And ofc, here comes the member-mesuring contest…
2 Likes
Well yeah 2nd to us lol. (we really love our ships)
But that is still huge, do you know what flight it carriers? (aka how much fighters/jets)
only 40 aircraft total from wiki, not just fighters but helis and stuff included
1 Like
whats that one called?
Not that much more than the French one, despite smaller size, see ? Size is not everything :p
This is probably my issue with these nuke subs their massive weight and size while not really having as much weapons capacity compared to conventional non nuke subs with only the exception of some (some have more but most arnt as much)
Take the Typhoons with up to 22 torps for example.
Meanwhile take a soryu class sub with 30 reloads smaller and more nimble probably more stealthy.
Now their big advantage will be speed but this differs as well like the Le Redoutable with a speed of 37km/h
Take the soryu again also a speed of 37km/h. This will differ from sub to sub
I dont think their massive sizes will be a good thing for WT.
2 Likes
not saying much tbh
i guess, but itll be imposing and look cool
also, typhoon main armament is the nukes, not any torpedoes
@KhorneFlakez1337 @Tim_TeaDrinker
To get back to you regarding the discussion of the ZT3A2 and its capabilities in game:
It appears that the launcher is erroneously stabilized in game, either due to a technical limitation of the game or negligence by the devs.
The optic, however, is stabilized. I am unaware of any mechanical restriction of the system nor operational protocol to prevent fire whilst moving.
Meaning you probably can fire on the move, but it isn’t a good idea since your ATGM may go flying or hit the dirt.
For comparison, the Kornet launchers on the sides of the Berzhok combat module of the BMP-2M are stabilized meaning true fire on the move is effective and possible.
Based on the information I’ve gathered, the ZT3A2 should lose stabilization in the launcher itself (but keep it in the optic), and gain the ability to fire on the move.
1 Like
I never understood the nuclear thing, given that aircraft carriers need resupplying constantly anyways, and ignoring our difficulty in acquiring them, the F-35B is a better carrier aircraft than the Rafale I’d say, and we have no issue launching them.
what tonnage are we expecting for it? And how many are you building?
PANG (Porte Avions Nouvelle Génération = New Generation Carrier)
Surely a real name gonna be found later.
Scheduled for 2036.
Which ofc wont matter at all in wt so thats like half their armament irrelevant
2 Likes
When does your next come out?
well yeah, just saying that there is design justification for the reduced number of torpedoes
1 Like
It was more a counter to his German U-boat comment, still, we have the 2nd biggest carrier fleet in the world right now, though that is largely because it was more expensive to cancel the second carrier than to just have it build, we kind of don’t have the capacity for it, although given current developments it might have been a blessing
1 Like
Can F35B take out with 25Tons of weaponry and fuel ?
One for now, tonnage is around 75,000 tonnes but the project take more weight with the time.
And since the Charles de Gaulle, smaller, can use the same number of planes than one of the UK ones, this one would hold more stuff.
isnt the PLAN making more carriers? i think thatll make them #2
Scheduled for 2036.
can the Rafale take off with 50,000 pounds of weapons and fuel?
Dang and the tonnage?