[Speculation] Performance of the Royal Navy's 381mm Mark 1 Gun and forthcoming RN BBs

[Kelorn]

 

One of the speculative questions in my mind has always been the performance (or lack thereof) of the RN 381mm gun on the Warspite and the ramifications on future Royal Navy Battleships.

 

The Royal Navy's 15-inch (38.1 cm) Mark I gun was the "standard" heavy gun of their super-dreadnaught and inter-war period battleships. It was installed both on Monitors of the WW1 period as well as the following ships:

 

• Queen Elizabeth-class Battleships (including HMS Warspite)

• Royal Sovereign/Revenge-class Battleships 

• Vanguard-class Battleship

• Glorious*-class Battlecruisers

• Repulse-class Battlecruisers

• Admiral-class Battlecruisers (of which only HMS Hood was built)

 

As originally built, all of these ships (save the HMS Hood) used the Mark 1 or Mark 1 (star) turret. 

 

The Mark 1 Turret had the following characteristics:

 

• Weight: 770 tons
• Elevation: -5 to 20 degrees
• Rate of Elevation: 5 degrees/second
• Train: -150 to 150 degrees
• Rate of Train: 2 degrees/second (90 second 180 degree turn time)

(All data from Navweaps.com)

 

During the inter-war years, the Royal Navy realized that the guns were becoming obsolete and were, in particular, falling short on range. Instead of replacing the guns on their ships, they modified the turrets to allow them to elevate to 30 degrees. This matched the elevation of the Mark II turrets that were installed on the HMS Hood. In addition, they developed the 1,938 lbs 6crh APC shell, which replaced the 1,920 lbs 4crh shell which was used in the WW1 years. Finally, they developed a "Super-charge" which was only issued to ships which were not retro-fitted with modified Mark 1 turrets capable of elevating to 30 degrees.

 

As stated by Navweaps

>Super Charges were not issued to ships with 30 degree mountings as the increased barrel wear and mounting stress was not considered to be acceptable. For this reason, sources which quote HMS Vanguard as having gun ranges in excess of 32,000 yards (29,260 m) are somewhat misleading, as such a range would have required the use of super charges, which she never carried.

 

At 20 degrees of elevation the Mark 1 turrets, firing the 1,920 lbs 4crh shell, could fire to a distance of 21,702 meters. At 20 degrees of elevation, using the 1,938 lbs 6crh shell and super charges, they could fire to a distance of 26,273 meters.

 

At 30.5 degrees of elevation the Mark II and modified Mark 1 turrets, firing the 1,938 lbs 6crh shell with standard charges could fire to a distance of 29,720 meters.

 

So what does all of this mean to World of Warships? The nomenclature used in the data for the HMS Warspite states that it uses the 381 mm AP Mk XXIIb AP shell. This terminology is analogous to the 1,938 lbs 6crh shell. That said, if we assume that the Warspite is firing a non-modified Mark 1 turret with standard charges, her real life maximum range would be approximately 23,000 meters (interpolation from the range tables). Given that Wargaming has reduced ranges in game across the board, reducing this to 16,300 meters in game seems in line with their standard reduction.

 

HMS Hood were she in game, would use the Mark II turrets with Standard Charges, giving her a maximum range of 29,720 meters at 30.5 degrees elevation. Given the same rate of reduction as the Warspite, this would make her ingame range approximately 21,000 meters, which is a completely reasonable range for a Tier 7/8 Battleship as it is comparable with the Nagato, Amagi, Gneisenau, and Bismarck-class ships currently in the game. These numbers would hold the same for a Queen Elizabeth or Vanguard-class ship with the modified Mark I turret.

 

One of the ships that did not receive modified Mark I turrets, such as the HMS Repulse or Barham could have two gun options, one using the standard charges and the same range as the in-game HMS *Warspite* or use Super Charges at 20 degrees elevation to give a real live range of 26,273 meters equating to an ingame range of 18,600 meters, which would be reasonable for a Tier 6/7 ship, being analogous to the ranges of in game ships such as the USS Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and IGN Bayern

 

So let's talk penetration power. Assuming again that the Warspite fires the 1,938 lbs 6crh shell with standard charges, her penetration (per the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration) is as follows:

 

• 0 Yards: Side Armor: 687mm Deck armor: --
• 10000 Yards: Side Armor: 422mm Deck Armor: 32mm
• 15000 Yards: Side Armor: 353mm Deck Armor: 50mm
• 20000 Yards: Side Armor: 297mm Deck Armor: 72mm
• 25000 Yards: Side Armor: 259mm Deck Armor: 121mm
• 30000 Yards: Side Armor: 229mm Deck Armor: 145mm

 

These numbers would hold true for the HMS *Hood* or HMS *Vanguard* firing at the ranges of this table the *Warspite* cannot manage, as they use the same charge and shell, just with a higher elevation.

 

Ships using the Super Charge would have slightly higher penetration values as their muzzle velocity increased from 731.5 m/s to 785 m/s, but I was unable to find a table of values for them.

 

For reference, the KM *Bismarck*'s penetration power at these ranges using the 38 cm (14.96") SK C/34 gun is as follows:

 

• 0 Yards: Side Armor: 742mm Deck armor: --
• 5000 Yards: Side Armor: 616mm Deck Armor: 19.3mm
• 20000 Yards: Side Armor: 419mm Deck Armor: 75mm
• 25000 Yards: Side Armor: 393mm Deck Armor: 104mm
• 30000 Yards: Side Armor: 304mm Deck Armor: 126mm

 

Source

 

For reference, the IGN *Bayern*'s penetration power using the 38 cm/45 (14.96") SK L/45 gun is as follows:

 

• 11000 Yards: Side Armor: 390mm 
• 13670 Yards: Side Armor: 350mm 
• 21872 Yards: Side Armor: 265mm 
• 27340 Yards: Side Armor: 220mm 

 

Source

 

In conclusion:

I believe that the Royal Navy's 15-inch (38.1 cm) Mark I gun using Modified or Mark 2 turrets would be an acceptable, though inferior to KM, Tier 8 gun and a good Tier 7 gun. 

 

The Supercharged unmodified Mark 1 Turrets would be an good Tier 7 gun and a borderline overpowered Tier 6 gun.

 

A theoretical modified Mark 1 or Mark II, using unhistorical Super Charges, would probably be closer to the Bismarck's armor penetration as the Muzzle velocity of 785 m/s is much closer to the Muzzle velocity of the German 38 cm (14.96") SK C/34 gun of 820 m/s. This would b much closer to a decent Tier 8 gun in terms of range and armor penetration.

 

 

[Vanessaira]

Amazing post, my question and speculation is what does this mean for Gameplay and flavor of British BBs. Utilizing the same guns means we should expect extremely slow moving turrets, but maybe better dispersion? Like the Warspite??? or something different with Warspite being a unique one of premium?

[TacticalOni]

Amazing post, my question and speculation is what does this mean for Gameplay and flavor of British BBs. Utilizing the same guns means we should expect extremely slow moving turrets, but maybe better dispersion? Like the Warspite??? or something different with Warspite being a unique one of premium?

 

Judging by how well Warspite is generally recieved, the UK BBs may well be more of a thinking man's brawler. 

[LittleWhiteMouse]

For reference, here are the soft-stats for the Royal Navy 381mm shells.  This comes from Game Models 3D. 

 

Royal Navy 381mm

 

Bayern's 381mm.

 

Here's what some of the values mean:

• Alpha Damage:  Maximum damage caused by the shell (requires a citadel hit).
• Alpha Piercing HE is the maximum thickness of armour (in mm) the HE shell can strike and still cause damage to.  To find this number, take the shell diameter and divide by 6 (divide by 4 for German BB HE shells).  This gives us 63.5 (which is rounded up to 64).  If the Warspite's shells strike an area with 65mm or more, it will do no damage.
• Explosion Size:  This is the blast radius (in meters).  Hits upon the surface of a ship can damage multiple external modules within the blast radius.
• Burn probability:  The individual chance for the shells to start a fire.  34% in this case.
• Projectile Speed:  Muzzle velocity in m/s.
• Projecting Mass:  The mass of the shell in kilograms. 
• Projectile Krupp:  The shells resistance to being shattered when it strikes particularly thick or angled armour.
• Projectile Detonator:  The timer (in seconds) needed for the shell to detonate after the fuse is triggered.  For particularly narrow ships (like destroyers), this can cause AP shells to overpenetrate before having a chance to explode.
• Detonator Threshold:  The minimum armour thickness (in mm) the shell must strike to trigger the fuse.  This will then activate the detonator which will cause the shell to explode after the preset time.
• Price:  Cost, in credits.

 

The other values I cannot speak for with any accuracy.  Damage, and the underwater values are unknown to me at this time.  Note we're still missing some data here to complete our understanding of the shell performance.  We don't have a representation of how much velocity these shells bleed over distance, for example.  This is a balancing mechanic programmed into the game and not polled from those stats.

 

From these values we can compare the two guns of the same era and how they are represented in World of Warships.

• The Bayern fires a much faster, but lighter shell. 
• The Bayern AP shells are more shatter resistant than the Royal Navy's.
• The Bayern's HE shells detonate almost instantaneously upon contacting steel.

 

[mofton]

Nice one.

 

For a comparison at T7 though, surely you should look at the Nagato's 16.1in and Colorado's 16in guns? Those have significant advantages in penetration and turret traverse, while Colorado at least IMO has excellent accuracy. Both have shorter flight times. Warspite's slowpoke shells seem to give cruisers the chance to do about 3 complete rudder shifts above 10km or so.

 

Hood at T7 may be competitive with these, as long as her non-gun stats are good (see Gneisenau competing at T7 with 6x 15in, but with an amazingly fast, well armored hull with good secondaries and torpedoes - which Hood will lack). At T8 Vanguard will not be a happy bunny with these is my speculation, I'd agree that they're inferior to Bismarck's overall with Bismarck also beating Vanguard in some other performance stats (turtleback, presumed secondaries, query speed).

[Kelorn]

LWM,

 

Thank you for that information! I couldn't find the soft stats when I was writing my post. The Initial shell velocity confirms that the warspite is firing Standard charges, though there's no confirmation that she only can elevate to 20 degrees.

 

Do you agree with my conclusions at the end?

[Dunk_Master_Flex]

Nice one.

 

For a comparison at T7 though, surely you should look at the Nagato's 16.1in and Colorado's 16in guns? Those have significant advantages in penetration and turret traverse, while Colorado at least IMO has excellent accuracy. Both have shorter flight times. Warspite's slowpoke shells seem to give cruisers the chance to do about 3 complete rudder shifts above 10km or so.

 

Hood at T7 may be competitive with these, as long as her non-gun stats are good (see Gneisenau competing at T7 with 6x 15in, but with an amazingly fast, well armored hull with good secondaries and torpedoes - which Hood will lack). At T8 Vanguard will not be a happy bunny with these is my speculation, I'd agree that they're inferior to Bismarck's overall with Bismarck also beating Vanguard in some other performance stats (turtleback, presumed secondaries, query speed).

 

If Vanguard receives a buff in the form of super chargers, I think she will do fine at Tier 8.

 

[Fr05ty]

Just to add to all that has been said and basically just adding some numbers to the kinetic power of the AP rounds of all 15" guns that may appear in-game.

 

Here's the kinetic power of the world's naval 15" guns firing AP rounds (in descending power):

1. Vittorio Veneto's 381mm/50 OTO Model 1934 (884.8kg @850-870m/s) which results in ~12,100 damage if using 850m/s or ~12,300 damage if using 870m/s
2. Richelieu's 380mm/45 Mle. 1935 using M1936 APC (890kg @830m/s) which results in ~12,000 damage
3. King George V's 15"/45 MarkII (879kg @836m/s) which results in ~11,900 damage
4. Vanguard's 15"/42 MarkI with Supercharge (879kg @804m/s) which results in ~11,700 damage
5. Bismarck's 380mm/52 C/34 (800kg @820m/s) which we know does 11,600 damage
6. Warspite's 15"/42 MarkI with Standard Charges (879kg @732m/s) which we know does 11,400 damage
7. Bayern's 380mm/45 LC/1913 (750kg @800m/s) which we know does 10,900 damage

 

Easy to see that the RN's guns are not that powerful as far as 15" guns go, but seeing as the German 15" guns are weaker than the RN's and have worse long-range gunnery due to using lighter shells, they might be workable even at tier 8 for the Vanguard if it gets granted ahistorical supercharges.

[LittleWhiteMouse]

LWM,

 

Thank you for that information! I couldn't find the soft stats when I was writing my post. The Initial shell velocity confirms that the warspite is firing Standard charges, though there's no confirmation that she only can elevate to 20 degrees.

 

Do you agree with my conclusions at the end?

 

Easy way to find out.

 

In game the Warspite's guns never elevate higher than 15'.  This is even when using her float plane.  Now this said, the Warspite in game represents the HMS Warspite during her 1937 refit, which does include the elevation improvements.  So in theory she could elevate her guns to the same norms as the HMS Hood, but in game she won't due to either modelling or game mechanic limitations.

 

[Kelorn]

 

Easy way to find out.

 

In game the Warspite's guns never elevate higher than 15'.  This is even when using her float plane.  Now this said, the Warspite in game represents the HMS Warspite during her 1937 refit, which does include the elevation improvements.  So in theory she could elevate her guns to the same norms as the HMS Hood, but in game she won't due to either modelling or game mechanic limitations.

 

 

Great info, LWM! Thanks!

[Aetreus]

 

Ships main battery range is generally driven by the elevation of their primary RF, with adjustments based off of the generation of their fire control gear and tier. Vanguard is probably going to get about 20km comparing her to most other ships. Hood will probably do about the same.

 

Some number theory, Krupp is not solely applicable to high angle or thick armor, it's the global penetration scaling factor, shells penetration is linearly dependent on their Krupp value. We do actually have the values for the drag constant that shells use, GM3D doesn't publish this number but it is in the game files. You can also derive it from a gun's known range at a given angle and the other parameters, as we have a ballistic model that's been matched to ingame values. For the AP XXIIb, this is very nearly 0.296, which is not exceptional but fairly good overall.

 

It's possible to generate penetration sweeps from this data(and matching these to tests ingame is how the model was made), but the charts are fairly big so I won't clutter the thread with one. fnord_disc did the work on making the model and he has a thread up with the MATLAB code for it and a bunch of plots on the EU forum.

 

It's been confirmed by the devs that the game doesn't for computational complexity reasons actually simulate shells in flight, it pulls out of a precomputed range table and interpolates the precise velocities and descent angles.

[Trainspite]

I don't especially understand why WG used the muzzle velocity of a mid-life worn 15"/42 as the stats, while basically every other gun in the game uses a new gun for it's muzzle velocity. 

[YamatoA150]

Given that it'll be on battleships rather than cruisers, it's possible that WG may reflect the decreased accuracy supercharger shells had, unlike Molotov which ignored the reduced accuracy due to how fragile she is.

 

Then again, maybe they won't; all RN BBs excluding Nelson had extremely poor traverse, and which WG had to soft-buff to a maximum of 72s before module application (Warspite notably, but Yamato also had lower traverse).

 

The RN line does fit pretty well though as a second, standoff line after the IJN line, and another shift in playstyle from close-up brawling to a more restrained engagement battle.  And if they get good ranged secondaries similar to the KM battleship line, can make up for some of that anemic traverse the way Warspite and Yamato manages at their tiers.

 

I don't especially understand why WG used the muzzle velocity of a mid-life worn 15"/42 as the stats, while basically every other gun in the game uses a new gun for it's muzzle velocity. 

 

Separating Warspite from the line equivalent, which will use the fresh-off-the-production-line gun characteristics.

[mofton]

Just to add to all that has been said and basically just adding some numbers to the kinetic power of the AP rounds of all 15" guns that may appear in-game.

 

Here's the kinetic power of the world's naval 15" guns firing AP rounds (in descending power):

1. Vittorio Veneto's 381mm/50 OTO Model 1934 (884.8kg @850-870m/s) which results in ~12,100 damage if using 850m/s or ~12,300 damage if using 870m/s
2. Richelieu's 380mm/45 Mle. 1935 using M1936 APC (890kg @830m/s) which results in ~12,000 damage
3. King George V's 15"/45 MarkII (879kg @836m/s) which results in ~11,900 damage
4. Vanguard's 15"/42 MarkI with Supercharge (879kg @804m/s) which results in ~11,700 damage
5. Bismarck's 380mm/52 C/34 (800kg @820m/s) which we know does 11,600 damage
6. Warspite's 15"/42 MarkI with Standard Charges (879kg @732m/s) which we know does 11,400 damage
7. Bayern's 380mm/45 LC/1913 (750kg @800m/s) which we know does 10,900 damage

 

Easy to see that the RN's guns are not that powerful as far as 15" guns go, but seeing as the German 15" guns are weaker than the RN's and have worse long-range gunnery due to using lighter shells, they might be workable even at tier 8 for the Vanguard if it gets granted ahistorical supercharges.

All correct, but comparing within the 15in's of which only 3 (the weakest 3) are in game is only part of the story.

 

The Colorado's 406mm/45 mk.1 in game (1016kg at 768m/s) does 12,400 damage. That should be a reasonable benchmark for a T7 battleship gun, and it beats all the 15ins' for damage, some of the high velocity 15in's may work out better in game (shorter target leads). Supercharges T8 Vanguard is only mid-pack in 15in's. Guns aren't everything so Vanguard would have other advantages over Colorado (speed, HP, AA, secs, ~armor) but certainly I wouldn't say guns would be a strength.

 

The N. Carolina's 406mm/45 mk. 6 in game (wiki stuffed) does 13,100 damage. That's a rather good T8 weapon though IIRC shells are a bit slow.

 

Supercharged Vanguard does get more punch and likely accuracy than Bismarck, but at the likely cost of ROF and turret traverse, overall does that equal a net positive? Doesn't Vanguard need gunnery advantages, not just equivalence to Bismarck to work at T8?

[YamatoA150]

Supercharged Vanguard does get more punch and likely accuracy than Bismarck, but at the likely cost of ROF and turret traverse, overall does that equal a net positive? Doesn't Vanguard need gunnery advantages, not just equivalence to Bismarck to work at T8?

 

Personally, Vanguard would be better served getting the paper design 15" Mark IIs instead.  Better overall shell performance and better AP, and better able to keep up with all her tier stablemates.  Only HE would still be T6 level as it reused the same HE shells as the QE class (includes Warspite).  And it's also a paper design, so it will get ideal performance rather than as-tested before cancelled/aborted (Zao's or Moskva's; one of them had a gun that was at least tested) or as-used in the end (USN guns).

[Kelorn]

All correct, but comparing within the 15in's of which only 3 (the weakest 3) are in game is only part of the story.

 

The Colorado's 406mm/45 mk.1 in game (1016kg at 768m/s) does 12,400 damage. That should be a reasonable benchmark for a T7 battleship gun, and it beats all the 15ins' for damage, some of the high velocity 15in's may work out better in game (shorter target leads). Supercharges T8 Vanguard is only mid-pack in 15in's. Guns aren't everything so Vanguard would have other advantages over Colorado (speed, HP, AA, secs, ~armor) but certainly I wouldn't say guns would be a strength.

 

The N. Carolina's 406mm/45 mk. 6 in game (wiki stuffed) does 13,100 damage. That's a rather good T8 weapon though IIRC shells are a bit slow.

 

Supercharged Vanguard does get more punch and likely accuracy than Bismarck, but at the likely cost of ROF and turret traverse, overall does that equal a net positive? Doesn't Vanguard need gunnery advantages, not just equivalence to Bismarck to work at T8?

 

You have a lot of good points here.

 

Bottom line this whole thread is about speculation. One of the challenges of building an RN BB line has been how many of their ships have "inferior" guns to the other high tier guns. This was my attempt to put some numbers to what the could look like in game. 

 

Hypothetically, if the Vanguard had supercharged 15" guns with a 30 degree elevation, giving her a range advantage on the bismarck, paired with a higher accuracy than that of the other T8's she could be competitive, even with slow turrets and a 30 second reload

[AquaSquirrel]

AP performance won't be an issue with RN BB's. They won't have AP, they will have a very odd type of HE that has a very long fuse allowing it to be used as a semi AP round that can cause fire's and citadel hits. Though the performance won't be good quite good enough to cit BB's.

 

WG will call them Crusier killers.

 

 Just on the off chance no one picked up on it this is all in jest. Though I would like to point out that the RN CL line should prove that gun characteristics are not sacred to WG if they want to make a line unique or balanced.

 

[YamatoA150]

AP performance won't be an issue with RN BB's. They won't have AP, they will have a very odd type of HE that has a very long fuse allowing it to be used as a semi AP round that can cause fire's and citadel hits. Though the performance won't be good quite good enough to cit BB's.

 

WG will call them Crusier killers.

 

 Just on the off chance no one picked up on it this is all in jest. Though I would like to point out that the RN CL line should prove that gun characteristics are not sacred to WG if they want to make a line unique or balanced.

 

 

I was half-expecting a spalling joke, where they have no HE but their AP shells all have spalling mechanics (which more or less takes the place of HE's AoE effect, just no fire chance) instead of improved normalization like the RNCL AP.

[mofton]

I don't especially understand why WG used the muzzle velocity of a mid-life worn 15"/42 as the stats, while basically every other gun in the game uses a new gun for it's muzzle velocity. 

I don't think the used/new MV makes much of a difference in the grand scheme, it's a few percent.

 

To YamatoA150, Warspite's already got room to be different enough from a QE-tree with her turning, repair/DC differences, AA/secondaries, range. Considering there's all that, the slight nerf to Warspite's guns just seems petty of WG. Keeping the former torpedo room, used for storage in 1937 as part of the citadel is petty too.

You have a lot of good points here.

 

Bottom line this whole thread is about speculation. One of the challenges of building an RN BB line has been how many of their ships have "inferior" guns to the other high tier guns. This was my attempt to put some numbers to what the could look like in game. 

 

Hypothetically, if the Vanguard had supercharged 15" guns with a 30 degree elevation, giving her a range advantage on the bismarck, paired with a higher accuracy than that of the other T8's she could be competitive, even with slow turrets and a 30 second reload

 

Thanks, well you did the leg work and it's easier to comment than create.

 

Inferior guns plus in-game potentially inferior hulls is a major challenge to deal with, while achieving what I hope will be T3-T8 at least of in-commission ships. I think your numbers are good, I just think they're depressing reading for RN fans. Accuracy is seemingly entirely set by WG and could be a major balance factor (I think Warspite's a mixed bag there). Range is probably the attribute I personally look for the least in a battleship, I kind of miss it when it's not there and Warspite's a bit frustrating, but mine has 11km concealment range so I like to go closer, and I try not to use the spotter plane which I'm bad with. 

[YamatoA150]

To YamatoA150, Warspite's already got room to be different enough from a QE-tree with her turning, repair/DC differences, AA/secondaries, range. Considering there's all that, the slight nerf to Warspite's guns just seems petty of WG. Keeping the former torpedo room, used for storage in 1937 as part of the citadel is petty too.

 

Hey, I'm just the messenger.  That was WG's official response when multiple requests came up for WG to buff Warspite's gun characteristics to be more in-line with a fresh 15" Mark I rather than Warspite's ultra-worn versions.

 

They bent only far enough to lower Warspite's hull lower into the water, but that's about it.  Citadel issue is for the same reason as Iowa/Missouri and Montana; they will model it if they feel it needs it, but until then it shall be one of the "weaknesses" of the ship.  I disagree of course; as Warspite has extremely slow traverse on her guns as-is, and Iowa/Missouri doesn't really need that "weakness" considering that NC still doesn't do all that great when broadsiding or lightly angled despite having a lowered citadel.

 

The rest is questionable; as it's quite possible that all those differences you listed outside of citadel and gun handling could carry over to the main line itself as standard; everything from the 60% non-cit healing repair party to the cruiser-style damage control for faster sets of fire/flooding mitigation.  After all, Tirpitz, as an early representative of the KM BB line, had most of her quirks carrying over straight into the KM BB line after it turned out to work well for her.  Warspite is also doing fairly well across most servers for her tier and class (52-55% @ 2 weeks), so if it worked on Warspite, it's likely to work for much of the RN BB line the same way much of the KM BB line's mechanics worked out well on Tirpitz.

 

Bringing it back around, given that WG felt that only the poor guns were a real differentiation between Warspite and a line QE, it's quite possible that most everything else that makes up Warspite's play style and handling will carry over to the RN BB line.

[mofton]

Hey, I'm just the messenger.  That was WG's official response when multiple requests came up for WG to buff Warspite's gun characteristics to be more in-line with a fresh 15" Mark I rather than Warspite's ultra-worn versions.

 

They bent only far enough to lower Warspite's hull lower into the water, but that's about it.  Citadel issue is for the same reason as Iowa/Missouri and Montana; they will model it if they feel it needs it, but until then it shall be one of the "weaknesses" of the ship.  I disagree of course; as Warspite has extremely slow traverse on her guns as-is, and Iowa/Missouri doesn't really need that "weakness" considering that NC still doesn't do all that great when broadsiding or lightly angled despite having a lowered citadel.

 

The rest is questionable; as it's quite possible that all those differences you listed outside of citadel and gun handling could carry over to the main line itself as standard; everything from the 60% non-cit healing repair party to the cruiser-style damage control for faster sets of fire/flooding mitigation.  After all, Tirpitz, as an early representative of the KM BB line, had most of her carrying over straight into the KM BB line after it turned out to work well for her.  Warspite is also doing fairly well across most servers for her tier and class (52-55% @ 2 weeks), so if it worked on Warspite, it's likely to work for much of the RN BB line the same way much of the KM BB line's mechanics worked out well on Tirpitz.

 

Bringing it back around, given that WG felt that only the poor guns were a real differentiation between Warspite and a line QE, it's quite possible that most everything else that makes up Warspite's play style and handling will carry over to the RN BB line.

*Holsters pistol.

 

Ok, well Warspite's 732m/s is only 2.5% less than the non-supercharge @ ~750m/s, unless I've misread new gun values. Not nearly enough to be a differentiating factor, just a weird (negative) oddity, possibly just bad QC back when Warspite was put into the game (data field input by intern??). That's a weird factor to use on purpose, hence I'd say it's just petty. More like not wanting to admit an honest mistake, which would be fine.

 

On Warspite's relatively good performance I'm in 2 minds. Crzyhawk's made arguments that despite her WR/Damage stats being good-ok Marblehead is not very good, primarily on the basis that she has a few masochist dedicated aficionado's holding up her stats but very few games played. Warspite has some parallels, i.e. she does get relatively few games played. Warspite is also, aside from a short sale recently mostly owned by people who've had her a long time (CBT?) and should be experienced by now, so her stats should be good. In short, Warspite might not be a comfort to RN players either. I'll freely admit that I can't get the ship to work for me so this might be spite on my part ;)

 

We'll just have to wait and see what happens. I don't think the RN guns look good, or more specifically better enough to compensate for some weaknesses.

 

 

As an aside-aside, I'm pretty frustrated that after years of delay 'because we need the drawings/archive data' WG will just arbitrarily make some design choices on RN ships, cold-storage citadels on Warspite and worn guns, 6in magazines not counting/counting as citadels on the lower tier cruisers on the basis of I don't even know, highlighting Belfast's 13mm bow vs. Edinburgh's 16mm (sisterships). How much did they need those supposedly elusive plans if they'll just ignore them at their convenience?

[AquaSquirrel]

 

As an aside-aside, I'm pretty frustrated that after years of delay 'because we need the drawings/archive data' WG will just arbitrarily make some design choices on RN ships, cold-storage citadels on Warspite and worn guns, 6in magazines not counting/counting as citadels on the lower tier cruisers on the basis of I don't even know, highlighting Belfast's 13mm bow vs. Edinburgh's 16mm (sisterships). How much did they need those supposedly elusive plans if they'll just ignore them at their convenience?

I don't think needing the plans holds water anymore. I'm siting hear with Norman Friedman's British Battleships1906-1946 and right in the middle of the book are the Original Admiralty Droughts. They are very detailed, magazines, machine spaces, pretty much every thing I would think they would need. So basically to get the plans all they need to do is take trip to the bookstore.

 

Now if they need special permission that's something else.

[ArmouredCarriers]

*Holsters pistol.

 

Ok, well Warspite's 732m/s is only 2.5% less than the non-supercharge @ ~750m/s, unless I've misread new gun values. Not nearly enough to be a differentiating factor, just a weird (negative) oddity, possibly just bad QC back when Warspite was put into the game (data field input by intern??). That's a weird factor to use on purpose, hence I'd say it's just petty. More like not wanting to admit an honest mistake, which would be fine.

 

On Warspite's relatively good performance I'm in 2 minds. Crzyhawk's made arguments that despite her WR/Damage stats being good-ok Marblehead is not very good, primarily on the basis that she has a few masochist dedicated aficionado's holding up her stats but very few games played. Warspite has some parallels, i.e. she does get relatively few games played. Warspite is also, aside from a short sale recently mostly owned by people who've had her a long time (CBT?) and should be experienced by now, so her stats should be good. In short, Warspite might not be a comfort to RN players either. I'll freely admit that I can't get the ship to work for me so this might be spite on my part ;)

 

We'll just have to wait and see what happens. I don't think the RN guns look good, or more specifically better enough to compensate for some weaknesses.

 

 

As an aside-aside, I'm pretty frustrated that after years of delay 'because we need the drawings/archive data' WG will just arbitrarily make some design choices on RN ships, cold-storage citadels on Warspite and worn guns, 6in magazines not counting/counting as citadels on the lower tier cruisers on the basis of I don't even know, highlighting Belfast's 13mm bow vs. Edinburgh's 16mm (sisterships). How much did they need those supposedly elusive plans if they'll just ignore them at their convenience?

 

Don't be so nice.

 

WoWS made a complete dogs breakfast of Warspite's internal armour layout.

 

It's an absolute mishmash of her WW1, 1920s refits and late 1930s rebuild.

In the process they've failed to give her the (still weak) improved deck armour arrangement while leaving weak spots irrelevant to her modernisation. 

And one has to ask, why? Her rebuild still had plenty of exploitable gaps...

 

Norman Friedman's recent The British Battleship book has a large glossy reprint of an admiralty drawing of Warspite's rebuild. Even from that glaring discrepancies are evident.

 

But Wargaming has already given us a response to this, at least obliquely.

The demonstrated errors to the Iowa/Montana internal armour arrangement was deemed to be they way they like it.

It is, after all, an arcade game...

[YamatoA150]

We'll just have to wait and see what happens. I don't think the RN guns look good, or more specifically better enough to compensate for some weaknesses.

 

As an aside-aside, I'm pretty frustrated that after years of delay 'because we need the drawings/archive data' WG will just arbitrarily make some design choices on RN ships, cold-storage citadels on Warspite and worn guns, 6in magazines not counting/counting as citadels on the lower tier cruisers on the basis of I don't even know, highlighting Belfast's 13mm bow vs. Edinburgh's 16mm (sisterships). How much did they need those supposedly elusive plans if they'll just ignore them at their convenience?

 

Story goes that it was actually a WG employee who was rude to the archivists, so the archivists stonewalled the employee's attempts to gain access to all the detailed plans (supposedly including some that were still not quite declassified or whatever) so that they could better flesh out alternatives and back up choices for planned ships and/or equipment.  Of course, that came from individuals who were supposedly closer to the matter, but still take it with a grain of salt.

 

As to the RN BB line's possible guns, the 15" Mark I w/ supercharger seem reasonable for Tiers 6 and 7, or just T7 while T6 gets regular non-supercharger performance.  It's pretty likely they're going to need the 15" Mark IIs for T8 at the very least, given what they'll be facing all the way up to T10 (and most everyone knows that T8 is roughly pulled into T10 matches with enough consistency to consider balancing in advance for such).  It also puts the KGVs in a hard place; it's increasingly more likely that the 10x 14" gun versions will be relegated to Premium with the 9x 15" Mark II plans are used in the main line, much like what was done with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.  Even with supercharged 14" and no accuracy debuffs, it's not going to have much effect against the likes of FdG, Iowa/Missouri, or Izumo, to say nothing against the T10s, unless a KGV gets close enough and into their broadsides.

 

There's also the fact that WG can't just go from 16" down to 14" after using a flimsy reason to defend their Scharn/Gneis release choice.  At least going from 16" to 15" Mark II is more palatable given the major boost the 15" Mark IIs have AP-wise and gun performance-wise over the 16" Nelson/Rodney used (again, bonus being that the 15" Mark II was a paper gun, so it gets idealized stats rather than realized stats).  Granted, WG could get around this by offering 2 hulls with a forced weapon upgrade; say a Hull w/ supercharged 14" and a middle-late war AA outfit, with Hull [C] providing the 15" Mark II setup and full late war AA outfit.  The former would calm the feathers of the purists who love the 14" design, while the 15" design provides full competitiveness for the KGV.  After all, that's one of the reasons they used fictional refit hulls for KM BB lines from T6 below, to ensure full competitiveness over historical accuracy.

 

Then there's the mostly paper 16" Mark II-IV gun designs and the 18"/40 and /45 gun designs that may or may not be used for the T9 and T10 respectively.  Both benefit as well from being mostly paper designs, so again, idealized stats to be balanced down rather than realized stats that WG would be reluctant to adjust up.

 

Still, don't quite settle down on Warspite; her armor is still a mess.  WG does doesn't feel any real pressure to fix it though, and likely won't until the RN BB line comes proper, when they can take Warspite and copy/paste/edit her for the QE line equivalent.

[Taichunger]

Another option, from WG's POV, might be to acceot the subpar performance of V@bguard's guns and set her up as a grindwall