a 4th Yamato-class was roughly 30% complete before it was scrapped so assuming they don’t do it to Musashi or Shinano it’s possible,
THIS is what im most worried about, just what will gaijin actually make up for sevastopol’s 380mm shells if the kron’s 305mm already perform better than some 14-15 inch shells? and better yet:
while im not sure this is still the case, but years ago a datamine found that russian 12 inch guns had much better accuracy than other nations’ 12 inch guns, with it (as per the dataminer’s comment) being comparable to US 5 inch guns.
will the russian 380mm guns be more accurate than the competition? firing a shell that is conveniently stronger than the competition? i just cant really trust the snail with that
1 Like
Bismarck, Gneisenau and Sevastopol would all share the same gun and turrets and shells. It’s the same twin gun mounting.
Doesn’t the Sevastopol’s mounts lack the power assisted loading due to weight concerns? That would mean that she would get a longer firerate compared to the others.
But otherwise the same I believe
lets hope gaijin will adhere to that and not make up anything for the sevastopol gun handling.
i have this feeling they will either misconstrue or bend the stats in a way that will be most convenient for it like what they did with PK’s SAP shell (during when SAP was the meta)
I mean the Sevastopol lacked a lot of things… Not even a completed hull so who could say what loading mechanism could be used. 27s is the usual firing cycle.
Compare that to Scharnhorst 17s lol
Eh marketing lies
1 Like
Yeah, should have 60 to 70 second reload rates
1 Like
any predictions about where USS Iowa would be?
I’d guess lost like US mains usually are :P
The most Primitive F-14 variant racking up more kills than all the F-15s combined:
The F-14 did have a tendency to kill pilots it deemed unworthy though so I agree it can’t be “the best” fighter jet.
1 Like
makes me wonder though how giga-huge the H-45 “Der Fuhrer” would be compared to everything else xD
Mostly unconfirmed + several lost in a2a
You’re never going to get “confirmed” kills in middle eastern engagements. Even the lowest estimates of kills ~110 are still higher than the F-15’s kill count. And less than 5 were ever lost in AtA kills (None in American service and 2-3 in Iranian service). Several is not the correct term. “A Few” works better.
So 110 kills and 2-3 losses a2a, still worse than F-15.
And also, they can have confirmed kills in middle east because that’s where most of the F-15’s kills come from (Israel and ODS)
I meant besides Israel and Desert Storm. It’s easy to count kills when we’re allies with the people fighting. When it’s between Iran/Iraq though, we can’t tell.
*Minimum of 130 kills (Iran reports 160) plus 3 and 2-3 losses while having no AWACS support, no airframe support, and no NCTR. I know you love the F-15, but it was very coddled in terms of getting it’s kills. AWACS and Tankers were favoring Airforce jets and the Navy wasn’t allowed to deploy far into combat zones. I’m not saying the F-15 didn’t earn those kills. The F-15 having NCTR was the reason it could do so well in the strict ROE. It was technologically more advanced to the F-14A.
This is why I think the Sea Harrier’s 23 - 0 record from the Falklands was so impressive. They were without a doubt the underdog in most respects (logistics, support, etc) and did so when outnumbered 10 - 1. Heck, most of the pilots were exhausted running multiple sorties per day.
2 Likes
What about all the Israeli kills then? And didnt Iranians use F-14 as sort of AWACS due to its very powerful radar? Not to mention that Navy had its own AWACS and aerial refuelers
Didn’t the Argentines only give enough fuel to go there and back?
Hey, US designers snorted their fair share of fat lines also.
My favorite being the Tillman Battleships aka “Maximum Battleships” that were designed in the mid to late 1910s, of which one variant was drawn up with 4 sextuple mount 16” turrets and another had 5 triple mount 18” turrets.