Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
TheDreadnought

Anyone else disappointed by the performance of US 5"/38s?

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

As much as I love USN kit, the 5"/38 is overrated.  It's an excellent AA weapon, but lacks in the anti surface role due to velocity, range and hitting power.  There aren't many DP guns that really WERE excellent at both AA and AS warfare.  The British 5.25 was the opposite; a bit weak in the AA role but fairly strong as an AS weapon.

 

It's no surprise that the 5"/38 is disappointing in the anti-surface role.  The USN was disappointed in it for that reason as well, however, it's AA capabilities were worth the trade off.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
[NO2BB]
Members
3,885 posts
24,515 battles

Wargaming shouldn't give them their historical values because of "balance". 

fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,206 posts
3,461 battles

All I'm reading is "please buff damage from a source I have next to zero input over". 

Want secondary battery spec BB? Play KM. Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
862
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
3,176 posts
7,826 battles

I like them in-game as they are right now, honestly. "Buffing" them would mean nerfing them elsewhere.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,889
[HINON]
Members
7,797 posts
2,144 battles

Granted, I do think their RoF should be buffed on the BBs (currently it's just terribly bad given the Gun's irl performance), but it was not an excellent ASu weapon... It's quite effective under 7 km, but otherwise, meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
74 posts
25 battles

yes and no,i DONT think they should have the rainbow arc from hell but other than that theyre not bad,now of course with that said the 5 inch guns "under perform"..... dont ALL us main batteries in this game................idk about you but ive come to terms with that fact,shouldnt say main batteries but you get the idea

Edited by kyle26_2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,719 posts
4,106 battles

As much as I love USN kit, the 5"/38 is overrated.  It's an excellent AA weapon, but lacks in the anti surface role due to velocity, range and hitting power.  There aren't many DP guns that really WERE excellent at both AA and AS warfare.  The British 5.25 was the opposite; a bit weak in the AA role but fairly strong as an AS weapon.

 

It's no surprise that the 5"/38 is disappointing in the anti-surface role.  The USN was disappointed in it for that reason as well, however, it's AA capabilities were worth the trade off.

 

^This, the Fletcher class DDs were great because of their fleet support abilities being able to escort anything from convoys to carriers and deal with any threats that may come at them be it Air, Sea, or Undersea. This is why they were the standout DDs of WW2 as many destroyers didn't have the well roundedness that the Fletchers had.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,853 posts
3,584 battles

All I'm reading is "please buff damage from a source I have next to zero input over". 

Want secondary battery spec BB? Play KM. Problem solved.

 

To be fair, they're the primary batteries on some cruisers and DDs, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,206 posts
3,461 battles

 

To be fair, they're the primary batteries on some cruisers and DDs, as well.

 

Trust me, the intention of the OP isn't a buff to destroyer main batteries, that's just coincidence. 

As a USN DD player and Sims/Atlanta fanboi, there is nothing wrong with the mains on the USN DD. Get used to the arc is about all you can say. The USN 127s just have a niche use and if played well within their "wheelhouse" they can be down right scary. Atlanta AP can be scary-deadly under 8km, with HE the arcs can spank people in hiding. There are trade offs and I find them quite balanced.

Edited by Canadatron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
237 posts
2,331 battles

The Halloween event carrier fortress featured the 5"/38's performing at their real life ranges and rates of fire. They were ridiculously lethal. Hence balance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
139 posts
18,684 battles

 

Trust me, the intention of the OP isn't a buff to destroyer main batteries, that's just coincidence. 

 

And yet I fear an German BB long range AA than US in a CV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

The 5"/38 was not anywhere near one of the best weapons of the war, at least for surface combat. It was a good anti-air gun and a poor anti-surface gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,320 battles

Wargaming wont give them their historical values because of "balance". 

Actually as the main guns, sadly they are given pretty much their actual ballistics.

For one of the best naval weapons of the war. . . it sure under performs in this game.

Play an Atlanta, then you can talk to me about under preforming. Up close it's murder, get to any kind of range, meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

Actually as the main guns, sadly they are given pretty much their actual ballistics.

Play an Atlanta, then you can talk to me about under preforming. Up close it's murder, get to any kind of range, meh.

 

It's funny, when I get shot at by Atlantas at most ranges, I think to myself "Awwww, how cute, that Atlanta thinks he can actually hit me at this range"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,784
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,750 posts
15,840 battles

The 5"/38 was not anywhere near one of the best weapons of the war, at least for surface combat. It was a good anti-air gun and a poor anti-surface gun.

 

It was was just fine as an anti-surface weapon.  With the logistical constraints the US had to consider it was the most capable design at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
522 posts

For one of the best naval weapons of the war. . . it sure under performs in this game.

 

It performs exactly as it did historically. It was a very low velocity gun with a stumpy shell. I would also expect that it would have a fire chance of 7% or so if it wasn't for the Atlanta. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

And yet I fear an German BB long range AA than US in a CV

There are only two weapons with more per-barrel AA DPS than the 5"/38: it's successor, the 5"/54, and the German 128mm/61 SK C/42.  The latter of which is a navalized variant of this, specifically the twin-barreled version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.8_cm_FlaK_40

 

It has a higher muzzle velocity, greater rate of fire, heavier shell, and higher effective ceiling (by almost 25%) than the 5"/38.  All it loses out to is horizontal range, but not to any degree that would hamper it in the anti-surface role in-game (its maximum horizontal range is 10.67km).

 

OP, the 5"/38 is a very good general-purpose weapon, but in-game it's stacked against large numbers of dedicated anti-surface guns.  Of course it would fare worse by comparison, especially when many other nations fielded mixed rather than uniform secondary batteries on their battleship designs but WG counts the heavy AA guns as secondary turrets anyways.  The fact that its rate of fire has been gimped on USN battleships doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things - in particular, fire chance and alpha are proportional to burst charge size, and muzzle velocity/arc are based on historical numbers and standard physics.   The 5"/38 isn't particularly noteworthy in any of those aspects.

 

Once Cleveland gets moved out of T6 though, I agree they could be looked at and improved without too much consequence.  Reducing the reload to 5 seconds and increasing the range on Iowa and Missouri to match that of Friedrich Der Grosse and Izumo (along with buffing Montana's to match the other T10s) should be fine - it's not like USN battleships thrive at close range anyways.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

 

It was was just fine as an anti-surface weapon.  With the logistical constraints the US had to consider it was the most capable design at the time.

 

it was adequate at close ranges.  I'm not sure I would call that fine.  At longer ranges, the USN didn't even bother shooting because the chances of hitting were so small.  The Battle of Cape St George is an example IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
[LEGIO]
Members
3,750 posts
11,157 battles

As a secondary it needs a ROF buff, damage buff, fire chance buff, and a range buff. The Japanese 5"/40 caliber gun does more damage and has a higher fire chance in game despite firing a lighter shell.

 

As AA I think it is balanced for the current air gameplay.

 

Considering the large amount of service it saw it was the best DP gun of the war. The German 128mm/61 never even made it on board a ship in reality and the Russians didn't field a DP 130mm gun until long after the war had ended.

 

It wasn't very low velocity, the 5"/25 was low velocity, the biggest disadvantage of the 5"/38 was a relatively short range compared to several other DP gun types. However it still beat the Japanese 5"/40 and the British 4.7"/45 in terms of range and velocity.

 

Remember the excuse that giving Colorado an upgraded hull with 8x twin 5"/38s like West Virginia would make her overpowered? Then they give the upgraded Gneisenau 11x twin 128mm/61s.

Edited by Lampshade_M1A2
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,538 posts
12,810 battles

nm

 

Edited by crzyhawk

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.

×