Jump to content

DeliciousFart

Members
  • Content count

    877
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    429

Community Reputation

266 Excellent

About DeliciousFart

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

962 profile views
  1. I don't know how making the citadel of the KGV, Monarch, Lion, and Conqueror nigh-untouchable is good balance when they got so many other things going for them (except for Monarch). Even more jarring is that WG themselves advertised the broadside of the higher tier British battleships as a weakness, yet their submerged citadels are completely counter to that. The KGV/Monarch/Lion citadels sit considerably lower than even the updated Iowa citadel which is right at the waterline. You'd be surprised how much certain teaboos hounded me for suggesting that certain parts of the citadel, i.e. boiler rooms, be raised to their accurate heights above the waterline; it would only be two short sections under the smokestacks, and nowhere near how vulnerable the old Iowa citadel was.
  2. So where *is* Vanguard?

    The Vanguard's full load displacement was 51,420 long tons (52,250 metric tons), which would translate to 72,553 HP; this would be the highest HP at tier 8. Like trainspite said, if you give her supercharges, Cardonald shells, and Warspite heal (no need for the nonsense Lion/Conqueror heal), she may be reasonably competitive at tier 8. As an aside, Navweaps page on the 15"/42 seems to have conflicting information on whether or not Vanguard could actually use supercharges. Apparently, supercharges were not issued to mounts with 30 degree elevation due to increased barrel wear and mounting stress. Can anyone here clarify?
  3. So where *is* Vanguard?

    +/-75 degrees? That almost seems like a typo, because it implies that she can't even turn her guns full broadside. Or were the traverse arcs really limited that much?
  4. As far as I know, I believe the Richelieu has the correct citadel height, poking slightly above the waterline behind a moderately angled "turtleback". I'm more than a little annoyed with the citadel heights of British battleships from KGV to Lion; it almost appears as if they "averaged" the heights of the magazines, engine rooms, and boiler rooms and gave the citadel just one uniform height; trouble is, it's currently extraordinarily difficult to hit, almost as difficult as the Germans. Quite frankly, I would much rather prefer that they raise the boiler rooms to the proper height and even lower the magazines a bit more; the current British citadels are almost impossible to hit so lowering the magazines wouldn't affect that section much, but raising the boiler rooms to its actual height (poking above the waterline) at least presents some area that can be consistently hit with good aim; right now, the advertised "vulnerable" broadside of tier 7+ British BBs don't exist, especially in comparison with other BB lines. Azumazi and I discussed it here, but the GK hull does not belong to any actual H design, it's a WG creation that combines design features from several post-H-39 (FDG) designs.
  5. And they still manage to get British battleship citadel volumes wrong (i.e. cutting the boiler rooms way short)!
  6. So where *is* Vanguard?

    Vanguard's 5.25" secondaries have the Mark I* mounts with RPC and were roomier as well, which can be used to justify increased rate of fire and better AA DPS. I wouldn't be opposed to an increase in alpha for the 5.25" guns, to be honest. For how much additional muzzle energy they have over typical 5" secondaries, the current alpha is shockingly low.
  7. So where *is* Vanguard?

    I don't have any primary source data on the Vanguard's turret traverse limits on hand, though Navweaps site on the 15"/42 Mark 1 says that the mountings in general have a 150 degree traverse limit from the centerline, i.e. 30 degrees off the bow. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case for Vanguard, and it would largely fall in line with Hood, Queen Elizabeth, Warspite, etc. As I recall, the restricted turret angles on the KGV onwards was a method of reducing length and thus weight (note that the SoDaks also did this but to a lesser degree, with rear turret only able to traverse 35 degrees off the bow compared to 30 degrees for NC and Iowa). If anyone has better info, feel free to correct me. Maybe @Azumazi has some documents that I don't? I can ask Mr. Jurens as well.
  8. So where *is* Vanguard?

    The Vanguard doesn't even really need supercharges; simply giving it the new gun muzzle velocity and better projectile Krupp (you can handwave it by giving it the Cardonald APC Mk. XVIIb shells). She can then play like a British analogue of the Bismarck, but with more floaty shells (not necessarily a bad thing), and other soft stat adjustments to be competitive.
  9. So where *is* Vanguard?

    Vanguard would struggle somewhat in terms of armor. In terms of thickness her belt isn't all that great, 12.75" by machinery and 13.74" by magazines and completely vertical, though knowing WG's convention with lb/sq ft to thickness conversions they'll round it up to 13" and 14" respectively (who knew that denoting your armor thickness by lb/sq ft in the 1940s would magically give you 2% thicker armor in WOWS). The turret and barbette protection would be pretty poor as well at 12.75", the thinnest turret face besides Amagi and with minimal sloping to boot. Of course, WG could just make the ship tanky and resistant to broadside citadels by doing what they did for all British battleships from tier 7 onwards: just make the citadel underwater by cutting short the boiler and engine rooms.
  10. Post-Pearl Harbor Nevada might have issues with HP, though still higher than the old Colorado. That said, perhaps the Nevada can work at tier 6 if it has a 30 second reload, 1.9 sigma, and maybe other soft stat buffs; 2.0 sigma might be a bit excessive though it can always be adjusted. Since it's a "standard battleship", it has the same belt armor as the New Mexico and Arizona, so essentially, it trades HP and two fewer guns for better accuracy and reload and much stronger AA. As for how much I trust WG to actually get the balancing right, well history has given us plenty of disappointments so far...
  11. Let's move the discussion regarding USN Standard BBs to its own thread.
  12. Since the discussion of USN standard BBs have cropped up in one of the other topics, might as well revisit a thread that's dedicated to that. I'll try to throw in some post-Pearl Harbor displacement values to see how their HP stacks up. These numbers are from Friedman p.439-445. Nevada 1942: 33,747 long tons (34,288 metric trons) full load, 51,339 HP Pennsylvania 1943: 38,659 long tons (39,279 metric tons) full load, 57,233 HP Tennessee 1943: 40,750 long tons (41,607 metric tons) full load, 59,983 HP The Nevada's HP would be only slightly more than Kongo's, while Pennsylvania will be almost the same as Arizona and rebuilt Tennessee would be comparable to the current Colorado in terms of HP. They're all still disgustingly slow at 20.5 to 21 knots full speed. There's still the question of how suitable the Nevada is for tier 5, and whether it should be pre- or post-Peal Harbor configuration. I suppose one way to make sure it doesn't completely overwhelm the New York is to give that ship a 30 second reload, while giving the Nevada the New York's current 34 second reload. It's been mentioned before; if WG is really concerned about the 5"/38 Mark 12 being overpowered at lower tiers, simply have different ROF for different mounts. The fast battleships (NC, SoDak, Iowa) had the Mark 28 mounts, while cruisers had the lighter Mark 32 mounts. I don't know what mounts the rebuilt Standards have, but they can easily give a different mount or mod of mount to adjust the rate of fire. Right now, the Des Moines main battery fires faster than its secondaries.
  13. I want a movie about the Johnson and I want her in game as well. I mean, sh*t, we currently don't have any active ships named after Johnston or Commander Ernest E. Evans. The Navy needs to make that happen and stop naming ships after politicians.
  14. This analogy makes no sense. The Iowas were designed to fit into the Navy's War Plan Orange, with their mission being the disruption of raids by fast battleships that can wreak havoc on fast carrier escorts of cruisers and destroyers. At the time their construction started even into mid-1942, the ships and their roles weren't seen as "wasteful"; heavy armed and armored fast carrier escorts were still seen as valuable. No, that's not the case. Remember that before Halsey turned north to chase Ozawa's carrier force, he had already dealt a blow to Kurita's Center Force of surface combatants, which included most of the IJN battleships, in the Battle of Sibuyan Sea. The Musashi was sunk and Kurita briefly turned his Center Force around after the battle. There was no "Japanese battleline" in Ozawa's northern force aside from Ise and Hyuga, both of which were partial aircraft carriers. The bulk of the Japanese battleship force were concentrated in Kurita's Center Force, which Mitscher successfully mauled before Halsey turned his fleet north; and remember, Halsey turned north because he interpreted Kurita's Center Force turn around after its mauling during the Battle of Sibuyan Sea as the Center Force retreating, thus alleviating the need to guard MacArthur's landing force at Leyte; his reason for going north was to decisively rout the Japanese carrier force, without realizing that Kurita had in fact turned around again to go through the San Bernadino Strait. This was documented in James Hornfischer's The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors, and by Sam Morison as well. He did not detach his battleships from his carrier force because the doctrine at the time called for keeping a force to concentrate its strength. With regards to the Lion, the war started for Great Britain in September 1939, only months after the Lions were laid down. The economic and material constraints on the British when building the Lions were distinctly different the situation the US was in when building the Iowas, which was laid down more than a year before the US entry into the war, and fit into the strategy that the US Navy envisioned at the time. I don't see any of this as the Iowas being "useless".
  15. Renown before her rebuild looked pretty dainty with only 3 turrets. After her rebuild though the Queen Anne's Mansion superstructure gave a pretty intimidating castle-like vibe.
×