conclusion is clear: there was no “improved” version of 15" ever entered service. Between 1939-1941 there were severe issues with British 15" quality that many shells failed the pre war acceptance standard 1750ft/s against 12" C at 30deg, to an extent that they had to temporarily relax the criteria to 1950ft/s in order to avoid situations where not enough shells can pass the proof test. The navy blamed the manufacturers for poor qualities control while the manufacturers insisted that the failure in proof was rather due to improvements on the testing armour quality. In 1943 the ROF (Cardonold) worked on some shells with improved treatments and managed to reliably punch through the testing plate with 1500ft/s and even slower velocity, finally debunked the manufacturers’ excuses.
So the Cardonald shell was experimental intended to convince the main manufacturers, namely the Hadfield and Firth, to working on improving their qualities control. It was proposed to revised the proof standard to 1500ft/s based on the performance of ROF shells but was eventually dropped, and by 1946 the proof standard remained identical as prewar standard, 1750ft/s. At this point all works on improving shell performance had been halted as the era of battleships clearly had came to an end.
2 Likes