.png.4feb4bb38042fed97cfd8aab35ba71ed.png)
Bluishdoor76
-
Posts
223 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Bluishdoor76
-
-
6 minutes ago, Skyguy1944 said:
idk man. I came from wows where you can play bbs at the onset, better matched against the competition, and still have fun along with the grind. The war thunder grind ain't fun, but darn it they have awesome graphics and a butt-ton of machines.
Well in WoWS a destroyer can tank hits from any ship class, mean while in WT they can get killed by a single well placed salvo from another destroyer, and destroyers will have basically no chance at killing BB 1 on 1 because unlike the bs from WoWS, HE spam will do little to nothing to the BB aside from fires. DDs are already pretty much out classed by cruisers in WT as they were in real life. But DDs have many other things to do in WT, and are the only capital ship that can safely approach the island covered sections of the maps.
-
34 minutes ago, Skyguy1944 said:
Got onto the war thunder dev server. Don't get your hopes up. BBs are top tier, just as unreachable as everything else. You have to research every ship in the tech tree to get to the new BB's. Same ol' Gaijin, putting everything new at top tier.
they're.... they're battleships man, they wont put them at low tier to just roffle stump the low tier destroyers and gun boats. Honestly I am really happy with how the tech tree is, the XP is pretty normal for top tier 360k easily grind-able in a few days, I am very much looking forward to grinding them as soon as they are released.
-
MORE WW1 MEMES!!!!!!!!!
-
8
-
-
14 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
*rapidly teleports in and out of the forums*
*waits for the venerable alpha 9 patch*
;w;
Teleporting between here and the War Thunder forums for signs of the dev server lol
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, ReefKip said:
I disagree. you need to have interesting late game technology for the player to look forward to. just the way how they implement it currently is wrong by focusing only on the late game designs. why even bother wasting development resources by implementing early game pre dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts if the content is so shallow that people just skip to late game designs because it is were the fun is at the moment. designing a part of the game that makes the other part redundant is a horrible design philosophy.
I think the best way they could of gone about is adding to each portion equally each alpha, adding similar amounts of new content to each era as each era should be treated just as important as one another. But the pure focus on only late interwar and early WW2 is now creating too much of a rift between all the eras, with Dreadnought and Pre-dreadnought just being left on a corner, WW1 and interwar sort of pretty much in the same state and all those hulls just being the worst with their limitations.
-
2
-
-
Sorry for the late response lol, sorta forgot this thread existed with how delayed Alpha-9 is been
-
2
-
-
On 10/24/2020 at 7:47 PM, Marcomies said:
I'd argue that US with its massive industrial capacity was probably the least limited by manufacturing when it came to testing and innovating. It's also not like all the 5"/38 turrets were same standard model either. That Wikipedia article alone lists 13 different production mounts, 7 of which are different enclosed dual-gun turrets for different ship types with weighs ranging from 34 tons to 77 tons and many of them were used concurrently.
With aircraft dominating the naval warfare, dual purpose gun's weren't some low priority weapon system either. If the Navy's AA-firepower could have been improved by triple-gun design then surely that would have been pursued. Losing a battleship to torpedo bombers stings a lot more than redesigning a small turret, so surely that wasn't the main reason.
The US did have the resources for doing the testing, but for interwar the US was more focused on recovering the economy from the Great Depression and once WW2 started the US focused on mobilizing and getting equipment to their allies that were in desperate need of support, the Brits and Philippines primarily, perfect example of the sort of desperate attempt to alleviate their allies is the M3 Lee, very mediocre tank but was the best the US could produce in a short time while something better came up. as for the Mk 5"/38, it did goe through several variants but for the most part the turret designs it was part of were all fairly similar, just look at the Atlanta's turrets vs Somer's, pretty similar, and same goes for Fletcher and the previous destroyers that used the Mk 5"/38, another example of how the US hardly deviated from what worked is the M4 sherman, once it was deemed adequate it went through a lot of changes but for the most part it stayed looking the same about the same with each iteration, biggest change was the change of the hull from rounded to more blocky on its later iterations. Perfect example of how bad doing multiple different designs and constant changes during wartime look no further then Germany, its production line was nightmare inducing with how many changes they did to all their vehicles, and became one of the many factors that lead to its own downfall.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
I want a graf spee hull as well and similar turrets and queen lizzy, too be honest with me i just want every bloody hull in the game. But eh i can dream lol.
Dunno if we have a bayern hull, but if not gib.
Ieah, I really want Scharnhorst's turrets, I kinda like their look a lot more then Bismarck's turrets.
-
4
-
-
MEMES!!!!
-
7
-
-
I voted its ok, because we're still in alpha and its far too soon to say that they are skipping on content. Focusing on just the later hulls is a bit of a mistake, even tho they are adding my personal favorite ship I still recognize that they are focusing a bit too much in adding WW2 stuff. Quad guns was the thing I kept pushing for because there are dreadnoughts that could use them, aka things like Lyon and Normandie. As for pre-dreadnoughts, I hardly have any interest in them, find them all a bit too similar to one another but, they are still important to the game and we really need them to start filling in the era of 1890-1910 with more hulls, and at the same time start to remove the harsh limitations on the designer. Which the pre-dreadnoughts are the worse when it comes to design-ability, theres is one design you can come up with every hull and thats it.
-
Just now, Cptbarney said:
True, and since i have a new gaming pc, i will want to try and get those ships. Especially now that the economy isn't so dumb.
Although i suspect the PVP will send me back ragin anyways lol.
Naval is definitely not as rage inducing as tanks imo, but yeah it'll still be a PvP game mode. But with the model quality of War Thunder, its definitely worth it.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Cptbarney said:
Is dat dreadnought? Quite sexy.
It is, you can see several more and one unexpected one in their video about the new ships and changes to naval economy and research.
-
2
-
-
I hope they release the update soon, because at least for me as I've mentioned before, this game has a ticking timer that is mid November.
-
4
-
-
you make spaceships now?
-
If there is no in depth fuel system then yeah, there will be no balancing factor towards building a full fleet of nothing but battleships. Battleships are a huge constraint on resources, thus why compared to the other classes battleships were built on very limited numbers.
-
20 minutes ago, Marcomies said:
Without getting into the subject of post-war developments and military priorities, I was never arguing against triple-gun turrets being the go-to primary weapon of 1930+ cruiser sized and bigger warships.
If you look at the Cleveland-class that you mentioned for example, yes, it has triple-gun main turrets. A significant amount of space on a 20th century warship is usually dedicated to the primary weapon turrets so space isn't that much of an issue there. However, if you look at the secondary weapons on the Cleveland-class, those are are 5" guns in dual-gun turrets and they are packed tightly. Those turrets are basically as large as they can be and still fit on the available deck. All of the ships you mentioned had dual-gun secondaries and Mogami's primary weapons (6" triples) were even upgraded to larger caliber dual-gun turrets (8" doubles) during the war.
The Mk 12 5"/38 gun itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5"/38_caliber_gun) was very popular and effective dual-purpose weapon through WW2 and was used in various mounts on warships from Destroyer Escorts to Battleships. It came in various single and dual-gun configurations. The dual-gun turrets generally weighed more than twice as much as a single gun and their dimensions were clearly larger.
This weapon was the best US intermediary caliber naval gun of the war but I'm not aware of it ever being deployed or tested in triple-gun configuration. Many US destroyers used these in dual-gun turrets. Even the Atlanta-class cruiser, the idea of which was basically to fit as many 5" guns on a light cruiser as possible, still used dual mounts for all its 8 primary turrets. That decision might simply be due to manufacturing efficiency, but it also seems like the most likely candidate for testing a triple gun version if there ever was any interest or need for such version.
If I had to speculate why 5"/38 wasn't used in triple-gun turrets, I would guess that with the required size increase you might as well use 6" guns. The loading process on the best 5"/38 turrets was very fast and effective and squeezing in a third gun without sufficient space increase would probably have slowed down the loading to a point where it would negate the addition of another barrel.
I mentioned them cause you were talking about mid to low caliber turrets, forgot you were mentioning secondaries so yeah it is my fault. For many American ships it really just comes down to manufacturing, it is easier, faster and cost effective to keep a design that works then to create multiples. It was the same for every other nation, but with the effect that other nations didnt have the resources to make them. Many triple gun secondary as you may notice are just turrets from other ship classes, Yamato having the 155mm triples from the Mogami class, and Richelieu using the turrets from the La Galissonniere class. Its not that they were deemed to inefficient or bad, its just that they used what ever they already had at the time to cut on cost. They just didnt find that it was needed to create an entire new design when a pre existing one just did the job fine, and that goes to singles and dual as well. Of course there were exceptions, like the German dual 88-105 but those were created as anti air guns, but for the most part they used turret designs that were meant for other ships.
Oh also space, space was the other defining factor when it came to why triple gun turrets weren't as wide spread for secondaries, as a wider hull would mean more money and so on, but none of the factors would lead to them being any less effective then singles or duals. If ships, specifically battleships had the space to fit a triple secondary turret, they would of had one, as you can see from the Yamato's first designs. The 2 triple turrets the Yamato had on each side were replaced not because they were bad, but because the need arouse for more anti air defenses, and the space the triple turrets occupied was replaced with more AA mounts.
-
3 hours ago, SonicB said:
Yeah, I accept that's likely true, but I can't really think of any medium-calibre triple or quadruple mounts that worked well enough to become commonplace. That indicates to me that the compromises required to design an effective mount of that type were considered great enough to not be worth the advantages.
That said, the maths might be different if the campaign allows/requires us to design ships to different priorities than existed in historical reality. For instance, triple turrets probably didn't make sense on a large battlecruiser, but if the Royal Navy found itself designing coastal defence battleships with limited deck space but enough beam and topweight to support them, the tradeoff may well have been worthwhile. For instance, had they been fitted to RN monitors operating at low speed in littoral waters, they might have proved more successful.
So I maintain that in most cases triple and quad turrets should be as disadvantaged as they clearly were historically. However, I'll add that there should be a minority of situations (or hulls) where the disadvantages are outweighed, and a good campaign should allow us to discover those niches.Stares at Baltimore class, Cleveland, Brooklyn, Town, Mogami. Main reason triple guns didnt become common place was due to the rise of missiles, triple gun were well on their way in becoming commonplace but technology caught up with them at the end of the 1950s and thus guns began to lose their importance as missiles could deliver a much bigger blow and could reach further.
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, Bry7x7x7 said:
Well, that is pretty much the French line of thinking under the Jeune École (young school) of thinking. May not worked out, but it was the line of think France was going in in what would be the early game of the campaign.
The french were a weird bunch, we don't talk about the, they even put 8" guns on a submarine :3
-
7 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
Eww, ffs so no monarch, republique or Super yammy as tech tree ships? I like full production stuff, but i find the less well known designs much more interesting.
Also some weegee ships i would love too see in warthunder, because of graphics and actual useable secondaries and AA.
Yeah probably not, if they follow the same system as planes and tanks. But for naval they might break that rule for battleships as Russia would end with very few BBs, same with Germany, so Sovietsky Soyus and H-class will probably be added to the tech trees to fill spots. Same could happen to France, Italy and maybe Japan though I doubt it
Issues with the UK, US and Japan having prototype stuff is that they have a fairly large selection of battleships that were fully built so it wouldnt require digging into prototypes and paper designs to fill spots.
AA is gonna become such an issue for aircraft in WT, cause cruiser and destroyers are already somewhat difficult to do a run on because of their AA. God forbid something like Bismarck, Iowa, Yamato, or a hello kittying Republique lol
Oh and something i did forget to mention, War Thunder has manual control of secondaries and AA, so if you dont trust your ai to do well, prolly cause it has low experience, you can take control of the secondaries and AA and do it yourself.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
Oh roight, thought it would be like weegee were they have a fit everytime they fire the gun.
Also B.R 4.0 might be fine most of the cruisers don't go above 152mm;s i assumed some 8 inch and bigger ships existed down there.
I would love to see queen lizzy and kgv doe or even some more unknown ships. what is gaijin like with non-historical stuff?
They are strict but not opposed to adding prototypes, only reason Tiger 2 105, Panther 2, and Coelian which were mostly just paper and never built, were added so Germany would have something more then just 2 tanks at top tier. But mostly only prototypes that were built are added to the game and mainly as premium vehicles or event rewards. Main tech tree stuff will usually be entered into full production and into service or went through extensive testing but just didnt make it into full production.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
How accurate are the secondaries on ships in warthunder anyways?
Pretty lethal depending on how much experience you put towards secondaries gunnery. Works similar to bomber gunners iirc, and bomber gunners at max experience can easily snipe the pilot of a fighter with in a few seconds if the fighter pilot player is not careful.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Cptbarney said:
oof, i'd put them at 3.5 or 3.7 4.0 sounds dodgy when they can face br 5 ships.
yeah, they're still battleships and with their gun caliber and amount of secondaries, specially on Gangut, so putting them too low would just massacre the torpedo boats, and lightly armored frigates.
-
2 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
Ahh! But, i wonder where they will fit them in. Only thing that interests me in that game is naval and some tanks, planes aren't really my thing but props are fun doe.
Heard there are missiles on some ships already 😕
Probably after cruiser, with their BRs starting at around 4.0 or something like that, below where Graf Spee and the WW2 cruisers are.
I started playing War Thunder way back when it was still just about planes, now a days I am mostly a tanker at high tiers and every now and then play naval.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, TotalRampage said:
"we will never add anything bigger than a destroyer". add's in Spee then so many heavies hahah.
The backlash was too severe that it would of been their biggest mistake yet to stick to that. And props to them, they have actually worked towards bringing the heavier ships in.
Alpha-9 News Update
in General Discussions
Posted
Also unlike in WoWS, secondaries in Cruisers and BBs act exactly the same as they would if they were main batteries on destroyers, so each of the new BBs has a small cruiser strap to each side of its hull with how many secondary batteries they have.