![]() ![]() The fact that Wargaming had to reduce France’s fire cycle from the standard 30 second of that caliber size to 21 second just to make her “balanced” as a T10 ship is an indication that they dun fucked up with this design. Nobody is going to make Design Compromises on a ship that big (Unless you put 500 mm guns but that would open up another engineering can of worms). No naval engineer in his right mind with so much free tonnage to play around with will design a Super battleship that has half of its main armament fixed in one Turret. ![]() That’s why the Gascogne resembles the Graf Spee which had to be built under similar imposed tonnage limits. Gascogne was the result of strict treaty limits imposed by major battleship builders.įrance took a calculated risk to put the most amount of firepower on two turrets and make a fast battleship within 35,000 ton limitation.Įverything on the Gascogne design points to weight saving and design compromises. That would be fun too right? But where’s the sense of “Plausibility” in such a ship. I can take a Tier 3 battleship then and give her a 3 second reload time, shoot depleted Uranium bullets at 1000 meters a second, speedboost to 40 knots, give her Adamantium armor and make her turn on a dime. Then why not take the Izumo, Lion and Iowa and give those 20 second base firecycles and viola. Where’s the sense of engineering plausibility. So why do I have to suffer a T10 BB with a 431 mm gun with a base reload of 21 second in a far more complex turret way faster than Montana’s 406 mm 30 seconds. To make her “FUN” Wargaming buffed the default firing-cycle to 21 second. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |