All trademarks and trademark rights pertaining to warships and aircraft are proprietary to the respective rights holders. Aircraft Carrier. Armor: 51-76mm Belt .75in-1in Deck 2-3in Bulkheads Beautiful ship though.Dont forget its firepower too...Bismarck had better rate of fire etc. There is still room for them, but torpedo aircraft should be the main offensive tool. for aircraft type were obviously going to have torp bombers and fighters for last type it might be fun to try and replace dive bombers with rocket planes since the UK did use plane rockets a lot for ground targeting, would be balanced by lower direct damage and fire chance but higher chance to cripple modules and more accuracy.for aircraft type were obviously going to have torp bombers and fighters for last type it might be fun to try and replace dive bombers with rocket planes since the UK did use plane rockets a lot for ground targeting, would be balanced by lower direct damage and fire chance but higher chance to cripple modules and more accuracy.When I think rocket attack I think USNavy fighter-bombers, not Royal navy.Royal Navy attacked Tirpitz with divebombers and had quite alot of them.Interesting thing is that they could also work as torpedo bombers...I heard they will delay the release of the RN with a day for every topic that is made about this By the many times WG said the British tree is going to take longer...I'm starting to believe this option...When I think rocket attack I think USNavy fighter-bombers, not Royal navy.Royal Navy attacked Tirpitz with divebombers and had quite alot of them.Interesting thing is that they could also work as torpedo bombers...fair enough point, tho must say i thought the tirpitz was struck by Lancaster heavy bombers, what ship happened to operate those barracudas do you know? Anyway, can't wait to see what the 3D models of the Fleet Air Arm aircraft will look like. Sleeping bunks 10,000 nautical miles. So hopefully they will be the next CV branch introduced. Hood was after all built more than 20 years before Bismarck and it was built as a battlecruiser meaning it was pretty much obsolete by design...Dont forget its firepower too...Bismarck had better rate of fire etc. On to planes. + Fighter Squadrons come with large amounts of Aircraft. Maybe the secondaries on Royal Navy carriers should be very strong, hell even player controlled. RN carrier ship icons, datamined from the client. [HAIFU] I guess that means they are getting close, though two RN line back to back? Even the magnificent Sea Fury fighter could carry 12x3'' RP3's. The Royal Navy's two £6.4billion aircraft carriers do not have enough supply ships to keep them stocked with ammunition and food, the Whitehall spending watchdog has warned. Japanese Destroyers 1 (1900-WWI) Hood was pride of RN but as it often happens the legend outgrew the reality.... She was a marvel of engineering whem she was built but in a way her fall from grace was a symbol of whole RN losing it's former power... RN used to be the most powerful navy in the world but it started losing its breath and in WWII it started showing....I'm sure the battle would have been different but we will never find out now.... KGV class was one of the best treaty BB classes one they worked out their problems and most likely better than Bismarcks.As for AA... Pom poms were not the best AA guns but then again BSM didn't a DP battery but separate secondary and AA bateries instead which is hardly ideal...But as i said good enough for Atlanticyes,but so did the Hood,this 25-30 seconds are counted usually because it was average on all conditions perfect.BC's well yes but you can never say that it was stupid,or anywhere near.When there is a war you fight with everything you can(the heck POW still had civil engineers on board) and the same goes for the Hood(sure it wasn't the smartest idea and she was a disadvantage) but they were the first to to be able to counter her,and also Hood had to the firepower to fight back..hard(her 15inch guns packed a really powerfull punch it they hit) and they are nothing to laugh at.But still,what happened happened,it's useless to talk now,when we have all the data about the british and the germans but when you fight you give your best,just like the Hood and POW did but lack wasn't of their side Hood(because the british were to convinced on their power that they didn't give her the refit and pow,which was just out of the shipbuilders yard sorry I think we do actually deserve an answer here. Nice find! She was torpedoed on the port side by 2 torpedoes and capsized and sank in 20 minutes, taking 519, including the captain with her.HMS Glorious, has another unfortunate history assigned to her as she was hunted down and sunk by the terrible sisters Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. So some of the max numbers aren't realistic. 1,600. But in my opinion battlecruisers were one of the biggest mistakes in naval history akin to tankettes on the ground but much much more expensive...Where in the bloody hell you read that Bismarck fired 50% faster.That's one of the biggest bullshits i have heard so far.She fired ROUGHLY every 25 seconds while the Hood ROUGHLY every 30 seconds...THAT'S VERY FAR from your statememt.Aa armament true..but then again not the battlecruiser problem..her age.You're comparing a ship built in 1920 with a ship built in 1941..(she didn't go through her much needed refit while QE2 and Renown did and after that they were good)and even if you compare it then she had decent aa capabilty and also you're SUPERIOR Bismarck got owned by a bloody biplane...Her deck armour was battlrcruisers biggest fault but she was still a decent battleship.Having 15inch guns,going 31knots,longest bb built,fairly decent aa, she was formidable and being built in 1920 she was without a doubt the strongest boasting even 15inches of armour(again not the deck one which was crap) and that armour was bigger than most ships of that time even in the 40,s (Again not the deck one).She was without a doubt a formidable ship (but and old one) and i can guarntee you that,if she had gone through her refit..the history woulf have most likely had been diferent.Simply Bismarck had more luck,if POW guns weren't jamming and if Hood fired all of her guns(not just the front ones) and if germans weren't so lucky with her ammorack(although she had very crappy deck armour it's still a lucky shot), the battle could have played differently Tbh i have no idea where but i was under impression that BSM could reach 18s under ideal conditions but whatever it still fired somewhat faster. 65,000 tonnes. But in my opinion battlecruisers were one of the biggest mistakes in naval history akin to tankettes on the ground but much much more expensive...Um wasn't it roughly 30seconds for BL Mk.I vs 20seconds for Bismarck's guns?