Ahh that is a very very elementary mistake on my part I remembered they switched them round but not which way.
Jutland was a failure to follow the most basic safety procedures and be recklessly unsafe. Lack of live fire training had inspired the admiral to have his fleet focus on speed over accuracy. To do this all the safety procedures like fire doors were removed and ammo was brought out of the magazines into the unprotected walkways leading to the turrets. Any impact or explosion activated the exposed munitions and that lead to a chain reaction all the way to the magazines and turrets.
Future battles where these doors were locked and munitions were handled correctly showed the British battlecruisers to be quite surviveable
Sadly people only hear about Jutland.
1 Like
Ekhm… Ho… khm… od… Ekhmmm…
? No idea what your trying to say
Bug report regarding USS Tennessee’s draft! The ship is sitting too high above the waterline, exposing the ammunition above the waterline and diminishing the design of the armor belt.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eaNNa2wu1NYI
EDIT: It was labelled as “not a bug”, since “units can be depicted in full load or not”…
Which begs me the question; why is almost EVERY ship depicted at full load… but Tennessee is not? Is it an intentional way to make her perform worse? Is this really needed?
Why not make a unified load standard for all ships? It would only be fair.
It is unfair for 90% of the ships to be depicted at full combat load and suddenly make a ship be depicted at maintenance run fuel load, which is unrealistic and needs it completely.
3 Likes
Clearly the Standards would be far too overpowered with their correct drafts!
…And reload times. And armor schemes. And working armor.
2 Likes
Napalmratte, for those who don’t watch him, is very analogous to Defyn for Naval - dude knows a lot and plays a lot. And he’s labeling this thing a total piece of shit - very much in line with the general criticisms.
I just don’t understand why - when it’s clear that Gaijin is attempting to breathe life into Naval by adding new vehicle content - that they completely kneecap themselves in this way.
If this were some baller new ship - or even halfway decent - it would generate buzz and have people playing. But instead, it’s dead on arrival. Very disappointing.
I so want to love Naval but it’s almost as though Gaijin willfully sabotages it by adding needless additions to the Japanese line and yet more fantasy botes to the Russians (such a bad look imo) - not to mention the total lack of map improvement, which is sorely needed.
Gaijin please improve this model of the Tennessee so we can begin to get Naval back on track.
4 Likes
To be honest, Tennessee is just a victim of being hilarious vulnerable to every flaw of naval gameplay at once. The gun turrets somehow always get themselves knocked out and the player cant fix them because the repair mechanic goes for all the damaged AA mounts first. The ridiculously long reload that makes Standards borerline impossible to play especially when theyre constantly dealing with fires. And finally, the lack of a conning tower causing constant loss of control of the ship.
2 Likes
Saddest thing is, Tennessee could actually be QUITE good if it had its historical 34 (EDIT: 27, actually!) second aced reload (as oppossed to 40), if shell rooms didn’t unrealistically blow up like nukes and if it had its actual combat load draft (which would further protect the magazines and even A and D turret shell rooms)…
Even just one or two of those factors would help her be a more relevant addition by a lot already.
Big problem in general on Naval, indeed.
2 Likes
Hello there! If anyone comes across this, please, take a look!
I also decided to give it a shot and make a bug report about the rate of fire: support it here by pressing the “I have the same issue” button!
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9DrWx7mRDflG
1 Like