There are many more examples sir, you’re playing a losing game. Once again, widely agreed upon by historians and ship designers that these vessels had extremely poor damage control, and I outlined all of the technological improvements warships received over the decades.
Are you STILL trying to make the argument that their damage control should be equally as efficient? You are defending how it is in game as things stand now, and THAT is in fact how it is modeled in game right now.
Like I said before, YOU are the one that has the burden of proof to show me how these ships are somehow so survivable when they are historically proven not to be. I have replays of some of these ships taking 15+ torpedoes in a single game, and suffering from dozens of fires.
You clearly have no idea what a flash-tight bulkhead is. If you don’t have an argument, just say so. You continue to ignore the objective inferiorities of WWI dreadnoughts that I have highlighted to you multiple times. Enough of this non-sense.
None of the ships you have mentioned were considered dreadnoughts, not a single battlecruiser was ever considered a dreadnought outside of invincible being dreadnought armored cruiser
For God’s sake man, stop the rage bait trolling. You want actual dreadnoughts? Show me a single source that shows that the Konig or Beyern class DREADNOUGHTS had centralized damage control, multi-layer torpedo bulges, smoke ventillation, foam blanketing systems or portable C02 firefighting equpment, literally nothign REMOTELY close to the technology of a WWII battleship.
You cannot seriously pretend a 1916 dreadnought with steam-driven pumps and coal-dust bulkheads has the same damage control effectiveness as a 1944 Iowa. So unless you think a few flash doors make up for the 30 years of technological advancements that I’ve highlighted to you several times now, you might want to rethink that comparison.
No, all you have said is shouldn’t be able to repair under fire, which in naval you rarely are not under fire, that makes that idea worse than the one being proposed
I was responding to comments about the AA battery repair spam which should not be done under fire. Do you think that an engineering crew is going to go out and reweld a 20mm Oerlikon mount while under barrages of 16in shell fire?
Sir, you literally DO NOT read comments, get out of here.
I do read them, if i didn’t i wouldn’t reply, in your original reply for example you stated that a player deciding to control what crew does when the player is technically the command staff in the instance of gameplay isnt a good idea, neither is automating repairs, it may shock you to know i actually do know exactly what im talking about and that i know my history of specific ships, its literally the reason i play the mode, the mode becoming more and more like another games system is the exact opposite of what should be happening yet it is happening, furthermore, i, as someone who does control their damage control, am rather offended by it now being called an exploit, so no i will not,“get out of here” as you so graciously put it
I will however apologise for any misunderstanding i caused since it was my error
Thank you. Listen, all I am saying is Gaijin’s decision to add multipliers on repair speeds based on the ship’s age is realistic. This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see even more realism with exact numbers of repair parties per ship in the future. I also think that their decision to automate fire and flooding DC is also realistic. Fires and floods are direct threats to living crew members on board, they may be prioritized by severity, but they are NEVER, ever ignored by anyone. Intentionally allowing a ship to flood to raise the waterline and kill souls on board is also unrealistic. Again, I’m not saying this can’t be improved in the future, but another step in the right direction in terms of realism.
Lastly, I did acknowledge that automated repair of AA guns and secondary batteries above deck is unrealistic, as no one would do this under fire.
I once again apologise for my conduct i am very passionate about naval since its why i started playing in the first place as an amateur naval historian and someone with a family connection to navy
Chapters 3 and 4 focus on three areas: the limited survivability of U.S. warships in World War I, …
Check this document - apparently USN damage control procedures are still based on those learned from German and British experiences in WW1 - more especially the German ones.
Battleship Cove has a video tour of Mamie’s Damage Control Center, featuring lots of standard equipment for the time also found on the Iowa and North Carolina class… as well as modern cruisers. USS Salem has a somewhat similar, but scaled suite as well.
The video really doesn’t do it justice, as walking around the USS Massachusetts damage control lockers, hose hookups, C02 storage, and portable water pumps can be found basically all over the place. Best to go to a museum and see for yourself, staff are usually volunteers and veterans happy to give you tours, offer explanations and even give supervised access to enclosed areas… at least this is true with the Massachusetts, but I’m sure other museums are just as hospitable.