i have given up on making actual sugesstion posts as any i have tried to make get held for review and then vanish like a day later
he also got 3 bars on his Distinguished Service Order which is kinda insane
2 Likes
I have a few active and want to work on a few others, but I cant be bothered to do the research (Like Hunter F6A suggestion, Hunter F6 with drop tanks (or maybe just larger drop tanks) and drag chute) also a few gameplay ones as well.
But rather proud of:
Its a pretty simple one, but was fun to write.
and i belive he also outranked a fair few of the other captins which ment that they had to salute to him on his little sloop while they were in capital ships. but from listening to the mini serise on him from Drachinifel he deserved all of the praise he got and he saddly died of a stroke in 1944 after securing the channel from u-boats
Currently reload time is not a balancing thing. It is according to ‘valid’ documents Gaijin gets, and fastest among them.
AFAIK Gaijin doesn’t have any firing manual for British 15’’ so give fastest reload record they have during training(though I heard Renown and Repulse gets even faster records, not sure about that), for Japanese 16’’ 24 seconds is given according to document showing their fastest record exclude gun elevation time(test was done at the loading angle)
That answer is done by non-naval moderator. Naval aspect moderator clarify that answer with ‘reloading speed is not balancing factor. Those source does not clarify how the record was tested, and some USN battleships modify their turret in 1930s’
i feel that if they do that for one kind of ship then they shoul do it for all ships it as they dont take into acount reload being affected by ammo changes and for tanks they dont take into acount the breach position at the time of reload
Actually the do for all ships who has records. Even US 14’’ standards got such benefit as when Arizona was first implemented it was 50 seconds reload with Ace but buffed to 40 seconds as Gaijin excludes gun elevation times.
is there a fatiuge affect for firerates outside of the first stage ammo racks or not as by the time i would have realised i have been hammered by other ships which has also increesed the reload
US 14’’ triple turret is quite cramped for three guns, as they were same weight as British 15’’ twin turrets with more armor. Also hoist for powder is only two for three guns, meaning additional procedure needs for all three guns to be loaded.
that seems kinda convoluted for a loading system
they had their chance with Barham since she had a 41 refit but nope, 1920 refit
Probably a tech tree QE next update!
The boxer is the event boxer.
The leaks arent necesarily updates only.
Bp and event can slipnin there
I would say valiant would be the better ship gameplay wise but warspite has the better / more well known story
Then, ideally Valiant would be the main tree one, while Warspute would be the future Rank VI Premium for whenever Rank VII is released!
Although it would probably feel odd not to have the namesake ship (Queen Elizabeth) anywhere to be found.
This was regarding BeNeLux carriers.
But yes, US should get it’s full potential imo. Everyone should get what they operate(d)
Warfare is asymmetric. I don’t mind other countries getting counters in other ways.
1 Like
G3 is valid I have 2 book sources, 1 admiralty source, and one fleet review (ships cannot be included in the fleet review unless laid down) and then the context, G3 was revised and submitted to the US and Japan so they’d cancel their new fleets (they did because G3 beat their best planned ships let alone everything else, they’d have to start all over again).
For war thunder purposes its either equal or better than Iowa in several ways, which means its much too good for now, this is actually a positive as every other tree has purely laid down ships, but our laid down ships will save us when we need it the most at top tier because the Lions whilst modern, were influenced by the Treaty, and Treaty influence=bad
Same No. of guns, thicker armour and heavily sloped though Iowa adds a few more degrees of slope, at deep loads G3 is actually faster but overall at standard they go as fast as eachother.
G3 should receive the 16.5"/45 superheavy shell if she is added in her best configuration like Kronshtadt rather than her final configuration which included treaty modifications, the 16.5" superheavy is probably as good as the American 16" but i haven’t done the calculation, either way it has like twice the explosive of the American shell.
RoF again equal at 2 RPM, Gaijin couldn’t nerf it to be the length of Nelsons as though they use the same autoloader design Nelson had hers lightened causing issues and then also the projectiles didnt fit the autoloader as it had been desgined for the aforementioned 16.5 shell with an 8crh head (longer head than Nelson class’ 6crh).
Only area G3 actually loses out on is AA and thats because she wasn’t WW2 Era but if she had been built it would’ve changed the entire war on the sea. Personally I think the UK should have built one and lied about its displacement.
We could get at least 2 of these ships also.
Make the game more realistic, all the ship need to change the cannons after a different amount of shells fired 😅
3 Likes
chaos, fighting over random BS, fake leaks and a whole lot of silence
2 Likes
Because of the refit year she doesn’t have supercharges, 6crh shells (its 4crh), nor does she have ballistic capping so the penetration dropoff is relatively severe.
Still better than Bayerns shell’s but far from ideal.