Cairo1

the user Stephanie_Medina is a bot, please be aware.

I hope in the Future we get the ability to design our own hull forms, and superstructure, I know its complicated ant time consuming with the slices we saw in that early preview, but i would really like to form my ship exactly the way it is in my mind. I used to play From the Depths and build realistic ships or "replicas" but they made it so cannons do no damage unless you want 50cm machine guns. I really liked putting together my own combination of differing ships features, and Layouts, I hope we get to see something like that here. Maybe we can anticipate some kind of post release, or DLC module that lets us develop our own layouts of conning towers Tripod masts, hectopod masts, or Flying bridges and such

Hey man don't be mean, The guy needs help, not a scolding.

You can thank the French for those, Originally Akitsushima was also going to feature a Cannet Gun, However Japanese Naval thinkers though the quick firing 4.7 inch guns would be enough as the ludicrous load times of the 32cm guns made them theoretically ineffective. This Infuriated the French Naval attache ending Franco Japanese Naval cooperation. Intrestingly all 4 of these ships were also made in Japan. Please enjoy These Japanese Gunboats, Maya with her 2, 8 inch guns, and Akagi with her 4, 4.7cm guns Akagi was the first All steel hulled ship manufactured in Japan, and actually was only scrapped in the 50s Also Here is a Great little song Naming and showing Many ships From teh Russo Japanese War Era.

The Information I present is largely from Japanese sources as opposed to American ones, I know White plains Claims the kill on Chokai, and Chikuma is credited to TBMs in US sources, however The Japanese Credit both kills to Samuel B. Roberts, Torpedoes did take Chokai's stern, but Japanese sources Credit Roberts for the torpedo rack detonation. TBMs did Hit Chikuma, but she was also scuttled by Naganami, The loss of command systems from Roberts gun fire is where the credit comes from. Perhaps 5'' gun fire alone was a bit much :3, but it was that which gave the crippling blows. (as a neat aside the little brother of one of Roberts crew works at the War of the pacific Museum in Fredricksburg Texas, I met him while i was there with a Japanese congressman) Keep in mind The Japanese Score Credit for kills differently then the US dose, to them its not about who gets in the last hit, but who strikes the fatal blow. All I have read about fire from either of the Yamatos in combat was of type 3 shells, to my knowledge that was what she was firing at White plains, these are Anti air, or used for bombardment, air bursting shells. Further more I though it was Kongo that hit Johnston with her main guns. Area of effect shell not directly fired at ships don't count. I don't find the US intelligence reports to be that biased, I figure mistakes are from lack of information. Most of them were marked secret, and for legitimate assessment, not post war anti Japanese propaganda. we certinally wanted to take advantage of anything the Japanese knew we did not. Here is the one for the 46cm''L45 mounts. https://web.archive.org/web/20141022175714/http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ-200F-0384-0445 Report O-45 N.pdf

Perhaps This is a case of looking for Realism in the wrong places, but i do not mind the randomness at all. How would one nation gather the needed information on the armor layout of an enemy? in addition to the armor lay out, then you have the armor theory, what I am saying is what nation just published weather they have an inclined belt, or how thick it is, or how high or low to the waterline it sits. I can see the benefit of trying to gather expectation on your own ships then, but how will you know what the weight of an enemy shell is, its amount of explosive filler, how could you estimate the actual penetration even if you use your own guns? In reality old ships were used for target practice, but also in the early treaty era modern ships became target practice and demonstrators of theory. you just don't know until you try is what i am saying. I would rather Development time be dedicated to additional game play features, more CG models, improvements to already existing systems. New features like night battles, which i second, I would really like to see search lights cut through the darkness. Let our destroyers act like real ladies before they die in hell fire.

天気晴朗ナレドモ波高シ,Tenki seiro naredomo nami takashii, Weather is serene with large waves. This was one of the most prophetic statements prior to the outbreak of the battle of Tsushima. By clear weather the statement means spotting and observation will be without hindrances, large waves is a comment on the high assessment of victory and the Japanese crews were extremely well trained, thus neither hindered by the wind and waves. The statement was sent to the Japanese Naval HQ along with informing them that battle was about to meet and the enemy has been spotted. Please enjoy this collection of film from the Russo-Japanese war.

I think that part of the argument here may be a result of Wows, but not from their shitty gimmicky game play, People see the All guns forward in quad turrets, and think "oh wow thats a great idea" or see ships like Nelson thinking those ships were designed to sail head on and fight in such a manner. What may not be understood is the bad performance seen in quad turrets, specifically their bad accuracy, Bad, not poor Bad. Use over time, combined with the science of maths has shown us the reverberation and resonance of turrets with these layouts caused movement in the turret and loss of precision in aiming equipment. Other all guns forward designs were centered around the idea of the guns, and magazines inside a smaller area needing less heavy armor in order to comply with treaty regulations. These ships weren't designed to be powerful, they were designed to be clever. One can only be so clever before his own machinations come back to bite him. The French have a reputation for building clever ships, and often they are just a little too clever. Remember Bouvet which sank in just TWO minutes with just over 70 of her 700 man crew surviving. The power of pinesol

Ah sory, I don't play with trash, so i dotn understand everything said about Wargaming's products Please enjoy this Colorized picture as an apology.

I will fill in the information when i find where i read the story but this one is pretty good. Did you know the Japanese navy trained crews and performed experiments with High speed reverse maneuvering? The Japanese had concerns about their precious carriers taking catostrphic damage to the bow and thus taking in great water in the event of withdraw, thus trials began to be conducted and speeds clocked with Carriers, destroyers, and light cruisers in reverse. these trials actually saved the destroyer Amatsukaze who had her bow ahead of her bridge entirely blown away by a torpedo, she sailed away in reverse to prevent taking on greater water, and later had a temp bow affixed.

Wrong. I can off the top of my head think of at least one example of a ship stopping under fire with submarines present. light cruiser Isuzu was sunk in 45 while taking on survivors from another ship transporting hundreds of IJA personnel. This was also after she was hit and had her boilers exposed to the open sea, she was able to keep pressure though and contuined untill an additional torpedo struck her. I am not saying Stopping under fire ends well, but it dose happen. Come to think of it that was not the first time Isuzu stoped under fire to take on survivors, or have you forgotten the great rescue of the Ozawa distraction force?

Something like this actually did happen during WWII this is called Kedging, The seapalne tender Akitsushima Kedged in combat to avoid several diver bombs and lived to see another day. It was a semi common practice for maneuvering in the days of sail, in fact the USS Constitution kedged during the war of 1812 while fighting an English squadron. I am not saying this is something i want to see in game, its just neat.

Where dose this statement come from? From what i have heard the Japanese 46cm guns had poor accuracy at best, while the US 41cm guns were magnificent. If i am not mistaken Either of the Yamatos never scored a hit with their 46cm guns, it is disputed if Kongo, or Musashi's secondary fire hit Samuel B. Roberts, but most scholars agree it was likely Kongo, and this exchange was at close range. Keep in mind as well, this was after Roberts sank 2 Japanese heavy cruisers with 5'' gun fire alone. Have you read this http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ-200E-0633-0764 Report 0-30.pdf This is a post war assessment of Japanese fire control systems and it is a fairly good read "if you are a nerd like me" the TL;DR is more or less though japanese techolology was more or less on par with their american equivalents modernization was poor, and most ships still carried out of date, obsolete, or in cases no centralized fire directors, the best systems were present on or were in storage for late war destroyers, carriers, like Ryuhou, Ibuki, and Katsuragi, the Yamatos them selves had some fire directors that were less modern then those used in the 3rd Kongo modernization, though Japanese fire calculation computers were worth bring back to the US to study, we don't really know if they were present on the Yamatos, and much information on them was destroyed. In regards to weight in sea-warfare, I ask you to think about the battle of the yellow sea between the Japanese fleet, and the Qing Beiyang fleet, The Qing fleet included to well made, (poorly stocked) Ironclad battleships, but fell to the Japanese fleet without.

What about Observation blimps? is this something that we can have for shell spotting, or increased detection?

Here are a for and aft pic of the Japanese armored cruiser Nisshin, 3 of her 8 inch guns were disabled and she took the second most hits after Mikasa in the Japanese battle line. For Aft Another picture of the For turret Turret of the Armored cruiser Azuma, a shell struck one barrel and warped it in an interesting cartoonish way. Finaly an Image of the Russian Ship Orel Fianlly a neat quote from Captain 2nd rank Vladimir Semenoff, "It seemed as if these were mines, not shells, which were striking the ship’s side and falling on the deck. They burst as soon as they touched anything — the moment they encountered the least impediment in their flight. Handrails, funnel guys, topping lifts of the boats’ derricks, were quite sufficient to cause a thoroughly efficient burst. The steel plates and superstructure on the upper deck were torn to pieces, and the splinters caused many casualties. Iron ladders were crumpled up into rings, and guns were literally hurled from their mountings. Such havoc would never be caused by the simple impact of a shell, still less by that of its splinters. It could only be caused by the force of the explosion. The Japanese had apparently succeeded in realizing what the Americans had endeavored to attain in inventing their “Vesuvium.” In addition to this, there was the unusual high temperature and liquid flame of the explosion, which seemed to spread over everything. I actually watched a steel plate catch fire from a burst. Of course, the steel did not I burn, but the paint on it did. Such almost non – combustible materials as hammocks, and rows of boxes, drenched with water, flared up in a moment."

It would be cool if ships raised signal flags to reflect status, but i would rather see voice actors for each of the nations.

I Frankly Disagree wholeheartedly about a multiplayer focus. While it could be fun to cooperate, or compete with a single friend I would rather see development time spent on improving the designer, and to see a greater level of depth given to the campaign. further more I would rather see a reduction in technology, no radar, or ships like Yamato, rather 1880-1920 then 1910-1945. the post WWI era of aviation and the carrier while interesting detract from the purity of naval combat and theory that dominated Jutland, Tsushima, and Santiago bay. We should see central battery ironclads or barbette ironclads to the super dreadnought, not carriers, and anti-air cruisers. While I agree something akin to Naval action with what will be developed from this game could be most enjoyable, I think many of us who are participating here on the fourms and giving our feed back are people with sincere intrest in Naval History, and an apreciation for this epoch in combat, not the casual gamers who grind for rare premiums, or hop into matches for some relaxation.

The Diffrences between the Type 1, 2, and 3 guns In Kancolle are actually not as simple as they sound, but are really interesting. there are actually more variations on Japanese 8 inch heavy cruiser guns then those three, Akagi, and Kaga used the first batch of "Mark 1" 20cm (7.9inch) guns, Furutaka, Aoba, and Myoko classes carried them in casemates, (carriers) single turrets,(Furutaka) and the kancolle Type 1 Turret, this turret. Though in reality the early Kaga and Akagi both had 2 twin 20cm turrets with 70° of elevation, while Myoko had a new turret with only 40° of elevation. With the New Takao class a new "Mark 2" gun was introduced 20.3cm (8inch) a new turret with a somewhat angular design came again with 70° for AA use This i believe is Kancolles type 2 gun. Older barrels were bored out and ammunition stocks replaced, the Furutakas received fresh new turrets as well. This is where things get intresting, after Chokai the Japanese realized that the practically of the 8 inch guns for AA was limited so the elevation was reduced to 55° these new turrets were present on the Mogamis, and Tone i think This is the type 3 gun I believe. I am also an old Teitoku i started in 2014 and my first event ship was Hatsuzuki, i still love her, But Haruna, and Ushio are my Wifu. here is a picture of one of these turrets from the HTMS Thonburi of Thailand, build in Japan before WWII

Each of the Kongos photos taken after commissioning. Notice that Kirishima, and Haruna have Rounded turret faces, while Kongo and Hiei have polygonal turret forms.

instead of quality, why not instead caliber? As it stands we have X-inch in single double triple turrets as options, what if instead we had X-inch L-X guns in what ever configuration turret. Ex 8cm 3 year 3 inch guns were L40, while 8cm Type 98 3 inch guns were L60. Benefits to lower length guns could be weight, rotation and elevation speed, while longer guns would have better range, and higher pen.

Steeltrap get it, Akebono is the correct answer, I was hoping other then looking from back Images or from the easy option reading the Katakana, the give away would be the air intakes on the exhaust funnels or the 7 on the hull indicating Des-div.7 Akebono, Sazanami and Ushio. There are actually slight differences between the first batch of Ayanamis, and the second half of the batch, which bare likeness to the Akatsukis, but their tiny fore funnel is the give away. I recommend a read on Des,div.7 as they all had interesting careers especially Ushio the only ship in the pearl harbor attack force to survive the war, Also notable for rescuing numerous crews of both Allied, and Japanese ships, Shelling Wake Island, and saving a flaming Akebono despite orders to abandon her and, enormous danger to herself.

I was actually rather shocked by the "modern battleship" mission, I frankly did not expect to see ship designs from the late thirties, but not from the late twenties for that matter, Its not that I have a problem with 18 inch guns, The No.13 class were to carry those and she was pre-treaty, Its more that I had expected too see the tail end of WW1 be the cap of the games time scope. While I would like to see observation blimps, i don't really want to see aircraft. I would really like to see night battles too the Search lights cutting away the darkness the risk and passion of the daring ship that spots drawing fire, its a romantic scene to me. Another Neat Pic, 1 like to the first to name her, and tell how they knew.

I did it with Torpedo boats based on the Murakumo class destroyers. I had 7 ships, and lost 1

I had 5 Armored cruisers with heavy armor and 2 10 inch guns per ship. I used the guns to destroy the smaller ships and then Torpedoed the semi-dreadnought, and pre-dreadnought. I used mostly AP at range to avoid damage, I took light shells to prevent over-pen on them.

People are throwing around A lot of Tropes, Thinks like Doom stacks, I will only build battleships, modernity, so on and so forth. What everyone is Ignoring is how actual nations have to deal with buildup design and strategy. Keep in mind first Ships cost money, not just ships, or materials but also work forces, and more importantly perhaps Slipways. I think when we talk about this games the most important conflicts to draw reference from are the 1st Sino-Japanese war, The Spanish American War, and the Russo-Japanese war. These conflicts should be able to fill most bills when it comes to questions or postulates. In regard to all battleship fleets VS the perceived plebeian anything else, consider the battle of Tsushima the 11 Russian battleship with a mixture of 10 inch and 12 inch guns faced a force of 4 Japanese battleships with only 12 inch guns, and an obsolete Ironclad. Japan however had 8 armored cruisers and 15 protected cruisers (some modern, some obsolete), while Russia had only 3 Armored cruisers, and 5 other Cruisers most of which obsolete. Despite having the heavy ship numbers The Russian fleet was annihilated. Good maneuvering and gunnery won the day, not sheer armor and firepower. Something else to think about is cost, and capability. Many great powers of this era hardly had either the financial means, the technology, or the slipways to build 1st rate warships. China bought her Battleships from Germany, Japan from England, Russia from the US and England, both Germany and Italy could hardly afford large warships, France was hard for torpedos as she too could barely afford pre-dreadnoughts, Austria Hungary had no idea what they were doing and made flawed broken ships. But all of these nations built up cruisers destroyers gunboats, as big expensive projects cant simply be waited for. For some reason everyone seems to be pretty keen on talking about 1930s and 40s era ships when those times were dominated by aircraft rendering ship to ship surface warfare something of a rarity, when compared to the damage caused by carriers and subs alike. less we forget that american subs sank more Japanese ships then any other type. I think we should instead think about mentioned conflicts and battles like Jutland, and the Santiago bay, rather then the 1st or 2nd night battle of the Solomon Islands. For everyone who poo poos Torpedo boats, and protected cruisers, I recommend you read up on theory, and strategy from before WW1 as you may be shocked to see the mighty English navy tremble at the though of a few french destroyers.