Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About TsAGI

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Japanese ships in general had worse fire control systems but I guess that's more down to the optics themselves. A definite drawback to the pagoda style towers were that they were so tall that in some ships (mainly the really tall ones like Fuso) the ship rocked sideways a lot and therefore stability was pretty bad.
  2. Well not really as Yamato had that design too. Also as Bluishdoor76 said, to increase the tonnage without changing the overall curvature of the lines you really don't have any other option than physically elongating the hull. Imagine how much of a nightmare it would be to increase the entire hull's length and width every time you change the displacement.
  3. If all dimensions are proportional it would be about 37% heavier. But then you would need more propellant to accelerate the shell up to speed, so not necessarily a 37% increase in kinetic energy and momentum. Also keep in mind Japanese iron was of lower quality than other naval powers, and the Japanese steelworks industry was incapable of producing steel as high quality as other nations. This would have severely impacted the gun's performance.
  4. Do you have a source for the second part? If it's a lengthy book or journal I would like to read more about it myself
  5. Did Japan have that problem too? I know Bismarck knocked her radar clean off with the blast of her 15" guns
  6. Nah I mean like because they changed the name from Yashima -> Shikishima, wouldn't it make more sense that WG thought Yashima sounded too close to Yoshino so they changed it to Shikishima? Cause in your original comment you said it was too close to Shimakaze so they changed it, which should have made the conversion Shikishima -> Yashima.
  7. Don't you mean Yoshino? Cause the name was changed from Yashima->Shikishima
  8. God why do people refer to the A-150 plan as the Shikishima. Shikishima is just a name given by Wargaming for their version of the A-150. There are no official names for the A-150. Sorry if I sound excessively salty but I've seen this too many times, both here and elsewhere
  9. Not just the Japanese but also the Germans had plans for 50.8cm guns for their H44 class. Maybe this could be an Axis wonder weapon quirk where they have access to bigger guns?
  10. That's not how it works. Let's say your guns indeed don't move when they fire. Where will all the recoil go? A recoil dampener stretches out the recoil so that the force exerted onto the gun and turret mounts is not too big, so if there isn't a recoil buffer that turret is not going to last too long.
  11. Huh my timestamp made it to the forums. Nice.
  12. Tschi as in german "tschi" because so many people read chi as 'ki'. There isn't a tsu sound implied in my comment whatsoever
  13. Tbf the pronunciation is Ka-wa-tschi not Ka-wa-cki. Although I have to agree on you that "Dreadnought" sounds really cool because it kind of reflects the technological revolution it was
  14. I noticed a lot of the Japanese battleships had very similar pagoda style superstructures, from the Kongo class, Fuso class (namely Yamashiro), Ise class, and all the way to the Nagato class (all post-modernization). Also it seems very likely that the canceled types like the Amagi class, Tosa class, Kii class would have also received this type of superstructure after their refits. Will this be implemented into the game? I'm guessing the devs could add it into the campaign as well as a Japanese compromise-refit, where the superstructure refit takes less resources and time but improves the
  • Create New...