Tier 7 USN BB proposal SD(1920)

[landedkiller]

The first South Dakota class was a class of six American battleships that were laid down in 1920 but never completed. They would have been the last dreadnoughts in the Naval Act of 1916 to be commissioned had the Washington Naval Treaty not caused their cancellation one-third of the way through their construction.^[7] They would have been the largest, most heavily armed and armored battleships in the U.S. Navy and, designed to achieve 23 knots (43 km/h), represented an attempt to abandon its 21-knot (39 km/h) standardized fleet speed and catch up with the increasing fleet speeds of its main rivals, the British Royal Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy. In this, size and secondary armament, they represented a break from the Standard-type battleship that had dominated American capital ship design for the prior five ship classes, while their use of standardized bridges, lattice masts and other features was a continuation of this practice and the increase in the number of main guns from the preceding Colorado class had long been standard U.S. naval policy. The main restriction to which they had to adhere was the ability to pass through the Panama Canal.

The South Dakotas were authorized 4 March 1917, but work was postponed so that the U.S. Navy could incorporate information gained from the Battle of Jutland, fought in 1916, in this class's final design. Work was further postponed to give destroyers and other small fighting vessels priority as they were needed urgently to fight German U-boats in the North Atlantic. Construction started only in 1920. As the Washington Naval Treaty both restricted the total allowable battleship tonnage allowed the U.S. Navy, and limited individual ship size to 35,000 tons, construction was halted 8 February 1922. While the unfinished hulls (most over 30% completed) were scrapped in 1923, the armor plates already prepared were left unused in the shipyards until World War II. The 40- and 50-ton plates intended for Montana, for instance, were sent in 1941 or 42 to the Panama Canal to reinforce the defenses and locks there.^[8] The 16" guns were transferred to the U.S. Army for use in coastal artillery. credit wikipedia

Weapons

• 12 × 16"/50 caliber Mark 2 guns (4×3)^[6]
• 16 × 6"/53 caliber Mark 13 guns^[6]
• 4 × 3"/50 caliber guns (dual purpose)^[6]
• 4 × 6-pounder Hotchkiss (saluting guns)^[6]
• 2 × 21 inch (533 mm) submerged torpedo tubes^[6]

The 16-inch Mark 2 was 50 calibers long, with a liner, an A tube, jacket and seven hoops with four hoop locking rings and a screw box liner. The Mod 0 used an increasing twist in the rifling while the Mod 1 used a uniform twist and a different groove pattern. The Mark 3 was the same as the Mark 2 but used a one-step conical liner. The Mark 3 Mod 0 had an increasing rifling twist (like the Mark 2 Mod 0) while the Mark 3 Mod 1 utilized had a uniform twist. At the time the program was cancelled, in 1922, 71 guns had been built, including the prototype, while another 44 were in progress.^[2][13]

A Mark 3 Mod 1 was modified and used as the prototype for the 16-inch/50 caliber Mark 7 gun, which would go on to arm the Iowa-class battleships; it was redesignated as Mark D Mod 0.^[2]

Armor

• Belt: 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm)
• Barbettes: 4.5–13.5 in (114–343 mm)
• Turret face: 18 in (457 mm)
• Turret sides: 9–10 in (229–254 mm)
• Turret top: 5 in (127 mm)
• Turret rear 9 in (229 mm)
• Conning tower: 8–16 in (203–406 mm)
• Decks: 3.5–6 in (89–152 mm)
• Bulkheads: 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm)
• Uptakes: 9–13.5 in (229–343 mm)
• Secondary armament: none

 

why?

To fill in as a tier 7 battleship for the USN line with USS Indiana BB50. Yes this is a paper ship, but it the last dreadnought design that the USN did. This ship is designed to fill the gap between Colorado and North Carolina.

[Rusty_Python]

What does she bring that's different? We already have enough premium US BB's (Texas, Arizona, Bama, Mass, Miss). We don't need another one. She wouldn't play much different from either N. Mex or Colorado. Slow, good guns, decent armor, decent AA, good turning, etc. I'd rather see the French bb's, Italian BB's, or something from a new nation. (Nice copy+paste there 2)

[landedkiller]

This ship class would be in as a transition between Colorado and North Carolina much like our Ijn bb's which have Ashitaka, Mutsu as step into the playstyle boats for the next tier

[Rusty_Python]

Why do we need that? There's not much of an issue for players going between colorado and NoCal, except that they can't do it fast enough. Like I said, WG is focusing of French B's rn, and then probably Italians.

[Lert]

12x 16"/50 at tier 7? That's T9 material.

[Rusty_Python]

Just now, Lert said:

12x 16"/50 at tier 7? That's T9 material.

Exactly. It'd be nearly impossible to balance.

[landedkiller]

3 minutes ago, Lert said:

12x 16"/50 at tier 7? That's T9 material.

How would you put it into the game as a free xp ship or as an alternate line.

The 16-inch Mark 2 was 50 calibers long, with a liner, an A tube, jacket and seven hoops with four hoop locking rings and a screw box liner. The Mod 0 used an increasing twist in the rifling while the Mod 1 used a uniform twist and a different groove pattern. The Mark 3 was the same as the Mark 2 but used a one-step conical liner. The Mark 3 Mod 0 had an increasing rifling twist (like the Mark 2 Mod 0) while the Mark 3 Mod 1 utilized had a uniform twist. At the time the program was cancelled, in 1922, 71 guns had been built, including the prototype, while another 44 were in progress.^[2][13]

A Mark 3 Mod 1 was modified and used as the prototype for the 16-inch/50 caliber Mark 7 gun, which would go on to arm the Iowa-class battleships; it was redesignated as Mark D Mod 0.^[2]

[Rusty_Python]

You'd still face t7 ships. That's too much firepower at t7, but her durability  isn't good enough for t8, and we have enough of those already.

[landedkiller]

5 minutes ago, _Maho_Nishizumi_212 said:

You'd still face t7 ships. That's too much firepower at t7, but her durability  isn't good enough for t8, and we have enough of those already.

I can see your point with USS Colorado carrying 8 of these guns and Nelson carrying 9 of these guns. IT could be balanced along the lines of tier 8 perhaps if they give it a decent rate of fire at around 28-30 seconds with sigma balanced at around 1.7.

[Rusty_Python]

Just now, landedkiller said:

I can see your point with USS Colorado carrying 8 of these guns and Nelson carrying 9 of these guns. IT could be balanced along the lines of tier 8 perhaps if they give it a decent rate of fire at around 28-30 seconds with sigma balanced at around 1.7.

Which they're not going to do. As I've said twice now, we have enough T8 premium BB's, and none of them are of this type or playstyle.

[landedkiller]

Well I am going to gather some outside opinions in some games and see what other people think. If your against that's fine put up a proposal for another Italian BB or better yet a Russian BB. If anyone has anything to add constructively then I am all for it negative nellies I am just going to ignore

[Rusty_Python]

Whatever you want to do, do it. Just don't get your hopes up here.

[landedkiller]

I am thinking another year or two down the line after Italians we will see this appear

[Lert]

26 minutes ago, landedkiller said:

How would you put it into the game as a free xp ship or as an alternate line.

That's what I've been wracking my brain over for the last 10 minutes.

She's a T7 hull albeit a large one with hitpoints to match. She's got T10 firepower, and T4 AA.

Implementing her as designed would be a disaster. T9, pooooooossibly T8, though with atrocious gun handling if placed that low, and she'd have a hilariously awful AA suite if implemented as designed. But then you'd still have a mediocre brick of a ship with gunnery that feels horrible and inconsistent - until RNG blesses you and you delort your opponent in one brilliant explosion. CVs would be your bane.

In order for a ship to really be fun to fight with, her gunnery needs to be comfortable. Things like dispersion, turret turn time, shell flight time, sigma etc - but in order to make 12x 16"/50 fun and effective, you'd have to place this ship at a tier where her hull barely holds together and her AA is laughable, or she'd just be hilariously overpowered.

So either at T8 where her hull would still be ok but her gunnery would feel awful and her AA would be the laughing stock of the tier, or T9 where her hull would be outclassed by other BBs at tier and unfun to drive, but at least you could have decent-ish gunnery. Still the AA would be less effective than shouting harsh words.

If this ship were to be implemented and actually be fun and effective, it'd have to be with minor fantasy modernizations to the hull and major ones to the AA, rendering it no longer the 1920s SoDak design, but a fantasy semi-paper design based on it.

Personally? I hope it's years before they implement something like that, after they dry up the well of real, built-in-steel and appropriate ship designs in other nations and trees.

But all this is just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't make the decisions - I just test drive them.

 

[Rusty_Python]

1 minute ago, Lert said:

And I don't make the decisions - I just test drive them.

This perfect. 

[landedkiller]

2 minutes ago, Lert said:

That's what I've been wracking my brain over for the last 10 minutes.

She's a T7 hull albeit a large one with hitpoints to match. She's got T10 firepower, and T4 AA.

Implementing her as designed would be a disaster. T9, pooooooossibly T8, though with atrocious gun handling if placed that low, and she'd have a hilariously awful AA suite of implemented as designed. But then you'd still have a mediocre brick of a ship with gunnery that feels horrible and inconsistent - until RNG blesses you and you delort your opponent in one brilliant explosion. CVs would be your bane.

In order for a ship to really be fun to fight with, her gunnery needs to be comfortable. Things like dispersion, turret turn time, shell flight time, sigma etc - but in order to make 12x 16"/50 fun and effective, you'd have to place this ship at a tier where her hull barely holds together and her AA is laughable, or she'd just be hilariously overpowered.

So either at T8 where her hull would still be ok but her gunnery would feel awful and her AA would be the laughing stock of the tier, or T9 where her hull would be outclassed by other BBs at tier and unfun to drive, but at least you could have decent-ish gunnery. Still the AA would be less effective than shouting harsh words.

If this ship were to be implemented and actually be fun and effective, it'd have to be with minor fantasy modernizations to the hull and major ones to the AA, rendering it no longer the 1920s SoDak design, but a fantasy semi-paper design based on it.

Personally? I hope it's years before they implement something like that, after they dry up the well of real, built-in-steel and appropriate ship designs in other nations and trees.

But all this is just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't make the decisions - I just test drive them.

 

Thank you Lert I know you don't make the decsions, but I still value your opinions highly.

[Rusty_Python]

Just now, landedkiller said:

Thank you Lert I know you don't make the decsions, but I still value your opinions highly.

With the amount of time he and LWM put into the game, you'd be crazy not to.

[Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi]

I'm with @Lert on this, it's like USS Alaska a massive pain in the [edited]to balance,

(before the mods bash me on this, it's from a machinima series and this was said during a time of indecision).

[Rusty_Python]

Just now, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

I'm with @Lert on this, it's like USS Alaska a massive pain in the [edited]to balance,

(before the mods bash me on this, it's from a machinima series and this was said during a time of indecision).

Yeah, but Alaska's not quite as tricky I don't think...

[Lert]

Just now, _Maho_Nishizumi_212 said:

Yeah, but Alaska's not quite as tricky I don't think...

Alaska doesn't need extreme massaging and paper modernizations to fit in the game. Her problem is more where to put her.

[Rusty_Python]

Yeah. Some say a BB at t7 cause guns, others say cruiser at t9-10 cause guns and AA. Hard to say.

[Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi]

Just now, _Maho_Nishizumi_212 said:

Yeah, but Alaska's not quite as tricky I don't think...

Yes it is actually. As a BB she would be underpowered, as a CA she would be overpowered and despite her characteristics she is not a Battlecrusier. So as Lert said the biggest problem is where to put the "Large Cruiser".

[Rusty_Python]

I see. Problems.

[Lert]

1 minute ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

Yes it is actually. As a BB she would be underpowered

She'd be ok at T5 / T6 I think.

But this thread isn't about Alaska, it's about SoDak '20.

[Rusty_Python]

True. Just making comparisons.