Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
DeliciousFart

5"/38 Mark 12 secondaries are DOOMED to mediocrity

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,251 posts
737 battles

These clickbait titles are fun.

I'll be blunt. The 5"/38 Mark 12 secondaries suck donkey d*ck and they only have 66.6% of their actual minimum rate of fire with base ring mounts. I brought this issue up on Reddit as well, which I'll quote below.

 

"The 5"/38 Mark 12 secondaries found on USN cruisers and battleships are currently hilariously gimped, firing at only 10 RPM compared to 15-20 RPM that they actually achieved. I believe one of the reasons that WG gave for having this low RPM was the presence of the Cleveland at tier 6 having 12 of these secondaries. Now that the Cleveland is moving to tier 8, and preliminary image of Dallas having only 4 of these guns in 2 dual mounts and Helena (St. Louis) having only 8 of these guns in 4 dual mounts, does WG plan on giving these guns their historical minimum of 15 RPM? As far as I know, all 5"/38 Mark 12 secondaries in the game are in base ring mounts.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.php

 

Personally, the battleships don't really need it, as at tier 8+ the USN battleships are in a pretty healthy spot (aside from NC's abnormally low TDS rating). However, cruisers can use some help, and I think WG can accommodate that because the cruisers and battleships actually have slightly different mounts. The battleships (NC, SoDak, and Iowa) uses the Mark 28 mount, while cruisers use the lighter Mark 32 mount (which is the designation used for all 5"/38 secondary mounts in game). The Mark 32 is essentially a Mark 28 mount with less armor to reduce topweight on cruisers, but WG can use the different mounts to give different ROF for balancing purposes. So for battleships, give them the Mark 28 mount with the current rate of fire, and for cruisers give them the Mark 32 with 15 RPM. I think CVs with the 5"/38 Mark 12 should also have their rate of fire increased to 15 RPM."

 

Unfortunately, when @Big_Spud brought this up to @Sub_Octavian's Reddit Q&A, this was his response, which I'll quote below.

 

Quote

Right now we don't consider any cruiser to have really viable secondaries; and I can't say it's really good for the game to have such ships. So, with downgrading, there could be changes, but I wouldn't expect too much in terms of secondaries.

 

So there you have it. In the foreseeable future, the 5"/38 Mark 12 secondaries shall be doomed to mediocrity.

 

Press F to pay respects.

Edited by DeliciousFart
Because the forum formatting also sucks donkey d*ck
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[DAKI]
Members
639 posts
6,952 battles

I think the main issue, and reason for which many guns or things with USN ships that are nerfed, are mainly for balanced reasons. Yes the USN secondaries are ship, and could use a buff, but Im guess WG has them that way so obviously USN BBs cannot be the super amazing jack of all trades with good guns, good armor, and good secondaries too. But thats the main issue with the realism argument for many ships and classes in game, balance has to come first. And cruisers with good secondaries seem kinda crazy for a class already good at hunting dds and really good up close to most ships. But then again any dd that dumb enough to be close, deserves it.

even if i dont agree with it, i get it.

Edited by awildpervert
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[POP]
Members
1,263 posts
8,675 battles

I've gotten kills with US secondaries before. So, to say that cruisers do not have viable secondaries is a misstatement. They are guns... more guns good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
313
[SF-E]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,166 posts
13,758 battles

I find that the USN secondaries are far more accurate, and have more consistent damage. Thus, it is likely a balancing act of making it fire less often than others, and with less range.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,712
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers, WoWS Wiki Editor
6,499 posts
3,799 battles
11 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Not to completely miss the point but... where has a preliminary image of the Dallas been posted?

At the Let's Battle tour on the Lexington. Here you go:

EXWRgqb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,553
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,032 posts
6,492 battles

Yeah, I still like how the entire part of my question about Colorado finally being able to get something akin to the Maryland hull was completely glossed over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,751
[5BS]
Members
4,987 posts
1 minute ago, Doomlock said:

At the Let's Battle tour on the Lexington. Here you go:

EXWRgqb.jpg

Aww that's bull. I saw that already. I thought somehow an ingame model had passed me by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,712
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers, WoWS Wiki Editor
6,499 posts
3,799 battles
15 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Aww that's bull. I saw that already. I thought somehow an ingame model had passed me by.

Ah. I had no idea. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[NZS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
375 posts
9,287 battles
7 minutes ago, xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx said:

It's even more hilarious when you realize Des Moines main battery guns fire faster than her secondaries.....

Slackers in the turrets :fish_sleep:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
7,047 posts
4,534 battles

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I honestly think that if you're relying on your secondaries to do anything as a cruiser, you're doing something wrong.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,518
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,536 posts
3,579 battles
8 minutes ago, Aduial said:

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I honestly think that if you're relying on your secondaries to do anything as a cruiser, you're doing something wrong.

 

But what if they're smoke diving for DDs? (Yeah, last resort and all given Radar/Hydro possibilities, but nevertheless)

Edited by YamatoA150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
7,047 posts
4,534 battles
3 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

 

But what if they're smoke diving for DDs? (Yeah, last resort and all given Radar/Hydro possibilities, but nevertheless)

Then you torpedobeat all of the torpedoes, and delete the DDs in 1 or 2 salvos. :cap_cool:

But joking aside, in that situation secondaries aren't really going to help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,518
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,536 posts
3,579 battles
1 minute ago, Aduial said:

Then you torpedobeat all of the torpedoes, and delete the DDs in 1 or 2 salvos. :cap_cool:

But joking aside, in that situation secondaries aren't really going to help. 

 

Fair enough. :cap_like:

 

More in general though; didn't WG recently buff secondary ranges some for cruisers and DDs? I recall it as a seemingly random buff out of nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles

I have half a dozen close quarters expert in the Des Moines.  The secondaries aren't great, but I run the AA stuff anyway and that buffs them.  Then the ideal combat distance for the Des Moines is about 2km so they're well in range.

 

That said, they really should make the secondaries historical. As far as no cruiser having decent secondaries... Yeah, right. Roon has Bismarck secondaries a tier higher.   Pretty funny build, even if it's not the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
964
[LEGIO]
Members
3,088 posts
5,711 battles

It is complete [edited] that virtually every other secondary gun in the game gets its maximum rate of fire yet the 5"/38s are miserably gimped. wth WG?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,183
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,945 posts
4,837 battles

The US cruiser's and US Battleship secondaries are outright garbage....the Germans have the long reach but the Americans should have the rate of fire. The US has crap armor, but great AA...and frankly I've seen many a DD running the gauntlet on my NC when in real live the 5 inchers woulda turned him to swiss cheese.

 

I think they should have a buff...the USN was known for great secondaries and good AA. Having finished the german BB line I don't think it would be a bad idea...the Germans have MUCH better armor anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
313
[SF-E]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,166 posts
13,758 battles
1 hour ago, Big_Spud said:

Yeah, I still like how the entire part of my question about Colorado finally being able to get something akin to the Maryland hull was completely glossed over.

My guess is that they are going to release either the Maryland or West Virginia as premium, or even freemium (free XP)  "someday."

 

West Virginia ended up replacing all of the 5 inch guns to 5"/38 dual purpose (would be even better AA than current LoLoRaDo) secondary/AA guns. 

Maryland was kind of in between Colorado and West Virginia. 

 

Or... they might even add USS Washington as a "what if" ship, with the "as planned" 20x 5"/51 secondaries, and have it as a brawler, likely with less overall AA capability than the current LoLoRaDo. Seeing as she was not fully finished at the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty, and therefore never received the AA upgrades of the 1930's/40's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[RESP]
Beta Testers
893 posts
7,319 battles

I'd like to see the secondaries brought up to historical levels to make up for their lack of torpedoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
313
[SF-E]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,166 posts
13,758 battles
24 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

The US cruiser's and US Battleship secondaries are outright garbage....the Germans have the long reach but the Americans should have the rate of fire. The US has crap armor, but great AA...and frankly I've seen many a DD running the gauntlet on my NC when in real live the 5 inchers woulda turned him to swiss cheese.

 

I think they should have a buff...the USN was known for great secondaries and good AA. Having finished the german BB line I don't think it would be a bad idea...the Germans have MUCH better armor anyway. 

People who think the USN has crap armor are only thinking in terms of straight-shot armor thickness. American steel was better, given the same thickness, thus giving it far better angled protection. 

If you're trying to play broadside to the enemy, you deserve to get hit hard. 


Aside from NC/Iowa/Monty, the USN has the absolute best angled armor in the game, hands down. Take the LoLoRaDo for instance-- she is the penultimate dreadnought, both in real life and in game-- She not only hurls 2200 lb. AP rounds, but she can withstand her own shells if properly angled (15-35 degrees). Gneisenau? She'll take a straight shot (full broadside to the enemy shells) much more easily than any other ship... but only above the water line. 

 

 

Also.. the in game LoLoRaDo has 25mm torpedo bulges/armor plating on the outside of the belt armor, even going up to the barbettes, therein adding 25mm pre-belt protection to her 343mm belt armor, vs. Gneisenau's straight krupp armor of 350mm at the belt. However historical that part is, I'm not sure.. but in game, this means that it's harder to citadel in its citadel spots than the Gneis...

 

However, the Gneisenau, as with all German BB's in game, is almost exclusively only easily citadel'd below the waterline between the 3rd and 4th turrets (if it had 4 turrets like the other German BBs). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
313
[SF-E]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,166 posts
13,758 battles
7 minutes ago, Stampz said:

I'd like to see the secondaries brought up to historical levels to make up for their lack of torpedoes.

By 1939-1946 (the era of most of these battleships), all, or most of, the USN BB's had done away with their torpedo tubes... especially submerged ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
264
[RESP]
Beta Testers
893 posts
7,319 battles
7 minutes ago, SkywhaleExpress said:

By 1939-1946 (the era of most of these battleships), all, or most of, the USN BB's had done away with their torpedo tubes... especially submerged ones.

I was mainly referring to US Cruisers which unlike their cruiser counterparts of other nations do not have torpedoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,553
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,032 posts
6,492 battles

So I got mad, went ahead and did a quick comparison of some relative examples of DP/AA guns ingame versus their real life attributes.

 

 

Japan:

 

12.7 cm/40 Type 89

Actual: 14 RPM burst, 8 RPM sustained 
Ingame: 12 RPM

 

12 cm/40 10th Year Type

Actual: 10 RPM burst, 6-8 RPM sustained
Ingame: 10 RPM

 

10 cm/60 Type 98

Actual: 20 RPM burst, 15 RPM sustained
Ingame: 20 RPM


Great Britain:

 

5.25"/50 QF Mark I

Actual: 7-8 RPM
Ingame: 9 RPM

 

4.5"/45 QF Mark III

Actual: 12 RPM
Ingame: 12 RPM

 

4.7"/43 QF Mark VIII

Actual: 8-12 RPM
Iname: 12 RPM

 

Germany:

 

12.7 cm/61 SK C/42

Actual: 15-18 RPM (using values of 12.7 cm/61 KM 40)
Ingame: 15 RPM

 

10.5 cm/65 SK C/33

Actual: 15-18 RPM
Ingame: 18 RPM

 

USSR/Soviet Union:

 

100 mm/56 B-34-USM

Actual: 10-16 RPM (depending on date of mount)

Ingame: 16 RPM

 

100 mm/70 SM-5-1s

Actual: 15-18 RPM

Ingame: 15 RPM


USA:

5"/25 Marks 10, 11, 13, 17

Actual: 12-15 RPM
Ingame: 13.3 RPM

 

5"/38, Various mountings

Actual: 12-15 RPM for open mounts, 15-20 RPM for enclosed mounts 
Ingame: 10 RPM on all mounts used as secondary batteries

 

 

 

 

 

Notice the literal single exception to the rule in the entire game?

 

Really activates my god damn almonds.

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×