Jump to content
Stauffenberg44

Battleships & Battlecruisers of WW II -- Ship Chart

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4,221 posts
9,718 battles

Just something I got in the mail today I thought was rather nice. I sharpened up the image as best I could; given the size limitations here you might still have to use a magnifying glass if you are an older chap like myself. It's impressive to see them all in one image at a glance I am sure you will agree. You get a sense of the visibility range of various ships. Oh look, there's the Giulio Cesare...

 

5a84ba39e0da4_Shipchart.thumb.jpg.4c9bb58471f488aee1f5314d6e512be4.jpg

 

Note the premier spot goes to HMS Vanguard, the largest and fastest battleship ever constructed by the Royal Navy, and the last battleship launched by any navy in the world. Why isn't it in WoWs? Search around in the forum and you will see it would be a very hard ship to work in the game given various technical disparities viz. other battleships.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Stauffenberg44
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,410 posts
4,382 battles

Why are the USS Washington and N. Carolina listed in the 45,000 ton + category...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,221 posts
9,718 battles
4 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

Why are the USS Washington and N. Carolina listed in the 45,000 ton + category...?

Good question--short tons? No idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,245
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
13,282 posts
18,459 battles
59 minutes ago, Stauffenberg44 said:

Note the premier spot goes to HMS Vanguard, the largest and fastest battleship ever constructed by the Royal Navy, and the last battleship launched by any navy in the world. Why isn't it in WoWs? Search around in the forum and you will see it would be a very hard ship to work in the game given various technical disparities viz. other battleships.

Because before the game even went into Alpha testing it was decided that Yamato was going to be the Queen of WoW, and WoW doesn't want her to have any (serious) competition, which is why Conqueror's guns are 457 MM and not 460, else she would then equal Yammy's pen and you can't have that!

Putting Vanguard in game would either call for some SERIOUS pencil whomping of her stats, or Yamato taking second place, a bozo no-no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,221 posts
9,718 battles
1 minute ago, Umikami said:

Because before the game even went into Alpha testing it was decided that Yamato was going to be the Queen of WoW, and WoW doesn't want her to have any (serious) competition, which is why Conqueror's guns are 457 MM and not 460, else she would then equal Yammy's pen and you can't have that!

Putting Vanguard in game would either call for some SERIOUS pencil whomping of her stats, or Yamato taking second place, a bozo no-no.

Serious? You seem to be suggesting bias as opposed to balancing issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,245
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
13,282 posts
18,459 battles
1 minute ago, Stauffenberg44 said:

Serious? You seem to be suggesting bias as opposed to balancing issues.

Really? Re-read my post, I wasn't suggesting anything, I was saying it out loud and in public in black and white for all to see. Suggesting? HAH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,221 posts
9,718 battles
2 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Really? Re-read my post, I wasn't suggesting anything, I was saying it out loud and in public in black and white for all to see. Suggesting? HAH!

Ok it was the "bozo no-no" that threw me lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
995 posts
1,871 battles
31 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Because before the game even went into Alpha testing it was decided that Yamato was going to be the Queen of WoW, and WoW doesn't want her to have any (serious) competition, which is why Conqueror's guns are 457 MM and not 460, else she would then equal Yammy's pen and you can't have that!

Putting Vanguard in game would either call for some SERIOUS pencil whomping of her stats, or Yamato taking second place, a bozo no-no.

to be fair the Vanguard has the same guns as the QE if i'm not mistaken. but that AA is pretty nice 80 something bofors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,245
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
13,282 posts
18,459 battles
Just now, skull_122_steel said:

to be fair the Vanguard has the same guns as the QE if i'm not mistaken. but that AA is pretty nice 80 something bofors

Yes, but she wasn't supposed to; Great Britain and the Royal Navy were so broke after WW2 that they used whatever guns they had left over instead of giving her the guns she was designed to have, which were 16" if I remember correctly. England simply didn't have the Pounds to cough up for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
995 posts
1,871 battles
1 minute ago, Umikami said:

England simply didn't have the Pounds to cough up for them.

even after they sold jets engines to the USSR and told them not to put them in any military planes. then the Mig-15 came along:Smile_facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,245
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
13,282 posts
18,459 battles
3 minutes ago, skull_122_steel said:

even after they sold jets engines to the USSR and told them not to put them in any military planes. then the Mig-15 came along:Smile_facepalm:

What did that famous Communist Premier say? "Capitalists will gladly sell you the rope you'll use to hang them with?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,830
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,762 posts
2,134 battles
11 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Yes, but she wasn't supposed to; Great Britain and the Royal Navy were so broke after WW2 that they used whatever guns they had left over instead of giving her the guns she was designed to have, which were 16" if I remember correctly. England simply didn't have the Pounds to cough up for them.

But she was - she was a project conducted by the RN in order to get a new modern Battleship out as fast as possible, and using the tried and tested 15"/42 Mk.I was the fastest way of doing this. Otherwise, Vanguard would have never existed and we'd be seeing Lion instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,221 posts
9,718 battles
27 minutes ago, Umikami said:

What did that famous Communist Premier say? "Capitalists will gladly sell you the rope you'll use to hang them with?"

It's supposedly by Lenin and he never actually said that exactly.  The passage is usually taken out of context. Lenin's main point in the original manuscript was that some short-sighted communists thought they could work with capitalists and dupe them into serving communist goals. Lenin gave the passage as an example of what these people thought. But Lenin disagreed with trying to make deals with capitalists and was warning communists against trying what the quote suggested.

Edited by Stauffenberg44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
692
[REVY]
Members
2,057 posts
11,402 battles
On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 6:26 PM, Murotsu said:

Why are the USS Washington and N. Carolina listed in the 45,000 ton + category...?

 

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 6:31 PM, Stauffenberg44 said:

Good question--short tons? No idea.

 

Full warload of fuel, ammo, and all those anti-aircraft guns and crew put their displacement at about 45,000 tons in 1945.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,410 posts
4,382 battles
21 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

 

 

Full warload of fuel, ammo, and all those anti-aircraft guns and crew put their displacement at about 45,000 tons in 1945.

Then why put the S. Dakota's in the 35,000 ton category?  They have similar full load displacements.  But, that's not the only ones that are in the wrong displacement category.  There are several others as well.  I'll leave it to others to point them all out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
692
[REVY]
Members
2,057 posts
11,402 battles
4 hours ago, Murotsu said:

Then why put the S. Dakota's in the 35,000 ton category?  They have similar full load displacements.  But, that's not the only ones that are in the wrong displacement category.  There are several others as well.  I'll leave it to others to point them all out.

South Dakota class warload displacement is less then the North Carolina class Warload displacement.

NC is bigger then the SD class by about 50ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,410 posts
4,382 battles
1 hour ago, Lord_Slayer said:

South Dakota class warload displacement is less then the North Carolina class Warload displacement.

NC is bigger then the SD class by about 50ft.

Length is irrelevant here.  The S. Dakota class at full load displacement was between about 44,000 and 47,000 tons.  The N. Carolina class at full load ran about 43,000 to 45,000 tons.  Choose whatever source you want, they all agree on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,221 posts
9,718 battles
7 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

 

 

Full warload of fuel, ammo, and all those anti-aircraft guns and crew put their displacement at about 45,000 tons in 1945.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×