Jump to content


British aircraft carriers


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

elmattofdorr #1 Posted 06 July 2016 - 09:43 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 22
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

So, the British. I know they are a long ish ways off. 

But looking up all that they had during ww2 it was a lot of

different ships. Each with different amounts of planes. 

However looking at the years, some older ones held more then

some newer. Just wondering how someone might tier these ships 

to make a tech tree with them. The other issue i see is that a lot 

of them use bi planes.  



Awesome_2015_destroyer #2 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 405
  • Member since:
    03-06-2015

WG will make a paper line and use inaccurate planes

 


I like to division

King_Zacarias #3 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:18 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 382
  • Member since:
    06-07-2015

View PostAwesome_2015_destroyer, on 06 July 2016 - 10:14 PM, said:

WG will make a paper line and use inaccurate planes

 

 

Problably true but thats negative. Theres only 2 paper ships in the whole US Tech Tree.

Caution: This signature contains triggering material

UCLA is Better then USC : White Sox are Better then the Cubs : Auburn is Better then Alabama : Patriots Cheat : Notre Dame is Best College Football Program

Both OSU and Michigan Suck : Packer Fans are Cheeseheads : MJ is still the Best in the NBA : Blackhawks Dynasty is real : AL East is a Joke : Duke is overrated

 


Panzerstecher #4 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:21 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 233
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Why even speculate?  They probably have no plans to ever put the RN in this game....Rowboats armed with slingshots will be introduced first.

Pulicat #5 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:41 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,574
  • Member since:
    07-02-2013

View PostPanzerstecher, on 06 July 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

Why even speculate?  They probably have no plans to ever put the RN in this game....Rowboats armed with slingshots will be introduced first.

 

damn, totally salty and misinformed. Well done.

 


BladedPheonix #6 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:43 PM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester

  • 5,369
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostAwesome_2015_destroyer, on 06 July 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

WG will make a paper line and use inaccurate planes

 

 

basically this!^^^:bajan:

 

will admit, it'll be interesting to sea a spitfire take of from a CV if they implement it!:look:



QJW #7 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:43 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,357
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Ice Carrier Confirmed 

Spoiler

 


 
-Never give in, Never give up, Never surrender.
-Always give in 110% Dam it!
-Don't believe in yourself, believe in the QJW that believes in you. ^^

BladedPheonix #8 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:44 PM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester

  • 5,369
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostKing_Zacarias, on 06 July 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

 

Problably true but thats negative. Theres only 2 paper ships in the whole US Tech Tree.

 

OK i know nicholous is 1 of them but whats the other one?:unsure:

BladedPheonix #9 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:44 PM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester

  • 5,369
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostQJW, on 06 July 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

Ice Carrier Confirmed 

Spoiler

 

 

its pykrete , get it right!!!!!!!:izmena:

Gavorche #10 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,676
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

View PostKing_Zacarias, on 06 July 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

 

Problably true but thats negative. Theres only 2 paper ships in the whole US Tech Tree.

There's at least 3:

Montana 

Phoenix

Nicholas


Will update my post page when I post s***.

"They are the living reminders of all the good we failed to do/ that's why we know, deep in our hearts/ that they're all our children too." - John, from the musical "Miss Saigon"

 


QJW #11 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:47 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,357
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBladedPheonix, on 06 July 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

 

its pykrete , get it right!!!!!!!:izmena:

 

Ice Carrier, Pykrete, there's probably a big difference, but what's the difference?


 
-Never give in, Never give up, Never surrender.
-Always give in 110% Dam it!
-Don't believe in yourself, believe in the QJW that believes in you. ^^

Crucis #12 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:52 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Members

  • 7,360
  • Member since:
    08-25-2013

View PostGavorche, on 06 July 2016 - 05:45 PM, said:

View PostKing_Zacarias, on 06 July 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

 

Problably true but thats negative. Theres only 2 paper ships in the whole US Tech Tree.

There's at least 3:

Montana 

Phoenix

Nicholas

 

 

The Montana is NOT a paper ship.  At least not in my book.  To me, ships that were ordered, even if cancelled before or after their keels were laid, are real enough to me.  A real "paper" ship is a design study, something that was never ordered, possibly never even intended to be ordered.    Something like the Tillman BB designs, for example.

 

 



King_Zacarias #13 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:55 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 382
  • Member since:
    06-07-2015

View PostCrucis, on 06 July 2016 - 10:52 PM, said:

 

 

The Montana is NOT a paper ship.  At least not in my book.  To me, ships that were ordered, even if cancelled before or after their keels were laid, are real enough to me.  A real "paper" ship is a design study, something that was never ordered, possibly never even intended to be ordered.    Something like the Tillman BB designs, for example.

 

 

 

It isnt in mine too. Once ships are ordered, they aren't paper ships. 

Edited by King_Zacarias, 06 July 2016 - 10:55 PM.

Caution: This signature contains triggering material

UCLA is Better then USC : White Sox are Better then the Cubs : Auburn is Better then Alabama : Patriots Cheat : Notre Dame is Best College Football Program

Both OSU and Michigan Suck : Packer Fans are Cheeseheads : MJ is still the Best in the NBA : Blackhawks Dynasty is real : AL East is a Joke : Duke is overrated

 


Super_Dreadnought #14 Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:59 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 17,271
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostPanzerstecher, on 06 July 2016 - 10:21 PM, said:

Why even speculate?  They probably have no plans to ever put the RN in this game....Rowboats armed with slingshots will be introduced first.

 

Warspite turned up in the alpha test , so you are very wrong that rowboats will turn up before the Royal Navy. I do however emphasise with your cynicism to an extent, since expecting a RN main tech tree line is a joke at this point.

ExplosiveDumpling #15 Posted 06 July 2016 - 11:05 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 244
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Project Habbakuk? While it is an interesting concept; how the heck would they build it if they actually started on it?

mofton #16 Posted 06 July 2016 - 11:22 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,769
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostKing_Zacarias, on 06 July 2016 - 02:55 PM, said:

 

It isnt in mine too. Once ships are ordered, they aren't paper ships. 

 

I think it's a case of horses for courses, and you and Crucis have good points.

 

I count Montana, Stalingrad, Amagi and all the laid-downs but not completeds as designs. The differences between a strip of steel on a slip and a design are far less than the differences between a design and a constructed ship. 

 

Partially built ships don't:

  • Have builders/speed trials to determine top speed, handling etc.
  • Have gunnery trials to determine real-world ROF, dispersion and other constraints
  • End up overweight
  • Add top weight and need to lose guns to compensate (USN DD C-hulls)
  • End up rebuilt with different than intended guns, armor or engines
  • Demonstrate real-world armor system weaknesses or design flaws
  • Have any history or combat record

Just like design-only ships.

 

Design-only seems to be an advantage in WoWs where the relatively few design ships come top in more class/tiers than the numbers would proportionally suggest.


light.png

Iowanna be a rockstar - Salmon - Ctrl-Click-Schiffe - Le Dunkerque  - Grand Old Lady - ~5 Mil in IJN Scrap

Gearings of Poor - Trashcan - Biscuit-tweaker - Tachi-Ali-Baba - Not-quite-Minekaze - Zit-23 - Shinbone - Your-a-gnome

Worst T9 Ever - AbSchorring - Minotaur


WanderingGhost #17 Posted 06 July 2016 - 11:29 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,355
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014

View PostAwesome_2015_destroyer, on 06 July 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

WG will make a paper line and use inaccurate planes

 

 

I will raise holy hell if they do. The UK has more than enough built carriers, as well as a ordered carrier that got no where because of design changes based on US expiereance in the Pacific, to make an entire line. If I can come up with a German line that has 1 and a half fake ships, at the most (depending how you count it because while not designed there were plans already to a class after Graf Zeppelin), Wargaming can make a full UK line, without the pykrete carrier, with no real fake/paper ships save maybe the tier x being the Malta class.

 

Airplanes, slightly different story. They may need to yes, upgrade the planes that some of these CV's carried. Many have catapults so not a stretch as some started carrying mono-wing planes as we got into the early 40's. But if your giving an aircraft carrier BETTER airplanes for the sake of balance, I can live with that. Unlike when USN and IJN had airplanes that barely even made production and were phased out nearly a decade before the ship was even launched and were grossly inferior to what was needed at the tier as well as certain well known historical aircraft missing. Gimme a couple weeks I can probably go back through my list of UK planes I made a few months back while working on German CV's and fighters overall, update it to new aircraft set up vs USN and IJN, and figure out how to tier their CV's. 

 

View PostBladedPheonix, on 06 July 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

 

basically this!^^^:bajan:

 

will admit, it'll be interesting to sea a spitfire take of from a CV if they implement it!:look:

 

Given they did in fact navalize the spitfire (the Seafire), you'd be guaranteed to see it. If you want REALLY interesting, a couple CV's in this line carried the Sea Hornet, a lightweight twin engine fighter, granted the navalized version was a thing shortly after the war - They could actually put it on higher tier carries so you could get to see a sizeable twin engine plane taking off from them. Imagine watching THAT take off. 

Gavorche #18 Posted 06 July 2016 - 11:35 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,676
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

View Postmofton, on 06 July 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

 

I think it's a case of horses for courses, and you and Crucis have good points.

 

I count Montana, Stalingrad, Amagi and all the laid-downs but not completeds as designs. The differences between a strip of steel on a slip and a design are far less than the differences between a design and a constructed ship. 

 

Partially built ships don't:

  • Have builders/speed trials to determine top speed, handling etc.
  • Have gunnery trials to determine real-world ROF, dispersion and other constraints
  • End up overweight
  • Add top weight and need to lose guns to compensate (USN DD C-hulls)
  • End up rebuilt with different than intended guns, armor or engines
  • Demonstrate real-world armor system weaknesses or design flaws
  • Have any history or combat record

Just like design-only ships.

 

Design-only seems to be an advantage in WoWs where the relatively few design ships come top in more class/tiers than the numbers would proportionally suggest.

 

I don't think any of the Montana class were ever laid down, or resources ever allocated to their construction.

Will update my post page when I post s***.

"They are the living reminders of all the good we failed to do/ that's why we know, deep in our hearts/ that they're all our children too." - John, from the musical "Miss Saigon"

 


TenguBlade #19 Posted 07 July 2016 - 01:15 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 8,573
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostBladedPheonix, on 06 July 2016 - 05:44 PM, said:

OK i know nicholous is 1 of them but whats the other one?:unsure:

There's actually three: NicholasPhoenix, and Montana.  Montana had drawings and blueprints made but no keels were laid, so she's technically paper as well.  Both of the former two were never even finalized and are more like traditional paper ships.

View PostWanderingGhost, on 06 July 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

I will raise holy hell if they do. The UK has more than enough built carriers, as well as a ordered carrier that got no where because of design changes based on US expiereance in the Pacific, to make an entire line. If I can come up with a German line that has 1 and a half fake ships, at the most (depending how you count it because while not designed there were plans already to a class after Graf Zeppelin), Wargaming can make a full UK line, without the pykrete carrier, with no real fake/paper ships save maybe the tier x being the Malta class.

 

Airplanes, slightly different story. They may need to yes, upgrade the planes that some of these CV's carried. Many have catapults so not a stretch as some started carrying mono-wing planes as we got into the early 40's. But if your giving an aircraft carrier BETTER airplanes for the sake of balance, I can live with that. Unlike when USN and IJN had airplanes that barely even made production and were phased out nearly a decade before the ship was even launched and were grossly inferior to what was needed at the tier as well as certain well known historical aircraft missing. Gimme a couple weeks I can probably go back through my list of UK planes I made a few months back while working on German CV's and fighters overall, update it to new aircraft set up vs USN and IJN, and figure out how to tier their CV's. 

The problem is that the Royal Navy's carriers really didn't change much in the way of plane capacity.  Most of them were in the 40-50 plane range, with only early carriers like Argus and late carriers like Audacious/Eagle deviating significantly from that.

 

With the UK's top-tier carrier having less than half of the reserve of the Midway and just over half of the Hakuryu's, I have a nasty suspicion that the Royal Navy will see the Saipan's gimmick applied as their national flavor: tough, fast individual planes but very few of them both in the way of squadron size and reserve depth.


Edited by TenguBlade, 07 July 2016 - 01:17 AM.

Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Hatsuharu/Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


WanderingGhost #20 Posted 07 July 2016 - 11:57 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,355
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014

View PostTenguBlade, on 06 July 2016 - 08:15 PM, said:

The problem is that the Royal Navy's carriers really didn't change much in the way of plane capacity.  Most of them were in the 40-50 plane range, with only early carriers like Argus and late carriers like Audacious/Eagle deviating significantly from that.

 

With the UK's top-tier carrier having less than half of the reserve of the Midway and just over half of the Hakuryu's, I have a nasty suspicion that the Royal Navy will see the Saipan's gimmick applied as their national flavor: tough, fast individual planes but very few of them both in the way of squadron size and reserve depth.

 

Actually, not true. Working on a potential line I'd put the ordered but never laid down Malta class at the top. They were looking at a possible 108 aircraft on the ship, which would be 8 more than the IJN tier X gets (USN gets a 36 plane advantage at that tier, seems fair), the tier 9 has 81, comparable to the other two, tier 8 designed for maximum 72, same as USN, on down the line with the exception of the one I have at tier 4 and 7 currently needing increased numbers of aircraft vs history, however it would be far from the first time of Wargaming altering number of aircraft carried by ships, and they've made alterations to ships in the past to make them fit a tier. Number of airplanes is one of those numbers I'm fine with them messing with if it helps keep things balanced even if they weren't close in numbers. Especially because No CV should have aircraft two tiers higher than it is, it only causes problems.

 

The only major change off history would likely be giving them better aircraft than they had, unless they use some different ships than what I'm looking at. But rather see them with better aircraft than worse ones. Maybe, depending on tiering and all, some armament tweaks but plenty of ships have had that.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users