Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'british'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Master Archive
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Closed Beta Test Archive
    • Alpha Test Archive
    • For Development and Publisher Only
    • QA AUTO
    • Contests and Community Events
    • Super Test
    • Newcomer's Forum
    • Contest Entries
    • Questions and Answers
    • Contest Entries
    • New Captains
    • Guías y Estrategias
    • Task Force 58
    • Livestream Ideas and Feedback
    • Árboles Tecnológicos
    • Fan Art and Community Creations
    • Community Created Events and Contests
    • Community Staging Ground
    • Forum Reorg 2.0 Archive
    • Noticias y Anuncios

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 28 results

  1. Admiral_Bingo

    Implacable Bombs Suck

    Is it just me or Implacable bombs are just underpowered weapons when you compare them to other tier 8 cvs? Most of bomb drops I make on a BB will either miss or fail to pen on a perfectly lined up drop. Most of the bombs miss on smaller ships like cruisers. Tier 8 aa really hurts if you're not careful and making it past 2 drops is far too risky. Is it time to actually buff this CV? I propose to make the aiming reticle smaller or increase the pen of the bombs. What do you guys think?
  2. Title about sums it up. Recently, I finally completed the Captain Bad Advice collection and as such, I now have a 10 point RN captain sitting in my port, waiting for a ship. However, that's the rub: I don't have a ship to put her on and I don't know what to choose. Currently, I have four RN ships in my fleet: HMS Exeter, HMS Warspite, HMS Implacable, and HMS Indomitable, all of which I already have 10+ point captains for. As for the new ship, since I'm torn on what to pick, so I've decided, in a mild twist of irony, to turn the mic over to the rest of you in hopes of getting some good advice. What do you guys think? Should I pick up one of the RN cruiser lines? Should I complete the Fleet Air Arm trifecta and buy the Ark Royal? Perhaps I should start my way down the RN DD line, or restart the RN BB line, or choose between London, Vanguard, Hood, and HMS Dreadnought for another premium? Feel free to let me know if you so choose. Thank you in advance to anyone who offers any advice. Sincerely, 1Sherman. *Update: Bought myself a Fiji based on your advice. If 108k damage, two kills, and the near single-handed fighting off of a Chapayev, an Atago, a Siegfried, and an FDG one after the other is any indication, I might just have to listen to you guys more often.
  3. Admiral_Bingo

    I suck at CVs

    So I've been playing for a while and I've been a cruiser/dd main. I picked up British CVs a couple months ago and grinded up to Implacable and then sold it for credits after playing 20 games or so to fund something else. Now I've picked up the ship but I can't figure out how to make the most out of it. I try to play for my team's objectives and try to spot dds and assist team mates whenever possible. I find that in every match ships are always clumped up together and I find my planes being shot down like free candy no matter what WASD hacks I employ to dodge the flack. I even try to drop some loads ahead of time to minimize my plane losses each run but I find that my planes are always being depleted. I did OKAY in the Hermes and Furious but it seems that I really suck in this ship. Any advice on how to play CV in general and also specifically in respect to this ship? I'm not sure if average damage would help but it seems that I'm getting around 40k. Any advice would be appreciated.
  4. The following is a review of HMS Gallant, a ship kindly provided to me by Wargaming. This is the release version of the vessel and these stats are current as of July 19th, 2017. Are you excited? I'm excited! More Royal Navy ships! Whoo! Quick Summary: A small, agile destroyer with an uninspiring main battery. She has a heavy torpedo armament with the ability to launch each fish individually, but she's held back by poor launch angles. Cost: Bundles started at $21.99 USD with a port slot. Patch and Date Written: June 8th, 2017 to July 18th, 2017, Patch 0.6.6 to 0.6.7.1 Closest in-Game Contemporary Gaede, Tier VI German Destroyer Degree of Similarity: Clone / Sister-Ship / Related Class / Similar Role / Unique As much as I would like to compare these to the Polish Grom-class, Gallant shares a lot in common with Ernst Gaede, the tier VI German Destroyer, especially when the German ship is armed with its (admittedly awful) 128mm guns. Am I foreshadowing bit? PROs Gallant has an 8% chance per shell to start fires and the highest Fires per Minute chance of any Tier VI DD. Powerful torpedo armament doing 15,433 damage per hit, with 8.0km range and 61 knot top speed. Torpedoes may be dropped individually in the same manner of Royal Navy cruisers. Tiny turning circle of 540m with excellent rudder shift time of 3.0s. Second best surface detection range at her tier of 6.8km. Small target -- less than 100m long. CONs Small hit point pool of 12,000hp. Weak main battery armament of four 120mm guns and low DPM. Short 10.2km range and clumsy firing angles on #4 turret. Worse shell ballistics than the American 127mm/38s with even more "float". Horrible fire angles on her torpedoes with a maximum forward fire angle of 68º off the bow. High learning curve with making optimal use of her torpedoes. An absolute laughable lack of any credible AA power. HMS Gallant surprised me when she was announced to be coming to World of Warships. As fighting vessels go, she was in the thick of the action in the early part of the war but she didn't participate in any major surface engagements as far as I could tell. It made me wonder why we were seeing Gallant represent the G-class destroyers in World of Warships when there were examples such as Glowworm which saw surface action against capital ships to draw from. Everything began making sense when the Dunkirk Scenario was unveiled. She's not the first British premium destroyer released in the game (that honour goes to HMS Campbeltown at tier III), nor is she first British-built destroyer in the game (that distinction goes to ORP Blyskawica). What she does provide, however, is a glimpse of what the British destroyer line may end up being in the future. It remains to be seen how many of the features on HMS Gallant will become standard to the British destroyers. Sharkbait_416 of the World of Warships wiki team has volunteered to join me in this review. He'll be providing a look into HMS Gallant's history and his impressions of the ship. Take it away! The Sharktank HMS Gallant, hull pennant H59, was a G-Class destroyer of the Royal Navy, launched on August 26, 1935. With the outbreak of WWII in 1939, Gallant began operating in the North Sea, primarily tasked with escort and patrol duties. Throughout the course of these duties, Gallant participated in rescue operations which saved the crews of multiple stricken ships, such as SS British Councillor, SS Santos, and HMS Princess Victoria. On May 25, 1940, Gallant was detached from North Sea operations to partake in Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of Allied forces from Dunkirk. On May 26, Gallant arrived in the channel. On May 27, Gallant and HMS Vivacious were notified that ORP Blyskawica was tasked to meet them. The Admiralty wanted the three ships to enter the port of La Panne to evacuate RAF personnel. However, Blyskawica was unable to locate the two British ships. The next day, Gallant embarked troops and transported them to Dover. Gallant made a second trip to Dunkirk on May 29, embarking more troops. Prior to arriving at Dover, Gallant was attacked by Luftwaffe dive-bombers. Despite suffering slight damage, Gallant managed to return to Dover under her own power. In total, Gallant rescued 1,466 personnel from the beaches of Dunkirk. In June 1940, Gallant assisted in the search for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau but was unable to locate the two German ships. In July, Gallant was tasked for duty in the Mediterranean, where she joined Allied forces to assist in operations in the West Mediterranean Sea. On October 20, 1940, Gallant used depth charges to assist in sinking the Italian submarine Lafolè. On November 27, Gallant fought in the Battle of Cape Spartivento as a part of Force B. While supporting convoy operations in the Straits of Sicily off Pantellaria, Gallant hit a mine on January 10, 1941. The force of the explosion tore the bow from the ship, killing 65 crewmen and injuring 15. The remainder of the ship was towed stern-first to Malta. Gallant began undergoing repairs, continuing into 1942. On April 5, 1942, a bombing raid resulted in a near miss that severely damaged Gallant. Due to extensive damage, Gallant was declared a constructive total loss. Gallant was used as a blockship in St. Paul’s Bay and scrapped in 1953. Rerences: http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4391.html & http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-25G-HMS_Gallant.htm Picture courtesy of Wikipedia. Options Gallant uses the same Smoke Generator consumable as the Japanese and Soviet Destroyers. This differs from Campbeltown, the other British premium, whose Smoke Generator echoes that found on American Destroyers. On the USN DDs. the emission time is longer and so is the duration of each individual cloud. This isn't the case on HMS Gallant. So, everything is standard here. Consumables: Damage Control Party Smoke Generator Engine Boost Module Upgrades: Four slots, standard cruiser upgrades Premium Camouflage: Type 10, tier VI+ Standard. This provides 50% bonus experience gains, 3% reduction in surface detection and 4% reduction in enemy accuracy. Remember to equip as many premium consumables as you can reliably afford on a per-match basis. The module options you'll be using are the standard fare for destroyers. In your first slot, take Magazine Modification 1. Seriously, don't take take Main Armaments Modification 1 unless you're going into Ranked and taking Juliet Charlie signals -- you're more likely to have your entire destroyer blown out from underneath you before you permanently lose one of your weapon mounts to direct damage. This way you can mitigate some of those detonations. In your second slot, Aiming Systems Modification 1 is the way to go. Note, if you're playing the Dunkirk Scenario, you want to take AA Guns Modification 2 for the extra range. It's useless otherwise, but you WILL NEED IT in the scenario if you're trying for 5 stars. Don't skimp out on this. In your third slot, take Damage Control Modification 1. The other two are terrible (not that DCM1 is much better). And finally, in your fourth slot, take Propulsion System Modification 1. If you have access to Super Upgrades, there's only one really worth considering and that's Engine Boost Modification 1. This would replace your Damage Control Modification 1 upgrade in your third slot. Firepower Primary Battery: Four 120mm rifles in an A-B-X-Y superfiring configuration. Torpedo Armament: Eight tubes in 2x4 launchers rear mounted down the centerline of the ship. Gallant's gunnery is pretty close to terrible. They may have decent gun handling and a nice krupp rating on her AP shells, but almost everything else is awful. Her 120mm guns are the smallest caliber at her tier and an armament we would expect on tier IV destroyers, not VI. Understandably, on a per-shell basis, they have some of the worst alpha strike qualities, besting only German 128mm HE shells. With her four guns, this makes her volleys rather anemic. But there's worse to come: The ballistic arcs on her 120mm/45 guns are worse than the American 127mm/38s. While Gallant has better muzzle velocity than Farragut's weapons, the shells are lighter and lose speed more quickly. At ranges greater than 5.0km, Farragut's 127mm/38s have better shell flight times over distance. Gallant's shells take 8.62s to hit targets at 10km compared to Farragut's 8.31s with HE shells. Gallant's range normally caps out at 10.2km, so this slow shell time to distance cannot be seen in full measure without Advanced Fire Training. With it, you'll see shell flight times of approximately 1 second per km traveled at ranges in excess of 10km. This makes Gallant's guns utterly ill-suited to engaging anything short of a slow turning Battleship or Carrier at range. You can largely forget about making use of AP except at stupidly close ranges where you'd be better of dumping fish into them instead. To engage enemy destroyers, she needs to be close -- ideally no more than 7km to 8km at most before the lead times greatly inhibit accuracy. And more often than not, she will not want to engage enemy destroyers in the first place. Gallant has two saving graces where her guns are concerned. She has a decent (but not great) rate of fire. With a 5.0 second reload, she can put out twelve rounds per gun. So while she may not be able to compete with any of her peers on a per-volley basis, she can out-muscle Japanese destroyers in a protracted gunnery duel through sheer volume of fire. On paper, she should also be able to compete with Ernst Gaede, the German tier VI, however in practice this often proves to be a fool's errand. Gaede's guns have better ballistic arcs and, more importantly, a lot more health. The second saving grace is more memorable. Gallant has a very high chance to set fires per shell. At 8% per hit, when coupled with her four guns and rate of fire, Gallant becomes the best potential fire starter at tier VI. While this will not help her against enemy destroyers, it does speak to a specialization which favours making the lives of enemy Battleships quite miserable. Overall, Gallant is only a better overall gun platform than Fubuki and Hatsuharu which is pretty poor marks. She edges out Shinonome too, but only just. She needs to force a slug fest to out perform the IJN premium. The reliable 6-gun alpha strikes are quite valuable as they can often decide a duel against a mid to low health enemy destroyer, forcing them to back off even if they have a DPM advantage. It's Gallant's ability to set fires which really redeems these guns. Without it, her main battery would be utterly lamentable. The worst part is that Gallant's guns feel very comfortable to use -- so much so that you might grossly over estimate how well they perform. They turn decently. Their rate of fire is nice. They cause lots of fires. This got me into a lot of trouble when it came to dueling with other destroyers. I'd feel I had the advantage only to see just how uneven a contest it actually was when I got myself butchered. Do not make this mistake. Gallant's guns aren't good. They're not terrible, but they can cause you more problems than they'll solve. Gallant largely redeems the poor qualities of her guns with her torpedo armament. They aren't without their (oh-so minor) faults. For a torpedo specialist, her range of 8.0km is decent but not enough to make captains of the Japanese destroyers sit up and take notice. Their 1.3km detection range gives opponents nearly eight seconds to react which is alright, but not great. The same could be said of their 61 knot top speed which is perfectly adequate but, again, nothing special or worth celebrating. But here's where things get exciting: Gallant has the same launch options as British cruisers. To be clear, the two fire options for Gallant are a narrow spread or to fire off her torpedoes individually. She does not have the wide-spread option found on other destroyers. It's this single fire option which is so desirable. This greatly increases the flexibility of Gallant's torpedo armament, whether this be dropping more complex patterns for opponents to dodge or holding fish in reserve when a target may think themselves safe from harm. On paper, the advantages of Gallant's single fire torpedoes are many. In practice? Many of these advantages are locked behind an admittedly difficult set of player skills, acquired only from experience and the lessons learned from lots of mistakes. Veterans of British cruisers will have a leg up on the competition here. Gallant's torpedoes are individually hard hitting at 15,433 damage and with eight tubes, Gallant's potential damage for a full launch exceeds all ships with the exception of Shinonome and Fubuki which launch nine. Even so, Gallant's torpedoes hit harder individually than Shinonome, so she's not far behind these Japanese torpedo specialists. The are a couple of serious flaws with her torpedoes. They have a punitively long reload of 96s for one, even for a quad launcher. This is common to launchers with more tubes, and Gallant loses out so significantly to the other torpedo-specialists with shorter reloads on their triple launchers with Shinonome having only a 73s reload while Fubuki and Hatsuharu make due with 76s. The second drawback are the awful firing arcs of Gallant's launchers. They only have a 55º launch arc with a rearward bias. The furthest forward they can target is nearly 70º which is appalling and can really hurt Gallant in close quarter brawls or when navigating through islands. This limited fire sector also means she can't use her torpedoes defensively very well, as she has to present her broadside to dump them into the water. So for all of their good hitting power, Gallant cannot launch her fish often and when she can, you may find yourself fighting the fire arcs of her launchers in order to do so. Summary: Her torpedoes are powerful. Single fire torpedoes are awesome, but it's going to take some practice to make them work. The limited fire arcs of her torpedoes can be immensely frustrating. The only thing saving Gallant's guns from being a complete write off is their good rate of fire and high fire chance. Manoeuvrability Top Speed: 36.0knotsTurning Radius: 540mRudder Shift: 3.0s Maximum Turn Rate: 8.6º per second. Gallant is rather average for a tier VI destroyer when it comes to her top speed, though all of the destroyers with the exception of the Gnevny-class (including Anshan) slot in and around 35.5 to 36.5 knots. What she does have is great handling, however. She answers her rudder very quickly and can throw herself about in the water like no one's business. She's only held back by he modest top speed. She keeps over 30 knots in a turn, though just barely, and this limits her maximum rate of turn to 8.6º per second. DurabilityHit Points: 12,000Maximum Protection: 16mm Gallant's 12,000 hit points sits on the low side of average at her tier. She has more hit points than Farragut or Hatsuharu but less than the Gnenvy-class and Fubuki-class ships which make up more than half the destroyer population at tier VI. Gallant is tiny as far as ship length goes, but sadly she's also rather tall. This combines to make her a comfortable target to shoot at, unfortunately. Gallant does not have the DPM or accuracy over range to afford trading fire with other gunships. This is a risky venture even when she's top tier against tier V gunships like Podvoisky, Nicholas and Okhotnik. Only do so from a position of extreme advantage if you have to at all. Concealment & Camouflage Base Surface Detection Range: 6.84km Air Detection Range: 3.36 km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 5.97km Main Battery Firing Range: 10.18km Surface Detection Rank within Tier: 2nd Surface Detection Rank within Matchmaking: 16th of 34. Gallant has a decent concealment rating. Properly specialized with a 10pt Captain and with her Premium Camouflage, Gallant will get her surface detection range down to just a hair beneath 6.0km. The only ship at her tier that bests her here is Hatsuharu with a 5.8km surface detection range. This is good news for an under-gunned destroyer that struggles to trade blows with any of her contemporaries. Perhaps most impressive is her small aerial detection range which is better than any of the other destroyers at her tier. As a tier VI destroyer, Gallant sits in that unfortunate 'sweet spot' shared with tier VII destroyers where their concealment seems decent until measured up against the ships she faces. She's larger than most of the tier V destroyers she faces, and while she's much more stealthy than tier VII DDs, she finds herself out done by tier VIII gunships like Lo Yang, Benson and Akizuki -- all of which can make her life miserable in short order. It's a rare game where she'll ever be the stealthiest thing out on the water. Gallant is really built for this short-ranged attack. Her torpedoes give her a 2.0km stealth firing window which is enough room to comfortably manoeuvre. Sadly, this does fall within the range of radar equipped ships that begin appearing at tier VII. Skirting too close to the edge of her launch window also puts her dangerously close to the 5.58km range of Hydroacoustic Search on tier VIII German Cruisers It pays to take a moment to study team rosters and identify problem ships lest you trip over them at inopportune moments. Anti-Aircraft Defense AA Battery Calibers: 12.7mmAA Umbrella Ranges: 1.2kmAA DPS per Aura: 4 No. That small cloud of smoke is about to get really crowded with air dropped torpedoes in a moment. Pageantry and Gallantry Thanks to the Dunkirk scenario, there are going to be another build to consider for HMS Gallant, optimizing for achieving 5 stars in the scenario. For now, let me cover the basics for Random and Ranked Battles. As ever, we start with a core build of 10 skill points. Begin with Priority Target to increase your situational awareness when you no longer have concealment. Next, take the destroyer standby, Last Stand to give you passable engine power and rudder shift when these modules get damaged. You have a choice at the next tier. Torpedo Armament Expertise should be taken if you want to emphasize your torpedo rate of fire. Alternatively, take Demolition Expert to supplement your already excellent fire starting qualities on your guns. Do not double up on these at this stage. Finally, take Concealment Expert to get your surface detection down to 5.97km with camouflage installed. Here are the next skills to consider: Tier 1, Preventative Maintenance. For those who hate Priority Target, this can be taken as an alternative. This reduces the likelihood of critical damage occurring to any of your modules (except the Magazine). Tier 2, Jack of All Trades. This is handy for those players that like dropping smoke for their allies. Tier 2, Expert Marksman. This will increase your gun rotation rate from 10º per second up to 12.5º. Tier 2, Smoke Screen Expert. Are you a bro that drops smoke for your big friends in Ranked? Be an even bigger bro with bigger smoke! Tier 2, Adrenaline Rush. This is a long running favourite of many players. It increases your rate of fire of guns and torpedoes as you take damage. At 50% health, this shaves off almost 10s from your torpedo reload and increases your rate of fire from 12.0rpm to 13.2rpm. Always handy. Tier 3, Survivability Expert. This will increase Gallant's hit points from 12,000 to 14,100hp. Note that this won't give you advantage enough to reliably outgun other gunships that are at the same health you are, but it does provide more of a buffer. This can be especially handy in Ranked Battles. Tier 3, Basic Fire Training. Bump up that rate of fire from 12rpm to 13.2rpm. Don't worry about what it does to your AA power. It's not relevant in these game modes. Tier 3, Vigilance. Spot those torpedoes early for your big friends. Tier 4, Inertial Fuse for HE Shells. You can bump up her effective HE penetration from 19mm up to 25mm with this skill. This is enough to stack direct damage against any capital ship you face in Ranked Battles, provided you don't hit the armoured belt, as opposed to being stuck trying to hit the superstructure. Tier 4, Advanced Fire Training. I would recommend against taking this one, but it does have it's uses. This bumps up your maximum range from 10.2km up to 12.2km. Keep in mind your shell flight time is almost 1s per kilometer at those ranges. Tier 4, Radio Location. Like high tier IJN Destroyers, sometimes it's nice to know where the things you don't want to face in a gunfight are likely to be. I personally would recommend the following builds: Random Battles: Core skills (Demolition Expert and Torpedo Armament Expertise both for a total of 13pts). Then take Inertial Fuse for HE Shells and Adrenaline Rush. Ranked Battles: Core skills (Torpedo Armament Expertise or Demolition Expert, not both to start). Then take Survivability Expert. Spend the last six points where you will based on your play style. For cap control, take Basic Fire Training and Adrenaline Rush. For support, lean closer to Vigilance and Smoke Screen Expert. Finally we come to the scenarios. For Dunkirk, you want to emphasize your AA power (silly, I know, but you'll need it). Your core skills look like this: Take Preventative Maintenance first. No surface ships will be targeting you with their main batteries. Next, take Last Stand. The artillery will knock out your engines and steering gears on occasion. After that, take Basic Fire Training to buff your AA power. Then take Advanced Fire Training to buff your AA range up to a "massive" 1.44km. This build is pretty useless for outside of the scenario, but what are you going to do? This "AA Build" only works because of the funny low-health values of planes in this specific scenario, so don't hold any illusions this has any worth outside of it. Some other useful skills include: Tier 2, Jack of All Trades, to help bring your smoke generator off cool down faster. Tier 2, Smoke Screen Expert, to give your allied ships more cover when you drop your smoke. Tier 3, Vigilance, to spot those torpedoes sooner. That's it. This is such a specialized build, I really doubt anyone will have the spare Captain to do it, but maybe you have more doubloons available than sense? When in doubt, you can always suicide-torp battleships at close range. Overall Impressions Skill Floor: Simple / Casual / Challenging / Difficult Gallant is very much like IJN Destroyers where she requires just a little more understanding of destroyer game play to make her perform. She isn't utterly dependent upon her torpedoes for doing damage, but without a good grasp of how best to optimize them, inexperienced players will find this ship frustrating. The good news is that her guns are quite comfortable to play with. The bad news is that her guns will get her into more trouble than not which is a formula for disappointing many consumers. Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / High / Extreme Gallant will challenge players to really master aiming their torpedoes manually without the use of the leading marker. This is a new skill for some players to learn and it will only improve their overall game play. This bumps up her carry potential somewhat in the hands of a true expert. Her guns are also quite serviceable in the right circumstances, but knowing when to fight and when to cut your losses is something that comes only with experience (or spider sense). The Sharktank HMS Gallant can be a thorn in the side of the enemy team throughout a match if played properly. My overall impression is that she is very good at one thing—launching torpedoes from concealment. Her single-fire torpedo launchers enable her to achieve more hits than the wide-spread setting. This is exceptionally useful in launching torpedoes at ships that are bow-on, such as those charging a smoke screen. However, this may also result in missing all torpedoes if they are improperly aimed. Gallant benefits from excellent maneuverability and a tight turning circle, which enables her to weave and dodge incoming fire if spotted. Much like the British cruisers, Gallant is most effective when maintaining her concealment, whether it be in a smoke-screen or skirting her detection range. Her mediocre HP pool and poor gun performance mean that direct engagements with cruisers and other destroyers are not recommended unless in self-defense. Her abysmal anti-aircraft armament rating means that an enemy carrier may freely fly squadrons of planes over the Gallant, keeping her spotted. To have a great battle, it is imperative to pick-and-choose engagements wisely. Because of this, Gallant truly excels when she has a commander that is specialized with Concealment Expert. This provides Gallant with a 2-kilometer stealth-firing window for torpedoes, and ample range for maneuvering and repositioning while avoiding detection. Gallant’s playstyle is very appealing, but it is important that players have a solid understanding of spotting and detection mechanics in-order to utilize Gallant to her maximum potential. She is not the type of ship that can outgun an enemy destroyer in the beginning of the game after charging into the objective. Instead, patience and smart tactics will result in players being rewarded with opportunities to take advantage of Gallant’s primary strength, her torpedo armament. In summary, I feel that Gallant is a strong torpedo boat, but suffers from being situational, especially in matches with aircraft carriers. It requires a patient and vigilant captain who takes note of the positions where enemy ships were last spotted to predict their movements. These predictions are essential in maintaining concealment and succeeding in carrying out ambush style attacks on enemy ships, a tactic that Gallant excels at. Mouse's Summary: Gallant plays closer to an IJN DD than a Soviet or USN Destroyer Single fire torpedoes are nice .. but only if you can aim. They'll be a detriment otherwise. Her guns feel more comfortable to use than her torpedoes, but her torpedoes are more powerful than her guns. Like IJN Destroyers, she becomes more deadly the longer she can survive into the match. If you die early, you're not getting the most out of this ship. Stay alive. Then she'll shine. HMS Gallant is a pretty uninspiring premium. Her gimmick resides solely in her ability to drop single-fire torpedoes. Should the future British Destroyer line have this ability too, short of them having some flaw (like no HE shells), Gallant isn't going to age well. Her guns are okay, but she doesn't have enough of them and they don't hit hard enough. Her torpedoes are really good, but they didn't blow me away. Specializing a ship around their torpedo armament really makes their performance flirt with feast or famine -- either you have jaw dropping, amazing games or you strike out and muddle through with a pittance of rewards. It frustrated me to no end that her guns are comfortable to use and (generally) suck while her torpedoes are not comfortable to use and (generally) rock. If only I could bring the latter to bear more often without finding myself beached or making myself a bigger target for guns / torpedoes / airplanes. If only the former wouldn't let me down when I find myself going toe to toe with anything more shooty than a Fubuki. For all of the average components that make up HMS Gallant, she's not without her charms. The sum of her parts creates a versatile ship that, while vulnerable to enemy destroyer gunships (and aircraft -- but all destroyers suffer equally there), can still manage to be a thorn in the side of the enemy fleet. Success with this ship hinges on how well a player can make her torpedoes perform. And she's got most of the right tools for facilitating that. She's not slow. She's pretty stealthy. She handles like a dream. She's got enough guns to defend herself. In theory, Gallant should work for most players. I wasn't inspired, however. Gallant didn't romance me the same way some other premiums have -- even the lackluster ones. Is that a flaw of the ship? I think so. I couldn't get excited for this ship. Time will tell if I'm proven wrong and the community embraces this one as one of their own. Would I Recommend? PVE Battles How well does the ship maintain profitability in Co-Op modes and how does she fare against bots? Mouse: The big question is how will she do in the Dunkirk scenario? Well, she combines elements of both freely available destroyers. Gallant has the fast gunnery of Anthony and the Smoke Generator of Cyclone, so she'll do alright against the Schnellboots but she'll really struggle to shoot down aircraft unless you've built her with AA pew pews in mind. In regular PVE play, treat her like an IJN Destroyer and you'll do alright. Sharkbait_416: Yes; I would recommend Gallant for PVE battles. At Tier VI, Gallant has minimal service costs. She maintains a fair margin of profitability in well-played PVE battles, but premium consumables should be avoided to maximize income. Gallant fares well against bots due to her concealment. She can provide support to teammates, such as a smoke screen, while also engaging enemy ships with her single-firing torpedo launchers. However, her main battery guns are of a small caliber and suffer from long shell flight times, which makes hitting small and agile targets, such as PT boats, difficult. Random Battle Grinding:This includes training captains, collecting free experience, earning credits and collecting signal flags from achievements. Mouse: It all comes down to how well you think you can perform with your torpedoes. Personally, I would give Gallant a pass here. While she's perfectly adequate when top tier, she's really going to struggle when bottom tier in the same manner as Fubuki and Shinonome. If that's your cup of tea or you can stomach being the (severe) underdog, then go nuts, my friend. Sharkbait_416: Yes; I highly recommend Gallant for random battle grinding. She truly shines with a 10-point commander that is specialized with Concealment Expert. With this skill, Gallant has a 2-kilometer stealth-firing window for her torpedoes. Those who are familiar with single-firing torpedo launchers may be able to hit a target with every torpedo in the salvo. Good concealment and high-damage potential equate to a ship which is highly rewarding for those grinding for XP and rewards. For Competitive Gaming:Competitive Gaming includes Ranked Battles and other skill-based tournaments. This also includes stat-padding. Mouse: Is Gallant better than the other tier VI destroyers for Ranked Battles? She's not better than Anshan or Shinonome, but I would say she's better than Gaede or Farragut in this environment. I'll give her a green-light here, but you'd be much better off with Shinonome or Anshan if you can your hands on them. Sharkbait_416: No; although Gallant is very powerful due to her torpedoes, she is easily countered by aircraft. Additionally, she is not very competitive in a fair fight with other destroyers of the same-tier, due to a smaller pool of hit points and poor gun performance. As much as I like her, Gallant is situational in competitive gaming scenarios. Generally, I would advise players to choose another ship for competitive gaming unless they are extremely competent in maintaining concealment, dodging incoming gunfire, and avoiding overextension on the map. Still, an aircraft carrier can easily ruin Gallant’s match by keeping her spotted with squadrons of aircraft. For Collectors:If you enjoy ship history or possessing rare ships, this section is for you. Mouse: Eh. HMS Gallant has some story to her, but my initial reaction when I heard this ship was coming was "why not Glowworm?". I suppose if you want to own a little piece of Dunkirk memorabilia then snag her up. Sharkbait_416: Yes; Gallant served the Royal Navy honorably. Throughout the course of her service history, she saved the lives of nearly 1,500 personnel and sailors. Though she may not have the fame of other ships in the Royal Navy, Gallant served in numerous operations and escorted multiple convoys before being mined in the Mediterranean Sea. With her addition to the game coinciding with the Dunkirk Scenario, players can recreate her heroic actions in saving over 1,466 personnel from the beaches of Dunkirk in May 1940. For Fun Factor: Bottom line: Is the ship fun to play? Mouse: Nope, I did not enjoy my time with Gallant. Her torpedoes are frustrating to use. Her guns aren't. Her guns suck though and her torpedoes don't. How to frustrate Mouse 101. Sharkbait_416: Yes; Gallant is very fun to play. As mentioned above, a captain specialized with Concealment Expert provides Gallant with a 2-kilometer stealth firing window for her torpedoes. Her single-fire launchers allow for the possibility of hitting every torpedo in a salvo. Gallant does best in battles with a high number of battleships and no aircraft carriers. In such games, Gallant can inflict serious casualties on the enemy team. It’s very satisfying to watch a single-file line of 8 torpedoes swim toward a battleship, knowing the unsuspecting battleship is in for a world of hurt! What's the Final Verdict?How would the ship rate on an Angry YouTuber scale of Garbage - Meh - Gud - Overpowered? GARBAGE - Grossly uncompetitive and badly in need of buffs.Mehbote - Average ship. Has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't need buffs to be viable, but certainly not advantageous.Gudbote - A strong ship that has obvious competitive strengths and unique features that make it very appealing.OVERPOWERED - A ship with very clear advantages over all of its competitors and unbalancing the game with its inclusion.
  5. The following is a review of Cheshire, the tier VIII British heavy cruiser. This ship was kindly provided to me by Wargaming for review purposes. To the best of my knowledge, the performance and statistics discussed in this review are current as of patch 0.9.3.1. Please be aware that the ship may change in the future. Quick Summary: A stealthy, but terribly squishy British heavy cruiser with a small battery of powerful 234mm guns. PROS AP shells can overmatch 16mm worth of armour, including the extremities of many lower-tier cruisers and destroyers. Good AP penetration and improved auto-ricochet angles. Excellent HE penetration, capable of directly damaging most battleship decks. Good gun handling with 10º/s gun rotation rate. Excellent AA firepower. No, really. Yeah, I'm surprised too. Stealthy, with a surface detection as low as 9.5km. British "portable dry dock" Repair Party, healing up to 40% of her health per charge before modifiers. CONS Only six main battery guns, greatly reducing her alpha-strike and DPM. Her "stepped" citadel presents a shell-trap for large caliber battleship AP shells. Only modest gun fire angles, leaves her vulnerable to return fire from AP shells. Mediocre range on main battery guns for so vulnerable a ship. Torpedoes are short ranged at 8km. Overview Skill Floor: Simple / Casual/ CHALLENGING / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / MODERATE / High / Extreme This ship doesn't do anyone any favours, new players least of all. Like the tier VII Pensacola of years prior, Cheshire is a lemon that will punish you for simply choosing to shoot your guns at the wrong time. As players become more familiar with the foibles of the British heavies, Cheshire (and her sister Albemarle) will become primary targets for the farming of easy Devastating Strike medals. For veterans, as appealing as the on-paper potential for this ship appears, in practice she's just too fragile to really feel worthwhile. You can do better in almost any other ship where skills like angling, island use, etc will serve you much better. Options Consumables There's nothing much out of the ordinary here short of her god-tier healing potion. Keep in mind that all consumables will be the premium version soon so I'm just listing those values. Cheshire's Damage Control Party is standard for a cruiser with a 60s reset timer. It's active for 5 seconds and has unlimited charges. Her Repair Party heals back up to 40% of her health base per charge over 20 seconds. She starts with two charges with a reset timer of 80s. You have the choice between two consumables in her last slot. Both consumables start with three charges base. Her Defensive AA Fire is active for 40s, increasing sustained DPS by 50% and explosion damage by 300%. It has an 80s reset timer. Her Hydroacoustic Search is active for 100s. It detects torpedoes at 3.5km and ships at 5km. It has a 120s reset timer. Upgrades Start with Main Armaments Modification 1. In your second slot, Hydroacoustic Search Modification 1 is optimal if you can afford it. Obviously this dictates that you'll be eschewing using Defensive AA Fire but that's okay. This will set you back 17,000 Coal . Otherwise, default to Engine Room Protection. Aiming System Modification 1 is really the only upgrade worth taking in slot three. You have a choice in slot 4 depending on how you like to play. If you prefer island humping, then Propulsion System Modification 1 is preferable to improve your acceleration from a standstill. Otherwise, Steering Gears Modification 1 is your best bet. ER MAH GERD choice in slot 5!? Well, it's not really. Concealment System Modification 1 is still optimal. But, for the sake of argument, let's look at Ship Consumables Modification 1 and how it affects her consumables: With this, her Damage Control Party will now last 5.5 seconds. Yawn. Cheshire's Hydroacoustic Search will increase from 100s to 110s (or to 132s if you have Hydroacoustic Search Modification 1 installed). This is nice. It's not game changing, but it's nice. Her Defensive AA Fire increases from 40s to 44s ... which doesn't really help. The duration of Defensive AA Fire was never the issue, but rather the damage it does. And here's the juicy bit: Her Repair Party adds another 2 ticks worth of healing -- or between 4% and 4.8% of her total health depending on if you're using the India Delta signal or not. This amounts to an additional 1,700 to 2,040hp per charge used with an upper maximum of 6,120 additional hp with three charges blown. So, is that worth giving up Concealment System Modification 1? Heck no. But Ship Consumables Modification 1 isn't terrible. It's just that Concealment System Modification 1 is (still) too damn good. Captain Skills Cheshire isn't a very skill-hungry boat. For the first 10 skill points, take the usual suspects. Your choice of a tier 1 skill -- I prefer Priority Target to let me know when my doom is nigh. Adrenaline Rush is optimal at tier 2. Through my play-testing, I used Superintendent as my skill of choice at tier 3, thinking I would get to make use of my Repair Party's extra heal. And to no one's surprise, Concealment Expert rounds things off at tier 4. Pick and choose your favourites for your remaining points. Camouflage Cheshire has two camouflage options: Type 10 and Victorian White camouflage. They both provide identical bonuses: -3% surface detection +4% increased dispersion of enemy shells. -10% to post-battle service costs. +50% experience earned. I do like the camouflage schemes for Cheshire. She's a nice looking ship. Firepower Main Battery: Six 234mm/50 guns in 3x2 turrets in an A-B-X superfiring configuration. Secondaries: Sixteen 113mm/45 guns in 8x2 turrets with four mounted each side in superfiring forward and rear positions. Torpedoes: Eight tubes in 2×4 launchers with one on each side mounted in the hull beneath the first funnel. Celebratory Pew-Pews Let's start with Cheshire's secondaries because they're largely forgettable. They are decent for cruiser secondaries. However, given that Wargaming has yet to implement any cruiser with kick-butt secondaries 'decent' doesn't matter. At least they have 19mm of penetration, so they're capable of directly damaging anything she faces. Their high rate of fire does spit out a lot of shells. But without phenomenal range or improved accuracy, they're just window dressing. I did kill a Dallas with one, so that was fun. The muzzle blasts off of Cheshire's guns are huge. Are 234mm guns worthwhile? This is the big question at the core of not only Cheshire's worth, but her higher-tiered sisters as well. What's the big deal with large-caliber guns on a cruiser? What can they do that faster-firing (or more plentiful) 203mm guns can't? What are their drawbacks? And finally, are they any good? In theory, a larger caliber gun provides inherent benefits over its smaller brethren. These include higher penetration values for both HE and AP shells, including energy retention over distance (which factors both into penetration and ballistics). In addition, the shells will individually cause more damage and have a higher chance of starting fires. The final benefit is that depending on the size of the shells, it's possible for their AP rounds to overmatch key armour values, ignoring ricochet mechanics. These benefits are typically off-set by a smaller number of barrels, a larger dispersion area, a slower rate of fire and worse gun handling. In summary, larger guns make it more likely that individual hits will cause significant damage but with fewer hits overall compared to smaller-caliber guns. Whether or not this exchange is worthwhile depends upon just how much these guns gain versus how much they surrender. For the sake of Cheshire's 234mm caliber weapons, we have a direct same-tier analogue to compare them to in the form of Albemarle's 203mm armament. Alpha versus DPM You would think that larger caliber guns, though fewer in number, would allow you to deliver more devastating volleys. The idea being that while you might not shoot as often, the fewer salvos hit harder. I wish that were the case. Let's take Albemarle vs Cheshire as an example. Citadel Penetrations (AP): 40,500 Albemarle vs 34,500 Cheshire Citadel Penetration (HE): 29,700 Albemarle vs 23,100 Cheshire Penetration (AP): 13,365 Albemarle vs 11,385 Cheshire Penetration (HE): 9,801 Albemarle vs 7,623 Cheshire Yeah, so that's a wash. A small bump up in gun caliber size does not provide an advantage in damage output on anything but a per-shell basis. So the increased shell damage does not make up for a three-gun deficit (though in theory it could make up for a two-gun deficit). Understandably, with a slower reload, the gap only opens up further. And it's not like Cheshire's reload is particularly slow either. Let me be clear, one of her gimmicks is the accelerated reload on her main battery guns. Drake and Goliath, using the same weapons, have a base reload time of 18 seconds. This can be modified down on these ships with the use of Main Battery Modification 3, providing them with a 15.8 second reload. Cheshire, meanwhile, boasts a 12.5s reload timer which is amazing -- this is a half second faster than Albemarle. So if there's any benefit to be found here, it has to be on how easily it is to make those shells deal damage rather than the damage potential itself. Cheshire's raw damage output values suck, so every hit needs to count. A cruiser with only six heavy guns has crappy DPM. Who knew? AP Performance Cheshire's AP shells are pretty good at ensuring they deal damage compared to 203mm AP shells found on Albemarle. I say 'pretty good' and not 'great'. There are three factors where they hold an advantage over her counterpart. She has high penetration. She has improved auto-ricochet angles. She has overmatch potential against a key structural armour value. ] Cheshire has Baltimore's AP penetration values with Japanese 203mm ballistics. Note that while Cheshire does have slightly improved auto-ricochet angles, they are not on par with Baltimore's. Her AP shells feel less effective overall because of this, even though they have about the same punch over distance. British 234mm AP shells have higher penetration than 203mm guns -- enough that it matters, but not so much where it's an advantage except at very close ranges. Like with HE shells, AP penetration values are important when they cross various functional thresholds -- like being enough to citadel cruisers at very long ranges or having enough to penetrate battleship belt armour at specific distances. Cheshire (and British 234mm guns in general) are capable of both of these things. Albemarle struggles but can still manage the former and is generally unable to do the latter. Understandably, this provides Cheshire with a bit more utility out of her AP shells -- at least in theory. That theory is much harder to put into practice. Punching through battleship belt armour is only possible at suicidal ranges -- well within 7km. At such distances, you're better suited to making use of her torpedoes rather than relying on the bite of her AP shells. I suppose every little bit helps, especially given that not all cruisers are capable of doing so. At least against cruisers, her AP shells are much more reliable, with enough extra penetration to contend with the relative increase in armour thickness due to angling. Of course, this only works up to a point. Curiously, Cheshire's 234mm AP shells have slightly improved auto-ricochet angles, though only slightly -- Cheshire's AP shells automatically ricochet at an angle of 65º instead of 60º though the chance for it to happen still starts at 45º. This runs contrary to the 234mm AP shells found on Goliath and Drake -- so it's something special found only on Cheshire. So it's less likely that Cheshire's shells will slide off before getting a chance to punch in, but only slightly. For example, 203mm AP shells normally have a 50/50 chance of ricocheting at 52º or so. That doesn't happen to Cheshire until about 55º. This a far cry from the American auto-ricochet angles, which on Baltimore run from 60º to 67.5º, This keeps Cheshire's AP from being a universal shell. Still, there are some targets that even angling against Cheshire will not avail them. Her AP shells can overmatch 16mm hull sections; an important armour threshold being found on the extremities and hulls of tier VI and VII heavy cruisers and tier VIII+ very light cruisers. It's also the armour value found tier VI and VII destroyer hull forms, providing the 234mm AP shells a whole range of targets where they need not wait for perfect broadsides in order to be effective. So that's kinda nice, if a bit of a niche superpower that 203mm AP shells can't pull off themselves. I did get a chance to put it to good effect against a Dallas in a brawl during playtesting which was nice -- he couldn't angle against me while I was able to smash shells down the length of his hull even when he angled. But that was one time in all of my play-testing. Matchmaking was part to blame in this -- being continually up-tiered meant that there were fewer targets where Cheshire's overmatch could be used, but even seeing an opponent I could overmatch didn't guarantee that I would have an opportunity to do so. These three elements make Cheshire's AP shells more useful than the AP shells of Albemarle though they don't stray into the potency of American Piercing shells which can be used a lot more often. So British 234mm AP shells are "more gooder" than Albemarle's 203mm AP shells, but I'd argue they're not good enough to make up for that alpha / DPM disparity. HE Performance The big numbers to concern ourselves with here are the thresholds needed to directly damage various parts of tier VIII+ battleships. These thresholds are: 1.) Their extremities (32mm) 2.) The upper hull and amidship deck of British & French battleships (32mm) 3.) The amidships deck of American battleships (38mm), 4.) The amidships deck of German battleships 50mm 4.) The amidships deck of Japanese battleships (57mm) 5.) The amidships deck of Soviet battleships (60mm). There is one thing, and one thing only to get excited over in regards to Cheshire's HE performance and that's her improved HE penetration. Cheshire has 59mm of base HE penetration as opposed to the 39mm she would be expected to have. This crosses an important (albeit, not crucial) threshold, allowing her to directly damage the amidship decks of many battleships along with the infamous extended armoured prows of Soviet ships. This, to me, creates a target preference for Cheshire . Specifically, she's better suited to hammering any vessel with extensive deck armour which includes most high-tier battleships (with the exception of the French and British) than most 203mm armed heavy cruisers. Cheshire is capable of stacking direct damage here where other cruisers will have their damage partially mitigated by shells that stray onto these thicker armoured sections. As nice as this is for Cheshire, it's a bit of a booby prize. While it does allow her to damage a wider variety of targets, when it comes to that DPM disparity mentioned previously, this advantage only comes into play in those select circumstances. HE penetration is a binary after all -- you can either penetrate or your shells shatter. There's no advantage to having more than you need. There's no point to Cheshire's 59mm of HE penetration when she's shooting up a destroyer or light cruiser. Thus, the only way her 234mm HE shells keep up with Albemarle's 203mm guns is through farming damage off of select battleships. That's really it. I've included the FPM of heavy cruisers using IFHE for the sake of comparison when trying to encroach upon Cheshire's massive penetration values (don't do this, it's silly). Overall, Cheshire is not a bad fire starter for a heavy cruiser. She's not great, mind you,but she's not bad. Cheshire may single fire her torpedoes like other British ships which is nice. I wish she had more range. These weapons are nice and hard hitting and could have done a lot to pad her mediocre gun DPM. But are they worth it? Heck no. Look, 234mm guns aren't terrible but short of pounding high-tier battleships with HE, Cheshire's main battery firepower offers nothing worthwhile. They didn't stand up to a direct comparison to Albemarle's guns and they're no rock stars, so where does that leave these things? Well, not in a good place. This isn't a ship that kills anything quickly, and that can be a real problem if she doesn't have the longevity to farm meaningful damage. To me, this means that the ship better have some miracle or gimmicks buried in the hull itself in order to make it worthwhile. Sadly, these don't materialize in her weapon systems. While Cheshire's six-guns are definitely a hurdle to overcome, I lay a lot of the blame with this ship's performance on her range. Her 16.1km main battery reach and her 8km range on her torpedoes makes maximizing Cheshire's firepower difficult. As you'll see in later sections regarding this ship, she just doesn't stand up to return fire. More range would have provided her with at least the semblance of being able to dodge. At 17.5km or more, I think I would have felt a lot more comfortable in this ship. 10km fish wouldn't have hurt either. In short, Cheshire's firepower is just plain bad. Her main battery guns can't keep up. Her torpedoes are too short ranged to be used in any role save that of desperation and cruiser secondaries are (still) not worth it. Like London, Cheshire's fire arcs aren't particularly good but at least they're consistent. For those wondering, "good" entails being able to fire 30º off the long axis of the ship, allowing the ship to fire while still giving her the best chance to take advantage of auto-ricochet mechanics. Still, Cheshire's 10º/s gun traverse is sexy. Verdict: Awful because she only has six guns. Also her torpedoes are too short ranged, but mostly because she only has six guns. Defense Hit Points: 42,500 Minimum Bow & Deck Armour: 25mm extremities with 30mm plating and deck amidships. Maximum Citadel Protection: 152mm belt armour Torpedo Damage Reduction: 19% With Cheshire's firepower woes, I was really (REALLY) hoping for some miracles in regards to her durability. I was an early optimist until I started playing this damn thing. Lemme show you why: [ Cheshire is a certified chungus. Look at that. Big healthy heals and a pretty chunky hit point pool to boot. Awesome! There's a whole lot to love here -- namely that Repair Party isn't a universal upgrade at tier VIII and just having one is a pretty solid advantage. Having a British "portable drydock" which heals back up to 40% of the ship's health per charge is amazing. In theory, Cheshire is built to outlast most of her contemporaries, which should largely make up for any deficits in her firepower. In theory. Cheshire's 30mm deck stands out -- normally tier VIII heavy cruisers only have 27mm thick decks. This does provide some benefits against small caliber HE shells from destroyers and overmatch protection against battleship caliber AP shells smaller than 429mm. That all falls apart when you realize that her protection scheme is a joke. Her citadel is specifically designed to maximize the number of citadel hits she takes -- I wish I was kidding. It's nigh impossible to angle Cheshire successfully against battleship fire of 380mm caliber or greater. Every incoming salvo is potentially world ending. She practically prints Devastating Strike medals for enemy battleships if they catch her out in the open, which means the best protection she could hope for is a big ol' rock to hide behind. The guilty party here is Cheshire's "stepped" citadel. Not only does this section sit up significantly higher (and let's keep in mind, the rest of Cheshire's citadel already peeks over the waterline), but the upright angles ensure that battleship caliber shells that are slamming down the length of the ship will still smack against the citadel if they're aimed high. Furthermore, it creates a weak point where ships capable of overmatching her 27mm upper hull can STILL dunk shots into her citadel when she's steeply angled where as other cruisers could at least content themselves that their belt armour will keep out the worst of it. And, while Cheshire does have some hull sections that can ricochet up to 381mm AP shells, her soft bow and stern provide openings that even these will get through. This isn't a problem unique to Cheshire, it's shared by Albemarle and to a lesser degree by Goliath. But spreading the pain doesn't make this any more acceptable. Kiting and dodging in open water a fool's errand -- any shots that come in are potentially lethal. When Cheshire is top tier, on the rare occasions where she's facing 356mm armed battleships (or smaller), surprise-surprise, she becomes a little monster. But banking on that kind of Matchmaking is a fool's errand for a tier VIII cruiser. I'm no stranger to playing squishy cruisers, but I'm used to there being some trade-off for it. Maybe the ship has excellent firepower. Maybe her consumables are amazing. Maybe she has excellent agility and speed to facilitate dodging. Maybe her Repair Party could come off cooldown very quickly? I dunno, I would expect something for all of Cheshire's woes. So here's the bad news. That 'hump' of Cheshire's stepped citadel is her Achilles' heel. It's too easy to hit and it makes angling in this ship next to impossible against high penetration AP shells. Oh, those thick citadel decks will also guarantee that AP bombs wreck you thoroughly. Verdict: Her Repair Party is amazing. Too bad she can't survive long enough to take advantage of it. Agility Top Speed: 34kts Turning Radius: 720m Rudder Shift Time: 10.5s 4/4 Engine Speed Rate of Turn: 5.8º/s On the whole, I have to give Cheshire decent marks here. Her top speed is respectable for a cruiser. Her turning radius isn't horrible. Her rate of turn is acceptable. The only real glaring flaw is her rudder shift time and even that's not irredeemable. Don't get me wrong, she could certainly be better -- but she's not terrible. The only thing that I wish she had was better acceleration, especially given her love of island-humping. That can be partially corrected by taking Propulsion Modification 1 but that would preclude her from fixing her rudder shift time with Steering Gears Modification 1. I certainly value the former over the latter given the current meta. Given Cheshire's firepower and durability problems, "respectable" agility just doesn't cut it. In of itself, Cheshire's agility would be fine for a heavy cruiser -- even good, but with everything else stacked against this ship, it's just not enough. I would kill for her to have British light cruiser improved engine power -- to make taking shelter behind islands easier or to facilitate dodging. I would love it if she was even two knots faster, to make running down destroyers or dodging in open water feel a bit more viable, but it's just not there. Man, I've gotten to re-use this graphic three times now. All the time saved makes me very happy. VERDICT: She's not terrible, but she doesn't stand out here in a good or bad way. Anti-Aircraft Defense Flak Bursts: 7 explosions for 1,470 damage per blast Long Ranged (up to 5.8km): 168dps at 90% accuracy Medium Ranged (up to 2.5km): 228dps at 90% accuracy Short Ranged (up to 2.0km): 249dps at 85% accuracy Cheshire has some truly monstrous levels of AA firepower -- it's enough to grant her near immunity to tier VI carriers. This, of course, translates to merely inconveniencing tier VIII and X aircraft carriers. Cheshire will shoot down a lot of planes. Given that she's not starved for commander skill points, you could even go so far as to spend a few towards boosting her AA performance further if you were so inclined. This ship has to be good at something, after all. With apologies (still) to the colour-blind. Cheshire has arguably the best AA firepower of any tier VIII vessel. Unless it was show-stopping levels of air-defense, you couldn't sell me a premium based on its AA firpower, though. Verdict: Really good. Like, "make tier VI carriers cry" levels of good. Refrigerator Base/Minimum Surface Detection: 12.1km/9.51km Base/Minimum Air Detection Range: 7.51km/6.08km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 7.5km Main Battery Firing Range: 16.1km Cheshire has good surface detection values. They're not great, but they're good. Any cruiser capable of dropping their concealment below the 10km range is really nice and I can't complain here at all about Cheshire's concealment values. Had this been paired with benefits anywhere else, such as agility, durability, firepower, good consumables, etc, I would probably be singing this ship's praises, but here we are. Cheshire doesn't interact well with smoke -- her 7.5km detection range when opening fire is scarcely better than her improved surface detection so she can't dare follow destroyers in to take advantage of their advanced smoke screens. Again, this further relegates this ship to humping islands and hoping against hope that she's an unappealing target. Verdict: Good, but not enough to save the ship. Final Evaluation I'm not going to mince words here. I hate this ship. I hate playing it. I'm glad this review is over. I'm not touching it again until Wargaming does something to improve her lot. Cheshire offers nothing, nothing of value. Her 234mm guns with their improved HE penetration could have been a very interesting armament but their performance stops well short of that mark. This ship needs more range, more agility and/or a faster reload before I would consider her to be a worthwhile investment. Even in co-op battles, while it's certainly possible to do well, you're not really gaining anything over taking out Albemarle instead. Yes, you might be able to get a few more HE penetrations on high-tier battleships, but you could get the same if you just stuck to peppering superstructures or the bows with 203mm guns. While overmatching the snoots of charging tier VI and VII bot-cruisers with AP shells is entertaining, it's not worth the price paid to acquire this ship. I'm sorry I didn't get this review out sooner. Keep well clear of this failure. Conclusion Reviewing Cheshire has been really taxing. My enjoyment of World of Warships was severely compromised with having to keep coming back to this damn thing. It's bad enough to play a bad ship, but it makes every little frustration just that much more poignant. Anyway, it's over, finally. I'm going to go do something else for a bit to recharge my batteries.
  6. Well with the Battle Jutland fast approaching and there seems little chance of a Premium from one of The Greatest Naval Clashes the world has even seen and will never see again, once again disappointment looms large. Sadly it seems that the magical world of ORIGAMI will be on show after the 13th of May and will more than likely run through and beyond the last days of May and early June. So I thought I would put a poll out and see if the community would like to vote on there favourite BattleCruisers from both Germany and Great Britain. The ships in question will be from The Battle Cruiser Fleet: VAdm Sir David Richard Beatty and The First Scouting Forces (Befehlshaber die Aufklärungsstreitkräfte): VAdm Franz Hipper Hopefully if the poll gets plenty of support WG may create a ships from both sides and release them this time next year to commemorate Jutland. OK this poll thing works its only my second one.
  7. The following is a review of Indomitable, the tier VIII British Aircraft Carrier. This ship was provided to me for free by Wargaming for review purposes. To the best of my knowledge, the statistics discussed in this review are current as of patch 0.9.0. Please be aware that her performance may change in the future. Well, this won't be popular. Seriously, what a way to tank my readership numbers -- reviewing an aircraft carrier of all things. I can already hear the furious keyboard mashing of the rework-haters preparing to repeat oft-rehearsed mantras and soundbites. Well, whether social media likes it or not, Indomitable is a premium that Wargaming is charging money for and it should be reviewed. Players should have access to as much accurate information about her as possible. So here I am. Don't hate the facts. Hate the feels. Welcome to 2020, everyone! Quick Summary: A carpet-bombing nightmare. Her planes are super fast and super tough but she gets so few of them. The game play is quick, monotonous and heavily RNG based. PROS Armoured flight deck. Her aircraft are very fast. Enormous aircraft health pools. Her bombers are very easy to use. Bombers are good at starting fires. Accelerated reset timers after attack runs, allowing for faster repeat-strikes. Very fast patrol fighters, excellent at intercepting enemy air groups. CONS Enormous, high-water citadel. No torpedo planes whatsoever. Tiny hangar capacity and slow regeneration of aircraft. Strike groups are very small and easily wiped out when caught by flak or fighters. Low agility on aircraft. They're only fast in a straight line. Her bombers have very poor energy retention. Low penetration on bombs and rockets limits their ability to stack direct damage. Success is heavily RNG based, banking on fires to burn down targets or a good drop pattern to pulverize destroyers. You can setup everything correctly and still fail. Overview Skill Floor: Simple / CASUAL / Challenging/ Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low/ MODERATE/ High/ Extreme Indomitable isn't terribly complex -- she's arguably one of the easiest aircraft carriers in the game to learn. If she could automatically avoid flak, fighters and negate the effects of AA, I'd give her a "simple" rating but she's not quite there. There's not much else to Indomitable beyond proper target selection. Few of the high-skill CV tricks work here. Indomitable has a shorter immunity window than other carriers so sling-shotting provides less returns that it would for other carriers. Fast recall doesn't work either. This limits "high skill play" to pre-dropping planes and knowing which ships you can damage directly with her low-penetration attacks. Options Ship Consumables Aircraft carrier consumables are fixed and activate automatically. Indomitable's Damage Control Party is activated anytime she takes critical damage. This includes taking floods, being set on fire, taking critical damage to her steering gears or engines. This is active for 60 seconds with a 90 second reset timer. It has unlimited charges. Her CAP Fighters (combat air patrol fighters) are activated anytime Indomitable is spotted. Once launched, these will patrol for TEN MINUTES (600s) if they're not destroyed or they aren't required to intercept. The four fighters (five with the Direction Center for Fighters commander skill) orbit Indomitable at a range of 1km and engage enemy aircraft that slip within 3km of their current position. Each aircraft is capable of shooting down a single plane. This consumable has four charges and a 40s reset timer. Aircraft Consumables Indomitable's two squadrons each have consumables with her fighters being slightly improved to compensate for the lack of torpedo bombers. The Engine Cooling consumable restores the carrier's boost meter to full over the course of five seconds. In addition, while it's active, boosting will not drain the meter. Each squadron has two charges and they reset over 80 seconds. Indomitable's Patrol Fighters come with an extra charge compared to most of the other tier VIII carriers. She starts with four charges instead of three. This gives Indomitable a total of eight charges compared to the nine the other carriers enjoy. These fighters fight on station for 60 seconds with a five second reset timer after the planes depart. Upgrades Take Air Groups Modification 1 in your first slot to accelerate aircraft return & recovery time. Next, take Aircraft Engines Modification 1 to give you more boost time. You have a choice in slot three. Attack Aircraft Modification 1 will give you an additional 2 seconds of time to fire your rockets in an attack run. If you patently hate your rockets (or don't see an additional 2 seconds as useful), then AA Guns Modification 1 should be your fallback. You have the choice between increasing the hit points of your attack aircraft or bombers here. Pick whichever one you're more reliant upon. I personally prefer Bombers Modification 2 over Attack Aircraft Modification 2. Let's not kid ourselves: Flight Control Modification 1 is hella important for a carrier with such limited hangar capacity as Indomitable. Concealment System Modification 1 will help keep your carrier alive (somewhat), but Indomitable's surface detection isn't so appalling that she needs much help. Commander Skills I'd like to be able to tell you that you should take a unique, Indomitable-only commander build but it's really not necessary. Focus on aircraft survivability skills primarily, increasing boost time, regeneration time, health and protection versus AA power. After that, do whatever. Demolition Expert is probably the only must-have that you might otherwise skip on some carriers. Camouflage Indomitable comes with Type 10 Camouflage providing the standard bonuses for a tier VIII premium: 3% reduction to surface detection. 4% increase to enemy dispersion. 10% reduction to post-battle service costs. 50% increase to experience earned. Provided you've completed the necessary collections, you have two palette options for Indomitable. This is the alternate camouflage colours. Both are nice. The Planes Indomitable's most telling trait isn't what she can do, but rather what she can't. She does not have access to any torpedo bombers and is thus entirely reliant upon her attack aircraft and bombers to carry the day. The former are pretty forgettable, leaving most of the heavy lifting to Indomitable's bombers. For a ship with already pared down game play options, having success largely stacked onto the shoulders of a single aircraft type makes for hella-dull game play. Like more than a few recent ships, Indomitable's fortunes are tied directly to her matchmaking. I cannot stress this enough: She lacks penetration. The more well armoured her opponents, the more reliant she is upon RNG to stack hits on the few squishy areas that remain or to start fires. This has the potential to severely limits her damage output. There's a world of difference between nearly every hit causing damage and only a choice few. At her core, Indomitable is little different than an HE-spamming heavy cruiser or British battleship. Her preferred means of damage comes from landing penetrating hits, but in a pinch, fires will do. She manages this by fast-cycling her aircraft. Indomitable greatly reduces travel times compared to her contemporaries, taxing Damage Control Parties and repeat-striking exposed ships until they are burned or bombed to death. Her preferred targets are the squishy and the battleships. The former she can hurt directly, the latter she can burn. However, she is deathly allergic to strong, combined AA auras. Thus, most cruisers are off the menu, making Indomitable's already limited gameplay incredibly myopic. Burning battleships leads to three things: big numbers, Witherer medals and lots of raging in chat. This kind of triple-stacked positive reinforcement will all but guarantee that most Indomitable players will ignore objectives, dismiss targets of importance and focus instead upon farming battleship tears. What else did you expect from a demented Sky-Conqueror? Hangar Capacity Attack Aircraft Capacity: 12 Aircraft Attack Aircraft Regeneration: 115s per Bomber Capacity: 8 Aircraft Bomber Regeneration: 117s per Indomitable's hangar is ... well, crappy to say the least. The only positive here is that she holds more aircraft than she otherwise should. With her squadrons a mere four bombers and six attack aircraft in size, I would expect her to house six bombers and nine attack aircraft in her hangar if she conformed to CV norms. However, Wargaming "balanced" her by letting her carry double the size of her squadrons instead. Indomitable's aircraft regeneration is painfully slow to boot. This isn't a terribly forgiving aircraft when it comes to mistakes. At best, she can regenerate a maximum of 11 of each aircraft type over the course of a twenty-minute match and that's only the theoretical maximum. In practice count assume you're getting one aircraft of each type back every two minutes provided you're using both types regularly. There's no way in Hell any of these carriers will reach their theoretical maximum capacity. Regeneration of aircraft only occurs when there's empty room in the hangar. The moment the hangar is full, typically from returning aircraft, regeneration stops and any remaining progress is lost. Bombers Aircraft Type: de Havilland Sea Hornet Ordnance: Six 250lb general purpose bomb Group Size: Four aircraft per squadron with two aircraft per attack flight Hit Points: 2,590hp per Aircraft Min/Cruising/Boosted Speed: 157kts/182kts/217kts Easy to Use, Easy to Praise Indomitable's bombers are amazing. They are fast. They are tough. Her bomb aiming reticule isn't punitive with a short and forgiving aim-time. She dumps a ton of ordnance allowing her to land big alpha strikes or ensure a hit on even a small target. She's capable of starting multiple fires per run. It doesn't take five years for her bombs to drop either. British carpet-bombers are little more than over-glorified rocket aircraft in terms of their ease of use. Indomitable may not have torpedoes, but her bombers pretty much make up for this lack -- they truly are excellent. Let's start with the basics. This is what she uses to aim: Photoshop composite showing the size and shape of Indomitable's fully aimed bomb reticule. Aircraft are moving from the bottom of the screen to the top. Reference-Mahan™ for scale. Indomitable drops twelve bombs over this small area and it takes no time at all for this marker to settle to the narrowest aim. Bomb drop times are about 3.5 seconds, so this necessitates quite a bit of lead. However, if you can predict ship movements properly, it's possible to score multiple hits even on a Just-Dodging™ lolibote or cruiser. They've a very gentle learning curve which makes it easy to score some big numbers provided you pick the right targets. All of Indomitable's bombers have a reduced recovery period. This allows her to launch repeat strikes faster than most of her contemporaries, however it makes her remaining planes more vulnerable to AA fire after the drop. It should be noted that Indomitable, like Implacable, cannot fast-recall her bombers immediately after an attack. The ease of use continues with the aircraft's survivability. These things are fast and they're tough. With full upgrades, it's possible to get their hit points just shy of 3,000hp (and exceed it with the new legendary commander). These aircraft can literally outrun some of the fighters they come up against, making them capable of leading them on merry chases forever and a day. Similarly, their high speed and durability trivializes modest AA defenses and get through with few (if any) casualties. Indomitable's bombers are tough as nails, but it pays to invest in every health upgrade you can afford to give them. These aircraft will be your mainstay damage dealers, so do everything you can to keep them intact. Complications I only have two general areas of complaint with Indomitable's bombers -- penetration and their agility. I'll start with the latter mostly because it was a Hell of a lot of work to isolate. Agility wise, Idomitable's bombers are great in a straight line. However, they're as awkward and uncoordinated as Wargaming's PR and marketing departments. Indomitable's bombers require a RIDICULOUS amount of room to come about. While boosted, their turning circle radius is a whopping 1,700m! Even at normal speed, it isn't much better requiring 1,200m. The aircraft are slow to respond to commands and feel sluggish compared to the American or Implacable's bombers. These are not winning any agility prizes. No, I don't know why so many aircraft had similar agility. Lexington and Enterprise make sense (they're the same aircraft, after all) but the others? No clue. Happy coincidence, I guess. If you elect to make follow up attack runs with Indomitable's bombers, don't try and turn about immediately. Power through the ship's AA bubble before you begin coming about. It's ridiculously easy to overshoot targets with Indomitable's bombers. Her agility woes continue, though. While it looks like she shares parity with Graf Zeppelin's Ta-152s, this isn't the case. The German bombers are faster, having both a higher boosted speed (+40kts vs the +35kts of Indomitable's bombers) and better energy preservation besides. Graf Zeppelin (and most, if not all other carriers) can ride and flutter their throttle to extend the use of their plane's boost consumable. When Indomitable let's go of the W-key, her planes bleed all of the extra speed like they hit a brick wall. What energy preservation? Deceleration from boosted speed is a linear-loss. The longer aircraft can preserve speed, the better. The consumable has 20 seconds of active time and a 40 second reset timer. These both can be increased by 10% with an upgrade. Players may flutter the boost-power, stretching out its duration. Indomitable can't do this at all, losing everything almost instantly. Even her Attack Aircraft preserve speed better. Lert recklessly took his finger off the boost button while playtesting Indomitable's bombers. I wish I could take credit for this one, but this is all Chobittsu. As for Indomitable's HE bomb penetration, it's not terrible. It's simply not high enough to make it a universal threat against all targets. When she's top tier, the monstrous potential of what could have been is unleashed -- there are few ships at tiers VI and VII that have protection schemes to defend against 32mm of penetration. Indomitable wrecks all comers with her fast-cycling planes. Against tier VIII+ battleships and carrier, Indomitable's HE penetration starts feeling sub-standard. Shatters abound and her alpha-strike potential plummets. Neither of these two issues damns Indomitable's bombers. They're merely minor complications. 32mm of penetration is PRETTY good, but it's not good enough to hurt everything she comes across. I've left the AP bomb comparison out of this as their damage output is hella wonky, with impressive citadel hits, the occasional penetration or horrible over-penetration damage. HE bombs by contrast are pretty reliable in terms of their binary -- either a penetrating hit or the bomb shatters for zero damage until saturation kicks in. The Genuine Problem So let's recap: Indomitable has fast, tough planes. They're not especially agile and they don't preserve speed very well. Furthermore, Indomitable can't afford to take many losses -- she doesn't have the regeneration to recoup from mistakes being made. Screw up against flak, fighters or misjudge the potency of an AA-wall and you're in trouble. Finally, they do good direct damage against tier VI and VII targets, but struggle against tier VIII+ battleships and some aircraft carriers. In short, Indomitable's bombers over-perform against lower-tiered targets but they fall back into an unhealthy behaviour against higher tiered enemies. With AA power increasing, higher-tiered cruisers are generally off the menu. She can't afford running the gauntlet of taking even one or two casualties per attack run. Thus, Indomitable's design encourages players to focus on stacking fires against isolated, modest-AA defended battleships -- namely Japanese and German designs though any will do if there's a lack of available targets. Fire resistance cuts these values in half against tier X targets and by roughly 1/4 against tier VI targets. Indomitable tends to average 1-2 fires per attack-flight drop against most battleships. This game play is infuriating to suffer. Her bombers can outrun many fighters and outlast modest AA fire coming from a single battleship. A target 25km away will face repeat strikes from even a single flight every 50 seconds -- those fires will begin to stack and there's little to nothing they can do to stop it. They can't hide. They can't run. Their only hope is to be rescued by fighters fast enough to catch Indomitable's bombers and this isn't guaranteed or to find themselves under the combined AA umbrella of several allies. To the Indomitable player, the damage numbers this generates are incredibly rewarding. Big numbers. Lots of medals. All but guaranteed kills. Fun and Engaging 101. Why hunt cruisers and destroyers when battleships are such easy farms? Yes, Indomitable's bombers are capable of wrecking cruisers. Yes, they're perfectly suitable for nuking lolibotes, but why bother when you can Sky-Conqueror your way to the top of the experience pile? Sure, you might win more if you actually helped out your team and took out targets that mattered, but that's not going to help you average over 100k to 200k damage every match, now will it? Summary: Indomitable's bombers are powerful, versatile, fast and deadly. It's too bad all you're going to use them for is farming fire damage off battleships. Attack Aircraft Aircraft Type: de Havilland Sea Hornet Ordnance: Eight RP-3 60lb HE No1 Mk1 per aircraft Group Size: Six aircraft per squadron with two aircraft per attack flight Hit Points: 2,100hp per Aircraft Min/Cruising/Boosted Speed: 158kts/188kts/228kts I don't like Indomitable's attack aircraft. Well, I don't like attack aircraft in general and while I'm sure that bias carries over here, Indomitable's aircraft feel of poor quality compared to her bombers. They're fast, sure -- and that's probably the best thing about them. They have other positive traits, such as a good health pool, faster reset-timer between attacks and a decent fire-chance per rocket hit. However, we still need to be aware of Indomitable's lack of torpedo planes. Unlike her bombers, Indomitable's attack aircraft don't take up any of the slack. They don't exactly need to given the general cancerous awesomeness of her bombers. ("I'm sorry, son, you have cancer. The awesome kind of cancer.") And that's really the problem: most of the jobs you would delegate to attack aircraft are performed better by Indomitable's bombers. Thus Indomitable's rockets lack purpose. The only reason to take them out is when you're running low on bombers. Let's look at these aircraft in more detail: Survivability I'm not going to lie -- the survivability of Indomitable's Attack Aircraft is pretty damn good. This shouldn't be any surprise after her bombers. She hasless exposure time to damaging effects and more health to tank through it. While this doesn't make her aircraft invincible by any means, it does all but guarantee that her planes will survive long enough to deliver an attack provided you don't drive into a flak explosion or fighter swarm. It's the speed of her aircraft that are the real superstars. At 188kts cruising speed, she covers 5km every 10 seconds. This accelerates not only her ability to deliver strikes but also to return the limited number of aircraft to which she has access. Indomitable's Sea Hornets have the same hit point pool as Implacable's Seafires which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but whatever. Indomitable has not only the fastest attack aircraft at tier VIII, but some of the fastest attack aircraft in the whole game. The same problems that plagued her bombers are repeated here. She doesn't have the reserves to tough-out taking sustained casualties. As resilient as her individual aircraft are, every loss hurts. Indomitable has an absolute maximum of twenty-five (25) attack aircraft to play with over the course of the game with more realistic numbers sitting closer around sixteen to twenty depending on frequency of use and game duration. Losing a mere eight aircraft in quick succession severely limits her ability to deliver-repeat strikes without a pronounced wait on aircraft return times. Her attack aircraft agility sucks too but it isn't as much of a disparity gap as it was with her bombers: Unlike ships, if you want to improve both the rate of turn and turning radius for aircraft, hit the brakes. With her airbrakes, Indomitable's Attack Aircraft have a 30.6º/s rotation rate and 790m turning radius. Don't boost -- that just makes everything worse. The horrible agility and twitchy aim marker makes lining up shots with Indomitable's rockets difficult unless you start VERY far out. Any kind of manoeuvring will throw off your lead Indomitable's attack aircraft have a very short recovery timer after a run. This allows Indomitable to make repeat-attacks faster than her contemporaries, however it limits the range of her sling-shot immunity from AA fire. In addition, her Sea Hornets cannot make a fast-recall like other attack aircraft. Ordnance As controversial as rockets are, Indomitable's are pretty forgettable. Their individual damage values are decent and their fire chance per hit is good. However, their flight fires only a modest 16 per salvo limiting their effectiveness. It's not that these weapons are terrible, they're simply average while those of many other aircraft carriers are much better or at least more interesting. On paper, the stats of Indomitable's individual rockets are pretty good. Comparison of the tech-tree carrier rocket-ordnance including the shape of their attack reticle. Comparison of the premium carrier rocket-ordnance and the shape of their attack reticles. Protecting the Lolibotes Indomitable's rockets were nerfed repeatedly over the course of her development to limit their effectiveness against destroyers. They had their damage reduced and dispersion worsened. Only half of Indomitable's rockets will ever land towards the center of the target marker, greatly limiting the maximum amount of damage possible in a single run unless hitting a chunktacular-sized vessel. Photoshop composite showing the size and shape of Indomitable's fully aimed rocket reticle. Aircraft are moving from the bottom of the screen to the top. Reference-Mahan™ for scale. The orientation of this aiming reticle makes it harder to land hits against small targets like destroyers compared to the perpendicular drop pattern of American FFAR and HVAR rockets. The 27mm of penetration on Indomitable's rockets repeats her improved performance parameters against tier VI and tier VII targets of all types. When Indomitable is top tier, there isn't anything her rockets are incapable of preying upon, delivering reliable damage against cruisers and battleships and supplementing her bombers well. When facing tier VIII+ ships, the number of targets reduces. In theory, she should still be quite effective against cruisers and some carriers, however, the level of anti-aircraft firepower from most of these ships at tier VIII+ precludes them from being viable targets until the very end of a match. If these ships absolutely must die, then certain her rockets are preferable to use over her more valuable bombers -- the larger effective health pool of six rocket planes versus four bombers will tough out AA better, but the casualties will cost Indomitable dear. While not essential for putting down the hurt on most vessels, higher penetration allows for more damage to a greater range of targets. With Indomitable's rocket penetration being kinda meh, it puts more of a burden on her bombers to carry her performance when dealing with high-tier battleships. Against ideal, soft targets, her damage caps out at 11,088hp per attack assuming they all hit and penetrate... which they won't. Effective fire resistance of most target ships will reduce the odds of stacking blazes. Indomitable's rockets are a poor choice for starting fires unless you can make repeat strikes. It's only against targets with very weak AA power where this is even remotely feasible. These are yet even more reasons that Indomitable's rockets should generally be relegated to pounding soft targets. Summary: Indomitable's rockets are okay. They feel pretty good when she's top tier. Make sure to use and abuse them when tier VI and VII targets are present as this takes some much needed strain off her bombers. Just remember: Her bombers are better and will do the same job more effectively. Fighters It's not uncommon for ships to use different types of aircraft for Combat Air Patrol (carrier defense) and Patrol fighters (summoned by squadrons). All of the tier VIII American carriers use Corsairs for CAP while they use a mix of Corsairs, Hellcats and Bearcats for patrol summons between Lexington, Enterprise and Saipan respectively. Indomitable is no different, making use of the same Seafires as Implacable for CAP and recruiting a wave of Sea Hornets for patrol duties. The latter are MUCH faster -- some of the fastest fighters in the game while the former are some of the slowest CAP fighters at tier VIII. Thankfully you can all but guarantee that whatever planes are coming towards your carrier will fly right into your Seafires so their speed is less of an issue. Indomitable uses Implacable's Seafires for her combat air patrol defense around the carrier. These orbit at a range of 1km around the ship and engage enemy aircraft that slip within 3km of their position. The flight size can be modified by taking the Direction Center for Fighters skill. Indomitable starts with four charges of CAP fighters but you may increase this to five if you take Superintendent (but why would you?). Nothing can outrun Indomitable's summoned Patrol Fighters. Once they lock on, casualties are all but guaranteed. Praying to RNGesus Indomitable is the great equalizer. Forget skill -- it will only take you so far with this ship. The layers of RNG are stacked pretty high with her performance. While timing and target selection matter, you can do everything right and still do poorly because your rockets scattered oddly or you didn't set that fire when it was optimal to do so. Fires and dispersion make all of the difference in Indomitable -- it's what separates a good game from a poor showing. You'll need between five and eight permanent fires to score a Witherer's medal -- that's five to eight fires pushed past an enemy battleship's Damage Control Party. If the numbers aren't coming up, there's not much you can do to stack damage quickly against higher tiered battleships. Similarly, bad bomb or rocket scattering can make even a perfectly lined shot fall flat. Conversely, a well timed triple (or quadruple!) fire and suddenly you're a rockstar. This is why I rag on Indomitable's low penetration and also why I say this ship patently over-performs when facing a glut of tier VI and VII targets. Lower-tier AA power largely doesn't matter, but more importantly she can partially bypass RNGesus. She's no longer reliant upon fires for her damage totals and can stack the hurt directly. I would have gladly traded some of Indomitable's alpha-strike and fire setting potential for better penetration or more accurate drops. It would have taken some of the lottery-feels out of her successes. This is what's so infuriating about playing with and against Indomitable. You're forever hoping RNG screws over your opponent. You don't need to get good in Indomitable, you just need to get lucky. The Ship Carrier hulls aren't worth noting until they're being shot at. There's really only one carrier currently in the game that rewards you for taking control of the hull and that's Graf Zeppelin. For every other CV in the game, the hull is just where your planes are stored. It's a box of hit points you try to keep as close to the action as possible while remaining hidden. Durability Hit Points: 51,400hp Maximum Citadel Protection: 114mm belt Minimum Hull Armour: 19mm to 21mm Flight Deck Armour: 25mm to 76mm Torpedo Damage Reduction: 28% Aircraft carriers are not known for their durability. British carriers have an marked flaw with their high-water citadels. Indomitable's citadel pokes up well over the waterline with a noticeable 'hump' beneath her conning tower. Taking hits to her machine spaces is tragically commonplace, even from incidental pot-shots. It's not all doom and gloom, however. Indomitable has good anti-torpedo defense for a carrier. She also boasts an armoured flight deck. The latter element provides some immunity to HE attacks and can ricochet poorly aimed (or poorly dispersed) long range AP fire. This only applies to the central part of the deck, however. Her bow and stern are still highly vulnerable to both HE and large caliber AP shell over-matching. Still, it's nice to see this historical element do it's job versus HE bomb attacks, allowing Indomitable to shrug off sniping attempts from dive bombers. Except AP bombs. Oh lordy, does she hate AP bombs. Damage over time (DoT) effects have very little impact on aircraft carriers and Indomitable is no exception. This is in part due to their long-duration, automatically deploying Damage Control Party which activates the moment critical damage is done and provides a 60 second immunity window. In addition, fires and floods simply don't last as long as they do on other types of ships and deal less damage. Maximum Fire Damage per Ship Type: Destroyers & Cruisers: 9% over 30 seconds. Graf Spee: 13.5% over 45 seconds. Battleships & Large Cruisers: 18% over 60 seconds. Aircraft Carriers: 2% over 5 seconds. Maximum Flood Damage per Ship Type: Destroyers & Cruisers: 10% over 40 seconds. Graf Spee: 15% over 40 seconds. Battleships & Large Cruisers: 20% over 40 seconds. Aircraft Carriers: 7.5% over 30 seconds. Thus attempting to stack DoTs to bring down a carrier is a fool's errand, really. Even if you do get past their Damage Control Party, the returns just really aren't worthwhile. This was ostensibly designed to mitigate the effectiveness of aircraft carriers sniping one another. The result of this is to make direct damage the only effective way of sinking the ship itself. Indomitable is super squishy. The best thing about her protection scheme is her armoured deck which can shrug off HE hits that avoid striking its extremities. However, her enormous, high-water citadel means that it's always (ALWAYS) worth a battleship's time to fire Hail Mary shots from across the map at her if she's spotted. Heavy cruisers should do the same. Citadel hits from the extremes of range are painfully commonplace. Agility Top Speed: 30.5kts Listed Turning Radius: 970m Rudder Shift Time: 13.0s 4/4 Engine Speed Rotation Rate: 3.2º/s Well, this section's going to be hella brief. Aircraft carrier agility is a cruel joke. They can barely manage to maintain 2/3s of their forward momentum when you touch their rudder. The only thing that's ever considered good about their agility is their top speed. Indomitable is downright mediocre in this regard, barely managing to exceed 30 knots. Running away means sailing straight lines or risk being overtaken by even the pedestrian velocities of some of the tier VIII battleships. It's not like her autopilot is going to do her any favours either. They're all pretty terrible but Kaga gets the special loser-points for being so slow. I do get a laugh that Indomitable can turn inside her own aircraft. Refrigerator Base Surface Detection: 13.5km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 10.61km Air Detection Range: 10.58km Indomitable's surface detection range is decidedly average for a tier VIII carrier though her aerial detection is a bit on the high side. That "Minimum Surface Detection Range" is a pipe dream -- you're not going to use Concealment System Modification 1 so Indomitable's surface concealment tends to cap out at around 11.79km Secondaries Secondary Battery: Sixteen 113mm/45 rifles in 8x2 turrets with four on each side of the ship. Her turrets are not superfiring and arranged on platform-wings jutting out from the front and rear of the flight deck. Graf Zeppelin, this carrier is not. Indomitable's secondaries are a mere afterthought. These dual purpose weapons work better as anti-aircraft mounts than anti-surface weapons and they don't win any prizes for the former. I took her out and tried to have her sink a stationary Reference-Mahan™ at a range of 4km with secondary fire only. It took over 230 shells fired (that's two and a half minutes worth of shooting) to sink the darned thing and that's largely owing to some lucky fires. Don't waste your time with these. If you squint, you can make out the secondaries fore and aft on their isolated platforms. Unless a target is completely broadside, you're not bringing all four turrets onto a target. Indomitable has an 8° blindspot directly forward and an 18º blindspot to the rear where an enemy ship can sit with impunity. Anti-Aircraft Defense Flak Bursts: Four for 1,330 damage per blast. Long Ranged AA: ~88dps at 5.8km Medium Ranged AA: ~228dps at 3.5km Short Ranged AA: ~366dps at 2.0km I kinda wanted to rag on Indomitable for her AA not being up to scratch, but looking at the numbers, she's alright'. Indomitable's AA firepower is based around point defense, with the majority of her AA limited to engaging aircraft just before or during an ordnance launch. This isn't ideal -- I'd prefer to see a lot more teeth in her 3.5km batteries as per Implacable but whatever. Ranking wise, I'd put her tied with Graf Zeppelin overall which is just ahead of Saipan, Shokaku and Kaga. Most of Indomitable's AA defense comes from her multitude of 20mm Oerlikon mounts. Seriously, those things are scattered everywhere. It's pretty impressive. Aircraft Carrier Summary I've got to give Indomitable's hull failing marks. The carrier's purpose is to keep out of harm's way and cycle aircraft. Indomitable isn't terrible at the former -- she doesn't win any prizes, though. She's pretty darned awful at the latter. Unremarkable AA power, agility and concealment. Below average durability due to high vulnerability to AP citadel hits. Her armoured deck is nice but it rarely comes into play short of being attacked by other carriers or long-range HE spam. Hangar capacity is stupid-small with very long aircraft recovery times. Laughable secondaries. Final Evaluation I was expecting this ship to be released with patch 0.8.2. The early rework was Hell for me. Not only was I trying to familiarize myself with the new CV systems, I was trying to make myself expert on Indomitable on a short time frame. I put in over 100 games in this ship between patches 0.8.0 and 0.8.0.3. This was when the changes to AA power and aircraft performance were almost constant. I fully expected Indomitable to be released with the British Aircraft Carrier tech-tree; if not with Hermes, Glorious and Implacable in patch 0.8.1, then surely with Audacious in patch 0.8.2. There was never enough time. But those deadlines came and went. More changes occurred and the data I had collected faded to frustrating obsolescence. Indomitable was hit with a few small evolutionary changes for patch 0.8.3 and I put in almost another 100 games, updating my notes. This was especially hard to do with my health struggles at the time, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't behind the curve with the carrier rework. And then nothing happened. Indomitable disappeared. She went back into the vault even as the rework continued. What followed was a series of dramatic changes to her performance but with no follow-up testing. Indomitable lost one of her most defining features -- the ability to have her aircraft exceed 250 knots. I didn't get to play test her through this. Anti-aircraft firepower became ridiculously powerful only to see-saw back towards a much more modest state we have currently. I didn't get to play test her through these changes either. Indomitable was placed upon the back burner. Ark Royal ended up being released instead -- a much better and more interesting premium carrier in my opinion. Indomitable made a reappearance late in 2019, hidden among all the fuss and fluff of the then upcoming (and highly anticipated with much positivity!) Puerto Rico build. I still didn't get to play test her during this time and expressed some pretty firm concerns that she might have lost her pizazz. Y'see, with all of the games I had played with her previously, I had actually found some enjoyment in the rampant fire-setting sadism that Indomitable provided. Looking back, I think this might have been some abusive transference. I was in pain. Keeping track of the CV rework was similarly a pain. So, sharing the hurt around seems entirely in character and reasonable. The kinder, gentler and more fluffy Mouse of today doesn't do that. I don't need to farm Witherer medals in Indomitable anymore -- the hurt has gone away. I don't need to terrorize poor destroyers and battleships with her planes to spread hate for the CV rework. I have Ark Royal for that. Whatever charms Indomitable once held have long since faded. She's pretty boring to play. Don't get me wrong -- she can generate the numbers so long as you're okay with farming useless damage off battleships. Getting those big numbers, farming Witherer medals and hoovering up the hate in chat is amusing too. But she's definitely not a great performer. I think Wargaming is understandably gun-shy about releasing a carrier premium that's anywhere close to "good" these days. Graf Zeppelin is never allowed to be good ever again and Indomitable stands proudly beside that train wreck as a whole bucket-load of meh. At least both of them are interesting design concepts, I'll give 'em that much. There's always a chance that if Indomitable under-performs that she'll get buffed in the future, but I don't honestly see that coming in any significant way. Here we are almost a year after my testing of Indomitable began, near unto the one year anniversary of the CV-rework. I wish I could go back and tell myself to go lie down and take a few months off. The final product that Indomitable became isn't worth the attention. I'm not sure the rework is either. Would I Recommend? Generally speaking? No, if only because Ark Royal is a thing. Not only does the tier VI premium come at a lower price point, she's much more interesting and fun to play. It's a shame because Indomitable looks gorgeous. The potential is also there but in practice her game play is so repetitive and infuriating. Indomitable is arguably the weakest (or at least, the most inconsistent) of the tier VIII premium carriers. As a co-op boat, she's an especially poor choice. It takes time to stack fires -- time is at a premium in such encounters. Conclusion Thank you all so much for reading. The next reviews will be short and sweet, each covering the new Pan Asian clones Wukong, Bajie and Siliwangi. Look for them soon!
  8. How about a semi Frankenstein British battleship that has a kind of hull, main armament, speed, about the same armor as the hood, gun lay out as gneisenau, and secondary's and structure as warspite. I am talking about the HMS Renown. Renown was laid in 1916 , she and repulse set a record on being the fastest capital ships upon completion. she didn't see action in ww1, but was overhauled twice in between. during ww2, she was part of the group to hunt the graf spee that was sinking merchants at the time. unfortunately, she couldn't be able to find the ship. She was part of the British squadron that was sent to the Norwegian campaign and came across the Scharnhorst ang gneisenau, she received minor damage but also critically damaged gneisenau in return. She was later part of the search group to find the Bismarck, although the ship did find Bismarck's supply ship. after this she was sent home for repairs and upgrades. after this, she was sent to protect the winter convoys to Russia, then transferred to protect the carriers for Operation Torch. after this, she was sent home to have her aircraft removed and her AA upgraded and added. After this, she helped send Winston Churchill back home. She was sent to the pacific to help in Operation Cockpit and bombarded enemy positions at the Nicobar islands and Andaman islands. She continued with other operations until she was relieved by Queen Elizabeth. She was sent home for another refit but was cancelled. She hosted a meeting with King George Vi and President Truman, and after this she was scrapped and survived a few days longer than the carrier Furious. The Renown that I would like to see in the game is the 1939 refit. The reason for this is because I believe that hood and warspite had a baby and had a extra cromosone from gneisenau. I think she can do well in the game as she will have pretty much the same things as a a regular tier VI regular British battleship but in a tier VII slot right next to hood. naturally, hood would at least be 2 or so knots faster than renown, but dreams can be dreams I guess.
  9. someone suggested the HMS (ex SS) Carmania (1905), well here she is with as much info as I can get *the other participant will be added in a separate post* HMS Carmania Ship Specs: Length: 650.4 ft (198.2 m) 678 ft (207 m) LOA Width: 72.2 ft (22.0 m) Tonnage: 19,542 GRT Armament: 8 x 1 QF 4.7 in gun MK V Machinery Specs: Propulsion: 8 double-ended boilers and 5 single ended boilers 3 Parson Steam Turbines (high pressure for center shaft and low pressure for other shafts) x3 shafts Speed: 18 knots *this is an idea and it may not go into the game thank you captains*
  10. The hunt of HMS Splendid and HMS Spartan, both nuclear-powered submarines on Argentine aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo during the Falklands War. (Fun Fact: ARA Veinticinco de Mayo is formerly HMS Venerable, a Colossus-class WW2 carrier) After seeing this latest video from Mark Felton, I feel more excited for submarines to come to WoWS.
  11. rafael_azuaje

    LONDON NEED BUFF!

    Great analysis! I just want to know why London is premium and Devonshire not. It seems than both are similar, but DEvon is better in many aspects: - Better torps and main battery reload time - Better torps speed and distance - Better antitorp protection - Better main battery range - Better AA - Better DPM - Better HP recovery - Better concealment Better Hydro - better etc.... The london it seems better in speed (+1 knot) Those without significant captain skills and upgrades. (The skill selecte for both ships are Priority taget and Expert Marksman) my Devonshire has Demolition Expert activated.
  12. So... Something that has been bothering me about the London. It's guns. More specifically, it's range. 13.4 KM. First, that is an atrocious range for a T6. The Exeter, London, and Devonshire all share the exact same guns. The 50 BL Mk. VIII's. However, both the Exeter and the Devonshire outrange it. Even the Hawkins, with worse guns, outranges it by half a kilometer. I mean, I get that it has smoke, and you can 'sneak up and smoke and shoot.' But if that's the case, you would go with a ship like the Leander, which does the same thing, has the same range, fires twice as fast, has a better heal and has 2 KM better firing in smoke concealment. A premium ship is supposed to be on par with the tier that it is at, right? London isn't even on par against the tier below it! There has to be something done. Longer range, or less smoke firing penalty, better concealment. Something. Right now, it's a ship I pretty much regret wasting my time to complete the quests for.
  13. I noticed the new high tier British CAs have 114 mm secondary batteries, as do the UK carriers. Are they good for anything except causing the occasional fire? Can they penetrate tier 8 - 10 destroyer hulls? Do the 114s on the new UK CAs get the increased HE penetration like the main batteries? Thanks!
  14. Ok, 9.0 is nigh and this is the low down on the event. Once again, WG is not giving out sufficient info before the patch drops, so some info will have to wait until the patch drops. Index Start and stop times Earning British Tokens (Directives, Daily Chains, & Daily Shipments) Spending British Tokens (Early access bundles and maybe other stuff) UK CAs (heavy cruisers) early access and how they work PA New Year Server Outage compensation (Jan 11th-15th) Start and stop times. Patch 9.0 is scheduled to drop at 8am EST on Wed, Jan 15th. The maintenance window starts at 5am EST. Patch 9.0 is expected to end at 5am EST on Wed, Feb 12th when the maintenance window for 9.1 starts. A new Directive starts each week and ALL Directives end at 2am PST Mon, Feb 10th, so plan on being done by end of day on Sun, Feb 9th. Directive I starts with the patch drop, likely 8am EST, Wed Jan 15th. Directive II likely starts 5am EST, Mon Jan 20th. Directive III likely starts 5am EST, Mon Jan 27th. Directive IV likely starts 5am EST, Mon Feb 3rd. You must complete Dir I, before you can start on Dir II, even if Dir II has started. Daily Chains will have British Tokens starting 5am EST, Fri, Jan 17th and will likely end at 2am PST Thu, Feb 6th. So 20 days from Jan 17th to Feb 5th likely means 10 per day between the two Daily Chains. Daily Shipments will start at 8am Wed, Jan 15th and end at 2am PST Wed, Jan 29th. So the last day to collect a Daily Shipment is Tue, Jan 28th. To collect all 10 rewards, you have to start collecting by Sun, Jan 19th. PA Lunar New Year starts Fri, Jan 24th at 2am PST and ends Mon, Feb 10th at 2am PST, so plan on being done by end of the day Sun, Feb 9th. Earning British Tokens (600 total available) You will be able to earn British Tokens in the Directives, Daily Chains and Daily Shipments only during 9.0. You will be able to spend the Tokens in Armory from 9.0 through 9.1. When 9.2 drops they will be converted to credits. So 9.2 is scheduled for Wed, Mar 11th currently and Brit Tokens will be converted at the rate of 1 for 4,500 credits when that patch drops. Directives (360 total) There will be 4 Directives with one coming out each week. Each Directive will likely have 8-10 Missions (36 total) and you will likely need to complete 5-7 Missions to complete a Directive. There will be 360 British Tokens in the Directives and the British Tokens are apparently the reward for completing the Directives. The Brit Token rewards will average 90 per Directive, but will likely be between 50 and 200 per Directive (starting low to high) to add up to the 360 total. A new Directive starts each week and ALL Directives end at 2am PST Mon, Feb 10th. Directive I starts with the patch drop, likely 8am EST, Wed Jan 15th. Complete 5 of the 9 Missions to complete the Directive and the reward is 80 British Tokens. Directive II likely starts 5am EST, Mon Jan 20th. Complete 5 of the 9 Missions to complete the Directive and the reward is 80 British Tokens. Directive III likely starts 5am EST, Mon Jan 27th. Complete 5 of the 9 Missions to complete the Directive and the reward is 100 British Tokens. Directive IV likely starts 5am EST, Mon Feb 3rd. Complete 5 of the 9 Missions to complete the Directive and the reward is 100 British Tokens. You must complete Dir I, before you can start on Dir II, even if Dir II has started. Daily Chains (200 total) The Daily Chains from Fri, Jan 17th through Wed, Feb 5th will have a TOTAL of 200 Brit Tokens. That is 20 days of Daily Chains, so expect there to be 10 Brit Tokens per day which would be 5 per Daily Chain that day. You get 5 Brit Tokens for completing each Daily Chain. Daily Shipments (40 total) The Daily shipments run from Wed, Jan 15th through Tue, Jan 28th. If you want to collect all the Daily Shipment, you have to start by Sun, Jan 19th at the latest. To collect a Daily Shipment, you need to log into the game and go to the Daily Shipments tab to click and collect your Shipment for that day. You can set the Shipments tab to come up automatically when you log into the game in the Shipment tab. Shipments Rewards are below. 1st - 3x Union Jack one-use camouflages 2nd - 10 British Tokens 3rd - 50,000 credits 4th - 10 British Tokens 5th - 3x Union Jack one-use camouflages 6th - 10 British Tokens 7th - 50,000 credits 8th - 10 British Tokens 9th - 50 doubloons 10th - 1 day of Warships Premium Account Spending British Tokens NOTE: Per WG, If you get an early access ship from one of the bundle types, you can STILL GET THE SAME ship from the other type of bundle. You get credit compensation for duplicates. So for example, if you get an early access Hawkins CA from the Token bundles, you can still get the Hawkins CA from the Doubloon bundles and you will credit compensation. You can spend British Tokens in patches 9.0 and 9.1. That is scheduled to be from Wed, Jan 15th to Wed, Mar 11th. When patch 9.2 drops, on what is scheduled to be Wed, Mar 11th, any left over Brit Tokens will be converted to credits at the rate of 1 to 4,500 credits. The big item to spend Brit Tokens on is the Token bundles. Currently we do not know the amount of Token bundles that will be available when the patch drops, but we found out it is INFINITE likely between 20 and 30 bundles. Four of the bundles will be the four early access T5 to T8 UK CAs that will include the perma-camos this patch which is new. Token Bundles You will have one bundle, randomly determined, for purchase for 20 British Tokens in the Armory. Once you buy that bundle, a new randomly determined bundle will be offered. There will be 11 variants of bundles with likely an infinite number of bundles that are not the ships. You can only get an early access ship once, but you can get the other 7 bundle options infinite times. The other bundles you will be able to get a certain number of times, listed in the Armory. If this is like past events of this type, there should be enough British Tokens available (600) to buy all the Token bundles. So if you buy all the Token bundles, you may or may not end up with the 4 early access UK CAs. If RNG is bad for you, you may not get a ship at all. There may or may are not other things to spend the British Tokens on in the Armory.. NOTE: The ships are the rarest of the bundles, so it may take many bundles to get a ship. IF RNG is bad for you, you may not get a ship. Since there is nothing else to spend the British Tokens on, go ahead and buy the bundles with Tokens and see what you get. NOTE: The T5 to T8 UK CA early access ships WILL BE available in the tech tree to grind for in 9.1, which is scheduled for Wed, Feb 12th. NOTE: Per WG, If you get an early access ship from one of the bundle types, you can STILL GET THE SAME ship from the other type of bundle. You get credit compensation for duplicates. So for example, if you get an early access Hawkins CA from the Token bundles, you can still get the Hawkins CA from the Doubloon bundles and you will credit compensation. Doubloon Bundles You can possibly get the same early access UK CAs in the Brit Token bundles, so you DO NOT NEED to buy the dub bundles to get ships. There will be doubloon bundles you can buy in the Armory for 1,000 dubs each. They will have the same four early access UK CAs as the Token bundles and other items as well. There may be as many as 65(!) dub bundles in the Armory. The more dub bundles there are, the less likely you are to get an early access ship as a random offering. You will have one bundle, randomly determined, for purchase for 1,000 doubloons in the Armory. Once you buy that bundle, a new randomly determined bundle will be offered. There will be 13 variants of bundles with as many as 65(!) bundles total. You can only get an early access ship once. The other bundles you will be able to get a certain number of times, listed in the Armory. If you do not value the other items in the bundles, I highly, highly suggest not buying the doubloon bundles. Since there will be 4 ship bundles among 65 dub bundles, ships will appear rarely. If you are not happy with possibly spending tens of thousands of doubloons, I highly, highly suggest not buying the doubloon bundles. The dub bundles are likely there for the whales with money to burn to whom spending LOTS of money to get something they want now, is not a concern for them. NOTE: The T5 to T8 UK CA early access ships WILL BE available in the tech tree to grind for in 9.1, which is scheduled for Wed, Feb 12th. NOTE: Per WG, If you get an early access ship from one of the bundle types, you can STILL GET THE SAME ship from the other type of bundle. You get credit compensation for duplicates. So for example, if you get an early access Hawkins CA from the Token bundles, you can still get the Hawkins CA from the Doubloon bundles and you will credit compensation. UK heavy cruisers (CAs) The T5 Hawkins, T6 Devonshire, T7 Surrey and T8 Ablemarle will be in early access. These are still WIP ships and these stats may still change before the line goes live in 9.1 which is scheduled for Wed, Feb 12th. Pics and stats in the spoiler. - They will be semi-premium ships in that you can put any Cmdr into the ship. - You can grind XP on the ships, but can not use that XP to research the next ship until the line goes live in 9.1 which is scheduled for Wed, Feb 12th. - Any Cmdrs placed on the early access ship, that are not already trained for that ship, will need re-training when the ship goes live, if they want to stay on that ship. - NOTE, all the early access ships will be fully researched but will have stock modules mounted. So make sure to mount the upgraded modules if you get an early access ship. Contrary to past events of this type, the early access ships will come with perma-camos which are worth 1,000 to 3,000 doubloons depending on tier. The T5 Hawkins starts the line and may branch off of the T5 Emerald instead of the usual tier before the split. The T9 Drake and T10 Goliath are scheduled for 9.1 when the line goes live which is scheduled for Wed, Feb 12th. NOTE: These early access ships will be tech tree ships when the line goes live which is scheduled for Wed, Feb 12th. PA Lunar New Year Starts Fri, Jan 24th at 2am PST and ends Mon, Feb 10th at 2am PST, so plan on being done by end of the day Sun, Feb 9th. During the PA Lunar New Year Event, you can earn up to 8 Lunar New Year containers for completing a Big Fireworks mission chain. The container contents are listed below, but include chances (very small) at PA premium ships. If you get a ship/perma-camo you already have, you are almost certainly going to be compensated in credits for the duplicate. Here are the requirements of the mission chain. You must complete one Part of the chain, before you can move on to the next Part. Using T5+ ships in Random, Co-op, and/or Scenario battles; Part 1 - Win six battles and get one Lunar New Year container. Part 2 - In battles, earn 15 "Hits to citadel" ribbons and get one Lunar New Year container. Part 3 - In battles, sink 10 enemy ships and get one Lunar New Year container. Part 4 - In battles, earn 30 "Set on fire" ribbons and get one Lunar New Year container. Part 5 - In battles, earn 15 "Captured", "Assisted in capture", and/or "Defended" ribbons and get one Lunar New Year container. Part 6 - In battles, earn 60,000 XP and get one Lunar New Year container. Once you complete all 6 Parts of the Mission Chain, you will get two Lunar New Year containers and two Asian Lantern one-use camos. Lunar New Year containers The Lunar New Year containers will have Pan-Asian premium ships, alternate perma-camos, FXP, doubloons, premium days, and one-use camos. The perma-camos have the standard bonuses based on the tier of the permium ships they are set for. While not explictly stated, it appears that each container will contain ONE of the following per the Premium shop (the graphic is misleading); either a perma-camo OR a ship OR one of 5,000 FXP OR 250 doubloons OR one WoWs premium day OR 3 Lunar New Year one-use camos OR one of 1 Asian Lantern OR 1 Spring Sky OR 1 Mosaic OR 1 Type 59 one-use camos. During the event, there are other rewards you can get. Festive Discounts and Gift Starts Fri, Jan 24th at 2am PST and ends Fri, Jan 31st at 2am PST, so plan on being done by end of the day Thu, Jan 30th. +200% XP first win bonus for each ship each day -50% to the cost of Port slots in doubloons in game -50% to the cost of upgrades in credits -50% to the cost of demounting upgrades in doubloons Starts Fri, Jan 24th at 2am PST and ends Mon, Jan 27th at 2am PST, so plan on being done by end of the day Sun, Jan 26th. Convert Elite Commander XP (ECXP) into Free XP (FXP) at the rate of 1 doubloon for 35 FXP Warships Premium Account for Victory (can only be done once per account) Starts Fri, Jan 24th at 2am PST and ends Mon, Feb 10th at 2am PST, so plan on being done by end of the day Sun, Feb 9th. Win a battle with a T5+ ship and get a commemorative flag and 3 Wargaming containers. The Wargaming containers each contain 1 day of WoWs premium time, 3 Papa Papa signals and 3 Juliet Charlie signals. The flag is honoring the Year of the White Metal Rat. The premium ship is selling premium Lunar New Year boxes for $3 each. The prizes are similar to above, but 3-5 times more items depending on what drops. https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/sales-and-events/missions-090-weekly-1/ PA Lunar New Year missions Article Server Outage compensation Jan 11th to Jan 15th, times in thread Notes: Articles referenced: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-updates/british-cruisers/ came out on Jan 13th Edits: First post: 2100 Mon, Jan 13th Edit 1400 Wed, Jan 15th Directives, bundles in the Armory and PA Lunar New Year Edit 1415 Wed, Jan 15th credit compensation for duplicates and you can get the SAME early access ship from the Token bundles AND the Doubloon bundles. Edit 1841 Wed, Jan 15th made the Missions in the spoilers easier to read Edit: Server Outage compensation Fri, Jan 17th 1515 Edit: Fri, Jan 17th Daily Chains Edit: Thu, Jan 23rd 0930 PA missions article Edit: Thu, Jan 23rd 1050 Expanded on the PA Lunar New Year event Edit: Fri, Jan 24th 0724 Lunar New Year containers are random drops per the premium ship, the graphic was misleading
  15. HMS Vanguard is the ghost of the Royal Navy battleship tech tree everyone wanted to see. Ostensibly, HMS Vanguard was designed to be a tier VIII version of HMS Warspite. However, Vanguard falls short of this aspiration. For a high-tier Royal Navy battleship, she's surprisingly not idiot-proof, with a vulnerable citadel that needs to be protected with angling and manoeuvres. What's most exciting: Her AP shells are wonderful. Wargaming has offered some concessions to both of the fans of the current Royal Navy battleship line. They included HMS Monarch's excellent high explosive shells to Vanguard's arsenal, ensuring that these two players can continue spamming HE without a guilty conscience while everyone else rolls their eyes. I want to thank Wargaming for providing me access to this ship. This is the release version of the vessel and all of the statistics discussed here are current as of November 15th, 2018. PROS Large hit point pool of 71,700hp. Main battery has a quick 25s reload and excellent gun handling. Has the same dispersion pattern as Warspite, Hood and Queen Elizabeth and boasts 2.0 sigma, making her one of the most precise battleships in the game. Excellent AP and HE performance for a 381mm shell, including good penetration and damage values, rewarding versatile ammunition choice. Very fast rudder shift time for a battleship of 9.7 seconds. Improved Repair Party, queuing and healing back more than standard and with fast reset timer. CONS Exposed, above-water citadel. Absolutely appalling firing angles on her main battery. Main battery is only eight 381mm rifles creating issues with overmatching and DPM. AA defense is for self defense only and is concentrated in 3.5km range, medium caliber mounts that are easily knocked out. Large turning radius of 850m and slow rate of turn exacerbates the issues with her fire angles. Overview The maximum rotation positions of X and Y turret (her rear guns). They are not new-player friendly. They're not even veteran-player friendly. Vanguard's terrible fire angles so utterly dominate her game play, I felt the tremendous compulsion to wear white-lace and beg her to be gentle. These fire angles screwed me over more times than I can count. Skill Floor: Simple / Casual / CHALLENGING / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / HIGH / Extreme Vanguard encourages players to sail with their broadsides exposed. With her above-water citadel, you can imagine how well she's going to go over with novice players. You know what? Never mind the novices. The veterans are going to find this frustrating too as it limits the amount of firepower she can dish out when trading. She's a battleship that reward cautious, opportunistic play -- which is review-speak for "hide in the back, shoot when you can and don't brawl". – One of, if not the worst at its tier. This is a pronounced weakness. – Middle of the pack at its tier. Not terrible, but not terribly good either. – Has a significant advantage over her tier mates. A solid, competitive performer. – No other ship at its tier does this as well as this ship. Vanguard has strengths and weaknesses across the board, giving her a rating in Offense, Agility, Anti-Air and Vision Control. It's only in Defense where she stands out with a rating. Her citadel is very vulnerable for a battleship, however she counters this with a the largest hit point pool at her tier and an amazing Repair Party consumable. Options Aside from Vanguard's Repair Party, there's nothing out of the ordinary to be found here. Consumables Vanguard's Damage Control Party is standard for a British battleship. She has unlimited charges. It has a 15 second action time and a 120s / 80s reset timer. Her Repair Party is improved. See the DEFENSE section below. There's a lot to go over. This starts with 3 charges base. Upgrades Optimization of Vanguard's upgrades will see the usual suspects rear their tired old heads. Start with Main Armaments Modification 1. Next take Damage Control Systems Modification 1. You've got a choice in your third slot. As ever, emphasizing gunnery is best so your first pick here should be Aiming Systems Modification 1. However, if you're salty about CVs, taking AA Guns Modification 2 is an okay choice. It's not great, but it's okay. Damage Control Modification 2 is arguably the best choice for most players in slot 4. You can elect to take Steering Gears Modification 2 to emphasize the strengths of her already quick rudder shift time. Be aware this is harder to make use of optimally even if it can yield higher results -- it's easier to tank damage than it is to dodge it, after all. Finally, take everyone's favourite no-brainer: Concealment Modification 1. Camouflage Vanguard comes with Type 10 Camouflage. This provides: 50% bonus experience gains 10% reduction to maintenance costs 3% reduction in surface detection 4% reduction in enemy accuracy. Firepower Main Battery: Eight 381mm guns in 4x2 turrets in an A-B-X-Y superfiring configuration. Secondary Battery: Sixteen 134mm guns in 8x2 turrets. These are superfiring with two forward facing and two rear facing per side. Secondaries Let's start with the small guns. You can largely forget that Vanguard has secondaries. These 134mm guns lack the range, reload time and volume of fire needed to present a credible threat to opponents. This is really unfortunate given their nice shell weight and fire chance. If they had the range or they had the rate of fire, maybe a secondary build would be fun to play around with. Lamentably, it's a mistake to invest anything in upgrading these weapons -- they simply can't do what you need them to. At best they might be able to start a fire on an enemy capital ship that strays too close. However, with Vanguard's high citadel, getting into a brawl is a death sentence, so stay out of secondary range. Main Battery Precision There's so much to like about Vanguard's main battery. First of, there's her precision. Vanguard is a blast from the past, sharing same horizontal dispersion value of the older British premium battleships, including Hood and Warspite. Inside of 12km, she overtakes even the vaunted Japanese battleship accuracy, making her much more adept at picking off close range targets like destroyers. Combined with her 2.0 sigma value, landing hits feels very comfortable, even at long ranges. Standard dispersion test for my reviews -- 180 shells fired at 15km locked onto a stationary target Fuso without camouflage. She was equipped with Aiming Systems Modification 1. Vanguard doesn't quite enjoy the same level of precision as Warspite owing to her faster shell velocity and energy preservation. This gives her a larger vertical dispersion area at all ranges. However, this does lead to improved shell lead times making gunnery easier. Note that Vanguard suffers from a lot of "downward drift" which adds a margin of error to these shell maps as I had to readjust aim with every volley fired. Thus the dispersion area maybe slightly smaller than shown. Shell Performance Vanguard's HE shells don't share the same performance anachronism as her dispersion. They're modern, almost (but not quite) matching HMS Monarch's HE, including her shell damage and penetration. Monarch's have a 1% higher chance to set blazes over Vanguard, though -- don't ask me why. Vanguard doesn't quite match up to the tech tree Royal Navy battleships for fire setting ability. This is good news to me -- it removes some of the brainless quality of HE spam. When you do reach over for her AP shells, you're rewarded with a welcome change from other Royal Navy battleship AP. Like Warspite before her, Vanguard has a longer fuse timer with her AP. This has a few effects. The downside is that she's more likely to overpenetrate soft targets, including broadside cruisers and battleship extremities. The upside is that it provides her AP with increased bite for reaching machine spaces and magazines buried deeper within the core of enemy warships -- especially those with spaced armour protecting their citadels. Vanguard is especially good at punishing broadside battleships at range. Approximate penetration values for Vanguard's AP shells. Vanguard's HE shells are fixed with 95mm of penetration -- not quite enough to punish the few exposed citadels found on high tier cruisers. Inertial Fuse for HE Shells will add a few more ships to the roster that her HE can punish, but it's not worth the points investment. Data pulled from World of Warships AP Calculator. Site linked in the appendix. Penetration wise, her AP shells are well setup, having comparable bite to Tirpitz and Bismarck. It pays to keep their caliber in mind, however. Her 381mm shells cannot overmatch the 27mm bows of American and German heavy cruisers. As good as Vanguard's AP shells are, spamming nothing but won't do you any more favours than if you used HE shells exclusively. Switch shells often in Vanguard and she'll reward you. Vanguard's fast 25 second reload facilitates swapping between ammunition while also padding her damage output when it comes time to cycle her guns. Damage output among the tier VIII battleships is very close. Vanguard keeps pace with her fast rate of fire, compensating for her smaller armament. As ever, take these numbers with a pinch of salt -- they do not represent the challenges of getting shells on target or penetrating when they get there. For whatever reason, Vanguard's HE shells only have a 34% base fire chance as opposed to Monarch's 35%. This creates an increased gap in their fire setting potential and makes Vanguard no better of a fire starter than American battleships. Still the increased damage she dispenses makes this more than worthwhile. Before any of you get yourself all hot and bothered about Monarch's fire setting, Cleveland (the gold-standard of tier VIII burnination) can spit out 9.97 fires per minute with the IFHE penalty and no other buffs. The same disclaimers apply for this chart as the others -- this is merely an indicator of performance and does not represent actual in game results. A myriad of factors will always conspire to mitigate a ship's ability to set fires including (but not limited to), target selection, opportunity, shell dispersion, fire resistance, etc. The Deal Breaker All of these strengths are present to pad for one massive weakness: Vanguard's appalling fire angles. Vanguard has a fast rate of fire, great HE shells, fast turret traverse and excellent precision because her fire angles are so bad. It's all meant to be compensation because Vanguard must present a near perfect broadside in order to fire all eight of her guns at a target. This leaves her incredibly vulnerable to reprisals. She is functionally incapable of autobouncing enemy shells while firing her full armament and instead she must rely on her armour thickness to repel shells. At anything but the longest of ranges, this is a fool's errand. Thus, Vanguard often has to sacrifice firepower in order to properly angle against her enemies. This is why her gun performance is so good: she's often forced to fight with only half of her weapons. Wargaming have done everything they can to make it easier to bring the other half to bear when possible. Her gun traverse is quick. Her reload is fast. She answers her rudder quickly too to help swing her butt out to unmask her guns. I'm not going to lie: These bad fire angles are enough to put me off this ship entirely, which is saying a lot given all of the wonderful perks her guns otherwise enjoy. Vanguard has the same (terrible) forward firing angles as the King George V-class battleships. However, her rearward firing angles are worse than the tier VII battleship. No matter how you choose to engage an enemy, when you use all eight of Vanguard's guns, you open yourself up to return-fire and potential citadel damage. Bad firing angles are one of my personal pet-peeves. I can stomach a lot of things, up to and including sluggish gun traverse, but not bad fire angles. This has greatly soured my opinion of this ship. Summary Secondaries are bad. Her main guns perform beautifully provided you can use all of them. Her fire angles will get you killed. Evaluation: What it would have needed to be : I almost gave her a rating here -- that's how bad her fire angles are. However, there's just too many perks glued onto her weapons to make that a fair assessment. She'd need a much faster rate of fire before I would consider bumping this up. Or, you know, completely redesign the ship to give her better fire angles. That would work too. Defense Hit Points: 71,700 Min Bow & Deck Armour: 32mm Maximum Citadel Protection: 356mm Torpedo Damage Reduction: 25% Armour Protection The 356mm/343mm armour is replicated again around her rear magazine. Her turret faces are 343mm front, 228mm side, 178mm rear, and 152mm on top with 305mm barbettes. Let's start with the elephant in the room: Vanguard's citadel sits over the waterline. Much fuss will be made over this and rightly so. Only Roma shares this high-water vulnerability and the Italian ship is much better equipped to angle and bounce incoming fire. The net effect is that Vanguard is more likely to take citadel damage than other battleships when someone catches her side. This isn't to say that citadel damage is an exclusive weakness to Vanguard. However, it pays to keep her vulnerability in mind. Her aforementioned firing angles on her main battery guns exacerbates this problem. When Vanguard is firing all eight of her weapons, whatever she's shooting at has an easy target from which to farm damage. What makes Vanguard's fire angles such a liability compared to other battleships has to do with autobounce mechanics. Let's get technical for a moment to explain why. If AP shells cannot overmatch armour, there's an autobounce check. This occurs before any penetration attempts are made. The angle of the shell is compared to the angle of the surface it strikes. Normally, battleship AP shells that hit with an acute angle of 30º or less will auto-ricochet. This is why bow-tanking is so prevalent -- shells simply slide off the ship's bow and deck, unable to bite into the armour. No matter how much penetration a shell has, if it strikes at too shallow of an angle, your ship can avoid damage. Normally, battleship AP shells that hit with an angle of 45º or more cannot autoricochet. Any shells that strike between 45º and 90º to the hull will follow normal penetration mechanics. In between these two values, the auto-ricochet chance scales linearly. For Vanguard, when she fires her all eight guns forward at a 43º angle, any return fire from her target has only a 13% chance of suffering a ricochet. When she fires all eight guns to the rear at a 40º angle, this improves to a 33% chance. Most battleships are capable of firing all of their guns 35º off their bow, allowing them to ricochet shells automatically 2/3s of the time. The steeper they angle themselves, the better this defense. This mechanic is absolutely essential for keeping battleships safe from the monstrous levels of penetration found at higher tiers. Not only does it provide a better chance of automatically deflecting shells, it adds relative thickness to their armour belts. The steeper you angle, the greater the effective thickness. Vanguard's belt has between 503mm and 522mm worth of protection at 43º. However, if she could fire at 35º off her bow, this would increase to 598mm to 621mm. Data pulled from proships.ru (link in the Appendix). Values are approximate, usually with about 5% higher estimates than Wargaming's values published in their Armada series of videos. You can see by these values that at range, Vanguard makes an excellent bully when top tier -- with rare exceptions, she can unmask her X and Y turrets and fire, confident that her belt will be proof against return fire. This falls away when dueling with tier VIII+ opponents. With few exceptions, they all have the raw penetration needed to best her belt while she fires a broadside. Her citadel protection isn't all bad, though. First off, AP bombs can't citadel you. Hooray! Second, shots that land high that attempt to bi-pass her belt and drop down into her citadel have to contend with a 32mm citadel roof. Only Yamato and Musashi's 460mm guns can overmatch this, meaning that any other shell will skip off the top of her machine spaces for only penetration damage. Thus it's only shots fired directly at her waterline which can damage her citadel. The use of Priority Target is almost a must to alert you when enemies are looking your way to give you time to angle in and protect yourself. Vanguard needs time to stack damage -- to find those moments where she can sit broadside and make excellent use of her precision and rate of fire but don't push your luck when you're taking hits. There's one last little point of contention with Vanguard's protection scheme: With the entirety of her deck and extremities boasting no more than 32mm of armour, Vanguard is a juicy target for light cruisers. Expect to burn a lot if they catch you out in the open. Provided you can protect Vanguard's citadel (and that's a pretty big if), she has the largest effective hit point pool of any of the tier VIII battleships. With optimal use of her consumable, her theoretical maximum (less Survivability Expert) effectively doubles her hit point pool. In practice, you're never going to see that kind of number. Repair Party If Vanguard appears a little squishy, she all but makes up for it with her excellent Repair Party consumable. While she doesn't boast the same portable dry-dock found on HMS Lion, Nelson and Conqueror, she has the next best thing. Here's the bonuses she has baked in: Her Repair Party resets quickly. The reset timer on consumable is 90 seconds / 60 seconds for standard / premium. Compare this to the usual 120 seconds / 80 seconds of the normal Repair Party. She queues up 60% of penetration damage. This is admittedly standard for Royal Navy battleships, so Vanguard doesn't stand apart from the rest of the ships in her line. For most other battleships it's 50%. Vanguard queues up 33% of citadel damage. This is huge. While it would best to avoid taking citadel damage of any kind, Vanguard heals up more than the 10% of other battleships. Keep in mind, this also applies to torpedo damage which is the most common form of citadel damage battleships receive. This is especially good in Vanguard's case given her poor anti-torpedo protection. She heals up to 16.8% of her hit points per charge. Normal Repair Party mechanics heal up only 14% over 28 seconds -- or 0.5% per second. Vanguard enjoys a 20% boost over this like Warspite, healing 0.6% per second over the same time period. With up to five charges at her disposal through the use of premium and skills, Vanguard's faster reset timer ensures that she's able to make full use of her health regeneration. Her enormous hit point pool also guarantees big returns as Repair Party scales with a ship's starting hit point total. Summary For all of Vanguard's potential vulnerability with her high citadel, she's well equipped to mitigate and manage said damage. When she's top tier, the vulnerability of her citadel drops down considerably, making her very powerful. Light cruisers are always going to be pain in the butt, though, and beware HE spam from battleships too. Vanguard isn't done yet with her tricks, though, as you'll see in the AGILITY section below. Evaluation: What it would have needed to be : Can a battleship with an exposed citadel even be considered ? It feels a bit of a stretch to me, but if you can keep her citadel protected, Vanguard is hella tough. That's a pretty big 'if' though when she's not top tier. She may lose her current rating when the North Carolina Repair Party buff goes through. Agility Top Speed: 30.0 knots Port Turning Radius: 850m Rudder Shift Time: 9.7 seconds (!) 4/4 Engine Speed Turning Rate: 4.1º/s The big thing to talk about here is Vanguard's rudder shift time. Now I've harped on rudder shift before -- it's a mean to an end, not an end of itself. Boasting that a ship has a great rudder shift time is like boasting that a ship has great range on its main battery guns -- it's nice to have but it's not a good indicator of a ship's performance. The same applies here. Vanguard answers her rudder quickly and her movements are much more precise as a result, but it would be a mistake to call this ship agile. Vanguard's rate of turn holds her back. 4.1º/s is painfully average for a high tier battleship. She sits well behind ships like the Richelieu-class sisters and the South Dakota-class sisters. This is caused by two things. One, her turning radius is big. Two, she doesn't have any baked in bonuses to help her preserve speed in the turn. The upside to her modest handling (and it's a stretch to call this a benefit) is that she can't out turn her turrets. She starts with a 5.0º/s rotation on her main battery guns and Expert Marksman only widens the gap, making adjusting her fire very comfortable if it weren't for those damned firing arcs. Vanguard's fast rudder shift time is almost good enough to allow her to fire her guns and angle back quickly enough to avoid reprisals. Almost. The simple fact of the matter, going from a 30º aspect to a 43º and back again takes too long. I never managed better than 15 seconds during trials. You might be able to pull this off against an inexperienced opponent but this is owing more to their mistakes rather than the merits of the ship itself. If you want to be able to fire all eight of Vanguard's guns while not getting your citadel blown out, you're going to have to play clever. Now just because Vanguard can't wiggle-wiggle-shoot doesn't preclude her from being able to dodge. This is something she's quite good at and where her rudder shift time makes her deliciously unpredictable. You'll still need range in order to pull this off, but you can pretend to begin unmasking your guns in order to bait shots and then double back on your course to bounce their shells. Similarly, the amount of bounce and twirl in her badonkadonk makes her a real nuisance for destroyers to land torpedoes. Vanguard is all about frustrating gunnery -- both yours and your opponents. Evaluation: What it would have needed to be : She's not a speed demon like the French botes nor wiggling like the SoDaks. She's also not a thunderbutt like Kii, so there's that. I was personally hoping to see her preserve a little more speed in the turn to get her rotation rate up -- that would have done it, but it didn't pan out during testing. Anti-Aircraft Defense AA Gun Calibers: 134mm / 40mm AA Umbrella Ranges: 5.2km / 3.5km AA DPS per Aura: 68 / 413.1 For personal defense, Vanguard's anti-aircraft firepower is excellent -- comparable to the American battleships. However, that's about as far as it extends. Vanguard lacks the weight of fire with her dual purpose guns to be a credible threat to aircraft further out. This precludes any claims of efficiency with Manual Fire Control for AA Guns -- too much of her flak is focused upon her 3.5km 40mm batteries. This adds a second weakness: her medium caliber weapons don't stand up to punishment very well. If you've taken even a light dusting of HE shells, odds are your anti-aircraft firepower is nowhere near as formidable as it once was. So, while you're pristine and perfect, you'll shred planes. It's worth investing in Advanced Fire Training to help boost this further, but that's about as far as improving her anti-aircraft firepower should go. Hey look, I made it through a section without mentioning her awful fire ang -- aw, damn it. Evaluation: What it would have needed to be : She's very close. Were it not for FOUR American battleships all having very similar AA firepower (and Kii besides), she might be able to muscle in and make her presence felt. As it is, she sits in their shadow. Refrigerator Base Surface Detection: 16.04km Air Detection Range: 13.7km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 12.04km Detection Range When Firing in Smoke: 14.73km Main Battery Firing Range: 20.0km There's not much to go over here. Vanguard's concealment is "sufficient unto the task" and nothing more. She sits in the middle of the pack for surface detection behind Monarch (14.6km), Roma (14.9km) and North Carolina (15.7km) and just ahead of the Alabama-twins (16.2km) and Bismarck-sisters (16.4km). Vision Control consumables are rare at this tier, being limited to Bismarck's Hydroacoustic Search and various spotter and float plane fighters found on select ships. Vanguard doesn't have access to any of them and she ends up feeling blind without them. Evaluation: What it would have needed to be : More stealth or a spotting consumable other than an aircraft. Alpha and Omega There's not much to say in regards to the skill choices for Vanguard. You can buff up her anti-aircraft firepower if you're super salty about CVs, but on the whole a generic battleship captain build emphasizing fire resistance would serve you better. Start with Priority Target. Take Adrenaline Rush as your second skill. Follow this up with Basics of Survivability at the third tier. For your 10th point-skill, choose between Concealment Expert and Fire Prevention with your 14th point-skill, take the alternative. With your remaining 5 points to spend, customize as you will. Advanced Fire Training will serve you well if you want a little more teeth to your AA guns -- especially when paired with AA Guns Modification 2 from your upgrades. For your remaining 1pt, take either Preventative Maintenance or Expert Loader. Alternatively, you can mix and match between Superintendent, Expert Marksman, Jack of All Trades and High Alert. Keep those tier 1 skills in mind as filler. Final Evaluation She has two main flaws and only two: Her citadel sits high over the water and her fire arcs suck. If you can mitigate these two weaknesses, this boat is amazing. She's been padded with all of the perks possible to compensate for these challenges. If you can't mitigate them, or you find it frustrating, Vanguard is a steaming pile of doo. "The second coming of Warspite" has such a nice ring to it. So many of us were hoping that the Royal Navy battleship line would have borrowed heavily from Warspite's game design -- namely her gun's precision, sluggish gun handling, good agility and improved heals. Instead we got a pack of flame throwers with cloaking devices and portable dry-docks. Complaining about what became of the Royal Navy battleships is so 2017, though. I had pinned my new hopes that Vanguard would be my baebote #2, echoing a lot of what made Warspite great. She almost got there which is pretty surprising. But let's not sugarcoat things -- Vanguard fell short of the mark. This isn't a tier VIII Warspite. So is Vanguard "good"? Well, yes. Yes, she is. However, there's a big ol' butt attached. She's good but she's also potentially frustrating as all get out. I've grumbled enough about her fire arcs. This is a personal pet peeve of mine, if you can't tell. This right here is what would relegated Vanguard to a port-queen for me. For others, her exposed citadel is going to be a big no-no. Why play a battleship that can get her machine spaces easily blown out when you could play something similar that doesn't have to put up with that nonsense? Her inability to overmatch select heavy cruisers will be a turn-off for others. It will keep her from being a contender in competitive play because of it. Finally, her longer AP fuse timer gives her an increased chance of overpenetrations. There's few things as heart breaking as lining up that perfect shot on a cruiser only to watch your shells sail clean through, inflicting minimal damage. One of the ways a premium ship can get in my bad books is by forcing a player to take extra steps to accomplish the same task as other vessels. Vanguard ticks this box. If Famous and HIstorical Monarch can do what Vanguard does and with less frustration, why bother picking up Vanguard? If the comparison to Monarch is bringing you pause, good. The two ships have very similar play styles with the tech tree ship being idiot-proof. I think this is perhaps the most damning thing that could be said about Vanguard: like Monarch, she's a little dull. Thankfully, Vanguard does borrow just enough from Warspite to spare her being called the second coming of the King George V that never was. I'm just not sure it's enough to redeem the ship in my eyes. Her perks are compelling, but it keeps coming back to those frustrating elements for me. I suppose that says it all right there. Know thyself. If those elements seem like turn-offs to you, then stay away. Otherwise, she'll do you no wrong. Would I Recommend? Vanguard acted as the gatekeeper to the initial offering of HMS Dreadnought. If you wanted the latter you had to also buy the former. Make sure you weigh the merits of both ships before pulling the trigger on a purchase like that. PVE Battles How well does the ship maintain profitability in Co-Op modes and how does she fare against bots? Yes. Bots are dumb. Battleships vs bots is always a good fit. Random Battle Grinding: This includes training captains, collecting free experience, earning credits and collecting signal flags from achievements. No. You are absolutely spoiled rotten for choice when it comes to Royal Navy premium battleships. Warspite, Hood, Nelson, Duke of York and Dreadnought are all on offer. Vanguard does have the advantage of being the highest tier, and thus potentially making the most bank, but you could do almost as well for yourself in most of the others. (I can't believe I'm recommending Duke of York as a reasonable alternative...) For Competitive Gaming: Competitive Gaming includes Ranked Battles and other skill-based tournaments. This also includes stat-padding. No. Get yourself Massachusetts or Alabama instead. For Collectors: If you enjoy ship history or possessing rare ships, this section is for you. Yes. She's the last Royal Navy battleship ever -- built in steel and she's drop dead gorgeous. For Fun Factor: Bottom line: Is the ship fun to play? No. I didn't find her fun to play. However, that's because I'm a whiner when it comes to firing arcs. Maybe your own mileage will be different. What’s the Final Verdict? How would the ship rate on oh-so scientific, not-sarcastic at all, Angry YouTuber scale of Garbage – Meh – Gud – Overpowered? GARBAGE– I hate it! Mehbote – An average ship. Probably forgettable. Gudbote – The best thing ever. Totally not overpowered because I like padding my stats in it. OVERPOWERED – I hate playing against it! In Conclusion It's only a week late. That's unfortunately going to be the status quo going forward as I perpetually play catch-up with releases. Since Dreadnought and Vanguard were ninja-announced last week, Bourgogne has been finalized. In addition Charleston was released without any warning, so there are three new reviews in the queue. What's more, the Black Friday ships, Massachusetts, Tirpitz, Atago and Asashio are on their way out. While Tirpitz and Massachusetts' reviews are still reasonably up to date, the changes to the latter two could warrant a revisit. Given the limited access I'm going to have with Bourgogne, I'll probably be prioritizing that one as my next review unless something else comes up. Thank you all for reading. Thank you very much to everyone that supports me on Patreon for helping me produce this content. Appendix Armour penetration data was pulled from two sites: http://proships.ru/stat/ships/ https://mustanghx.github.io/ship_ap_calculator/
  16. Added: -Added Line 2 -Placed HMS Admiral in Line 2 -Added HMS Incomparable (read for details) -Added Premiums For a long time, people have wanted some sort of Battlecruiser tech tree in the game. The only problem is, is that if they were going to be labeled as Battleships, or cruisers, or to make a new type of ship class, which would be the Battlecruiser type. But for you today, I have created a British Battlecruiser line. From the Jutland era Battlecruisers, to the London Naval Treaty era. So lets get into the line! Game-play: We already have a few Battlecruisers in the game. From Dunkerque, Kongo, Stalingrad, Hood, Scharnhorst, Azuma, and many others. They all have the same play style in one way or another. But what they mostly have in common is elements of cruisers. Cruising speed, fast reload, fast turret rotation speed, and maneuverability. But Battleships also have their traits on Battlecruisers. Mediocre AA, size, length, and being a priority target. Cruisers also have a weakness that carries over to a Battlecruiser. Their lack of armor. For the British Battlecruisers, they would be labeled as Battleships since they hold mostly Battleship traits. Tier 3: HMS Indefatigable HMS Indefatigable was the lead ship of her class of three battlecruisers built for the Royal Navy during the first decade of the 20th Century. When the First World War began, Indefatigable was serving with the 2nd Battlecruiser Squadron (BCS) in the Mediterranean, where she unsuccessfully pursued the battlecruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau of the German Imperial Navy as they fled toward the Ottoman Empire. The ship bombarded Ottoman fortifications defending the Dardanelles on 3 November 1914, then, following a refit in Malta, returned to the United Kingdom in February where she rejoined the 2nd BCS. Indefatigable was sunk on 31 May 1916 during the Battle of Jutland, the largest naval battle of the war. Part of Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty's Battlecruiser Fleet, she was hit several times in the first minutes of the "Run to the South", the opening phase of the battlecruiser action. Shells from the German battlecruiser Von der Tann caused an explosion ripping a hole in her hull, and a second explosion hurled large pieces of the ship 200 feet (60 m) in the air. Only three of the crew of 1,019 survived. No battlecruisers were ordered after the three Invincible class ships in 1905 until Indefatigable became the lone battlecruiser of the 1908–1909 Naval Programme. A new Liberal Government had taken power in January 1906 and demanded reductions in naval spending, and the Admiralty submitted a reduced programme, requesting dreadnoughts but no battlecruisers. The Cabinet rejected this proposal in favour of two outmoded armoured cruisers but finally acceded to a request for one battlecruiser instead, after the Admiralty pointed out the need to match the recently published German naval construction plan and to maintain the heavy gun and armour industries. Indefatigable's outline design was prepared in March 1908, and the final design, slightly larger than Invincible with a revised protection arrangement and additional length amidships to allow her two middle turrets to fire on either broadside, was approved in November 1908. A larger design with more armour and better underwater protection was rejected as too expensive. Indefatigable had an overall length of 590 feet (179.8 m), a beam of 80 feet (24.4 m), and a draught of 29 feet 9 inches (9.1 m) at deep load. The ship normally displaced 18,500 long tons (18,800 t) and 22,130 long tons (22,490 t) at deep load. She had a crew of 737 officers and ratings. The ship was powered by two sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines, each driving two propeller shafts, using steam provided by 31 coal-burning Babcock & Wilcox boilers. The turbines were rated at 43,000 shaft horsepower (32,000 kW) and were intended to give the ship a maximum speed of 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph). During her sea trials on 10 April 1911, Indefatigable reached a top speed of 26.89 knots (49.8 km/h; 30.9 mph) from 55,140 shp (41,120 kW) after her propellers were replaced. She carried enough coal and fuel oil to give her a range of 6,330 nautical miles (11,720 km; 7,280 mi) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph). The Indefatigable class had a main armament of eight breech-loading BL 12-inch (305 mm) Mark X guns mounted in four hydraulically powered twin-gun turrets. Two turrets were mounted fore and aft on the centreline, identified as 'A' and 'X' respectively. The other two were wing turrets mounted amidships and staggered diagonally: 'P' was forward and to port of the centre funnel, while 'Q' was situated starboard and aft. 'P' and 'Q' turrets had some limited ability to fire to the opposite side. Their secondary armament consisted of sixteen BL 4-inch (102 mm) Mark VII guns positioned in the superstructure. They mounted two 17.72-inch (450 mm) submerged torpedo tubes, one on each side aft of 'X' barbette, and twelve torpedoes were carried. The Indefatigables were protected by a waterline 4–6-inch (102–152 mm) armoured belt that extended between and covered the end barbettes. Their armoured deck ranged in thickness between 1.5 and 2.5 inches (38 and 64 mm) with the thickest portions protecting the steering gear in the stern. The turret faces were 7 inches (178 mm) thick, and the turrets were supported by barbettes of the same thickness. Indefatigable was unique among British battlecruisers in having an armoured spotting and signal tower behind the conning tower, protected by 4 inches (102 mm) of armour. However, the spotting tower was of limited use, as its view was obscured by the conning tower in front of it and the legs of the foremast and superstructure behind it. During a pre-war refit, a 9-foot (2.7 m) rangefinder was added to the rear of the 'A' turret roof, and this turret was equipped to control the entire main armament as an emergency backup for the normal fire-control positions. Indefatigable received a single QF 3-inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft gun on a high-angle Mark II mount in March 1915. It was provided with 500 rounds. All of her 4-inch guns were enclosed in casemates and given gun shields during a refit in November 1915 to better protect the gun crews from weather and enemy action, although two aft guns were removed at the same time. She received a fire-control director between mid-1915 and May 1916 that centralised fire control under the director officer who now fired the guns. The turret crewmen merely had to follow pointers transmitted from the director to align their guns on the target. This greatly increased accuracy since the ship's roll no longer dispersed the shells as each turret fired on its own; also, the fire-control director could more easily spot the fall of the shells. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: Speed of 25 knot (fastest tier 3 Battleship), good maneuverability for a tier 3 Battlecruiser, decent dispersion, only 1 hull (this can save exp), 30 second reload time, detection range lower than Dreadnoughts (if the ship doesn't fire). Hull A: Tier 4: HMS Lion HMS Lion was a battlecruiser built for the Royal Navy in the 1910s. She was the lead ship of her class, which were nicknamed the "Splendid Cats". They were significant improvements over their predecessors of the Indefatigable class in terms of speed, armament and armour. This was in response to the first German battlecruisers, the Moltke class, which were very much larger and more powerful than the first British battlecruisers, the Invincible class. Lion served as the flagship of the Grand Fleet's battlecruisers throughout World War I, except when she was being refitted or under repair. She sank the German light cruiser Cöln during the Battle of Heligoland Bight and served as Vice-Admiral Beatty's flagship at the battles of Dogger Bank and Jutland. She was so badly damaged at the first of these battles that she had to be towed back to port and was under repair for more than two months. During the Battle of Jutland she suffered a serious propellant fire that could have destroyed the ship had it not been for the bravery of Royal Marine Major Francis Harvey, the turret commander, who posthumously received the Victoria Cross for having ordered the magazine flooded. The fire destroyed one gun turret which had to be removed for rebuilding while she was under repair for several months. She spent the rest of the war on uneventful patrols in the North Sea, although she did provide distant cover during the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight in 1917. She was put into reserve in 1920 and sold for scrap in 1924 under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. The Lion-class battlecruisers were designed to be as superior to the new German battlecruisers of the Moltke class as the German ships were to the Invincible class. The increase in speed, armour and gun size forced a 65 per cent increase in size over the Indefatigable class and made them the largest warships in the world. Lion was significantly larger than her predecessors and had an overall length of 700 feet (210 m), a beam of 88 feet 7 inches (27 m), and a draught of 32 feet 5 inches (9.88 m) at deep load. The ship displaced 26,270 long tons (26,692 t) at normal load and 30,820 long tons (31,315 t) at deep load. Lion had two paired sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines, each driving two propeller shafts, using steam provided by 42 Yarrow boilers. The turbines were designed to produce a total of 70,000 shaft horsepower (52,199 kW), but achieved more than 76,000 shp (56,673 kW) during her trials, although she did not exceed her designed speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph). She carried 3,500 long tons (3,600 t) of coal, and an additional 1,135 long tons (1,153 t) of fuel oil that was sprayed on the coal to increase its burn rate. At full capacity, she could steam for 5,610 nautical miles (10,390 km; 6,460 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph). Lion mounted eight BL 13.5-inch (343 mm) Mk V guns in four twin-gun turrets, designated 'A', 'B', 'Q' and 'X' from front to rear. Her secondary armament consisted of sixteen BL 4-inch (102 mm) Mark VII guns, most of which were mounted in casemates. The two guns mounted above the forward group of casemates were given gun shields during 1913–1914 to better protect the gun crews from weather and enemy action. The starboard forward group of 4-inch guns was removed after April 1917. She was built without anti-aircraft (AA) guns, but a single quick-firing (QF) 6-pounder (57 mm) Hotchkiss gun on a high-angle mounting was fitted from October 1914 to July 1915. This had a maximum depression of 8° and a maximum elevation of 60°. It fired a 6-pound (2.7 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 1,765 ft/s (538 m/s) at a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute. It had a maximum ceiling of 10,000 ft (3,000 m), but an effective range of only 1,200 yards (1,100 m). A single QF 3-inch (76 mm) AA gun was added in January 1915, and another the following July. These had a maximum depression of 10° and a maximum elevation of 90°. The gun fired a 12.5-pound (5.7 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s) at a rate of 12–14 rounds per minute. It had a maximum effective ceiling of 23,500 ft (7,200 m). Two 21 inch (533 mm) submerged torpedo tubes were fitted, one on each broadside; fourteen torpedoes were carried. The armour protection given to the Lions was heavier than that of the Indefatigables; their waterline belt of Krupp armour measured 9 inches (229 mm) thick amidships. It thinned to 4 inches towards the ships' ends, but did not reach either the bow or the stern. The upper armour belt had a maximum thickness of 6 inches (152 mm) over the same length as the thickest part of the waterline armour and thinned to 5 inches (127 mm) abreast the end turrets. The gun turrets and barbettes were protected by 8 to 9 inches (203 to 229 mm) of armour, except for the turret roofs which used 2.5 to 3.25 inches (64 to 83 mm). The thickness of the nickel steel deck ranged from 1 to 2.5 inches (25 to 64 mm). Nickel steel torpedo bulkheads 2.5 inches thick were fitted abreast the magazines and shell rooms. After the Battle of Jutland revealed her vulnerability to plunging shellfire, 1 inch (25 mm) of additional armour, weighing approximately 100 long tons (102 t), was added to the magazine crowns and turret roofs. Lion received a fire-control director between mid-1915 and May 1916 that centralised the pointing and firing of the guns under the command of the director positioned on the foremast. The turret crewmen merely had to follow pointers controlled by the director to align their guns on the target. This greatly increased accuracy as it was easier to spot the fall of shells and eliminated the problem of the ship's roll dispersing the shells as each turret fired individually. By early 1918 Lion carried a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on flying-off platforms fitted on top of 'Q' and 'X' turrets. Each platform had a canvas hangar to protect the aircraft during inclement weather. In game description: (To be added) Pros: Speed is 27.5 knots which is slightly faster than the Indefatigable's. The guns are centered and can fire a full broadside (not recommend doing). Comparable armor Kongo's (more armor in some places). Guns upgraded from 12 inches to 13.5 inches. Slightly increased firing range. Cons: No anti-aircraft defenses. Reload (or rate of fire) is longer. Slower gun traverse speed. Shell dispersion is not the greatest. Easily damaged by higher tier Battleships. Easy meat for enemy aircraft. Hull A: Hull B: Tier 5: HMS Tiger HMS Tiger was a battlecruiser of the Royal Navy and the eleventh ship to bear that name. She was built by John Brown and Company of Clydebank, Scotland, and launched in 1913. Tiger was the most heavily armoured battlecruiser of the Royal Navy at the start of the First World War, but was not yet ready for service. The ship was assigned to the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron (1st BCS) for the duration of the war and participated in the Battle of Dogger Bank in early 1915, though she was still shaking down and did not perform well. Tiger next participated in the Battle of Jutland in 1916, where she was only lightly damaged despite suffering many hits by German shells. Apart from providing distant cover during the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight in 1917, she spent the rest of the war on uneventful patrols in the North Sea. Tiger was the oldest battlecruiser retained by the Royal Navy after the tonnage limits of the Washington Naval Treaty came into effect in 1922. She became a gunnery training ship in 1924 and then joined the Battlecruiser Squadron in 1929 when its flagship, Hood, underwent a lengthy refit. Upon Hood's return to service in 1931, Tiger was decommissioned and sold for scrap in 1932 in accordance with the terms of the London Naval Treaty of 1930. In his book, The Price of Admiralty, British military historian John Keegan described her as "certainly the most beautiful warship in the world then, and perhaps ever. Tiger was the sole battlecruiser authorised in the 1911–12 Naval Programme. According to naval historian Siegfried Breyer, a sister ship named Leopard was considered in the 1912–13 Programme and deferred until 1914 as a sixth member of the Queen Elizabeth class, but there is no record of any additional battlecruiser being provided for in any naval estimates before 1914. Tiger had an overall length of 704 feet (214.6 m), a beam of 90 feet 6 inches (27.6 m), and a mean draught of 32 feet 5 inches (9.88 m) at deep load. She normally displaced 28,430 long tons (28,890 t) and 33,260 long tons (33,790 t) at deep load. Although Tiger was only 4 feet (1.2 m) longer and 1 foot 5.5 inches (0.4 m) wider than the previous battlecruiser, Queen Mary, she displaced almost 2,000 long tons (2,000 t) more than the older ship. She had a metacentric height of 6.1 feet (1.9 m) at deep load. In September 1914, her complement consisted of 1,112 officers and ratings; in April 1918, they totalled 1,459. Tiger had two paired sets of Brown-Curtis direct-drive steam turbines housed in separate engine-rooms. Each set consisted of high-pressure ahead and astern turbines driving an outboard shaft and low-pressure ahead and astern turbines, housed in the same casing, driving an inner shaft. Her three-bladed propellers were 13 feet 6 inches (4.11 m) in diameter. The turbines were powered by 39 Babcock & Wilcox water-tube boilers in five boiler rooms at a working pressure of 235 psi (1,620 kPa; 17 kgf/cm2). The turbines were designed to produce a total of 85,000 shaft horsepower (63,000 kW) and a maximum of 108,000 shp (81,000 kW) when forced, but only achieved 104,635 shp (78,026 kW) during her sea trials, although she managed to exceed her maximum designed speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph) by over a knot. The ship's fuel stowage capacity was 3,800 long tons (3,900 t) of fuel oil and 3,340 long tons (3,390 t) of coal, giving a total fuel supply of 7,140 long tons (7,250 t)—much more than Queen Mary's total of 4,800 long tons (4,900 t). The sole (unofficial) figure for Tiger's daily fuel consumption of 1,245 long tons (1,265 t) a day at 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph) would have given a maximum endurance of 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km; 3,800 mi). The equivalent figure for Queen Mary was roughly 2,400 nautical miles (4,400 km; 2,800 mi). Four direct current electric dynamos with a total capacity of 750 kilowatts (1,010 hp) supplied the common ring main at 220 volts. Tiger mounted eight 45-calibre BL 13.5-inch Mk V guns in four twin hydraulically powered turrets, designated 'A', 'B', 'Q' and 'X' from front to rear. The guns could be depressed to −5° and elevated to +20°, although the directors controlling the turrets were limited to 15° 21' until superelevating prisms were installed before the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 to allow full elevation. They fired 1,400-pound (635 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2,491 ft/s (759 m/s); at 20° elevation, this provided a maximum range of 23,740 yards (21,710 m). The rate of fire of these guns was approximately 2 rounds per minute. The ship carried a total of 1040 rounds during wartime for 130 shells per gun. Her secondary armament consisted of twelve BL 6-inch Mk VII guns in casemates. The guns could depress to −7° and had a maximum elevation of 14°. They fired 100-pound (45 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,770 ft/s (840 m/s); this gave a maximum range of 12,200 yd (11,200 m) at +14° elevation. They were provided with 120 rounds per gun. The ship mounted a pair of QF 3 inch 20 cwt Mk I anti-aircraft guns on high-angle Mark II mounts. The gun had a maximum elevation of +90° and fired a 12.5-pound (5.7 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,604 ft/s (794 m/s). It had a maximum effective ceiling of 23,000 ft (7,000 m). Originally, Tiger carried 300 rounds per gun, but this was reduced during the war to 150 rounds per gun. Four 21-inch (530 mm) submerged torpedo tubes were fitted on the beam, one pair port and starboard forward of 'A' barbette and aft of 'X' barbette. The ship carried 20 Mark II*** torpedoes, each with a warhead of 400 pounds (181 kg) of TNT. They had two speed settings which governed their range; at 45 knots (83 km/h; 52 mph), they could reach 4,500 yards (4,100 m), or 10,750 yards (9,830 m) at 29 knots (54 km/h; 33 mph). The main guns of Tiger were controlled from either of the two fire-control directors. The primary director was in the fore-top on the foremast and the other was mounted on the aft superstructure in the torpedo control tower. Data from 9-foot (2.7 m) rangefinders in the armoured hood above the conning tower and in 'B' and 'Q' turrets was transmitted to the Mk IV Dreyer Fire Control Table located in the transmitting station below the waterline. The observations were then plotted and converted into range and deflection data for use by the director and guns. A Mark VII* Dumaresq in the armoured tower was trained on the target to supply bearing data to one transmitting station for use in plotting and calculations, and a second station was fitted for the ship's secondary armament, although a pair of fire-control directors for those guns, one for each broadside, were not fitted until 1915. Fire-control technology advanced quickly during the years immediately preceding the First World War and the development of the director firing system was a major advance. This consisted of a fire-control director mounted high in the ship which electrically provided elevation and training angles to the turrets via pointers, which the turret crewmen had only to follow. The director layer fired the guns simultaneously by an electrical trigger which aided in spotting the shell splashes and minimised the effects of the roll on the dispersion of the shells. During the war, Tiger's rangefinders had increased in number and in size. By the end of the war, 'A' and 'Q' turrets mounted 25-foot (7.6 m) rangefinders while 'X' turret, the armoured hood above the conning tower (also known as the gun control tower), and the torpedo control tower had 15-foot (4.6 m) instruments. A 12-foot (3.7 m) rangefinder was fitted in the fore-top and three 9-foot (2.7 m) instruments were fitted on 'B' turret, the gun control tower and above the compass platform. A high-angle 6-foot-6-inch (2.0 m) rangefinder was mounted above the roof of the fore-top for use by the anti-aircraft guns. Tiger's armour protection was similar to that of Queen Mary; her waterline belt of Krupp cemented armour measured 9 inches (229 mm) thick amidships. It thinned to four inches towards the ship's ends, but did not reach either the bow or the stern. The depth of the main belt below the waterline was reduced from 36 to 27 inches (914 to 686 mm), although a strake of three-inch armour 3 feet 9 inches (1.14 m) tall was added below the main belt that stretched from the front of 'A' barbette to the rear of 'B' barbette. It was based on that used on the Vickers built Japanese battlecruiser Kongo, the only design influence on Tiger that can be attributed to that ship. Like the Lion-class ships and Queen Mary, Tiger was given an upper armour belt with a maximum thickness of six inches over the same length as the thickest part of the waterline armour and thinned to 5 inches (127 mm) abreast the end turrets. Unlike those ships, Tiger had an additional strake of 6-inch armour above the upper belt protecting her secondary armament. Four-inch transverse bulkheads closed off the ends of the armoured citadel. High-tensile steel was used for the protective decks. They generally ranged from 1 to 1.5 inches (25 to 38 mm) in thickness. The gun turrets had 9-inch front and sides while their roofs were 2.5 to 3.25 inches (64 to 83 mm) thick. The barbettes were protected above the citadel by 8 to 9 inches (203 to 229 mm) of armour, thinning to three to four inches inside the citadel. The main conning tower had a three-inch roof and sides 10 inches (254 mm) thick. The walls of the communication tube were three to four inches thick. The aft conning tower had 6-inch walls and a 3-inch cast steel roof. High-tensile steel torpedo bulkheads 1.5 to 2.5 inches (38 to 64 mm) thick were fitted abreast the magazines and shell rooms. After the Battle of Jutland revealed the ship's vulnerability to plunging shellfire, around 295 long tons (300 t) of additional armour was added to the turret roofs, the decks over the magazines, and the bulkheads separating the 6-inch guns. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Hull B: Hull C: Tier 6: HMS Renown HMS Renown was the lead ship of her class of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy built during the First World War. She was originally laid down as an improved version of the Revenge-class battleships. Her construction was suspended on the outbreak of war on the grounds she would not be ready in a timely manner. Admiral Lord Fisher, upon becoming First Sea Lord, gained approval to restart her construction as a battlecruiser that could be built and enter service quickly. The Director of Naval Construction (DNC), Eustace Tennyson-D'Eyncourt, quickly produced an entirely new design to meet Admiral Lord Fisher's requirements and the builders agreed to deliver the ships in 15 months. They did not quite meet that ambitious goal, but the ship was delivered a few months after the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Renown, and her sister HMS Repulse, were the world's fastest capital ships upon completion. Renown did not see combat during the war and was reconstructed twice between the wars; the 1920s reconstruction increased her armour protection and made other more minor improvements, while the 1930s reconstruction was much more thorough. The ship frequently conveyed royalty on their foreign tours and served as flagship of the Battlecruiser Squadron when Hood was refitting. During the Second World War, Renown was involved in the search for the Admiral Graf Spee in 1939, participated in the Norwegian Campaign of April–June 1940 and the search for the German battleship Bismarck in 1941. She spent much of 1940 and 1941 assigned to Force H at Gibraltar, escorting convoys and she participated in the inconclusive Battle of Cape Spartivento. Renown was briefly assigned to the Home Fleet and provided cover to several Arctic convoys in early 1942. The ship was transferred back to Force H for Operation Torch and spent much of 1943 refitting or transporting Winston Churchill and his staff to and from various conferences with various Allied leaders. In early 1944, Renown was transferred to the Eastern Fleet in the Indian Ocean where she supported numerous attacks on Japanese-occupied facilities in Indonesia and various island groups in the Indian Ocean. The ship returned to the Home Fleet in early 1945 and was refitted before being placed in reserve after the end of the war. Renown was sold for scrap in 1948. Admiral Lord Fisher first presented his requirements for the new ships to the Director of Naval Construction (DNC) on 18 December 1914, before the ships had even been approved. He wanted a long, high, flared bow, like that on the pre-dreadnought HMS Renown, but higher, four 15-inch guns in two twin turrets, an anti-torpedo boat armament of twenty 4-inch (102 mm) guns mounted high up and protected by gun shields only, speed of 32 knots using oil fuel, and armour on the scale of the battlecruiser Indefatigable. Within a few days, however, Fisher increased the number of guns to six and added two torpedo tubes. Minor revisions in the initial estimate were made until 26 December and a preliminary design was completed on 30 December. During the following week the DNC's department examined the material delivered for the two battleships and decided what could be used in the new design. The usable material was transferred to the builders, who had received enough information from the DNC's department to lay the keels of both ships on 25 January 1915, well before the altered contracts were completed on 10 March. Renown had an overall length of 794 feet 1.5 inches (242.0 m), a beam of 90 feet 1.75 inches (27.5 m), and a maximum draught of 30 feet 2 inches (9.2 m). She displaced 27,320 long tons (27,760 t) at normal load and 32,220 long tons (32,740 t) at deep load. Her Brown-Curtis direct-drive steam turbines were designed to produce 112,000 shaft horsepower (84,000 kW), which would propel the ship at 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph). However, during trials in 1916, Renown's turbines provided 126,000 shp (94,000 kW), allowing her to reach a speed of 32.58 knots (60.34 km/h; 37.49 mph). The ship normally carried 1,000 long tons (1,016 t) of fuel oil, but had a maximum capacity of 4,289 long tons (4,358 t). At full capacity, she could steam at a speed of 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph) for 4,000 nautical miles (7,410 km; 4,600 mi). The ship mounted six 42-calibre BL 15-inch Mk I guns in three twin hydraulically powered turrets, designated 'A', 'B', and 'Y' from front to rear. Her secondary armament consisted of 17 BL 4-inch Mark IX guns, fitted in five triple and two single mounts. Renown mounted a pair of QF 3 inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft guns mounted on the shelter deck abreast the rear funnel. She mounted two submerged tubes for 21-inch (533 mm) torpedoes, one on each side forward of 'A' barbette. Renown's waterline belt of Krupp cemented armour measured 6 inches (152 mm) thick amidships. Her gun turrets were 7–9 inches (178–229 mm) thick with roofs were 4.25 inches (108 mm) thick. As designed the high-tensile-steel decks ranged from 0.75 to 1.5 inches (19 to 38 mm) in thickness. After the Battle of Jutland in 1916, while the ship was still completing, an extra inch of high-tensile steel was added on the main deck over the magazines. Renown was fitted with a shallow anti-torpedo bulge integral to the hull which was intended to explode the torpedo before it hit the hull proper and vent the underwater explosion to the surface rather than into the ship. Despite these additions, the ship was still felt to be too vulnerable to plunging fire and Renown was refitted in Rosyth between 1 February and mid-April 1917 with additional horizontal armour, weighing approximately 504 long tons (512 t), added to the decks over the magazines and over the steering gear. Flying-off platforms were fitted on 'B' and 'X' turrets in early 1918. One fighter and a reconnaissance aircraft were carried. Renown was recommissioned in September 1921 for a tour of India and Japan by the Prince of Wales and sailed from Portsmouth in October. The ship arrived back in Portsmouth in June 1922 and she was placed in reserve the following month. The ship began a reconstruction that same month along the lines of her sister, although changes were made based on the experiences with Repulse. Renown's main armour belt was removed and a new 9-inch belt was installed, using up the remaining plates made surplus by the conversion of the battleship Almirante Cochrane (originally ordered by Chile and purchased after the war began) to the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle as well as new armour, but installed about 3 feet (0.9 m) higher than on Repulse to offset any increase in draught. A strake of tapered armour was fitted underneath the main belt to deflect any shell that dived beneath the water's surface; it was 9-inches thick at top and thinned to 2 inches (51 mm) at the bottom. The ship's deck armour was heavily reinforced adjacent to its machinery spaces and magazines. Two longitudinal bulkheads were added between the upper and main decks that ran from the base of the conning tower to the end of the boiler rooms. The bulges were reworked and based on those used in the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships although crushing tubes were only used abreast the magazines. The rear triple 4-inch gun mount was replaced. The flying-off platform on 'B' turret was reinstated and a high-angle control position (HACP) was added to the fore-top. The pair of 3-inch AA guns and her two single four-inch gun mounts were replaced with four QF four-inch Mark V anti-aircraft guns. They had a maximum depression of -5° and a maximum elevation of 80°. They fired a 31-pound (14 kg) high explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,387 ft/s (728 m/s) at a rate of ten to fifteen rounds per minute. The guns had a maximum ceiling of 31,000 ft (9,400 m), but an effective range of much less. The reconstruction only added 3,500 long tons (3,600 t) to the ship's displacement and three inches to her draught. This reconstruction cost £979,927. Renown returned to Britain to refit from February to June 1943; her catapult and aircraft were removed while the hangar was converted to a laundry and a cinema. She also received a total of 72 Oerlikon 20 mm light AA guns in 23 twin mounts and 26 single mounts fitted between July 1942 and August 1943. In January 1944 a quadruple "pom-pom" mounting was placed on the roof of 'B' turret and the 20mm guns there were re-sited elsewhere. Additional light AA directors with Type 282 radars were also fitted during this time. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Hull B: Tier 7: HMS Incomparable HMS Incomparable was the name given by Admiral John "Jackie" Fisher to a proposal for a very large battlecruiser which was suggested in 1915. Despite research into the concept, it never entered the design stage or came close to being built. Fisher had long been an advocate of improving technology to maintain Britain's naval superiority. At the beginning of the 20th century he had masterminded the introduction of the dreadnought type of battleship and its faster cousin, the battlecruiser. At the start of World War I, Fisher returned to the office of First Sea Lord. Here he oversaw the development of vessels which took the battlecruiser concept to its logical extreme. Favouring an assault on the Baltic coast of Germany, three "large light cruisers" were built. These ships were designed to have a relatively shallow draft, but while they mounted large guns, they would have carried less armour than ships of the battle line. The last of these, HMS Furious, was intended to carry two 18-inch guns, far larger and more powerful than the 15-inch weapons that were standard on the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge-class battleships, and the two Renown-class battlecruisers; at the same time her deck and belt armour was at best only 3 inches thick, not really capable of standing up to the guns of even a light cruiser. These guns were actually fitted to Furious, but removed after a few months following damage to the ship when they were fired. Incomparable was suggested as the logical conclusion of this trend. By the standards of her time, she would have been a mammoth vessel. Her intended displacement of 48,000 tons dwarfed the newly built Revenge-class battleships (28,000 tons). No British battleship or battlecruiser would be built of that displacement until HMS Vanguard, which was completed after World War II. This large hull was intended to accommodate engines capable of immense speed and sufficient fuel to give a prodigious range, coupled with armament and ammunition greater than anything before sent to sea. The 20-inch guns which were planned for Incomparable were bigger than the largest guns ever installed on a warship (the 18.1-inch guns of Yamato): 20-inch guns were ultimately only ever to be used on paper. The 18 inch gun tested on Furious was used on monitors during the war, from which complaints were occasionally voiced that it 'caused a shower of sheared off rivet heads' whenever fired. Just as remarkable as the firepower intended was the speed of the ship: if Incomparable had been capable of the 35 knots intended, she would have been faster than almost any battleship or battlecruiser built historically, and indeed faster than many cruisers or destroyers. She was expected to have a life span of no more than 10 years; Fisher expected her design to be quickly surpassed. As a warship, Incomparable would have been of dubious tactical value. Her construction would have been a very great expense, and her armour relatively weak. The Royal Navy's experience at the Battle of Jutland in 1916, where three of Fisher's battlecruisers were destroyed, resulted in a decisive turn away from the 'large light cruiser' concept and towards the 'fast battleship'. The subsequent design of battlecruiser, the Admiral class, ended up incorporating much heavier armour but retained the proven 15-inch guns. Only one, HMS Hood, was completed, with the rest scrapped in 1919. The following class intended (but also never built), based on the G3 design, was a battlecruiser only in relation to the paired N3 battleship. Displacement: 46,000 long tons (46,738 t) standard Length: 1,000 ft (304.8 m) Beam: 104 ft (31.7 m) Draught: 24 ft (7.3 m) (at deep load) Installed power: 180,000 shp (134,226 kW) Propulsion: Brown-Curtis geared steam turbines, Yarrow boilers Speed: 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph) Range: 24,000 nautical miles (44,000 km; 28,000 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) Armament: 3 × 2 – BL 20-inch (508 mm) guns 5 × 3 – QF 4-inch (102 mm) guns 9 × 1 – QF 3-pounder guns 8 × 1 – 18-inch (460 mm) torpedo tubes Armour: Belt: 11 in (279 mm) Decks: 4 in (102 mm) Barbettes: 14 in (356 mm) In game description: (To be added) In game specials: To have this ship be balanced, her 20 inch guns will be not included. Instead, she will be given 15 inch guns, which can be upgraded to 16 inch guns. Hull A: Hull B: Tier 8: HMS Anson (J3) The J3 class battlecruiser was a design study conducted during the Royal Navy's 1921 Fleet modernization programme. As a follow-on to the Admiral-class battlecruiser, the J3 class incorporated all the lessons learned from the First World War, specifically the battle of Jutland. The design was seen as an improvement to the Admiral class by virtue of its heavier and improved armouring scheme, specifically the deck armour, although the offensive armament remained roughly the same. The design was superseded by the I3 and G3 battlecruiser designs, as both mounted a heavier main armament, and further improved the protection scheme, on roughly the same tonnage. The 1921 fleet program was cancelled due to signing of the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922, which limited the size and armament of battleships to 35,000 long tons (36,000 t) and no gun bigger than 16 inches (406 mm). The J3 battlecruisers were of very similar size to the Admiral class. They had an overall length of 860 feet (262.1 m), a beam of 104 feet (31.7 m), and a draught of 32 feet (9.8 m) at deep load. They would have displaced 43,100 long tons (43,800 t) normally and 48,000 long tons (49,000 t) at deep load, over 2,500 long tons (2,500 t) more than the older ships. The main benefit of the design was a reduction in the weight of the main armament but increase in firepower by converting from twin to triple mount turrets, with the additional weight savings being used to improve protection and armouring. The J3 battlecruiser design had four geared steam turbine sets, each driving one propeller shaft, and arranged in two engine rooms. The forward engine room held the two turbines for the wing shafts, while the aft engine room contained the turbine for the port and starboard inner shafts. The turbines were powered by 18 Yarrow small-tube boilers divided between nine boiler rooms. They were designed to produce a total of 151,000 shaft horsepower (113,000 kW) at a working pressure of 200 psi (1,379 kPa) and temperature of 200 °C (392 °F) with superheat. Maximum speed would have been 34 knots (63 km/h; 39 mph). Housing the main armament in triple turrets was new to the Royal Navy, though British companies had been involved in the production of triple gun turret designs for other navies. The choice of a high muzzle velocity with a lighter shell was taken from the German practice; it ran counter to previous British guns such as the BL 15-inch Mark I gun of 42-calibre length, which were lower-muzzle-velocity weapons firing heavy shells. The J3 design mounted nine 15-inch 50-calibre guns in three triple hydraulically powered Mark I gun turrets, designated 'A', 'B', and 'Z' from front to rear. The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 40°. The ships' maximum stowage was 116 shells per gun. They fired 2,048-pound (929 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2,670 ft/s (810 m/s). Their maximum range was about 38,000 yards (35,000 m) at maximum elevation. These weapons would have been very similar in construction to the BL 16-inch Mark I produced for the Nelson class battleships. The J3s carried a secondary armament of 12 BL 6-inch Mark XXII guns in twin turrets instead of casemates. the six turrets were sited amidships behind the main bridge structure and ahead of the Z turret. The guns could elevate between –5° and +60°. An anti-aircraft battery of six QF 4.7-inch Mark VIII guns was included. They had a maximum depression of -5° and a maximum elevation of 90°. They fired a 50-pound (23 kg) high explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,457 ft/s (749 m/s) at a rate of eight to twelve rounds per minute. The guns had a maximum anti-aircraft ceiling of 32,000 ft (9,800 m), and effective range of 16,160 yards (14,780 m). A maximum of 256 rounds per gun could be carried. The ships were intended to carry four 8-barreled mountings for the 40-millimetre (1.6 in) QF 2-pounder Mark VIII gun (commonly known as a "pom-pom"), two abaft the funnels and two at the stern. Each barrel was provided with 1,300 rounds of ammunition. The gun fired a 40-millimetre (1.6 in) 2-pound (0.91 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 1,920 ft/s (590 m/s) to a distance of 3,800 yards (3,500 m). The gun's rate of fire was nearly 100 rounds per minute. The main guns of the J3 battlecruisers could be controlled from any of the three director-control towers (DCT). The primary DCT was mounted at the top of the forward superstructure. Another was mounted on the roof of the conning tower in an armoured hood, and the third was aft. Each main gun turret was provided with a 41-foot (12.5 m) coincidence rangefinder in an armoured housing on the turret roof. The secondary armament was primarily controlled by three DCTs. Two mounted on each side of the bridge and the third was located aft of the secondary armament. The anti-aircraft guns were controlled by a high-angle control system mounted on the very top of the forward superstructure. Each "pom-pom" mount had its own director and there was also a height-finder aft. Two 15-foot (4.6 m) torpedo rangefinders were located on the sides of the funnels. The J3 was armoured similarly to the Hood, with bands of varying thickness. The armour was angled to up to 25 degrees on the belt, to increase relative thickness. One of the considerations that led to the cancellation of the J3 design was that the protection scheme did not use an "all or nothing" layout as later designs, such as the G3; this led to the J3 wasting tonnage on armour that would not have withstood incoming fire, a situation that the Admiralty found unacceptable. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Tier 9: HMS Beatty (G3) The G3 battlecruisers were a class of battlecruisers planned by the Royal Navy after the end of World War I in response to naval expansion programmes by the United States and Japan. The four ships of this class would have been larger, faster and more heavily armed than any existing battleship (although several projected foreign ships would be larger). The G3s have been considered to be proper "fast battleships" since they were well-balanced designs with adequate protection. Nonetheless the class was officially designated as a "battlecruiser" due to their higher speed and lesser firepower and armour relative to the planned N3 class battleship design. The G3s carried nine 16-inch (406 mm) guns and were expected to achieve 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph), while the N3s would carry nine 18-inch (457 mm) guns on the same displacement at the expense of a slower speed. The G3 design was approved by the Board of Admiralty on 12 August 1921. Orders were placed in October, but were suspended in mid-November shortly after the beginning of the Washington Naval Conference which limited battleship sizes. The orders were cancelled in February 1922 with the ratification of the Washington Naval Treaty which limited construction to ships of no more than 35,000 long tons (36,000 t) displacement. The G3s incorporated several novel features for dreadnought-era capital ships, or at least for British designs of this type. Most immediately noticeable was the concentration of the main battery forward of the bridge and engineering spaces, giving the ships a tanker-like appearance. Since the G3s were to use existing dockyard facilities, this layout allowed designers to keep the length of the ships, as well as the weight of armour, to a minimum. The resulting loss of heavy fire astern was considered justifiable since the ships were intended to fight on the broadside. A related feature of the G3 and N3 designs was their tower bridge structure behind the first two gun turrets. This provided a better and more stable foundation for fire-control equipment, greatly improved accommodation and protection from the weather. The G3 battlecruisers were significantly larger than their predecessors of the Admiral class. They had an overall length of 856 feet (260.9 m), a beam of 106 feet (32.3 m), and a draught of 36 feet (11.0 m) at deep load. They would have displaced 48,400 long tons (49,200 t) normally and 53,909 long tons (54,774 t) at deep load, over 8,000 long tons (8,100 t) more than the older ships. They had a metacentric height of 7.786 feet (2.4 m) at deep load as well as a complete double bottom. The G3 battlecruisers would have had four geared steam turbine sets, each of which drove one propeller shaft. They were arranged in three engine rooms. The forward engine room held the two turbines for the wing shafts, the middle compartment housed the turbine for the port inner shaft and the aft engine room contained the turbine for the starboard inner shaft. The turbines were powered by 20 Yarrow small-tube boilers divided between nine boiler rooms. They were designed to produce a total of 160,000 shaft horsepower (120,000 kW) at a working pressure of 200 psi (1,379 kPa) and temperature of 200 °C (392 °F) with superheat. Maximum speed would have been 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph). The ships had a maximum capacity of 5,000 long tons (5,100 t) of fuel oil. Using the 22,000-shaft-horsepower (16,000 kW) cruising turbines, they had an estimated maximum range of 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km; 8,100 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph). They had six turbo-driven 250-kilowatt (335 hp) dynamos and two 300-kilowatt (402 hp) Diesel generators. Housing the main armament in triple turrets was new to the Royal Navy though British companies had been involved in the production of triple gun turret designs for other navies. The choice of a high muzzle velocity with a relatively lighter shell was taken from the German practice; it ran counter to previous British guns such as the BL 15-inch Mark I gun of 42-calibre length which were lower-muzzle-velocity weapons firing heavy shells. The G3 design mounted nine BL 16-inch Mark I 45-calibre guns in three triple hydraulically powered Mark I gun turrets, designated 'A', 'B', and 'X' from front to rear. The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 40°. The ships' maximum stowage was 116 shells per gun. They fired 2,048-pound (929 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2,670 ft/s (810 m/s). Their maximum range was about 38,000 yards (35,000 m) at maximum elevation. The G3s carried a secondary armament of sixteen BL 6-inch Mark XXII guns in superfiring twin turrets instead of casemates—the first time in a British capital ship since the Lord Nelson class of 1904. Four turrets were sited around the forward superstructure and four at the stern. The forward turrets were provided with 150 rounds per gun and the rear turrets with 110 rounds per gun. The guns could elevate between –5° and +60°. They fired 100-pound (45 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2,945 ft/s (898 m/s). Their maximum range was 25,800 yd (23,600 m) at 45° elevation. Their rate of fire was five rounds per minute. An anti-aircraft battery of six QF 4.7-inch Mark VIII guns was included. They had a maximum depression of -5° and a maximum elevation of 90°. They fired a 50-pound (23 kg) high explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,457 ft/s (749 m/s) at a rate of eight to twelve rounds per minute. The guns had a maximum ceiling of 32,000 ft (9,800 m), but an effective range of much less. A maximum of 256 rounds per gun could be carried. The ships were intended to carry four 8-barreled mountings for the 40-millimetre (1.6 in) QF 2-pounder Mark VIII gun (commonly known as a pom-pom), two abaft the funnels and two at the stern. Each barrel was provided with 1300 rounds of ammunition. The gun fired a 40-millimetre (1.6 in) 2-pound (0.91 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 1,920 ft/s (590 m/s) to a distance of 3,800 yards (3,500 m). The gun's rate of fire was approximately 96–98 rounds per minute. Like previous classes of British battlecruisers, a pair of submerged, broadside-firing torpedo tubes were planned for these ships. Their compartment was located just forward of the 'A' shell room on the platform deck. Six 24.5-inch (620 mm) torpedoes per tube were to be carried in peacetime, but this would increase to eight in wartime. These Mark I torpedoes had a warhead of 743 pounds (337 kg) of TNT and were powered by oxygen-enriched air. They had two speed settings which governed their range: either 15,000 yards (13,716 m) at 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph), or 20,000 yards (18,288 m) at 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph). The main guns of the G3 battlecruisers could be controlled from any of the three director-control towers (DCT). The primary DCT was mounted at the top of the forward superstructure. Another was mounted on the roof of the conning tower in an armoured hood and the third was aft. Each main gun turret was provided with a 41-foot (12.5 m) coincidence rangefinder in an armoured housing on the turret roof. The secondary armament was primarily controlled by three DCTs. Two mounted on each side of the bridge and the third was aft. The anti-aircraft guns were controlled by a high-angle control system mounted on the very top of the forward superstructure. Each pom-pom mount had its own director and there was also a height-finder aft. Two 15-foot (4.6 m) torpedo rangefinders were located on the sides of the funnels. A first for any British dreadnought was the use of the all or nothing protection scheme in the G3s. Medium-thickness armour had proven to be useless in stopping heavy-calibre shells during World War I so the vital areas of the ship were protected by the thickest possible armour and the rest of the ship was left unarmoured. Use of this system was pioneered by contemporary U.S. Navy battleship designs starting with the Nevada class. However, this system of protection required that the armoured citadel should have enough reserve buoyancy to keep the ship stable even if the rest of the hull was riddled by gunfire. The waterline belt of the G3 had a maximum thickness of 14 inches (356 mm) with the top of the armour angled 18° outwards. This angle increased the armor's relative thickness to horizontal, close-range fire, albeit at the cost of reducing its relative height which increased the chance of plunging shellfire going over or under it. It ran some 522 feet (159.1 m), from the forward edge of 'A' barbette to the rear of the after 6-inch magazine. The belt had a height of 14 feet 3 inches (4.3 m), of which 4 feet 6 inches (1.4 m) was below the designed waterline. Only the forward 259 feet (78.9 m) of the belt had the maximum thickness, it thinned to 12 inches (305 mm) for the rest of its length. The lower edge of the belt abreast the magazines was continued down another 3 feet (0.9 m) by a 4 inches (100 mm) thickness of high-tensile steel inclined at 36° to prevent a shell from reaching the magazines via a wave trough at high speed. The forward and rear ends of the belt terminated in 12-inch and 10-inch (254 mm) transverse bulkheads respectively. The waterline belt extended forward 46 feet (14.0 m) at a thickness of 6 inches that reduced to 2.25 inches (57 mm) in two steps. The funnel and boiler room ventilation shafts were surrounded by an armoured box 116 feet (35.4 m) long intended to prevent shells fired from behind the ship reaching 'X' magazine. The box narrowed at an angle of 21° as it rose and had a maximum thickness of 12 inches nearest to the magazine. Aft it reduced in a series of steps to 9 inches (229 mm), 6 inches, 5 inches (127 mm) and 4 inches (102 mm). The armoured deck matched the length of the waterline belt and sloped down 2.5° to meet the upper edge of the belt. It had a maximum thickness of 8 inches (203 mm) from the 'A' barbette to partway over the mid-boiler rooms and thinned to a minimum of 4 inches over the rear engine and boiler rooms. The deck's thickness increased to 7 inches (180 mm) partway over the rear engine room and covered the aft 6-inch magazines. The armoured deck extended forward 46 feet over the torpedo compartment with a maximum thickness of 8 inches, thinning to 6 inches. The armoured deck's rear extension was 106 feet 9 inches (32.5 m) long and was 5 inches thick until the last 27 feet 4 inches (8.3 m) when it thinned to 3 inches (76 mm). The turret faces were 17.5 inches (444 mm) thick while their sides ranged from 9 to 13 inches (229 to 330 mm) in thickness, and the roof was 8 inches thick. The armour of the barbettes ranged from 11 to 14 inches (279 to 356 mm) in thickness and it was carefully arranged to minimize the likely risk. The conning tower armour was 9 to 12 inches thick and its communications tube to the upper deck was 8 inches thick. The fire-control director atop the conning tower was protected by an armoured hood 3 to 5 inches thick. The anti-torpedo bulges of the G3 battlecruisers were intended to withstand the explosion of a 750-pound (340 kg) torpedo warhead. They consisted of an outer air space, an inner buoyancy space and the torpedo bulkhead that consisted of two layers of .875-inch (22 mm) high-tensile steel. The bulkhead was situated some 13.5 feet (4.1 m) inboard from the side of the ship. Postwar tests done on a replica of this system showed that filling the buoyancy space with water rather than the sealed steel crushing tubes as used in Hood was just as effective and weighed less. A compressed air system was fitted to blow the water out of the buoyancy spaces and bring the ship upright in 15 minutes after two torpedo hits. The ship's double bottom ranged from 5–7 feet (1.5–2.1 m) in depth. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Hull B: Tier 10: HMS Jellicoe (K2/K3) 'K2' and 'K3', had a general layout similar to Hood, but were armed with either eight or nine 18-inch guns, in four twin or three triple gun turrets, respectively. The numeral in the designation came from the number of guns in each turret. These ships were very large, displacing 52,000 to 53,100 long tons (52,800 to 54,000 t), could only reach 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph), and could only be docked in a single ex-German floating dock, and one dock, Gladstone Dock in Liverpool. K2 885 feet, 53,100 tons, 144,000 shp, 8 x 18" 16 x 6" K3 885 feet, 52,000 tons 144,000 shp, 9 x 18" 12 x 6" In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Hull B: I plan on adding more Jutland British Battlecruisers. This post will be updated! I will add premiums, new ships, the characteristics of ships, etc, in the future. But for now, enjoy the new post! :) Sources: 1. HMS Indefatigable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Indefatigable_(1909) 2. HMS Lion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Lion_(1910) 3. HMS Tiger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tiger_(1913) 4. HMS Renown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Renown_(1916) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renown-class_battlecruiser 5. HMS Incomparable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Incomparable 6. HMS Anson (J3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J3_Class_battlecruiser 7. HMS Beatty (G3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G3_battlecruiser 8. HMS Jellicoe (K2/K3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G3_battlecruiser http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2548 Line 2 Tier 4: HMS Queen Mary HMS Queen Mary was the last battlecruiser built by the Royal Navy before the First World War. The sole member of her class, Queen Mary shared many features with the Lion-class battlecruisers, including her eight 13.5-inch (343 mm) guns. She was completed in 1913 and participated in the Battle of Heligoland Bight as part of the Grand Fleet in 1914. Like most of the modern British battlecruisers, the ship never left the North Sea during the war. As part of the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron, Queen Mary attempted to intercept a German force that bombarded the North Sea coast of England in December 1914, but was unsuccessful. The ship was refitting in early 1915 and missed the Battle of Dogger Bank in January, but participated in the largest fleet action of the war, the Battle of Jutland in mid-1916. She was hit twice by the German battlecruiser Derfflinger during the early part of the battle and her magazines exploded shortly afterwards, sinking the ship. Her wreck was discovered in 1991 and rests in pieces, some of which are upside down, on the floor of the North Sea. Queen Mary is designated as a protected place under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 as it is the grave of 1,266 officers and ratings. Queen Mary was ordered, together with the four battleships of the King George V class, under the 1910–11 Naval Programme. As was the usual pattern of the time, only one battlecruiser was ordered per naval programme. She differed from her predecessors of the Lion class in the distribution of her secondary armament and armour and in the location of the officers' quarters. Every capital ship since the design of the battleship Dreadnought in 1905 had placed the officers' quarters closer to their action stations amidships; after complaints from the Fleet, Queen Mary was the first battlecruiser to restore the quarters to their traditional place in the stern. In addition, she was the first battlecruiser to mount a sternwalk. Queen Mary, the only ship of her name ever to serve in the Royal Navy, was named for Mary of Teck, the wife of King George V. The Queen's representative at the ship's christening on 20 March 1912 was the wife of Viscount Allendale. Slightly larger than the preceding Lion-class ships, Queen Mary had an overall length of 700 feet 0.6 inches (213.4 m), a beam of 89 feet 0.5 inches (27.1 m), and a draught of 32 feet 4 inches (9.9 m) at deep load. The ship normally displaced 26,770 long tons (27,200 t) and 31,650 long tons (32,160 t) at deep load, over 1,000 long tons (1,016 t) more than the earlier ships. She had a metacentric height of 5.92 feet (1.8 m) at deep load. In peacetime, the crew numbered 997 officers and ratings, but this increased to 1,275 during wartime. The ship had two paired sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines housed in separate engine rooms. Each set consisted of a high-pressure turbine driving an outboard propeller shaft and a low-pressure turbine driving an inner shaft. A cruising stage was built into the casing of each high-pressure turbine for economical steaming at low speeds. The turbines had a designed output of 75,000 shaft horsepower (56,000 kW), 5,000 shp (3,700 kW) more than her predecessors. On sea trials in May and June 1913, Queen Mary achieved more than 83,000 shp (62,000 kW), although she barely exceeded her designed speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph). The steam plant consisted of 42 Yarrow boilers arranged in seven boiler rooms. Maximum bunkerage was 3,600 long tons (3,660 t) of coal and 1,170 long tons (1,190 t) of fuel oil to be sprayed on the coal to increase its burn rate. Her range was 5,610 nautical miles (10,390 km; 6,460 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph). Queen Mary mounted eight BL 13.5-inch Mk V guns in four twin hydraulically powered turrets, designated 'A', 'B', 'Q' and 'X' from bow to stern. The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 20°, although the director controlling the turrets was limited to 15° 21' until prisms were installed before the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 to allow full elevation. They fired 1,250-pound (567 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2,550 ft/s (780 m/s); at 20° elevation, this provided a maximum range of 23,820 yd (21,781 m) with armour-piercing (AP) shells. The rate of fire of these guns was 1.5–2 rounds per minute. Queen Mary carried a total of 880 rounds during wartime for 110 shells per gun. Her secondary armament consisted of sixteen BL 4-inch Mk VII guns, most of which were mounted in casemates on the forecastle deck, unlike the arrangement in the Lion class. The guns could depress to −7° and had a maximum elevation of 15°. They fired 31-pound (14 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2,821 ft/s (860 m/s) at a maximum range of 11,400 yd (10,400 m); the ship carried 150 rounds per gun. The ship was built without any anti-aircraft guns, but two guns were fitted in October 1914. One was a QF 6-pounder Hotchkiss gun and the other was a QF 3-inch 20 cwt, both on high-angle mountings. The Hotchkiss fired a 6-pound (2.7 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 1,773 ft/s (540 m/s). The three-inch gun fired a 12.5-pound (5.7 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,604 ft/s (794 m/s) with a maximum effective ceiling of 23,000 ft (7,010 m). Two 21-inch (530 mm) submerged torpedo tubes were fitted, one on each broadside. Fourteen Mk II*** torpedoes were carried, each of which had a warhead of 400 pounds (181 kg) of TNT. Their range was 4,500 yards (4,115 m) at 45 knots (83 km/h; 52 mph) or 10,000 yards (9,144 m) at 29 knots (54 km/h; 33 mph). In February 1913, the Admiralty bought five sets of fire-control equipment from Arthur Pollen for comparative trials with the equipment designed by Commander Frederic Dreyer. One set was mounted in Queen Mary and consisted of a 9-foot (2.7 m) Argo rangefinder located on top of the conning tower that fed range data into an Argo Clock Mk IV (a mechanical fire-control computer) located in the transmitting station below the conning tower. The clock converted the information into range and deflection data for use by the guns. The target's data was also graphically recorded on a plotting table to assist the gunnery officer in predicting the movement of the target. The aft torpedo director tower was the backup gunnery control position. All four turrets were provided with 9-foot rangefinders and 'B' and 'X' turrets were further outfitted to serve as auxiliary control positions. Fire-control technology advanced quickly during the years immediately preceding World War I, and the development of the director firing system was a major advance. This consisted of a fire-control director mounted high in the ship which electrically provided elevation and training angles to the turrets via pointers, which the turret crewmen only had to follow. The guns were fired simultaneously, which aided in spotting the shell splashes and minimized the effects of the roll on the dispersion of the shells. Queen Mary received her director before the Battle of Jutland. The armour protection given to Queen Mary was similar to that of the Lions; her waterline belt of Krupp cemented armour was also 9 inches (229 mm) thick between 'B' and 'X' turrets. It thinned to 4 inches (102 mm) inches towards the ships' ends, but did not reach either the bow or the stern. In addition the ship was given an upper armour belt with a maximum thickness of six inches over the same length as the thickest part of the waterline armour, thinning to 5 inches (127 mm) abreast the end turrets. Four-inch transverse bulkheads closed off the ends of the armoured citadel. High-tensile steel plating, cheaper than nickel-steel, but equally as effective, was used for the protective decks. The lower armoured deck was generally only 1 inch (25 mm) thick except outside the citadel where it was 2.5 inches (64 mm). The upper armoured deck was situated at the top of the upper armour belt and was also only one inch thick. The forecastle deck ranged from 1 to 1.5 inches (25.4 to 38.1 mm). The gun turrets had nine-inch fronts and sides, while their roofs were 2.5 to 3.25 inches (64 to 83 mm) thick. The barbettes were protected by nine inches of armour above the deck, but it thinned to 8 inches (203 mm) above the upper armour deck and 3 inches (76 mm) below it. The forward 4-inch guns were protected by three-inch sides and a two-inch high-tensile steel deck overhead. The conning tower sides were 10 inches (254 mm) thick, with three-inch roofs and communication tubes. Her aft torpedo director tower was protected by six-inch walls and a three-inch cast steel roof. High-tensile steel torpedo bulkheads 2.5 inches (64 mm) thick were fitted abreast the magazines and shell rooms. Her funnel uptakes were protected by high-tensile steel splinter armour 1.5 inches (38 mm) thick on the sides and one inch thick on the ends between the upper and forecastle decks. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Hull B: Tier 5: HMS Courageous The Courageous class consisted of three battlecruisers known as "large light cruisers" built for the Royal Navy during the First World War. The class was nominally designed to support the Baltic Project, a plan by Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher that was intended to land troops on the German Baltic Coast. Ships of this class were fast but very lightly armoured, with only a few heavy guns. They were given a shallow draught, in part to allow them to operate in the shallow waters of the Baltic but also reflecting experience gained earlier in the war. To maximize their speed, the Courageous-class battlecruisers were the first capital ships of the Royal Navy to use geared steam turbines and small-tube boilers. The first two ships, Courageous and Glorious, were commissioned in 1917 and spent the war patrolling the North Sea. They participated in the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight in November 1917 and were present when the High Seas Fleet surrendered a year later. Their half-sister Furious was designed with a pair of 18-inch (457 mm) guns, the largest guns ever fitted on a ship of the Royal Navy, but was modified during construction to take a flying-off deck and hangar in lieu of her forward turret and barbette. After some patrols in the North Sea, her rear turret was removed and another flight deck added. Her aircraft attacked the Zeppelin sheds during the Tondern raid in July 1918. All three ships were laid up after the war, but were rebuilt into the Courageous-class aircraft carrier during the 1920s. Glorious and Courageous were sunk early in the Second World War and Furious was sold for scrap in 1948. The first two Courageous-class battlecruisers were designed in 1915 to meet a set of requirements laid down by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Fisher, with his Baltic Project in mind. They were to be large enough to ensure that they could maintain their speed in heavy weather, have a powerful armament and a speed of at least 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph) to allow them to outrun enemy light cruisers. Their protection was to be light for a cruiser, with 3 inches (76 mm) of armour between the waterline and the forecastle deck, anti-torpedo bulges amidships and the machinery as far inboard as possible, protected by triple torpedo bulkheads. Shallow draught was of the utmost importance and all other factors were to be subordinated to this. The Director of Naval Construction (DNC), Sir Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt, responded on 23 February 1915 with a smaller version of the Renown-class battlecruisers with one less gun turret and reduced armour protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had forbidden any further construction of ships larger than light cruisers in 1915, so Fisher designated the ships as large light cruisers to evade this prohibition. If this restriction had not been in place, the ships would have been built as improved versions of the preceding Renown class. The two ships were laid down a few months later under a veil of secrecy, so they became known in the Royal Navy as "Lord Fisher's hush-hush cruisers" and their odd design also earned them the nickname of the Outrageous class. Their half-sister Furious was designed a few months later to meet a revised requirement specifying an armament of two BL 18-inch Mk I guns, the largest guns ever fitted on a Royal Navy ship, in single turrets with the ability to use twin 15-inch (381 mm) gun turrets if the 18-inch guns were unsatisfactory. Gunnery experts criticized this decision because the long time between salvoes would make spotting corrections useless and reduce the rate of fire and thus the probability of a direct hit. Her secondary armament was upgraded to BL 5.5-inch (140 mm) Mk I guns, rather than the 4-inch (102 mm) guns used by the first two ships, to compensate for the weakness of the two main guns against fast-moving targets like destroyers. Her displacement and beam were increased over that of her half-sisters with slightly less draught. The Baltic Project was only one justification for the ships. Admiral Fisher wrote in a letter to the DNC on 16 March 1915: "I've told the First Lord that the more that I consider the qualities of your design of the Big Light Battle Cruisers, the more that I am impressed by its exceeding excellence and simplicity—all the three vital requisites of gunpower, speed and draught so well balanced!" In fact they could be considered the epitome of Fisher's belief in the paramount importance of speed over everything else. Fisher's adherence to this principle is highlighted in a letter he wrote to Churchill concerning the battleships of the 1912–13 Naval Estimates. In the letter, dated April 1912, Fisher stated: "There must be sacrifice of armour ... There must be further VERY GREAT INCREASE IN SPEED ... your speed must vastly exceed [that of] your possible enemy!" Fisher's desire for a shallow draught was not merely based on the need to allow for inshore operations; ships tended to operate closer to deep load than anticipated and were often found lacking in freeboard, reserve buoyancy and safety against underwater attack. This experience led the DNC to reconsider the proportions of the hull to rectify the problems identified thus far. The Courageous-class ships were the first products of that re-evaluation. The Courageous-class ships had an overall length of 786 feet 9 inches (239.8 m), a beam of 81 feet (24.7 m), and a draught of 25 feet 10 inches (7.9 m) at deep load. They displaced 19,180 long tons (19,490 t) normally and 22,560 long tons (22,922 t) at deep load. They had a metacentric height of 6 feet (1.8 m) at deep load and a complete double bottom. Their half-sister Furious was the same length, but had a beam of 88 feet (26.8 m) and a draught of 24 feet 11 inches (7.6 m) at deep load. She displaced 19,513 long tons (19,826 t) at load and 22,890 long tons (23,257 t) at deep load. She had a metacentric height of 5.33 feet (1.6 m) at deep load. To save weight and space the Courageous-class ships were the first large warships in the Royal Navy to have geared steam turbines and small-tube boilers despite the latter's significantly heavier maintenance requirements. Furthermore, to save design time, the turbine installation used in the light cruiser Champion, the navy's first cruiser with geared turbines, was simply doubled. The Parsons turbines were arranged in two engine rooms and each of the turbines drove one of the four propeller shafts. Furious's propellers were 11 feet 6 inches (3.5 m) in diameter. The turbines were powered by eighteen Yarrow boilers equally divided among three boiler rooms. They were designed to produce a total of 90,000 shaft horsepower (67,113 kW) at a working pressure of 235 psi (1,620 kPa; 17 kgf/cm2), but achieved slightly more than that during Glorious's trials, although she did not reach her designed speed of 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph). They were designed to normally carry 750 long tons (762 t) of fuel oil, but could carry a maximum of 3,160 long tons (3,211 t). At full capacity, they could steam for an estimated 6,000 nautical miles (11,110 km; 6,900 mi) at a speed of 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph). The Courageous-class ships mounted four BL 15-inch Mark I guns in two twin hydraulically powered Mark I* turrets, one each fore (designated the 'A' turrets) and aft (the 'Y' turrets). These turrets were originally intended for a Revenge-class battleship that was canceled shortly after the war began. The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 20°; they could be loaded at any angle up to 20°, although loading at high angles tended to slow the gun's return to battery (firing position). The ships carried 120 shells per gun. They fired 1,910-pound (866 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2,575 ft/s (785 m/s); this provided a maximum range of 23,734 yd (21,702 m) with armour-piercing shells. The Courageous-class ships were designed with 18 BL 4-inch Mark IX guns, fitted in six triple mounts. These were manually powered and quite cumbersome in use as they required a crew of thirty-two men to load and train the guns. The gun's rate of fire was only 10 to 12 rounds per minute as the loaders kept getting in each other's way. They had a maximum depression of −10° and a maximum elevation of 30°. They fired a 22-pound (10.0 kg) high explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,625 ft/s (800 m/s). At maximum elevation the guns had a maximum range of 13,500 yards (12,344 m). The ships carried 120 rounds for each gun. Each ship mounted a pair of QF 3 inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft guns on single high-angle Mark II mountings. These were mounted abreast the mainmast in the Courageous-class ships and before the funnel on Furious. The gun had a maximum depression of 10° and a maximum elevation of 90°. It fired a 12.5-pound (5.7 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s) at a rate of fire of 12–14 rounds per minute. They had a maximum effective ceiling of 23,500 ft (7,200 m). All three ships carried ten torpedoes and mounted two 21-inch (533 mm) submerged side-loading torpedo tubes fitted near 'A' turret. They were loaded and traversed by hydraulic power, but fired by compressed air. The 18-inch BL Mark I gun carried by Furious was derived from the 15-inch Mark I gun used in her half-sisters. It was intended to be mounted in two single-gun turrets derived from the twin-gun 15-inch Mark I/N turret, and her barbettes were designed to accommodate either turret in case problems arose with the 18-inch gun's development, but only one turret was actually fitted. The gun could depress to −3° and elevate to a maximum of 30°. It fired a 3,320-pound (1,510 kg), 4 crh armour-piercing, capped shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,270 ft/s (690 m/s) to a distance of 28,900 yards (26,400 m). It could fire one round per minute and the ship carried sixty rounds of ammunition. The turret's revolving mass was 826 long tons (839 t), only slightly more than the 810 long tons (823 t) of its predecessor. Furious's secondary armament consisted of 11 BL 5.5-inch Mk I guns. The guns had a maximum elevation of 25° on their pivot mounts. They fired 82-pound (37 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2,790 ft/s (850 m/s) at a rate of 12 rounds per minute. Their maximum range was 16,000 yd (15,000 m) at 25° elevation. The main guns of the Courageous-class ships could be controlled from either of the two fire-control directors. The primary director was mounted above the conning tower in an armoured hood and the other was in the fore-top on the foremast. The secondary armament was also director-controlled. Each turret was provided with a 15-foot (4.6 m) rangefinder in an armoured housing on the turret roof. The fore-top was equipped with a 9-foot (2.7 m) rangefinder as was the torpedo control tower above the rear superstructure. The anti-aircraft guns were controlled by a simple 2-metre (6 ft 7 in) rangefinder mounted on the aft superstructure. Unlike on other British battlecruisers, the bulk of the armour of the Courageous-class ships was made from high-tensile steel, a type of steel used structurally in other ships. Their waterline belt consisted of 2 inches (51 mm) covered by a 1-inch (25 mm) skin. It ran from barbette to barbette with a one-inch extension forward to the two-inch forward bulkhead well short of the bow. The belt had a height of 23 feet (7.0 m), of which 18 inches (0.5 m) was below the designed waterline. From the forward barbette a three-inch bulkhead extended out to the ship's side between the upper and lower decks and a comparable bulkhead was in place at the rear barbette as well. Four decks were armoured with thicknesses varying from .75 to 3 inches (19 to 76 mm), with the greatest thicknesses over the magazines and the steering gear. After the loss of three battlecruisers to magazine explosions during the Battle of Jutland, 110 long tons (112 t) of extra protection was added to the deck around the magazines. The turrets, barbettes and conning tower were made from Krupp cemented armour. The turret faces were 9 inches (229 mm) thick while their sides ranged from 7 to 9 inches (178 to 229 mm) in thickness and the roof was 4.5 inches (114 mm) thick. The barbettes had a maximum thickness of 6 to 7 inches (152 to 178 mm) above the main deck, but reduced in thickness to 3 to 4 inches (76 to 102 mm) between the lower and main decks. The conning tower armour was 10 inches (254 mm) thick and it had a three-inch roof. The primary fire-control director atop the conning tower was protected by an armoured hood. The face of the hood was six inches thick, its sides were two inches thick and its roof was protected by three inches of armour. A communications tube with three-inch sides ran from the conning tower down to the lower conning position on the main deck. The torpedo bulkheads were increased during building from .75 inches (19 mm) to 1.5 inches (38 mm) in thickness. All three ships were fitted with a shallow anti-torpedo bulge integral to the hull which was intended to explode the torpedo before it hit the hull proper and vent the underwater explosion to the surface rather than into the ship. However, later testing proved that it was not deep enough to accomplish its task as it lacked the layers of empty and full compartments that were necessary to absorb the force of the explosion. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Tier 6: HMS Inflexible (Designs F2) F2 was the immediate predecessors of the O3 design, which we know as Nelson and Rodney. IIRC, they were conceived between the 35,000 ton limit and the 16in limit, hence the move to O3 eventually. Statistics from Raven and Roberts: British Battleships of World War II F2 Nov. 1921 LxWxB: 720 (760 oa) x 106 x 28.5 Disp: 35,000 tons SHP: 112,000 Speed, Deep: 29.5 Speed, Light: 30 Oil Fuel Capacity: 4,000 Armament: 6 x 15-inch/50 cal 12 x 6" (four twin+four singles) 4 pom-poms Protection: Belt: 13" inclined 72 degrees over magazines 12" inclined at 72 degrees over machinery Bulkheads; 11", 10" and 8" Barbettes: 13" Turrets Front: 16" Sides: 12" Rear: 9" Roofs: 7" Conning tower: Wall: 12" Roof: 6" Tube: 6" Forecastle Deck: 1" Upper deck: 7" over magazines 3.5" over machinery Weights (tons) General equipment: 850 Armament: 4,600 Machinery: 4,660 Fuel: 1,000 Armor and protective plating: 10,210 Hull: 13,500 Board margin: 180 F2 featured a fewer main battery guns, but was faster and had more secondary armament. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Tier 7: HMS Admiral The Admiral-class battlecruisers were to have been a class of four British Royal Navy battlecruisers designed near the end of World War I. Their design began as an improved version of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, but it was recast as a battlecruiser after Admiral John Jellicoe, commander of the Grand Fleet, pointed out that there was no real need for more battleships, but that a number of German battlecruisers had been laid down that were superior to the bulk of the Grand Fleet's battlecruisers and the design was revised to counter these. The class was to have consisted of HMS Hood, Anson, Howe, and Rodney — all names of famous admirals — but the latter three ships were suspended as the material and labour required to complete them was needed for higher-priority merchantmen and escort vessels. Their designs were updated to incorporate the lessons from the Battle of Jutland, but the Admiralty eventually decided that it was better to begin again with a clean-slate design so they were cancelled in 1919. No more battlecruisers would be built due to the arms limitations agreements of the interbellum. Hood, however, was sufficiently advanced in construction that she was completed in 1920 and immediately became flagship of the Battlecruiser Squadron of the Atlantic Fleet. She served as the flagship of the Special Service Squadron during its round-the-world cruise in 1923–1924. Hood was transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet in 1936 and spent much of the next few years on Non-Intervention Patrols during the Spanish Civil War, returning to the United Kingdom before the beginning of World War II and the Battlecruiser Squadron of the Home Fleet. Hood spent most of the early part of the war patrolling against German commerce raiders and escorting convoys. Flagship of Force H, based at Gibraltar, she bombarded French ships during the attack on Mers-el-Kébir. In May 1941 Hood and the battleship Prince of Wales were ordered to intercept the German battleship Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen as they attempted to break out into the North Atlantic. In the subsequent Battle of the Denmark Strait, the aft magazines of Hood exploded, sinking her within five minutes of opening fire. In 1915 the Admiralty was considering the next generation of warship to follow the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. The Director of Naval Construction (DNC), Sir Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt, was given instructions to prepare designs for a new battleship. The design should: "take the armament, armour and engine power of Queen Elizabeth as the standard and build around them a hull which should draw as little water as was considered practicable and safe, and which should embody all the latest protection and improvements against underwater attack." The design ('A') was submitted to the Admiralty on 30 November for consideration. The DNC had been able to reduce the draught in comparison to Queen Elizabeth by 22% by widening the ship to 104 feet (31.7 m) and lengthening it to 810 feet (246.9 m); this had the consequence of restricting the ships to use only one dock in Rosyth and two in Portsmouth. Large anti-torpedo bulges were fitted, and the secondary armament of twelve 5-inch (127 mm) guns of a new design was mounted on the forecastle deck. The resulting high freeboard gave the design a greater ratio of reserve buoyancy to displacement than in any previous British dreadnought. The design's stretched hull form also gave her an estimated speed of 26.5 knots (49.1 km/h; 30.5 mph), about 2.5 knots (4.6 km/h; 2.9 mph) faster than Queen Elizabeth had been able to reach in service. The First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Henry Jackson, responded on 6 December that such a large ship might start a new arms race with the Americans that Britain could ill afford, and that better deck protection was necessary to defeat plunging shells during long-range engagements. The Admiralty asked for the design to be reworked ('B') with a maximum beam of 90 feet (27.4 m), but this was deemed unsatisfactory as it compromised the ship's underwater protection. A pair of revised designs was requested with the speed reduced to 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph) to allow the hull to be shortened to better fit in existing floating docks and the minimum possible draught. The first of the two ('C1') was to have full bulge protection and the second ('C2') to have the best bulge protection possible without exceeding Queen Elizabeth's length. 'C1' was shortened by 100 feet (30.5 m) in comparison with 'B' and 'C2' was only 610 feet (185.9 m) in length, but draught increased by 1 foot 3 inches (0.38 m). In both proposals it had been necessary to reduce the number of guns in the secondary armament and reduce the thickness of the armour. The Admiralty was not pleased with either design and asked for a revised version of 'A' of the same draught, beam, armour and armament, but shortened and with the same speed as Queen Elizabeth. In addition the new five-inch gun was rejected in favour of the existing 5.5-inch (140 mm) gun. At least some of the designs were passed to Admiral John Jellicoe, commander of the Grand Fleet, who pointed out that there was no need for new battleships as the British superiority in numbers over the Germans was substantial, but that was not true for battlecruisers. Germany was known to be building three new Mackensen-class battlecruisers with an estimated speed approaching 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph) and a reported armament of 15.2-inch (386 mm) guns. These ships would be superior to all existing British battlecruisers, and those then under construction (the two Renown-class and the three Courageous-class 'large light cruisers') were equally fast, but too thinly armoured to compete with them. He also remarked that his experience with Queen Elizabeth-class had persuaded him that an intermediate speed between the battleships and the battlecruisers was of little use; he suggested that the design should be for either a 21-knot (39 km/h; 24 mph) battleship or a 30-knot battlecruiser, preferably the latter. The DNC prepared two new designs in response to Admiral Jellicoe's comments on 1 February 1916, each for a battlecruiser capable of thirty knots or better and armed with eight 15-inch (381 mm) guns. Design '1' displaced 39,000 long tons (39,626 t) with two inches less belt armour and a speed of thirty knots. It used the bulky large-tube boilers traditional in British capital ships, which explains why the design was 9,000 long tons (9,144 t) larger than any of the previous battleship designs. Design '2' was essentially a repeat of the first design except that small-tube boilers were substituted. These were considerably smaller than the older type and saved 3,500 long tons (3,556 t) over Design '1' and had one foot less draught. These savings were substantial enough to overcome the Engineer-in-Chief's objections that they required more frequent and expensive repairs. The DNC was asked to submit four more designs using small-tube boilers which were submitted on 17 February. Design '3' was Design '2' with the machinery power increased to 160,000 shaft horsepower (120,000 kW) to boost the maximum speed to 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph) while the other designs had either four, six or eight 18-inch (457 mm) guns. Design '3' was selected as Admiral Jellicoe has specified that the minimum number of guns should be no less than eight as fewer caused problems in accurate fire control, and two alternatives were to be provided, one with a dozen 5.5-inch guns and the other with sixteen such guns. The latter proposal was selected on 7 April and orders were placed on 19 April for three ships (Hood, Howe and Rodney). The order for the fourth ship, Anson, was placed on 13 June. Hood was laid down on 31 May 1916, the same day as the Battle of Jutland. The loss of three British battlecruisers during that battle caused the work on all three ships to be suspended pending an investigation into possible design flaws. Admiral Jellicoe's investigation blamed the loss of the ships on faulty cordite handling procedures that allowed fires in the turrets or hoists to reach the ships' magazines. It recommended anti-flash equipment be installed in magazines and handling rooms and the improvement of deck armour over the magazines to prevent plunging shells or fragments from reaching the magazines. The DNC and the Third Sea Lord opposed the latter, believing that there was no direct evidence that the magazines had been directly penetrated. On 5 July the DNC submitted two revised designs for the Admiral-class ships. The first was a modification of the previous design with slight increases to the deck, turret, barbette, and funnel uptake armour, one-inch protection for the 5.5-inch ammunition hatches and hoists, and the number of electrical generators increased from four to eight. These changes increased the displacement by 1,250 long tons (1,270 t) and draught by 9 inches (228.6 mm). The second design drastically improved the protection and converted the ships into fast battleships. The vertical armour was generally increased by 50% and the deck protection was slightly thickened as in the first design. These changes would have added another 4,300 long tons (4,369 t) to the original design and increased the draught by 2 feet (0.6 m), but would have cost half a knot in speed. This design would have been equal to the Queen Elizabeths, but 7 knots (13 km/h; 8.1 mph) faster and with much improved torpedo protection, although it was some 13,000 long tons (13,209 t) larger than the older ships. After the DNC submitted the above designs, he was asked to consider variations with triple fifteen-inch turrets, and these were submitted on 20 July. The Admiralty chose the fast battleship design, and Hood was laid down again on 1 September. Later that month Hood's armour scheme was slightly revised in light of further analysis of the results of Jutland and the deck armour was modestly increased in order to ensure that a minimum thickness of nine inches of armour would have to be penetrated by shells striking at angles of descent up to 30° from the horizontal. Further alterations were made in 1917 during her construction that increased the thickness of her turret faces and roofs. These changes, plus numerous others, increased her displacement by 600 long tons (610 t) and her draught by 3 inches (76.2 mm), and reduced her speed to 31 knots (57 km/h; 36 mph). The changes continued during 1918 when the thickness of her magazine crowns was increased from one inch to two; the armour for the funnel uptakes above the forecastle deck was omitted in compensation. In May 1919 her main deck armour at the side abreast the magazines was increased to three inches (76 mm), and four 5.5-inch guns and their ammunition were deleted in consequence. The next month plans were approved to increase the thickness of the main deck over the forward magazines to 5 inches (127 mm) and to 6 inches (152 mm) over the rear magazines; her four above water torpedo tubes and their protection were to be omitted and the wall of the torpedo control tower were to be reduced to a thickness of 1.5 inches (38.1 mm) to offset the armour's weight. However, the additional deck armour was never fitted and the torpedo tubes (less their protection) were retained. Earlier in 1917, however, construction of Hood's three sisters had been suspended as the amount of labour and material they required would be better employed in the construction and repair of merchant ships and escorts needed to keep open Britain's lines of communication in the face of the U-boat blockade. Design work continued however, although Hood was too far advanced to incorporate these changes, and ultimately would have been extensive enough for the other three ships to constitute their own class. At the end of 1917 the suspended ships' design was modified to increase the thickness of the turret roofs to six inches (152 mm), and (unspecified) alterations were made to the armoured bulkheads. These cost a total of 267 long tons (271 t) in displacement. Other changes were a redesigned bridge structure and moving the funnels closer together and the exchange in position between the fifteen-inch shellrooms and magazines. This latter change would have caused the hull's form to be filled out somewhat to accommodate the handling room of the rearmost turret at the cost of a slight loss in speed and ammunition storage. Hood was the closest to completion and her construction was continued in case the Germans managed to complete any of their new battlecruisers. Admiral Beatty continually pressed to have Hood's construction expedited and for her sisters to be restarted, but the War Cabinet refused to approve either measure as nothing could be sacrificed in the shipbuilding programme to this end. After the end of the war the three suspended ships were cancelled as they could not fully incorporate the lessons of the war. The Admiral-class ships were significantly larger than their predecessors of the Renown class. They had an overall length of 860 feet (262.1 m), a beam of 104 feet (31.7 m), and a draught of 31 feet 6 inches (9.6 m) at deep load. This was 110 feet (33.5 m) longer and 14 feet (4.3 m) wider than the smaller ships. They displaced 41,200 long tons (41,861 t) at load and 45,620 long tons (46,352 t) at deep load, over 13,000 long tons (13,210 t) more than the older ships. They had a metacentric height of 4.6 feet (1.4 m) at deep load as well as a complete double bottom. The ships had four Brown-Curtis single-reduction geared steam turbine sets, each of which drove one propeller shaft. They were arranged in three engine rooms. The forward engine room held the two turbines for the wing shafts, the middle compartment housed the turbines for the port inner shaft and the aft engine room contained the turbines for the starboard inner shaft. A cruising turbine was built into the casing of each wing turbine. The turbines were powered by twenty-four Yarrow small-tube boilers equally divided between four boiler rooms. They were designed to produce a total of 144,000 shaft horsepower (107,000 kW) at a working pressure of 235 psi (1,620 kPa), but achieved more than 151,000 shp (112,601 kW) during Hood's trials, when she slightly exceeded her designed speed of 31 knots (57 km/h; 36 mph). They were designed to normally carry 1,200 long tons (1,219 t) of fuel oil, but had a maximum capacity of 4,000 long tons (4,064 t). At full capacity, Hood could steam at a speed of 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph) for an estimated 7,500 nautical miles (13,890 km; 8,630 mi). They had eight 175-kilowatt (235 hp) dynamos, two diesel, two turbo-driven, and four reciprocating. The Admiral-class ships mounted eight BL 15-inch Mk I guns in four twin hydraulically powered Mark II turrets, designated 'A', 'B', 'X' and 'Y' from front to rear. The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 30°; they could be loaded at any angle up to 20°, although loading at high angles tended to slow the gun's return to battery. The ships carried 120 shells per gun. They fired 1,920-pound (871 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2,467 ft/s (752 m/s); this provided a maximum range of 29,000 yd (26,518 m) with armour-piercing (AP) shells. Their secondary armament consisted of sixteen BL 5.5-inch Mk I guns, which were mounted on pivot mounts on the forecastle deck, protected by gun shields. They were provided with 200 rounds per gun. The guns on their CPII mounts had a maximum elevation of 30°. They fired 82-pound (37 kg) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 2,790 ft/s (850 m/s). Their maximum range was 17,700 yd (16,200 m) at 30° elevation. Their rate of fire was twelve rounds per minute. The Admiral-class ships were designed with four QF four-inch Mark V anti-aircraft guns. They had a maximum depression of -5° and a maximum elevation of 80°. They fired a 31-pound (14 kg) high explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,387 ft/s (728 m/s) at a rate of ten to fifteen rounds per minute. The guns had a maximum ceiling of 31,000 ft (9,400 m), but an effective range of much less. Two 21-inch (533 mm) submerged side-loading torpedo tubes were fitted forward of 'A' turret and eight above-water side-loading Mark V tubes were intended to be mounted abreast the rear funnel on the upper deck, although only four of the latter were carried by Hood. They were loaded and traversed by hydraulic power; the submerged tubes were fired by compressed air while the above-water tubes used cordite charges. Thirty-two warheads could be accommodated in the two magazines in the hold forward of 'A' turret's shellroom. Hood carried Mark IV and IV* torpedoes, each which had a warhead of 515 pounds (234 kg) of TNT. They had three speed settings which governed their range; from 8,000 yards (7,315 m) at 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph), 10,000 yards (9,144 m) at 29 knots (54 km/h; 33 mph), and 13,500 yards (12,344 m) at 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph). The main guns of the Admiral-class ships were controlled from either of the two fire-control directors. The primary director was mounted above the conning tower in an armoured hood and the other was in the fore-top on the foremast. 'B' turret could also control all the main gun turrets while 'X' turret could control the rear guns. Data from a 30-foot (9.1 m) rangefinder in the armoured hood were input into a Mk V Dreyer Fire Control Table located in the Transmitting Station (TS) on the platform deck where they were converted into range and deflection data for use by the guns. The target's data were also graphically recorded on a plotting table to assist the gunnery officer in predicting the movement of the target. The fore-top was equipped with a 15-foot (4.6 m) rangefinder. Each turret was provided with a thirty-foot rangefinder in an armoured housing on the turret roof and a Dumaresq analogue computer for local fire-control. The secondary armament was primarily controlled by the 5.5-inch directors mounted on each side of the bridge. They were supplemented by the two additional control positions in the fore-top, which were provided with 9-foot (2.7 m) rangefinders. Each of these positions was equipped with a Dumaresq calculator for local control, but the spotting data were normally sent to the 5.5-inch TS on the lower deck much like the procedure for the fifteen-inch guns, except that the firing data were calculated by two Type F fire-control clocks (analog computers). The anti-aircraft guns were controlled by a simple 2-metre (6 ft 7 in) rangefinder mounted on the aft superstructure. The torpedoes initially had a similar system where various rangefinders, especially the fifteen-foot rangefinder above the aft torpedo control tower, and deflection sights provided data to a Dreyer table in the torpedo TS adjacent to the 5.5-inch TS on the lower deck. However the Dreyer table was removed during Hood's 1929–1931 refit and the calculations were made in the torpedo control position in the bridge. The waterline belt of the Admiral-class ships was 12 inches (305 mm) thick, angled 12° outwards partly to keep the belt inside the bulge structure and allow torpedo hits to vent to the atmosphere. This angle also increased the armor's relative thickness to horizontal, close-range fire, albeit at the cost of reducing its relative height which increased the chance of plunging shellfire going over or under it. This sloped belt made their armor comparable to the 13 inches (330 mm) found in the latest British dreadnoughts. It ran some 562 feet (171.3 m), from the forward edge of 'A' barbette to the middle of 'Y' barbette. Forward of this the belt thinned to six inches before further reducing to 5 inches (127 mm) and ending in a five-inch (127 mm) bulkhead well short of the bow. Aft of the midships section the belt reduced to six inches (152 mm) ; it did not reach the stern, but terminated at a five-inch bulkhead. This belt had a height of 9 feet 6 inches (2.9 m), which 4 feet (1.2 m) was below the designed waterline. Above it was the seven-inch middle belt, 7 feet (2.1 m) high, and the five-inch upper belt, which was 9 feet (2.7 m) high. The middle belt stretched between 'A' and 'Y' barbettes, ending in four-inch transverse bulkheads at each end. The upper belt only ran from 'A' barbette to the end of the machinery spaces and ended in another four-inch transverse bulkhead. Five of Hood's decks were armoured with thicknesses varying from .75 to 3 inches (19 to 76 mm), with the greatest thicknesses over the magazines and the steering gear. Immediately adjacent to 'A' and 'Y' barbettes the main deck was five inches thick to protect the magazines. The turret faces were fifteen inches thick while their sides ranged from 11 to 12 inches (279 to 305 mm) in thickness, and the roof was five inches thick. The barbettes had a maximum of twelve inches of armour, but were reduced in thickness in stages below decks, although the outer faces of 'A' and 'Y' barbettes were considerably thicker below decks than the other barbettes. The conning tower armour was nine to eleven inches thick, and it was the largest yet fitted to a British capital ship as it weighed 600 long tons (610 t). The primary fire-control director atop the conning tower was protected by an armoured hood. The face of the hood was six inches thick, its sides were two inches thick, and its roof was protected by three inches of armour. A communications tube with six-inch sides ran from the conning tower down to the lower conning position on the main deck. The three torpedo bulkheads were 1.5 inches (38 mm), 1 inch (25 mm) and .75 inches (19 mm) thick. The anti-torpedo bulges of the Admiral-class battlecruisers were the first fitted on a British capital ship to fully incorporate the lessons learned from a series of experiments begun before World War I. They consisted of an outer air space, an inner buoyancy space and the 1.5-inch protective bulkhead. The buoyancy space was filled with sealed steel crushing tubes intended to distribute the force of an explosion over as wide an area as possible as well as absorb as much of its force as possible. However, tests conducted after Hood was completed showed that filling the buoyancy space with water was equally as effective and considerably cheaper. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Hull B: Tier 8: HMS Indomitable F3 Nov. 1921 LxWxB: 700 (740 oa) x 106 x 28.5 Disp: 35,000 tons SHP: 96,000 Speed, Deep: 28.5 Speed, Light: 29 Oil Fuel Capacity: 4,000 tons Armament: 9 x 15-inch/50 cal 8 x 6" (four twin) 4 pom-poms Protection: Belt: 12" inclined 72 degrees over magazines 12" inclined at 72 degrees over machinery Bulkheads; 10", 9" and 5" Barbettes: 12" Turrets Front: 16" Sides: 12" Rear: 9" Roofs: 7" Conning tower: Wall: 9" Roof: 6" Tube: 5" Forecastle Deck: 1" Upper deck: 7" over magazines 3.25" over machinery Weights (tons) General equipment: 850 Armament: 5,400 Machinery: 4,100 Fuel: 1,000 Armor and protective plating: 9,970 Hull: 13,500 Board margin: 180 F3 featured a greater weight of main armament, but sacrificed some speed and secondary armament. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Tier 9: HMS Panther (H3 designs) H3a, H3b, H3c I3 was fine, but too large. Weight savings was required. First, simplest way, was to delete one main battery turret. This alone ( turret + ammo ) generated ~2 500 tons of savings. Next were thanks to delete barbette, shorter citadel and so one. As a result ships were ~6000 tons lighter compared to I3. The same machinery was retained. But armour even improved. Over machinery was the same, but turrets were on the same scale as in battleships ( barbettes 1” thinner than on battleships, but 2” more than on I3 ) Deck over magazines was as in battleships. Belt 1” thinner than on battleships but 2” more than on I3. So armour over machinery was a bit strange. A bit to weak against 18” shells ( belt ) but too strong against 15” (long barrel) or 16” (short barrel) guns. But capable of resisting new US 16” C50 guns, and possible Japan 17” - 17.5”. It was expected that Japan could have such a guns. There were 3 versions. H3a, two turrets forward. H3b, one forward and one in the middle, in higher position, H3c as H3b but one deck lower. All had its advantages and disadvantages. H3b had highest center of gravity, so to keep stability, she had to have highest beam. It resulted largest displacement, and slowest speed ~33.25 knots. But placement turrets such high, resulted possibility of firing guns in extreme weather. And give opportunity to put one pair of 6” turrets forward, for good separation of secondary guns. H3c had lowest center of gravity, so could have smallest beam, and had smallest displacement. Result 33.75 knots max speed, highest of all three, but secondary guns all had to be in after part of the ship. H3a was in the middle in center of gravity, displacement, beam, and speed 33.5 knots. But could fire all turrets forward. What is not visible at first - H3a had shortest citadel. Magazine area was ~3 m ( 10 feet ) shorter than rest two, thanks to more packed artillery At first they seems to be OK. Artillery 18” guns, armour nearly in level 2 ( magazines against 18” guns, machinery against 15” shells ), speed no less than Lexington. But there were “buts” Most important was artillery of only 6 guns in only 2 turrets. Any damage/mulfunction could put half an artillery out of action. 6 guns was not ideal from artillery point of view. H3c - 860 feet, 46,500 tons 180,000 shp 6 x 18" 16 x 6 In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Hull B: Hull C: Tier 10: HMS King Alfred (Design I3) In “classical” configuration, turrets are forward and aft of ship, and engines in the middle. It has its advantages, but disadvantages too. It push magazines in shallow part of the hull. Specially it is important in battlecruisers with very fine hull lines for high speed. With need of some volume, magazines had to be very long. As a result citadel long ( with of deck had to be large to protect hull anyway ). Too long magazine is not so practical, so SPS protection is compromise, as had to be shallower. Specially it is visible in after part of the hull where out of shafts are to be stored in the same area as magazines, turret machinery and so one. As a result whole protection is severely compromised, and we know that by definition “compromise is a solution with which everyone is unhappy”. Detonation of magazines due to torpedo, was quite possible, and as a result, area which needed best protection, had weakest protection, due to hull shape. Idea was to put magazines in widest part of the ship. They could be short, but with full width, and full depth of SPS. Automatically design of after part of the ship was more simple – no need to avoid whole things of after turrets. Even stress on ship will be minimalized, as very heavy turrets/barbettes/supportiong structures/ammo were far away from bow/aft. And better sea keeping was expected. Nothing for free – in that configuration some sector aft was bind to main artillery. But that was considered acceptable, specially with special shape of superstructures to make such a “blank area” as small as possible. Result of that conception was I3. Longest of all designs, but not largest in therm of displacement. Compared to K3, she was 250 tons smaller ( say the same displacement ), had the same artillery, 2 knots more speed, and thicker deck over magazines ( but thinner over machinery ). Barbettes with the same thickness all around. More than 180 000 SHP was impossible, due to technology limitations at the time on 4 shafts. More than 4 shafts were not even considered. She was nearly good in every aspect, but too large to be accepted. Some savings were needed. 925 feet, 51,750 tons 180,000 shp 9 x 18" 16 x 6 In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Hull A: Sources: 1. HMS Queen Mary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Mary 2. HMS Courageous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous-class_battlecruiser 3. HMS Inflexible https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/f2-and-f3-battlecruisers-t8627.html 4. HMS Admiral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral-class_battlecruiser 5. HMS Indomitable https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/f2-and-f3-battlecruisers-t8627.html 6. HMS Panther http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2548&start=60 http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2548 7. HMS King Alfred http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2548&start=60 http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2548 Premiums: Tier 4: HMS Invincible The Invincible has returned! HMS Invincible was the lead ship of her class of three battlecruisers built for the Royal Navy during the first decade of the twentieth century and the first battlecruiser to be built by any country in the world. During the First World War, she participated in the Battle of Heligoland Bight in a minor role, as she was the oldest and slowest of the British battlecruisers present. During the Battle of the Falkland Islands, Invincible and her sister ship Inflexible sank the armoured cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau almost without loss to themselves, despite numerous hits by the German ships. She was the flagship of the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. The squadron had been detached from Admiral Beatty's Battlecruiser Fleet a few days before the battle for gunnery practice with the Grand Fleet and acted as its heavy scouting force during the battle. She was destroyed by a magazine explosion during the battle after the armour of one of her gun turrets was penetrated. Invincible was significantly larger than her armoured cruiser predecessors of the Minotaur class. She had an overall length of 567 ft (173 m), a beam of 78.5 ft (23.9 m), and a draft of 30 ft (9.1 m) at deep load. She displaced 17,250 long tons (17,530 t) at load and 20,420 long tons (20,750 t) at deep load, nearly 3,000 long tons (3,000 t) more than the earlier ships. The Invincible-class ships were formally known as armoured cruisers until 1911 when they were redesignated as battlecruisers by an Admiralty order of 24 November 1911. Unofficially a number of designations were used until then, including cruiser-battleship, dreadnought cruiser and battle-cruiser. Invincible had two paired sets of Parsons turbines, each of which was housed in a separate engine-room and drove an outboard and inboard shaft. The high-pressure ahead and astern turbines were coupled to the outboard shafts and the low-pressure turbines to the inner shafts. A cruising turbine was also coupled to each inner shaft; these were not used often and were eventually disconnected. Her three-bladed propellers were 11 feet (3.4 m) in diameter on the inner shafts while the outer propellers were 10 feet (3.0 m) in diameter. The turbines were powered by thirty-one Yarrow water-tube boilers in four boiler rooms, and were designed to produce a total of 41,000 shaft horsepower (31,000 kW), but reached nearly 46,500 shp (34,700 kW) during trials in 1908. She was designed for 25 knots (46 km/h), but reached 26.64 knots (49 km/h) during trials. Invincible carried 2,997 long tons (3,045 t) of coal, and an additional 738 long tons (750 t) of fuel oil that was to be sprayed on the coal to increase its burn rate. At full fuel capacity, she could steam for 3,090 nautical miles (5,720 km) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h). Her electrical power was provided by four 200 kW turbo-generators and motor generators with capacity of 100 kW. Invincible carried eight BL 12-inch (305 mm) Mk X guns in four twin turrets. For evaluation purposes these were electrically driven BIX and BX turrets, two each built by Vickers and Armstrongs. They proved to be a failure despite two lengthy refits in 1909 and 1911 and were converted to hydraulic power during her refit in early 1914 at a cost of £151,200. The situation was so bad during her gunnery trials in October 1908 that the captain of HMS Excellent, the Royal Navy's chief gunnery school, described their operation in the following manner: "When the order was given to train the turret, elevate or run a gun in or out, it was only necessary to push a button, or move a switch, but the result was often a flash of blue flame which seemed to fill the turret." Her secondary armament consisted of sixteen 4-inch (102 mm) QF Mk III guns. During 1915 the turret roof guns were transferred to the superstructure and the total number of guns was reduced to twelve. All of the remaining guns were enclosed in casemates and given blast shields at that time to better protect the gun crews from weather and enemy action. Her anti-aircraft armament consisted of a single QF 3 inch 20 cwt AA gun on a high-angle MkII mount at the aft end of the superstructure that was carried between October–November 1914 and from April 1915 onwards. A 3-pounder Hotchkiss gun on a high-angle MkIc mounting with a maximum elevation of 60° was also mounted in November 1914. Five 18 in (450 mm) submerged torpedo tubes were fitted on the Invincibles, two on each side and one in the stern. Fourteen torpedoes were carried for them. The waterline belt was 6 inches thick roughly between the fore and aft 12-inch gun turrets, but was reduced to four inches from the fore turret to the bow, and did not extend aft of the rear turret. The gun turrets and barbettes were protected by 7 in (178 mm) of armour, except for the turret roofs which used 3 in (76 mm) of Krupp non-cemented armour (KNC). The thickness of the main deck was 1–2 in (25–51 mm) and the lower deck armour was 1.5–2.5 in (38–64 mm). Mild steel torpedo bulkheads of 2.5-inch thickness were fitted abreast the magazines and shell rooms. Historical background: At the end of May 1916, the 3rd Battlecruiser Squadron was temporarily assigned to the Grand Fleet for gunnery practice. On 30 May, the entire Grand Fleet, along with Admiral Beatty's battlecruisers, had been ordered to sea to prepare for an excursion by the German High Seas Fleet. In order to support Beatty, Admiral Hood took his three battlecruisers ahead of the Grand Fleet. At about 14:30, Invincible intercepted a radio message from the British light cruiser Galatea, attached to Beatty's Battlecruiser Force, reporting the sighting of two enemy cruisers. This was amplified by other reports of seven enemy ships steering north. Hood interpreted this as an attempt to escape through the Skagerrak and ordered an increase in speed to 22 kn (41 km/h) at 15:11 and steered East-Southeast to cut off the fleeing ships. Twenty minutes later, Invincible intercepted a message from Beatty reporting five enemy battlecruisers in sight and later signals reporting that he was engaging the enemy on a south-easterly course. At 16:06, Hood ordered full speed and a course of south-southeast in an attempt to converge on Beatty. At 16:56, with no British ships in sight, Hood requested Beatty's course, position and speed, but never received a reply. Hood continued on course until 17:40, when gunfire was spotted in the direction to which his light cruiser Chester had been dispatched to investigate other gunfire flashes. Chester encountered four light cruisers of Hipper's 2nd Scouting Group and was badly damaged before Hood turned to investigate and was able to drive the German cruisers away from Chester. At 17:53, Invincible opened fire on Wiesbaden and the other two Invincibles followed two minutes later. The German ships turned for the south after fruitlessly firing torpedoes at 18:00 and attempted to find shelter in the mist. As they turned Invincible hit Wiesbaden in the engine room and knocked out her engines while Inflexible hit Pillau once. The 2nd Scouting Group was escorted by the light cruiser Regensburg and 31 destroyers of the 2nd and 9th Flotillas and the 12th Half-Flotilla which attacked the 3rd BCS in succession. They were driven off by Hood's remaining light cruiser Canterbury and the five destroyers of his escort. In a confused action, the Germans only launched 12 torpedoes and disabled the destroyer Shark with gunfire. Having turned due west to close on Beatty's ships, the three Invincible-class battlecruisers were broadside to the oncoming torpedoes, but Invincible turned north, while Inflexible and Indomitable turned south to present their narrowest profile to the torpedoes. All the torpedoes missed, although one passed underneath Inflexible without detonating. As Invincible turned north, her helm jammed and she had to come to a stop to fix the problem, but this was quickly done and the squadron reformed heading west. At 18:21, with both Beatty and the Grand Fleet converging on him, Hood turned south to lead Beatty's battlecruisers. Hipper's battlecruisers were 9,000 yards (8.2 km) away and the Invincibles almost immediately opened fire on Hipper's flagship Lützow and Derfflinger. Indomitable hit Derfflinger three times and Seydlitz once, while the Lützow quickly took 10 hits from Lion, Inflexible and Invincible, including two hits below the waterline forward by Invincible that would ultimately doom her. At 18:30 Invincible abruptly appeared as a clear target before Lützow and Derfflinger. The two German ships then fired three salvoes each at Invincible and sank her in 90 seconds. At least one 305 mm (12-inch) shell from the third salvo struck her midships 'Q' turret. The shell penetrated the front of 'Q' turret, blew off the roof and detonated the midships magazines, which blew the ship in half. The explosion possibly ignited 'A' and 'X' magazines. Of her complement, 1026 officers and men were killed, including Rear-Admiral Hood. There were only six survivors picked up by Badger. Five of the six were stationed in the fire-control top located on the tripod foremast; the other man was stationed in 'Q' turret itself. When the magazine exploded he was somehow thrown clear of the ship. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Premium Hull (A): Premium Camouflage: Type 14 Tier 4: HMS Princess Royal HMS Princess Royal was the second of two Lion-class battlecruisers built for the Royal Navy before the First World War. Designed in response to the Moltke-class battlecruisers of the Imperial German Navy, the ships significantly improved on the speed, armament, and armour of the preceding Indefatigable class. The ship was named for The Princess Royal, a title occasionally granted to the Monarch's eldest daughter. Laid down in 1912 and commissioned in 1913, Princess Royal served in the Battle of Heligoland Bight a month after the war began. She was then sent to the Caribbean to prevent the German East Asia Squadron from using the Panama Canal. After the East Asia Squadron was sunk at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, Princess Royal rejoined the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron. During the Battle of Dogger Bank, Princess Royal scored only a few hits, although one crippled the German armoured cruiser Blücher. Shortly afterward, she became the flagship of the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron, under the command of Rear-Admiral Osmond Brock. Princess Royal was moderately damaged during the Battle of Jutland and required a month and a half of repairs. Apart from providing distant support during the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight in 1917, the ship spent the rest of the war on uneventful patrols of the North Sea. Princess Royal was placed into reserve in 1920, then was sold for breaking up as scrap in 1922 to meet the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. The Lion-class battlecruisers, nicknamed the "Splendid Cats", were designed by Philip Watts, the Director of Naval Construction, to be as superior to the new German battlecruisers of the Moltke class as the German ships were to the Invincible class. The increase in speed, armour and gun size forced a 70% increase in size over the Indefatigable class and made them the largest warships in the world. Princess Royal was significantly larger than her predecessors. She had an overall length of 700 feet (213.4 m), a beam of 88 feet 6.75 inches (27.0 m), and a draught of 32 feet 5 inches (9.9 m) at deep load. The ship normally displaced 26,270 long tons (26,690 t) and 30,820 long tons (31,310 t) at deep load, over 8,000 long tons (8,100 t) more than the earlier ships. She had a metacentric height of 5.95 feet (1.8 m) at deep load. Princess Royal had two paired sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines housed in separate engine-rooms. Each set consisted of a high-pressure ahead-and-astern turbine driving an outboard shaft, and a low-pressure ahead-and-astern turbine driving an inner shaft. Designed power was 70,000 shaft horsepower (52,199 kW) for a speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph). In September 1912, Princess Royal began her sea trials and developed 78,803 shp (58,763 kW) for a speed of 28.5 knots (52.8 km/h; 32.8 mph). During maximum power trials in July 1913, the battlecruiser achieved 96,238 shp (71,765 kW) for a speed of 27.97 knots (51.80 km/h; 32.19 mph) while at the unusually high displacement of 29,660 long tons (30,140 t). The steam plant consisted of 42 Yarrow large-tube boilers arranged in seven boiler rooms. Maximum bunkerage was 3,500 long tons (3,600 t) of coal and an additional 1,135 long tons (1,153 t) of fuel oil to be sprayed on the coal to increase its burn rate. At 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph), the ship's range was 5,610 nautical miles (10,390 km; 6,460 mi). Princess Royal was armed with eight BL 13.5-inch Mk V guns ("BL" for breech-loading) in four twin hydraulically powered turrets, designated 'A', 'B', 'Q' and 'X' from bow to stern. Her secondary armament consisted of 16 BL 4-inch Mk VII guns, most of which were mounted in casemates in the superstructure. The two guns mounted on the deck above the forward group of casemates were fitted with gun shields in 1913 and 1914 to better protect their crews from enemy fire. The battlecruiser was built without anti-aircraft (AA) guns, but from October 1914 to December 1916 she was fitted with a single QF 6 pounder Hotchkiss gun ("QF" for quick-firing) on a high-angle mount, which had a maximum depression of 8° and a maximum elevation of 60°. Its 6-pound (2.7 kg) shell was fired at a muzzle velocity of 1,765 ft/s (538 m/s) and a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute. It had a maximum ceiling of 10,000 feet (3,000 m), but an effective range of only 3,600 feet (1,100 m). A single QF 3-inch 20 cwt[a] AA gun was added in January 1915 and carried until April 1917. Its high-angle mount had a maximum depression of 10° and a maximum elevation of 90°. The gun fired a 12.5-pound (5.7 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s) at a rate of 12 to 14 rounds per minute. It had a maximum effective ceiling of 23,500 ft (7,200 m). Princess Royal received a fire-control director between mid-1915 and May 1916 that centralised fire-control under the gunnery officer who now fired the guns. To align their guns on the target, the turret crewmen had to follow pointers whose position was transmitted from the director. This greatly increased accuracy as it was easier for the director to spot the fall of shells and eliminated the shell spread caused by the ship's roll as the turrets fired individually. By early 1918, Princess Royal carried a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on flying-off ramps fitted on top of 'Q' and 'X' turrets. The Pup was intended to shoot down Zeppelins while the 1½ Strutter was used for spotting and reconnaissance. Each platform had a canvas hangar to protect the aircraft during inclement weather. Historical Background: On 31 May 1916, Princess Royal was the flagship of Rear-Admiral Osmond Brock and the 1st BCS under Beatty's overall command; they had put to sea with the rest of the Battlecruiser Fleet to intercept a sortie by the High Seas Fleet into the North Sea. The British had decoded the German radio messages, and left their bases before the Germans put to sea. Hipper's battlecruisers spotted the Battlecruiser Fleet to their west at 15:20, but Beatty's ships did not see the Germans to their east until 15:30. Two minutes later, Beatty ordered a course change to east south-east, positioning the British ships to cut off the Germans' line of retreat, and signalled action stations. Hipper ordered his ships to turn to starboard, away from the British, to assume a south-easterly course, and reduced speed to 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph) to allow three light cruisers of the 2nd Scouting Group to catch up. With this turn, Hipper was falling back on the High Seas Fleet, 60 miles (97 km) behind him. Beatty altered course to the east, as he was still too far north to cut Hipper off. This began what was to be called the "Run to the South" as Beatty changed course to steer east south-east at 15:45, now paralleling Hipper's course less than 18,000 yards (16,000 m) away. The Germans opened fire first at 15:48, followed by the British. The British ships were still in the process of making their turn as only the two leading ships – Lion and Princess Royal – had steadied on their course when the Germans opened fire. The two battlecruisers engaged Lützow, the leading German ship, while Derfflinger targeted Princess Royal. The German fire was accurate from the start, with two hits on Princess Royal within the first three minutes. British gunnery was less effective; the range was incorrectly estimated as the German ships blended into the haze. Princess Royal's 'A' turret stopped working effectively early in the battle: the left gun was rendered inoperable when the breech pinion gear sheared, and the right gun misfired frequently. By 15:54, the range was down to 12,900 yards (11,800 m); Beatty ordered a course change two points[c] to starboard to open up the range at 15:57. At 16:11, a torpedo fired by Moltke passed under Princess Royal. Those aboard the British ship saw the torpedo's track, but incorrectly concluded that a U-boat was positioned on the opposite side of the British line – away from the German battlecruisers – and was firing toward both groups of ships. This false impression was compounded by reports of a periscope sighting by the destroyer Landrail. By this time, the distance between the British and German ships was too great for accurate fire, so Beatty altered course four points to port between 16:12 and 16:15, closing the range. This manoeuvre exposed Lion to the fire of the German battlecruisers, and the smoke from multiple successful hits caused Derfflinger to lose sight of Princess Royal and switch targets to Queen Mary at 16:16. By 16:25, the range was down to 14,400 yards (13,200 m) and Beatty turned two points to starboard to open the range again. Around this time, Queen Mary was hit multiple times in quick succession and her forward magazines exploded. At 16:30, the light cruiser Southampton, scouting in front of Beatty's ships, spotted the lead elements of the High Seas Fleet charging north at top speed. Three minutes later, they sighted the topmasts of Vice-Admiral Reinhard Scheer's battleships, but did not report this to the fleet for another five minutes. Beatty continued south for another two minutes to confirm the sighting before ordering his force to turn north. The German battlecruisers made their own turn north in pursuit, but Beatty's ships maintained full speed, and gradually moved out of range. The British battlecruisers turned north, then north-east, to try to rendezvous with the main body of the Grand Fleet, and at 17:40 opened fire again on their German counterparts. Facing the setting sun, the Germans could not make out the British ships and turned away to the north-east at 17:47. Beatty gradually turned towards the east so his ships could cover the Grand Fleet as it deployed into battle formation, but he mistimed his manoeuvre and forced the leading British division to manoeuvre away from the Germans. About 18:22, Princess Royal was hit by two 12.0-inch (305 mm) shells fired by the battleship Markgraf; one of these disabled 'X' turret and the other penetrated the ship's side armour. By 18:35, Beatty was following the 3rd BCS as they were leading the Grand Fleet east-southeast, and continuing to engage Hipper's battlecruisers to their south-west. A few minutes earlier, Scheer had ordered a simultaneous 180° starboard turn, and Beatty lost sight of them in the haze. At 18:44, Beatty turned his ships south-east, then south-southeast four minutes later, to find Hipper's force. He then ordered the two surviving ships of the 3rd BCS to take position astern of New Zealand, while slowing to 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph) and altering course to the south. Beatty then ordered his ships to make a complete circle to stay within visual range of the Grand Fleet. At 18:55, Scheer ordered another 180° turn, which put the German ships on a converging course again with the Grand Fleet. However, the British had altered course to the south, allowing the Grand Fleet to cross Scheer's "T" and inflict damage on the leading German ships. Scheer ordered yet another 180° turn at 19:13, and successfully extricated the High Seas Fleet from the danger precipitated by his previous turn. About this time, Princess Royal fired at the leading German battlecruiser for three minutes without result. The British lost sight of the Germans until Castor spotted smoke to the west-northwest at 20:05, then identified and engaged several German torpedo boats. Hearing the sound of gunfire, Beatty ordered his ships west, and spotted the German battlecruisers only 8,500 yards (7,800 m) away. Inflexible opened fire at 20:20, followed almost immediately by the rest of the battlecruisers. Shortly after 20:30, the pre-dreadnought battleships of Rear-Admiral Mauve's II Battle Squadron were spotted. The British battlecruisers and German pre-dreadnoughts exchanged fire; the Germans fired only a few times before turning away to the west because of poor visibility and the more accurate British gunnery, and disappeared into the mist around 20:40. Beatty's battlecruisers sailed south-southeast, ahead of both the Grand Fleet and the High Seas Fleet, until the order to reverse course for home was given at 02:55. Along with the rest of the battlecruisers, Princess Royal reached Rosyth Dockyard in Scotland on the morning of 2 June, and she immediately received temporary repairs over the next eight days. She then sailed for Plymouth, where permanent repairs were completed on 15 July, and returned to Rosyth by 21 July. Princess Royal was hit nine times during the battle – six times by Derfflinger during the "Run to the South", twice by Markgraf during the "Run to the North", and once by Posen just after II Battle Squadron appeared – with 22 killed and 81 injured. The battlecruiser fired only 230 13.5-inch shells during the battle, as her visibility was often impaired by the funnel smoke and fires aboard Lion. She was credited with three hits on Lützow and two on Seydlitz. A torpedo fired at the German pre-dreadnoughts failed to hit. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Premium Hull(A): Premium Camouflage: Type 2 Tier 6: HMS Repulse HMS Repulse was a Renown-class battlecruiser of the Royal Navy built during the First World War. Originally laid down as an improved version of the Revenge-class battleships, her construction was suspended on the outbreak of war because she would not be ready in a timely manner. Admiral Lord Fisher, upon becoming First Sea Lord, gained approval to restart her construction as a battlecruiser that could be built and enter service quickly. The Director of Naval Construction (DNC), Eustace Tennyson-D'Eyncourt, quickly produced an entirely new design to meet Admiral Lord Fisher's requirements and the builders agreed to deliver the ships in 15 months. They did not quite meet that ambitious goal, but the ship was delivered a few months after the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Repulse, and her sister ship Renown, were the world's fastest capital ships upon completion. Repulse participated in the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight in 1917; the only combat she saw during the war. She was reconstructed twice between the wars; the 1920s reconstruction increased her armour protection and made lesser improvements, while the 1930s reconstruction was much more thorough. Repulse accompanied the battlecruiser Hood during the Special Service Squadron's round-the-world cruise in 1923–24 and protected international shipping during the Spanish Civil War in 1936–39. The ship spent the first months of the Second World War hunting for German raiders and blockade runners. She participated in the Norwegian Campaign of April–June 1940 and searched for the German battleship Bismarck in 1941. Repulse escorted a troop convoy around the Cape of Good Hope from August to October 1941 and was transferred to East Indies Command. She was assigned in November to Force Z which was supposed to deter Japanese aggression against British possessions in the Far East. Repulse and her consort Prince of Wales were eventually sunk by Japanese aircraft on 10 December 1941 when they attempted to intercept landings in British Malaya. Admiral Lord Fisher first presented his requirements for the new ships to the Director of Naval Construction (DNC) on 18 December 1914, before the ships had even been approved. He wanted a long, high, flared bow, like that on the pre-dreadnought Renown, but higher, four 15-inch guns in two twin-gun turrets, an anti-torpedo boat armament of twenty 4-inch (102 mm) guns mounted high up and protected by gun shields only, speed of 32 knots using oil fuel, and armour on the scale of the battlecruiser Indefatigable. Within a few days, however, Fisher increased the number of guns to six and added two torpedo tubes. Minor revisions in the initial estimate were made until 26 December and a preliminary design was completed on 30 December. During the following week the DNC's department examined the material delivered for the two battleships and decided what could be used in the new design. The usable material was transferred to the builders who had received enough information from the DNC's department to lay the keels of both ships on 25 January 1915, well before the altered contracts were completed on 10 March. Repulse had an overall length of 794 feet 2.5 inches (242.1 m), a beam of 89 feet 11.5 inches (27.4 m), and a maximum draught of 29 feet 9 inches (9.1 m). She displaced 26,854 long tons (27,285 t) at normal load and 31,592 long tons (32,099 t) at deep load. The Brown-Curtis direct-drive steam turbines were designed to produce 112,000 shaft horsepower (84,000 kW), which would propel the ship at 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph). However, during trials in 1916, Repulse's turbines provided 118,913 shp (88,673 kW), allowing her to reach a speed of 31.73 knots (58.76 km/h; 36.51 mph). The ship normally carried 1,000 long tons (1,016 t) of fuel oil, but had a maximum capacity of 4,289 long tons (4,358 t). At full capacity, she could steam at a speed of 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph) for 4,000 nautical miles (7,408 km; 4,603 mi). The ship mounted six 42-calibre BL 15-inch Mk I guns in three twin hydraulically powered gun turrets, designated 'A', 'B', and 'Y' from front to rear. Her secondary armament consisted of 17 BL 4-inch Mark IX guns, fitted in five triple and two single mounts. Repulse mounted a pair of QF 3-inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft guns mounted on the shelter deck abreast the rear funnel. She mounted two submerged tubes for 21-inch (533 mm) torpedoes, one on each side forward of 'A' barbette. Repulse's waterline belt of Krupp cemented armour measured 6 inches (152 mm) thick amidships. Her gun turrets were 7–9 inches (178–229 mm) thick with roofs were 4.25 inches (108 mm) thick. As designed the high-tensile-steel decks ranged from 0.75 to 1.5 inches (19 to 38 mm) in thickness. After the Battle of Jutland in 1916, while the ship was still completing, an extra inch of high-tensile steel was added on the main deck over the magazines. Repulse was fitted with a shallow anti-torpedo bulge integral to the hull which was intended to explode the torpedo before it hit the hull proper and vent the underwater explosion to the surface rather than into the ship. Despite these additions, the ship was still felt to be too vulnerable to plunging fire and Repulse was refitted in Rosyth between 10 November 1916 and 29 January 1917 with additional horizontal armour, weighing approximately 504 long tons (512 t), added to the decks over the magazines and over the steering gear. Repulse was the first capital ship fitted with a flying-off platform when an experimental one was fitted on 'B' turret in the autumn of 1917. Squadron Leader Frederick Rutland took off in a Sopwith Pup on 1 October. Another platform was built on 'Y' turret and Rutland successfully took off from it on 8 October. One fighter and a reconnaissance aircraft were normally carried. After Repulse completed her 1926 refit, she remained in commission, aside from a brief refit from July–September 1927, with the Battlecruiser Squadron of the Atlantic Fleet until she was paid off in June 1932 prior to beginning her reconstruction in April 1933. Most of the existing layers of high-tensile steel that constituted the ship's horizontal armour were replaced by non-cemented armour plates 2.5–3.5 inches (64–89 mm) in thickness and the torpedo control tower was removed from the aft superstructure. A fixed catapult replaced the midships 4-inch triple mount and a hangar was built on each side of the rear funnel to house two of the ship's Fairey III aircraft. One additional aircraft could be carried on the deck and another on the catapult itself. Electric cranes were mounted above each hangar to handle the aircraft. The four 4-inch AA guns were moved, one pair abreast the rear funnel at the level of the hangar roof and the other pair abreast the fore funnel on the forecastle deck. Four prototype QF 4-inch Mark XV dual-purpose guns were added in twin-gun Mark XVIII mounts abreast the mainmast. Two octuple Mark VI 2-pounder mounts were fitted on extensions of the conning-tower platform abreast the fore funnel. Above these a pair of quadruple Mark II* mountings for the 0.5-inch Vickers Mark III machine gun were added. These mounts could depress to −10° and elevate to a maximum of 70°. The machine guns fired a 1.326-ounce (37.6 g) bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2,520 ft/s (770 m/s). This gave the gun a maximum range of about 5,000 yd (4,600 m), although its effective range was only 800 yd (730 m) Repulse received two High-Angle Control System anti-aircraft directors, one Mark II on the fore-top and a Mark I* mounted on a pedestal above the rear superstructure. The two submerged torpedo tubes were removed and the vacant spaces sub-divided and turned into store-rooms. Repulse was assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet when she recommissioned in April 1936. She transported 500 refugees from Valencia and Palma, Majorca to Marseilles, France in late 1936 after the start of the Spanish Civil War. The ship was present at the Coronation Fleet Review at Spithead on 20 May 1937 for George VI. Repulse was sent to Haifa in July 1938 to maintain order during the Arab Revolt. She was selected to convey the King and Queen during their May 1939 Canadian Tour and she was refitted between October 1938 and March 1939 for this role. The twin 4-inch AA guns were replaced by two more Mark V guns and two additional quadruple .50-calibre mounts were added. The King and Queen ultimately travelled aboard the liner RMS Empress of Australia while Repulse escorting them on the first half of the journey. Historical Background: In late 1941 Winston Churchill decided to send a small group of fast capital ships, along with one modern aircraft carrier to Singapore, to deter expected Japanese aggression. In November, Repulse which was in the Indian Ocean was ordered to Colombo, Ceylon to rendezvous with the new battleship Prince of Wales. The carrier Indomitable, which was assigned to join them, was delayed when she ran aground in the Caribbean. Prince of Wales and Repulse and their escorting destroyers comprised Force Z, which arrived in Singapore on 2 December 1941. On the evening of 8 December, Force Z departed for an attempt to destroy Japanese troop convoys and protect the army's seaward flanks from Japanese landings in their rear. Force Z was spotted during the afternoon of 9 December by the Japanese submarine I-65, and floatplanes from several Japanese cruisers spotted the British ships later that afternoon and shadowed them until dark. Admiral Sir Tom Phillips decided to cancel the operation as the Japanese were now alerted. Force Z turned back during the evening, after having tried to deceive the Japanese that they were heading to Singora. At 00:50 on 10 December, Admiral Philips received a signal of enemy landings at Kuantan and correspondingly altered course so that he would arrive shortly after dawn. The crew of I-58 spotted Force Z at 02:20, reported their position, and fired five torpedoes, all of which missed. Based on this report the Japanese launched 11 reconnaissance aircraft before dawn to locate Force Z. Several hours later 86 bombers from the 22nd Air Flotilla based in Saigon were launched carrying bombs or torpedoes. The crew of a Mitsubishi G3M reconnaissance bomber spotted the British at 10:15 and radioed in several reports. The pilot was ordered to maintain contact and to broadcast a directional signal that the other Japanese bombers could follow. The first attack began at 11:13 when 250 kilograms (551 lb) bombs were dropped from eight G3Ms from an altitude of 11,500 feet (3,505 m). The battlecruiser was straddled by two bombs, then hit by a third which penetrated through the hangar to explode on the armoured deck below. This inflicted a number of casualties and damaged the ship's Supermarine Walrus seaplane, which was then pushed over the side to remove a fire hazard. Anti-aircraft fire damaged five of the Japanese bombers, two so badly that they immediately returned to Saigon. In the ensuing attacks, Repulse was skilfully handled by her captain, Bill Tennant, who managed to avoid 19 torpedoes as well as the remaining bombs from the G3Ms. However, Repulse was then caught by a synchronised pincer attack by 17 Mitsubishi G4M torpedo bombers and hit by four or five torpedoes in rapid succession. The gunners on the Repulse shot down two planes and heavily damaged eight more, but the torpedo damage proved fatal. At 12:23, Repulse listed severely to port and quickly capsized with the loss of 508 officers and men. The destroyers Electra and Vampire rescued the survivors, including Captain Tennant. In game description: (To be added) In game specials: (To be added) Premium Hull(A): Premium Camouflage: HMS Repulse December, 1940 camouflage: Premium Sources: 1. HMS Invincible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(1907) 2. HMS Princess Royal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Princess_Royal_(1911) 3. HMS Repulse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Repulse_(1916)
  17. NippleSnipplez

    Tips for UK Cruiser Line

    Any tips/strategies for a beginner playing the UK Cruiser line? I'm currently at the Tier V Emerald and I honestly feel like I just get instadeleted when running into anyone on the enemy team, BB blow me up from far away before I can gap close, DD come out of nowhere and blow me up, my AA seems really inefficient against CV's but I honestly die before having trouble with them most of the time, I've only really had success against other British Cruisers. I never sail in a stright line when I am detected, I change up my speed and which direction I am going constantly but it seems to really only postpone death. I know I'm supposed to stick to my team's BB but it's pretty difficult when I start way ahead of them and am faster than all of them even when at half speed. I do not want to say that the Emerald just sucks because I know the fault lies in my gameplay somewhere but it really feels like it does.
  18. You guys can cry all you want about CV's... we're getting Ark Royal soon The biggest question is at what tier... T6 almost makes more sense than T8 for Ark Royal given what planes she carried (no Swordfish will = a major crapstorm) and her lighter hanger space compared to the other T8's (especially Kaga's almost 2.5 times sized wing).
  19. I’m proposing adding another premium Commonwealth ship to the game and being Canadian we all know what part of the Commonwealth it’s probably going to come from. This idea is based off of the success of Haida which was originally was going to be the Cossack but thankfully we all know how things worked out. HMCS Ontario was a Minotaur class light cruiser which was from what I can gather is a class that was designed based on war time modifications to the Fiji class which consisted of removal of one of the rear turrets in favor for more AA. Ontario, when originally built by the British was called Minotaur thus once transferred to Canada the British class name was changed to Swiftsure. Fiji Class Minotaur/Swiftsure Class What I propose is to take the Fiji in game design, remove the appropriate rear turret and add appropriate AA or secondary mounts, change the Fiji smoke to the Commonwealth creeping smoke, and add HE shells which would have low fire chance but be hard hitting. To counter these improvements the improved auto bounce angles found on the Fiji could be removed as to help balance the addition of HE and improved AA. Knowing how strong the Fiji is at T7 it may be possible that this would be just a side grade Fiji and would require the Ontario to stay at T7. Initially I thought T6 would be nice based on the Haida vs Cossack scenario but knowing how strong the Fiji is at T7 it may be possible that this would be just a side grade of the Fiji and would also not interfere with the sales of Perth. On the subject of Perth, I suspect the same captain skills used on the Perth could work well on the Ontario as well which is nice. @LittleWhiteMouse I know how much you like your Haida and would like to hear your what you think of this idea :D
  20. Had this on the backburner for a while... what better time to finish than when new CVs are out! Enjoy or don't enjoy Other mehbote reviews: Myogi Monarch
  21. hello, sailors I saw we got some free Florins with air supplies and with Daily missions but... ....Without buy any crates in the premium shop, is possible farm 2500 florins to get the bundle Nº3 only with missions inside game? Thx you guys
  22. So a chat in the Warships Discussion / aircraft carriers section of the forums appears to have revealed that the new British tree of aircraft carriers are not getting their one defining feature: armoured hangars. I know this is an arcade game, not a simulator. But this kind of guts the entire character of ships such as HMS Indomitable, Implacable and Audacious. They were built to primarily operate under the air umbrella of enemy land airfields as neither Germany or Italy had advanced carrier programs. These theatres of war also exposed all shipping to rapid raids from destroyers and light cruisers. So the 1930s pre-radar solution to this was to turn the entire hangar into a magazine. In the case of HMS Illustrious, it was surrounded by 4.5 in armour on the sides, and 4.5in armoured roller doors on the front and back. The top was capped by a 3in deck. Later ships cut this hangar side armour down to 2.5 and 1.5in in order to free up weight for an extra hangar deck. The point was to protect the volatile hangar (as so amply demonstrated by USS Bunker Hill and Franklin) from destroyer and light cruiser gunfire, as well as 250kg (and to a lesser extent 500kg) bombs. It was also to prevent damage to the rest of the ship spreading into the deadly hangar. All these scenarios were born out by their actual WW2 combat experience. In a World of Warships setting, this would cause destroyers and cruisers to have a harder time of sneaking behind the lines for a quick carrier kill, as would the 16x 4.5in guns that could shoot across the deck for full broadsides.(But, yes, it would also make these ships citadel pinatas to heavier shells) Even so, such resistance to lighter ships would give Illustrious, and to a lesser extend Indomitable and Implacable, something of an advantage in the 'World of Tanks on a Lake' maps, especially when combined with 'unlimited' air groups. I guess this could explain why Wargaming may have chosen not to armour the British carrier hangars, if these models supplied kindly by Mofton, tell the whole tale. But it makes me think ... I may as well play a carrier design that gets the benefit of the weight dedicated to its armour (USN, IJN, Germany) instead of one that only gets the negatives (lower speed, smaller size and hp pool etc).
  23. Durante un largo tiempo me he dedicado a recolectar información sobre ciertos buques construidos durante, entre, y después de las guerras mundiales y que podrían destacar como candidatos al juego que actualmente nos presenta WG. Traté de meterme en la cabeza de los desarrolladores deduciendo las ecuaciones a partir de las cuales se determina los puntos de vida de cada buque basándose en el deslazamiento de este, aunque como se darán cuenta algunos no concuerdan con los presentados en el juego. Algunas ramas también presentan problemas relacionados con la ubicación de sus buques en el tier adecuado, como es el caso de los destructores franceses e italianos, otros como los cruceros japoneses presentan problemas por la información poco clara respecto a sus desplazamientos en tonelaje, y para el caso de algunos portaaviones, sus valores de HP están calculados basándose en su desplazamiento estándar y no su desplazamiento a plena carga, como en el caso de Kaga. Algunos buques no están situados en el mismo tier en el archivo que en el juego, eso se debe a una diferencia de opiniones personal contra WG. También hay buques que no están dentro de las ramas pero se indican en las tablas o debajo de las ramas mismas, esto se debe a que su ubicación es difícil de decidir. Las ramas están ordenadas por colores y estas incluyen; portaaviones, conversiones a portaaviones, acorazados, cruceros de batalla, grandes cruceros, cruceros, cruceros antiaéreos y destructores. Los asteriscos representan navíos que fueron inventados por el equipo de desarrollo de WG. Las fechas indicadas entre paréntesis indican que el buque es un diseño que nunca se construyó o terminó su construcción y el año indica su fecha de diseño. No se incluyen barcos que pertenezcan a clases ya mencionadas en naciones mas grandes, un ejemplo claro sería el crucero argentino General Belgrano que ya está representado por la clase Brooklyn. Los cuadros de distinto color dentro de las tablas de HP representan tonelajes modificados por WG o por mí haciendo referencia a un incremento del tonelaje original debido a una modernización ficticia del buque. Los nombres de los buques dentro de las tablas de HP que están centrados no obedecen la ecuación principal para la clase, como es el caso de los grandes cruceros que no siguen la ecuación general de los cruceros y por eso tienen una ecuación propia. Lo mismo ocurre con algunas de las naves convertidas a portaaviones, que por su excesivo desplazamiento, tienen una ecuación diferente a la del resto de los portaaviones. Espero sus comentarios y sus críticas. Compartan si lo consideran oportuno o interesante. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wckrRPErjwJ46erYOaJ1Cx3ycs8AClPx
  24. Today I am going to showcase my experience in the Tier 8 Royal Navy Destroyer, the Lightning. Overall a decent ship, but my experience in it was "something different" compaired to other ships I have played.
  25. I love my gunboat DDs. I'm an average at best cruiser player, and only good in some BBs, but my happy place is filled with names like Clemson, Farragut, Z-52, Akizuki/Haragumo, Vampire, Fletcher, etc. I enjoy hunting DDs, controlling caps, spotting and vision control, and such, and I find it's my best way to contribute to wins. I like playing fast and aggressive but still having to be thoughtful about movement and positioning. I'm an average player overall, but in a gunboat DD I can carry games that I am not capable of carrying in other ships. So when it became evident that the RN line would be optimized for the fleet DD role, I was excited. So far....the results are mixed, but I am optimistic for the rest of the line. I won't unlock Lightning until Wednesday as I've completed all the container missions and didn't unlock her, but I've gotten some time with Acasta, Icarus, and Jervis. (Valkyrie looks like it will play similarly to Vampire with a bit more torp flexibility and emphasis, so I'll try her and Wakeful after launch as well.) Here's my impressions of Acasta, with Icarus and Jervis coming later tonight or tomorrow and the rest coming soon (I probably wont have much time to play next weekend so it will be a bit of time before I cover Lightning, Jutland, and Daring.) 'The Acasta Doing Business - Mid-Tier Meh "A lot like T-22, except even more boring and ineffectual" It was evident even before playing them that a lot of the British DDs would have reasonably high skill floors and would be 'better than sum of its parts' boats given the 'fleet DD' niche. Acasta is clearly a step in that evolutionary line, but in her case, sh's likely a 'grindwall' boat that most players will be glad to get out of. Even as someone with realistic expectations and who enjoys that playstyle, I didn't enjoy her. Full disclosure: I played 2 games in her and then sidelined her after unlocking Icarus mission. So maybe others make her work better after some more time, but I have played enough Gallant and enough other gunboat DDs to know Acasta wasn't for me. She's just aggressively meh. She doesn't excel in anything, but neither does T-61 and that's one of my favorite boats; she's just not good enough at enough things to make her fun. Her guns are meh, with a slow traverse and low dpm output making her vulnerable to USN DDs, and aside from the flexibility of her singlefire torps, her torps aren't anything to write home about. You can't launch from stealth except in ambush or at an approaching target. When the cards fall right, you can still devstrike anything easily with 8 torps on the same vector, or easily design your own spreads to improve odds of getting at least one hit. I have used this skill to great effect with my Gallant, but with 6km torps (and 6km stealth even at full-stealth build) I struggled to do so with Acasta. Good players will get some fantastic results out of these torps on occasion when they use single-fire perfectly, but it's going to be rare-ish and you're going to have to work harder to get good torp results than other DDs. Her guns are also a weakness. Like USN DDs, RN DDs have high shell arcs that necessitate engagements at closer ranges than Russian or (to a lesser extent) German DDs. But USN DDs just spank this boat 1v1 in a gunfight. She isn't even competitive with Clemson for cap control, much less Nicholas or Farragut. Her nimbleness helps her avoid torps but you wont dodge much gunfire at that range, and her RN smoke is even shorter because tier 5. Plus, the hydro later tiers get isnt present here. I've played a lot of Farragut and Clemson and know every trick in the book to use torps when you can't *quite* stealthtorp in most conditions, but the singlefire capability doesnt make up for the fairly weak torpedoes here, and her guns just aren't good enough to deal damage when you can't pull off ambushes, unlike the USN boats. This is a boat in which even experienced gunboaters will struggle to do damage on a consistent basis. She's nimble and accelerates quickly, she can use singlefire torps to torp entire smokescreens to flush or kill red DDs or to devstrike a BB from ambush, and she can spot and help kill DDs, but she doesn't beat ANYTHING 1v1 in a stand-up fight except a badly played IJN torpboat, and even then she doesn't have hydro for the extra cushion so her nimbleness is key to not eating torps. I think very good players can make her work very well, and I wouldn't be surprised to see her do well in the t5 ranked season in the hands of a good player. But she's going to uptier even more poorly than most tier 5 boats. She'll never be a popular boat; for one, the most OP dd for its tier is Kamikaze at tier 5, and although tier 5 is a fairly weak tier for gunboat DDs anyway, Acasta is just not equipped to excel in randoms with her toolkit. PROS: *Single-fire torps. Great for island ambushes of ships coming around a corner, strait/gap control, or torping smoke clouds when you're pretty sure a red DD is in there due to flexibility of torp spread design (can drop them all in a row or spread them out as you see fit. *Good acceleration and handling: RN DDs don't get speed boost, but they accelerate quick and hold speed in a turn. These aren't huge advantages, but they help you knife-fight other DDs and still avoid torps, and help get you out of trouble. *Decent stealth: You'll outspot Clemson and Farragut (Nicholas noses you out), outspot Gaede and Maass, and all Russian DDs. You get outspotted by IJN DDs but not by too much. And your smoke is great for breaking contact and vision control even though it sucks for offensive use. CONS: *Meh guns: the improved AP ricochet angles RN ships get doesn't seem to help much (although small sample size as I didn't play too much of her) and the low effective range (due to firing arcs), meh traverse, meh reload speed, and meh DPM mean you get your [edited]kicked by any other gunboat 1v1 assuming equally skilled players. *Situational torps: I'm used to not being able to stealthtorp; as I said, I play Clemson and Farragut often. But these torps are slowish, meh damage, and your torp range is identical to your concealment. Use them to torp smoke clouds, but don't count on racking up BB kills when they're not dumb enough to come around the corner of an island predictably enough for you to launch your torps in a line right at him. *No speed boost + low hp = low survivability: She's nimble, and her quick-reload smoke can help break contact, but if you overextend you're not going to find it easy to get back out. Her stealth is ok but she can still be outspotted by several common DDs at that tier, and she can't just boost out of trouble, so she can find herself getting focused down and her smoke is really the only thing that can buy time to bail. And once she is getting focused, she doesn't have the HP pool to last long. You've got to play smart; lone wolf deep-penetration tactics are a death wish in Acasta. *Tier 5 matchmaking: I personally enjoy the challenge of being bottom tier in most boats. However, aside from her stealth advantage over many tier 6 and 7 DDs, this is a boat that gets murdered at bottom tier. I think she'll surprise people in tier 5 ranked, but this boat is going to be terribad in randoms because she'll be bottom tier 40-50% of the time and she just doesnt have the toolkit to be effective at all. This is literally the worst t5 DD to be in a tier 7 match with. When you're uptiered, you'll jhave to work hard and play out of your mind doing all the little things to get your xp and contribute meaningfully, because you can't effectively engage anything but isolated and wounded targets and you will get pushed off caps easily. TL;DR: she fits perfectly in the niche Wargaming wanted RN DDs to fill, but in this tier, that niche just doesn't work. She's right up there with T-22 as an incredibly boring boat, and even when you find ways to win and contribute, you won't feel like you've done all that much even though you worked hard all game to do what little you did. But don't worry, Icarus is an improvement and Jervis is a strong boat, so just keep grinding. It'll be over soon. (My other reviews - British BBs: Conqueror/Lion Monarch KGV Queen Elizabeth French BBs: Overall Line Review German DDs: Flottentorpedoboot My Waifu)
×