Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Josh_Alexander

The Montana! Worst tier 10 BB?

128 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
62 posts
2,332 battles

Hello People! Today I've decided to bring this topic because of lately I've been hearing that the Montana is the worst tier 10 BB.After comparing the three (G. Kur, Yamato, and MO) I've noticed that it doesn't only have the worst Hp, but also the smallest caliber, and worst secondaries (meaning the range is the lowest). The armor is alsothe worst! Sure te AA is great, but the Yamatos and G.Kurfurst aren't that behind! So, please tell me watch advantage the Montana has over these other two, and is it really the worst Tier 10 BB? And why? I mean, I thought the Americans were and are the strongest naval force in the world, why would they EVER create a ship with so much disadvantages knowing the feats of the Yamato, and the plans for the Kurfurst? Or is it that WG just made the ship like this?

Edited by Josh_Alexander
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
827
Beta Testers
4,292 posts

It's inferior to Yamato because there's some shady mechanics in place to benefit the Yammy's guns. The Kurfurst is a borderline powercreep of both T10 BBs that were in the game before it's introduction. The Montana is a very good ship in good capable hands (every ship is) but it wasn't made to compete 1x1 against a Yamato or a Kurfurst even though it can be possible, it'll most of the time be thanks to team support or because your opposite number made costly mistakes for you to take advantage of.

 

I still like the Montana more than the Yamato and Kurfurst, having all three I consider it the most fun, but it's still the weakest of the three and it's quite damn obvious when you look at how worse it's statistics are compared to it's rivals.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,610
[TASH]
Members
5,027 posts
8,565 battles

And why? I mean, I thought the Americans were and are the strongest naval force in the world, why would they EVER create a ship with so much disadvantages knowing the feats of the Yamato, 

The strongest naval force in the world because of quantities, not quality per say. 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
149 posts
3,000 battles

Montana is an acquired taste.

She has a good rudder shift time and can stop and start pretty quickly, meaning that if you're paying attention, torpedoes will be the least of your worries. Her AA is decent stock and excellent when buffed, but an enemy CV WILL get planes through, so don't expect to be able to just swat squadrons down. Always use the rudder when under attack.

Montana is fast and maneuverable, although the Kurfurst is not far behind, but that is her main advantage. She can't get stuck in and tank like the Yamato and Kurfurst, her citadel is just too exposed for that, but she is a very good support ship.

That being said, she is still the weakest T10 battleship, but she is capable of greatness given the right driver and conditions.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,730 posts
1,193 battles

The strongest naval force in the world because of quantities, not quality per say. 

 

Find one navy that had more battle scared and damaged ships return to fight again instead of going to the bottom. You can have quality and quantity. Montana's citadel and armor, especially deck armor isn't even modeled properly to the design anyway. For "Balance".
  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[NAUT]
Beta Testers
929 posts
6,571 battles

I mean, I thought the Americans were and are the strongest naval force in the world, why would they EVER create a ship with so much disadvantages knowing the feats of the Yamato, and the plans for the Kurfurst? Or is it that WG just made the ship like this?

 

Most people agree the Iowa could have beat the Yamato, at least on paper. That argument aside, the Montana would surely have been superior.

That said, The Americans planned the biggest most powerful BB in the world. Remember, no one but the Japanese knew the Yamato wasn't 35000 tons with 16" guns until after the war. Jane's Warships lists the Yamato as still having nine 16" guns in the 1946 edition. 

 

Obviously no one knew anything about the Kurfurst until after WWII and it was ridiculous anyway, and would never have been built as Germany did not have the capacity to do so.

 

Edit: So yes, this is WG being historically inaccurate. Balance before realism! ... and Montana is balanced more or less.

Edited by TheBlackWind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[NAUT]
Beta Testers
929 posts
6,571 battles

 

What about the kispy kreme?

 

I just took her out for her first battle (got her in the Armada bundle). The people who say she's totally bad are on acid. She's not the greatest, but... I got into a T7 battle, did 30k damage and survived. Maybe it was just incredible luck! :trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
827
Beta Testers
4,292 posts

 

What about the kispy kreme?

 

I'm too lazy to edit that out because of a few T6< no-hoper ships
Edited by BunnyOfTheFleet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,591
[RKN]
Banned
9,382 posts
12,368 battles

Find one navy that had more battle scared and damaged ships return to fight again instead of going to the bottom. You can have quality and quantity. Montana's citadel and armor, especially deck armor isn't even modeled properly to the design anyway. For "Balance".

Not quality in the sense he's talking about.  Build quality and design quality are different things; the latter is what is factored into ship performance in-game, the former is not.  Not to mention that the USN's damage control was undoubtedly the best of WWII.

 

A large amount of the flaws with Axis warships resulted from build quality, or design choices made as a result of limited industrial capacity: the Pugliese system on the Littorio class, Yamato's TDS and armor plating, the Mogamis in general, the list goes on.  The only Axis nation that really even built to standards I would say are comparable (let alone favorable) compared to the Americans would be Germany.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[OBS]
Members
1,262 posts
9,564 battles

 

Find one navy that had more battle scared and damaged ships return to fight again instead of going to the bottom. You can have quality and quantity. Montana's citadel and armor, especially deck armor isn't even modeled properly to the design anyway. For "Balance".

 

Yeah, also the same navy that never lost a BB in open combat, only at Pearl where everything was a sitting duck.  Never.  This is a game; asking questions like why Montana would have been designed inferior to Yamato is a very silly thing to do.  They want Yamato to be top dog without any doubt, and that's what they have.  For me, just got the thing finally and am loving it.  Yamato will cause it severe damage at any angle, just has to be accepted.
Edited by BullHalsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5 posts
2,220 battles

The way I see it, if the Montana or even Iowa was the way they were in real life, not only would they own the game, they would destroy the Yamato easily due to the fact of the Ford Mk1A fire control computer and her superb radar. Also, the Japanese 18.1" shells were superb.. FOR WW1 type shells, but by the time WW2 came around, they were distinctly inferior to the British and especially the American 2700 lb Mk 8 shells. Also, the Japanese VC armor was good for WW1 armor, but by the time WW2 came about, it was inferior to the US Class A and B armor. 

 

So in a "real" fight between an Iowa and a Yamato, it would be a who knows fight, between a Montana and a Yamato, the Montana would win virtually every single time. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[DESS]
Beta Testers
172 posts
7,115 battles

Hello People! Today I've decided to bring this topic because of lately I've been hearing that the Montana is the worst tier 10 BB.After comparing the three (G. Kur, Yamato, and MO) I've noticed that it doesn't only have the worst Hp, but also the smallest caliber, and worst secondaries (meaning the range is the lowest). The armor is alsothe worst! Sure te AA is great, but the Yamatos and G.Kurfurst aren't that behind! So, please tell me watch advantage the Montana has over these other two, and is it really the worst Tier 10 BB? And why? I mean, I thought the Americans were and are the strongest naval force in the world, why would they EVER create a ship with so much disadvantages knowing the feats of the Yamato, and the plans for the Kurfurst? Or is it that WG just made the ship like this?

 

The Montana follows the trend of pretty much all of the USN branch in World of Warships, very power in a team. While all ships regardless of nation were designed to work together, the USN branch excels at it. While the Montana basically has the worse individual stats of the tier 10 battleships, it has one of the best designs to work as a team. You see this exemplified perfectly in the USN cruiser line, along with their battleship line, good AA, decent stealth, great AP rounds, and overall balanced stats. Their greatest strength is also their greatest weakness, their balanced stats and team based design work against them when their team stops being a team
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,730 posts
1,193 battles

Not quality in the sense he's talking about.  Build quality and design quality are different things; the latter is what is factored into ship performance in-game, the former is not.  Not to mention that the USN's damage control was undoubtedly the best of WWII.

 

A large amount of the flaws with Axis warships resulted from build quality, or design choices made as a result of limited industrial capacity: the Pugliese system on the Littorio class, Yamato's TDS and armor plating, the Mogamis in general, the list goes on.  The only Axis nation that really even built to standards I would say are comparable (let alone favorable) compared to the Americans would be Germany.

 

Even then they had problems with some welds such as the overstressed weld that connected the armored tunnel to the steering gear with the aft transverse bulkhead on the Bismark class that lead to the entire section collapsing and then falling away due to 1 torpedo hit.

 

Then there is a fact that while everyone talks fire control on the North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa class there is something in addition to the radar and the ballistic computer that is overlooked. There is one thing if portrayed realistically in game would lead to those three absolutely dominating (Which wouldn't be fun).

 

2 axis PRC - Powered Remote Control.

 

Only those three classes of battleship had it and had it to such a precision control that it meant the guns could be kept on the target solution both in the vertical and in the horizontal by the director no matter what turn or speed change the ship itself was doing. The French Richelieu class had 2 axis PRC but it was not fast or precise enough. When the German Naval Planners examined her they felt it was waste of displacement and electrical load. There is no indication that the H39 H44, Super Yamato etc. designs in their barbette setup would have had such either. Bismark and Yamato only had it in the Vertical. What this meant is that neither could maintain a director gun solution during a maneuver. Both would have to wait until after the maneuver for each turret then to be brought back on target by local control in the turret.

 

In game this is effective given to all ships through mouse aim, which hey it's an arcade game. Noone would enjoy having to wait to steady course to aim their guns.

 

But when you take all the advantages USN ships had. Even back to the New York class with radar fire control and mechanical ballistic computers and rangekeepers and strip it away, then you deliberately weaken their protection scheme by not modelling STS decks and backing plates and inflating their citadel size for 'balance'.

 

Then they turn around and artificially inflate the German Battleship line with fictional upgrades And higher speeds then they ever had at launching, while letting them pile on AAA without removing secondaries to maintain displacement and not overload the ship, such as the USN ships had to because they where some of the few that actually did such things, well the bias starts to turn up to a searing heat and makes it feel like the USN trees get punished for actually building and making such ships a reality that then have to fight against fictionally enhanced paper designs that didn't have to deal with any constrictions of reality.

 

The U.S.N. had paper designs too ya know, unconstrained by treaties and building capacity. The Tillman maximum battleships, which still would have fit through the Panama Canal and we where told back in alpha under no circumstances would they ever be in the game.

 

All I now is that when this is the 'norm' in virtual all the matches I play, something isn't 'balanced'. The you look at the 2 week performances of the ships on the servers and it's just depressing to see uSN at the bottom ever single tier for CL/CA and BB.

 

acf129e4ee.jpg

 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,591
[RKN]
Banned
9,382 posts
12,368 battles

Then they turn around and artificially inflate the German Battleship line with fictional upgrades And higher speeds then they ever had at launching, while letting them pile on AAA without removing secondaries to maintain displacement and not overload the ship, such as the USN ships had to because they where some of the few that actually did such things, well the bias starts to turn up to a searing heat and makes it feel like the USN trees get punished for actually building and making such ships a reality that then have to fight against fictionally enhanced paper designs that didn't have to deal with any constrictions of reality.

Only part of your post worth discussing, because the rest of it has been beaten to death, and I'm tired of being talked to as though I'm some sort of USN hater.

 

I don't know if you noticed, but Kaiser has lower freeboard Konig Albert.  I'm not sure about Konig, as no WWI version of her is modeled in-game, but I'd imagine that's the case too.  The ships shouldn't be sitting several meters lower anyways; while the weight of that larger superstructure is significant, without knowing what they were built out of, while acknowledging that it would affect draft, I don't think any of us are qualified to say by how much.  It doesn't seem like anything but some segments of deck armor were reinforced over historical values anyways, not like the IJN who added thousands of tons of side armor on top of more deck plating.  As for the superstructures themselves, those are also just built-up versions of the originals, much like IJN pagodas.  I'm not sure what process WG used to conjure them up, but if you look at pictures of them, it's pretty clear the superstructures aren't complete fiction, just built-up from what they were.  The bases are about the same, and the main masts on the original WWI hulls are in about the same region that those towering spires are centered around.

 

The Konig and Bayern classes also all achieved about 25% higher horsepower outputs than designed on sea trials, usually resulting in a 1-2 knot speed increase over their intended design speed.  The two later ships of the Bayern class also received bigger powerplants for an additional theoretical 15000 SHP: considering that Bayern and Baden's engines produced about 15000 SHP (and 1.5 knots more speed) more than their designed rating, a similar-sized increase in de facto propulsion output could be expected of Sachsen and Wurttemburg.  Factoring that in, the two later ships would likely have produced in the low-to-upper 60000s range, which would have likely resulted in a similar speed increase from their designed 22 knots.  This also assumes they kept their original engines; since no country, even the US, kept the original engines in their battleships, why assume the Germans did?

 

Speaking specifically on the case of Gneisenau, the improved fineness ratio that the longer bow would produce and lighter secondary battery (those 150mm turrets were much heavier) justifies the higher speed.  The Scharnhorst sisters both managed 31 knots on sea trials; it wouldn't take much to push it up just one knot.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
365
[NNG]
Members
1,655 posts
2,416 battles

The strongest naval force in the world because of quantities, not quality per say. 

 

U.S.N. had both actually. Not only they had the most ships, but some of the best designs and best equipment.
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[DESS]
Beta Testers
172 posts
7,115 battles

Only part of your post worth discussing, because the rest of it has been beaten to death, and I'm tired of being talked to as though I'm some sort of USN hater.

 

 

I don't see you as an USN hater, never have. I personally see you as someone who doesn't agree that the USN are kind of getting the shaft, which you are entitled to think. Everyone has their own opinion, just like many people think the USN are worse off, and the IJN DD rework failed.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
365
[NNG]
Members
1,655 posts
2,416 battles

Truly I hate how wargaming messed up the Montana, but honestly if the Montana was modeled like it was historically in the designs, it would be hands down a very over powered tier ten Battleship. Wargaming messed up its citadel, ignores STS, gives the 5"/38 secondaries less than their historical rate of fire, gives the legendary 16"/50 gun horrendous dispersion, and to top it all of, the Yamato can penetrate it bow on and the Monty can't do a thing about it. Basically. . . . . If you're an American it is kind of understandable to be somewhat pissed off by these Russians (who have a crappy navy not even worth being shown in the game) to just ruin things.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
[-WTP-]
Members
741 posts
3,578 battles

Montana's main armor belt is actually the 2nd thickest of tier 10 BBs, only that it's placed more worse.

Montana is the FASTEST of tier 10 BBs. Yes, AA. She is also longer than Yamato but smaller than Kurfurst.

Montana has the BEST dpm of tier 10 BBs. With 12 guns, she deals more damage than Yamato in one broadside. Kurfurst deals the same damage as Montana, but Kurfurst reloads 2 seconds slower.

 

Montana is a true one shotter, try playing her like a heavy cruiser/battle cruiser than a battleship

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,591
[RKN]
Banned
9,382 posts
12,368 battles

U.S.N. had both actually. Not only they had the most ships, but some of the best designs and best equipment.

Best designs, my [edited].  The majority of American warships at the start of WWII were inferior designs to their Japanese counterparts.  Japanese Special-Type DDs, despite being upwards of 10 years older, could fight on virtually even footing with early-war American DDs (except perhaps a Porter class), we had nothing to match the Yamato on the eve of war, and Japanese heavy cruisers out-armed ours by significant margins, mostly because of their torpedoes, while not being much more lightly-armored or slower.

 

The USN insisted on adhering to the treaty.  You will not be able to compete with a country that broke the rules no matter how innovative your designs are.  Nearly every ship classes that would become famous for their performance and heralded as excellent designs were built after the US abandoned Washington, or after the escalator clause was invoked in the case of our battleships.  USN logistics, especially superior equipment and practices, were the main reason we were able to stand against Japan despite this.  Crew training also played a role, but before the war took a toll on its men, the IJN also had very skilled crews too.

Truly I hate how wargaming messed up the Montana, but honestly if the Montana was modeled like it was historically in the designs, it would be hands down a very over powered tier ten Battleship. Wargaming messed up its citadel, ignores STS, gives the 5"/38 secondaries less than their historical rate of fire, gives the legendary 16"/50 gun horrendous dispersion, and to top it all of, the Yamato can penetrate it bow on and the Monty can't do a thing about it. Basically. . . . . If you're an American it is kind of understandable to be somewhat pissed off by these Russians (who have a crappy navy not even worth being shown in the game) to just ruin things.

Montana's secondary battery (which, by the way, is composed of 5"/54 guns, not 5"/38s) has the highest fire chance of any T10 BB, and actually has its historical rate of fire.  The 5"/54 was capable of 15-18RPM, and has a stock RoF of 15.  With a full secondary build it puts out 22RPM: far above its historical maximum, so you can't complain.  Hell, with just BFT and the CQE flag, it put out 17.5RPM.

 

The 16"/50's accuracy is nothing to hit home about.  Dispersion is not how far shells land from their target because of bad aim, it's how far off the shells land because of factors beyond the control of the gunnery officers.  The reason the ships were so precise was because they mated their guns to an excellent radar-directed GFCS paired with a very accurate ballistics computer, which meant that being in error was virtually impossible.  Even the most experienced lookout will not always get ranges right, and even the smartest gunnery officer will not always make the right calculation: eliminating both causes of human error is what allows the Americans to achieve their greater accuracy.

 

The Yamato's lolpen ability is needed to give it parity with the Montana.  The Montana has a massive alpha advantage, firing 3 more shells when each shell does a mere 1300 less damage than Yamato's.  The high citadel is another issue entirely, but you can't argue that Montana shouldn't have it when Yamato not only has it too but is effectively impossible to angle as a result.

 

American nationality is no excuse.  I call the United States my home, but why should I be upset about digital boats fighting on fictional battlefields, in situations no sane naval officer would ever put himself in, and in a grossly-simplified version of what actual naval combat was?  It's a game, things need to be balanced, and balance is something that shouldn't be done hastily, nor should it be expected to be perfect the first time.

I don't see you as an USN hater, never have. I personally see you as someone who doesn't agree that the USN are kind of getting the shaft, which you are entitled to think. Everyone has their own opinion, just like many people think the USN are worse off, and the IJN DD rework failed.

Convenient, then, that all the USN fanboys kept quiet about how bad IJN DDs are...

 

"Bad, just like they were historically."

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
365
[NNG]
Members
1,655 posts
2,416 battles

Best designs, my [edited].  The majority of American warships at the start of WWII were inferior designs to their Japanese counterparts.  Japanese Special-Type DDs, despite being upwards of 10 years older, could fight on virtually even footing with early-war American DDs (except perhaps a Porter class), we had nothing to match the Yamato on the eve of war, and Japanese heavy cruisers out-armed ours by significant margins, mostly because of their torpedoes, while not being much more lightly-armored or slower.

 

The USN insisted on adhering to the treaty.  You will not be able to compete with a country that broke the rules no matter how innovative your designs are.  Nearly every ship classes that would become famous for their performance and heralded as excellent designs were built after the US abandoned Washington, or after the escalator clause was invoked in the case of our battleships.  USN logistics, especially superior equipment and practices, were the main reason we were able to stand against Japan despite this.  Crew training also played a role, but before the war took a toll on its men, the IJN also had very skilled crews too

The U.S.N. Super Dreadnaughts of the WWI era were very well designed. Even getting caught caught completely off guard, most of them remained afloat with multiple torpedo hits. The American Battleships at the time of the attack were probably better than the Japanese with the Yamato class being the one exception. And by the end of the war, the U.S.N. had the North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa classes to counter the two Yamato class Battleships. The U.S.N. even when they followed the treaty had a better navy, when they abandoned the treaty, their power compared the Japanese became something of overkill.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[DESS]
Beta Testers
172 posts
7,115 battles

Best designs, my [edited].  The majority of American warships at the start of WWII were inferior designs to their Japanese counterparts.  Japanese Special-Type DDs, despite being upwards of 10 years older, could fight on virtually even footing with early-war American DDs (except perhaps a Porter class), we had nothing to match the Yamato on the eve of war, and Japanese heavy cruisers out-armed ours by significant margins, mostly because of their torpedoes, while not being much more lightly-armored or slower.

 

The USN insisted on adhering to the treaty.  You will not be able to compete with a country that broke the rules no matter how innovative your designs are.  Nearly every ship classes that would become famous for their performance and heralded as excellent designs were built after the US abandoned Washington, or after the escalator clause was invoked in the case of our battleships.  USN logistics, especially superior equipment and practices, were the main reason we were able to stand against Japan despite this.  Crew training also played a role, but before the war took a toll on its men, the IJN also had very skilled crews too.

Montana's secondary battery (which, by the way, is composed of 5"/54 guns, not 5"/38s) has the highest fire chance of any T10 BB, and actually has its historical rate of fire.  The 5"/54 was capable of 15-18RPM, and has a stock RoF of 15.  With a full secondary build it puts out 22RPM: far above its historical maximum, so you can't complain.  Hell, with just BFT and the CQE flag, it put out 17.5RPM.

 

The 16"/50's accuracy is nothing to hit home about.  Dispersion is not how far shells land from their target because of bad aim, it's how far off the shells land because of factors beyond the control of the gunnery officers.  The reason the ships were so precise was because they mated their guns to an excellent radar-directed GFCS paired with a very accurate ballistics computer, which meant that being in error was virtually impossible.  Even the most experienced lookout will not always get ranges right, and even the smartest gunnery officer will not always make the right calculation: eliminating both causes of human error is what allows the Americans to achieve their greater accuracy.

 

The Yamato's lolpen ability is needed to give it parity with the Montana.  The Montana has a massive alpha advantage, firing 3 more shells when each shell does a mere 1300 less damage than Yamato's.  The high citadel is another issue entirely, but you can't argue that Montana shouldn't have it when Yamato not only has it too but is effectively impossible to angle as a result.

 

American nationality is no excuse.  I call the United States my home, but why should I be upset about digital boats fighting on fictional battlefields, in situations no sane naval officer would ever put himself in, and in a grossly-simplified version of what actual naval combat was?  It's a game, things need to be balanced, and balance is something that shouldn't be done hastily, nor should it be expected to be perfect the first time.

Convenient, then, that all the USN fanboys kept quiet about how bad IJN DDs are...

 

"Bad, just like they were historically."

 

In reality, if all ships were historical, IJN and KMS would generally kick every other nation around the map. Quality over quantity was the theme for BOTH nations navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
62 posts
2,332 battles

The bow issue is one of the main problems it has against the Yamato? Now my question is, the Kurfurst also has this issue? Or only the Mo has to be avoiding the Yamato?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×