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

In which tier would you put the British R-class battleships?

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,021
[ARGSY]
Members
6,360 posts
4,288 battles

Tier V, for their hull and propulsion? Or Tier VI for their 15 inch guns?

They have been described (e.g. by E.H.H. Archibald, in "The Metal Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy 1860-1971") as "15 inch-gunned Iron Dukes" (albeit with four twin turrets instead of five).

Why ask such a question? Because they were numerically quite a major class, and because one of them became the Soviet Archangelsk for a short time, I can see the potential for one of them becoming a premium ship, especially since both the basic hull/propulsion/rudder AND basic armament modelling already exist in-game.

The only real problem I foresee is that as a Tier V premium they would become to their own tier the OP incendiary monster that the Orion is at Tier IV, if not worse. Against this, the propensity of Tier V ships to see Tier VII opposition would act as a counterbalance. But to put them at Tier VI makes no sense because they are in no way equal to Warspite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,196
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,671 battles

Tier 5 would be fine. They were basically a downgrade to the QE's, but they did still have good armor. That 21 kt top speed and the ability to see tier 7's frequently means they should be fine.

As for the Soviet version, Tier 5 would also be fine. Especially if the US ever gets the Nevada class which should be a tier 5 ship as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[REVY]
Members
954 posts
7,528 battles

Also because of being top heavy, they didn't receive the kind of rebuilds other British BBs got. The result being the ships were sent to secondary theaters of war and eventually retired before the war ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,939
[HINON]
Supertester
19,247 posts
12,791 battles

Tier 5. Typical dreadnought speed and armor, plus 8x 15" makes them a tier 5 through and through.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,517
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,996 posts
5,967 battles

Why in the world would a better protected but slightly slower Warspite/QE be a tier 5?

21 knots not good enough for tier 6? By what metric exactly, seeing as how the USN is stuck with that until tier 7?

The only thing the R class could be argued as lacking for tier 6 would be AA fitout due to them not being heavily modernized between the wars, and we all know how easily that can be fudged. 

 

Hell, you have historical precedent for slapping supercharges on them, and that does away with the potato velocity the 15”/42 currently has ingame. Better guns for worse AA sounds like a rather normal WoWS compromise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,562 posts
3,539 battles
2 hours ago, Big_Spud said:

Why in the world would a better protected but slightly slower Warspite/QE be a tier 5?

21 knots not good enough for tier 6? By what metric exactly, seeing as how the USN is stuck with that until tier 7?

The only thing the R class could be argued as lacking for tier 6 would be AA fitout due to them not being heavily modernized between the wars, and we all know how easily that can be fudged. 

 

Hell, you have historical precedent for slapping supercharges on them, and that does away with the potato velocity the 15”/42 currently has ingame. Better guns for worse AA sounds like a rather normal WoWS compromise.

 

Thank you, I was going to pay the same thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,649
[KNMSU]
Members
3,373 posts
4,008 battles

6.

There are other 21-knot BBs that make that tier work, and the difference between them and Queen Elizabeth in terms of speed/AA could be offset by a .1 sigma buff or a very slight (like 1-2 second) reload buff.

No, there is no stong case to be made for putting them in tier 5. They were just Queen Elizabeths built on the cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,203
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,815 posts
10,360 battles

6 myself, 15in at T5 is somewhat unprecedented and they'd need to be soft-nerfed into unenjoyment to be a tier worse than Warspite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,649
[KNMSU]
Members
3,373 posts
4,008 battles
12 minutes ago, mofton said:

6 myself, 15in at T5 is somewhat unprecedented and they'd need to be soft-nerfed into unenjoyment to be a tier worse than Warspite.

Yup.

5 hours ago, Lert said:

Tier 5. Typical dreadnought speed and armor, plus 8x 15" makes them a tier 5 through and through.

I think you're off base on this one. The R-class had certain armor advantages (for the purposes of WoW - not IRL) over the QEs that should be taken into account - they had better deck armor, and (as far as I know) a uniform belt that didn't taper on the upper portion (The QE's went from 13 inches to 6 inches - I'm not aware that the Revenges did this). Basically, there was some durability gained at the expense of that speed.

To quote Wikipedia:

Quote

 

The armour was very different from that of the Queen Elizabeths: the armoured deck was raised much higher in the ship, and the side armour was much more extensive at its full thickness of 13 inches (330 mm). This scheme was chosen since, at the time the Revenges were being designed, it was still believed that any major fleet-to-fleet engagement would take place at relatively close ranges such that the principal danger would be direct fire striking the sides of the ship, rather than plunging fire striking the deck. Additionally, this change in the armour layout was a cost-saving measure. The Queen Elizabeths had plates that tapered at the top and bottom of the armour belt, and tapered armour was extremely expensive to produce. Overall, it was probably an effective armouring scheme, made obsolete by developments in naval gunnery and tactics that, unfortunately, occurred almost immediately after the ships entered service and that, ultimately, did not lend itself to the upgrades necessitated by Second World War-era weapons.

Anti-torpedo bulges were included; these provided superb protection against attacks by torpedo for their time, but due to the increasing power of torpedo warheads, proved to be deficient[4] for Royal Oak when she was torpedoed at Scapa Flow in 1939.

 

Honestly, there's a strong case to be made that they were a lot better battleships than Warspite for their time - but, as the quote points out, in an era of plunging fire, the armor didn't age as well. However, since plunging fire isn't really a thing in WoWs, chances are good that they will feel much more robust than QE/Warspite.

Edited by Battlecruiser_Lutzow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,937
[-K-]
Supertester
3,099 posts
6,832 battles

Looks like a 6 to me.  Similar displacement as QE.  Same gun layout.  Similar armor scheme.  R's are a tad bit slower, but they are also shorter and fatter, which means better turning radius.  Nothing about the ship suggests that its different enough from QE as to justify going down a tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,203
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,815 posts
10,360 battles

Maybe a 'Jutland Configuration' HMS Revenge *might* work at T5, but I'd guess it wouldn't be much fun. Well, it'd be fun when top tier but misery as soon as a T7 carrier with T9 planes swans into range of your T3 AA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,500 battles
25 minutes ago, mofton said:

6 myself, 15in at T5 is somewhat unprecedented and they'd need to be soft-nerfed into unenjoyment to be a tier worse than Warspite.

Nevermind disregard.

Edited by IronWolfV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,203
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,815 posts
10,360 battles
Just now, IronWolfV said:

And Kongo has been at tier 5 since the game began. How is it unprecedented praytell?

Because a Kongo has speed that always scales well, and an R won't, and because Kongo does at least get about 70 mid-long range DPS while Revenge will get 0.

In addition I suspect to balance a Revenge at T5 would need a sigma nerf (there's a strong parallel Revenge-Warspite as Musashi-Yamato) which, to me would just be frustrating, especially as the T6 Warspite will see mostly the same matchmaking as a T5 Revenge, so why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[REVY]
Members
954 posts
7,528 battles
4 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

And Kongo has been at tier 5 since the game began. How is it unprecedented praytell?

the Kongo has 14in guns and is a battlecruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,253 posts
1,860 battles
5 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

And Kongo has been at tier 5 since the game began. How is it unprecedented praytell?

Kongo’s guns are 14”, not 15”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,649
[KNMSU]
Members
3,373 posts
4,008 battles
10 minutes ago, mofton said:

Because a Kongo has speed that always scales well, and an R won't, and because Kongo does at least get about 70 mid-long range DPS while Revenge will get 0.

In addition I suspect to balance a Revenge at T5 would need a sigma nerf (there's a strong parallel Revenge-Warspite as Musashi-Yamato) which, to me would just be frustrating, especially as the T6 Warspite will see mostly the same matchmaking as a T5 Revenge, so why bother?

There's a strong case to be made that Kongo should really be a tier 6. The "Hiei-light" we got in game is stripped of almost all the very respectable AA/secondaries that the surviving members of the class were equipped with by 1943. She's hefty (36,600 tons is totally fine by tier 6 standards. New Mexico only weighed 32,000 tons; Fuso only 35,000; Bayern 32,000), and also possess the exact same guns as Fuso, which do just fine against tier 8s (the Japanese, like the British, favored low muzzle velocity, high shell weight weapons - so these guns actually fare very well when compared to Bayern's in terms of performance numbers). If the AA was buffed and the sigma tightened a bit, Kongo could be a very respectable tier 6. 

I'd go so far as to say that Kongo is mis-tiered.

Edited by Battlecruiser_Lutzow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,500 battles
6 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Kongo’s guns are 14”, not 15”.

 

7 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

the Kongo has 14in guns and is a battlecruiser.

Read the edited post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,649
[KNMSU]
Members
3,373 posts
4,008 battles
9 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

the Kongo has 14in guns and is a battlecruiser.

You're probably more right than wrong. Though the Japanese - after two upgrades - reclassified the Kongos as first 'battleships, 'and then 'fast battleships,' they were arguably never anything but battlecruisers throughout their entire lifespans. This is largely due to the fact that the armor strengthening done to the ships during their rebuilds was of enormously suspect value - most of the "enhancements" came in the form of internal diagonal bulkheads that probably didn't do a whole heck of a lot (Kongo's belt armor began life as 8", and ended life at 8" - the area of coverage was just expanded). As we all know, 8" is not up to snuff as a battleship, particularly not in WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,508
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,497 posts
3,435 battles
2 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Lutzow said:

There's a strong case to be made that Kongo should really be a tier 6. The "Hiei-light" we got in game is stripped of almost all the very respectable AA that the surviving members of the class were equipped with by 1943. She's also got the exact same guns as Fuso, which does just fine against tier 8s. If the AA was buffed and the sigma tightened a bit, Kongo could be a very respectable tier 6. 

A Premium of Kongou and Haruna at T6 would work well in their final outfits. If I'm not misremembering, Haruna would have slightly better medium/long-range AA while Kongou had more short-range AA. Both could be given full HP values based on their final displacement and any missing armor if needed, and one of them could have long-range secondaries (Warspite levels of somewhat accurate, nasty secondary surprise) and only slightly better main gun accuracy than T5 Hiei, and the other just has straight-up better accuracy than T5 Hiei and the other T6 Premium sister.

Kirishima can work at T5 in her final form much in the same was as Texas; more AA but almost identical stats. Maybe a bit more HP due to having more AA, at the cost of a tiny loss in speed.


Back on topic, Revenge would most likely be T6. Her armor setup better benefits her in the game as opposed to real-life, and it generally fits in-line with having the 15" guns show up at T6. It does double-up with Warspite in the same tier, but they could be given a different setup than Warspite, in terms of having RN HE and short-fuse AP instead of Warspite's more balanced AP/HE, or having a regular non-RN Heal, etc. It just depends on what situational niche or gimmick is she expected to fill between Warspite and QE. She at least has the armor potential to earn a spot, but its balancing the rest of her equipment and her gunnery that would really make her stand out from Warspite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,203
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,815 posts
10,360 battles
10 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Lutzow said:

There's a strong case to be made that Kongo should really be a tier 6. The "Hiei-light" we got in game is stripped of almost all the very respectable AA/secondaries that the surviving members of the class were equipped with by 1943. She's hefty (36,600 tons is totally fine by tier 6 standards. New Mexico only weighed 32,000 tons; Fuso only 35,000), and also possess the exact same guns as Fuso, which do just fine against tier 8s. If the AA was buffed and the sigma tightened a bit, Kongo could be a very respectable tier 6. 

Perhaps there is, though only 8 guns to Fuso's 12 might be problematic, even with 2.0 v. 1.5 sigma say.

As it is Kongo is a middling/competitive T5 battleship. She's clearly superior to the NY/Bretagne, probably close to the Kaiser and behind the Guilio and Iron Duke. That's with all the advantages of at least her major late-30's refit, more speed, armor, AA, HP etc. etc. A stock Kongo 'WWI configuration' would not be that much fun at T5, and while a 1916 Revenge might be a bit better in-game than a 1916 Kongo I don't see her being fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,555
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,874 posts
5,259 battles
7 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Lutzow said:

You're probably more right than wrong. Though the Japanese - after two upgrades - reclassified the Kongos as first 'battleships, 'and then 'fast battleships,' they were arguably never anything but battlecruisers throughout their entire lifespans. This is largely due to the fact that the armor strengthening done to the ships during their rebuilds was of enormously suspect value - most of the "enhancements" came in the form of internal diagonal bulkheads that probably didn't do a whole heck of a lot (Kongo's belt armor began life as 8", and ended life at 8" - the area of coverage was just expanded). As we all know, 8" is not up to snuff as a battleship, particularly not in WWII.

I agree.  Calling a battlecruiser a "battleship" does not make it so.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
208 posts
2,684 battles
3 minutes ago, mofton said:

Perhaps there is, though only 8 guns to Fuso's 12 might be problematic, even with 2.0 v. 1.5 sigma say.

As it is Kongo is a middling/competitive T5 battleship. She's clearly superior to the NY/Bretagne, probably close to the Kaiser and behind the Guilio and Iron Duke. That's with all the advantages of at least her major late-30's refit, more speed, armor, AA, HP etc. etc. A stock Kongo 'WWI configuration' would not be that much fun at T5, and while a 1916 Revenge might be a bit better in-game than a 1916 Kongo I don't see her being fun.

Buff their other stats along side it and it would be fine.  Faster turret traverse, longer range secondaries and AA, dispersion buff, and small changes to rudder shift acceleration, etc... they could be very competitive despite the lack of barrels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[NUWES]
Members
1,664 posts
5,598 battles

They aren't downgrades of the QEs, they were sidegrades. They are a bit shorter and the armor was a bit thicker and better placed and they were slower. That's mostly it for combat differences. They were to the QEs as the South Dakotas were to the North Carolinas. There is no reason they should be T5. They are as much T6s as the QEs are. They were very highly regarded ships and were considered to be better combat units than the QEs were in their day ... until the time came to upgrade them to WWII standards. Shortening the hull resulted in less deck space for upgrades and the ships were designed with less stability and a lot more roll than the QE's for gunnery purposes. Unfortunately this also made it difficult and expensive to upgrade them. (Heavy new equipment such as radars, upgraded weapons and more AA guns worsened the roll and would require even more extensive and expensive refits like stabilizers.) Lower speed was also an issue, but that was not as severe as people have mentioned. The real issue preventing upgrading the Rs were cost and time. As a result the older, less-advanced QE class ships got most of the refits and few if any of the R's did. (Ironically Royal Oak was the R with the most extensive refits.) They are T6 ships. For game purposes they are mostly better ships than the QEs. Stability and cost of upgrades aren't really a factor in the game. 

Prior to the launch of the British BBs, I argued for Revenge to be the T6 so that it would provide a bit of contrast with Warspite. 

Edited by Tzarevitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,300 posts
4,460 battles
5 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

They aren't downgrades of the QEs, they were sidegrades. They are a bit shorter and the armor was a bit thicker and better placed and they were slower. That's mostly it for combat differences. They were to the QEs as the South Dakotas were to the North Carolinas. There is no reason they should be T5. They are as much T6s as the QEs are. They were very highly regarded ships and were considered to be better combat units than the QEs were in their day ... until the time came to upgrade them to WWII standards. Shortening the hull resulted in less deck space for upgrades and the ships were designed with less stability and a lot more roll than the QE's for gunnery purposes. Unfortunately this also made it difficult and expensive to upgrade them. (Heavy new equipment such as radars, upgraded weapons and more AA guns worsened the roll and would require even more extensive and expensive refits like stabilizers.) Lower speed was also an issue, but that was not as severe as people have mentioned. The real issue preventing upgrading the Rs were cost and time. As a result the older, less-advanced QE class ships got most of the refits and few if any of the R's did. (Ironically Royal Oak was the R with the most extensive refits.) They are T6 ships. For game purposes they are mostly better ships than the QEs. Stability and cost of upgrades aren't really a factor in the game. 

You raise an interesting point...  with regards the stability..  they were deliberately designed to have lower stability, but my understanding was that it was to introduce a "slow" roll to improve gun accuracy, which it certainly did..  the R classes always outperformed the QE's in gunnery trials.

Perhaps that "design" issue could be used by WG to decrease dispursion or increase sigma to make up for the other shortcoming because of the problems in upgrading the ships in later life.

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[NUWES]
Members
1,664 posts
5,598 battles
20 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

You raise an interesting point...  with regards the stability..  they were deliberately designed to have lower stability, but my understanding was that it was to introduce a "slow" roll to improve gun accuracy, which it certainly did..  the R classes always outperformed the QE's in gunnery trials.

Perhaps that "design" issue could be used by WG to decrease dispursion or increase sigma to make up for the other shortcoming because of the problems in upgrading the ships in later life.

 

M

I could be, but I really doubt it. They have no problem with ships getting fictitious upgrades if needed to make them fit. And I don't disagree with that because the game needs to be playable with more than one nation. If they stuck to reality the game would have mostly USN ships being good with a smattering of others. Quite a few ships in the game were awful ships in real life but they are propped up and/or given mythical upgrades to be competitive. Konigsburg and Nuremburg for example were such poor ships that they couldn't even manage the Atlantic Ocean. They were pretty much restricted to the North Sea where the seas were calmer. In the game, however, they are decent  (if fragile) ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×