Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
M8i

So how bad were real American warships?

95 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

7
Members
26 posts
1,899 battles

American warships in the game play badly but how bad in real life? If so then why, did engineers care?

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,601
[TASH]
Members
5,016 posts
8,170 battles

?

American ships in-game are fine.  I don't have an issue with playing any of them.  

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
104
[WAG]
Members
394 posts
7,575 battles
8 minutes ago, M8i said:

American warships in the game play badly but how bad in real life? If so then why, did engineers care?

Who says they play badly? The US battleships are great, and while I don't play them, I thought the US destroyers were effective gunboats. With a few exceptions, the cruisers are good, though some have a higher skill threshold due to the high shell arcs. The arcs are an asset if you know how to employ them. There is also a major shakeup of the US CA line coming at the end of the month. I understand most of the carriers are weaker than the IJN, but I don't play them.

ETA: this is an arcade game. While the ship model resemble actual ships (in most cases, not all), how they play in game is not necessarily related to how effective they were in actual battle.

Edited by DustRhino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,659 posts
4,933 battles

^This

But to answer the other part of your question, American Warships in general did just fine in combat and by the end of the war they were producing some of the finest warships in the world and in numbers which the Axis powers simply could not compete with. 

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[-ARP-]
Members
294 posts
14,031 battles

if you want this to be a real life game then don't play. you want to have a powerful ship. so how do the people feel if they went against your all powerful ship... the game will die if its a real life sim,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,102
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,335 posts
6,609 battles

None of the warships in WW2 could claim perfection. They all had their flaws (yes, even the Iowa and Yamato classes both had several flaws).

So how did they perform? The Standard Type Battleships were just as slow as they are in-game. The following NC and SoDak class were very solid and strong ships. The Iowa in-game is a bit faster than I‘d expect her in real-life, but then again none of the USN BBs is having the Radar they had irl.

Cruiser wise they made some excellent ships with the Cleveland, Baltimore (the one that followed Baltimore) and the Des Moines classes. All among the strongest of their type, or in the case of Des Moines the strongest one of her type.

Destroyer wise the Fletcher is just as good in game as she was real life. Excellent ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
985
Members
4,592 posts
6,543 battles

OP in WWII the U.S. Navy was the best in the world by 1943/44. Who, pray tell, do you think was better? Brits were good but we out produced them and everyone else...put together. Fine ships.  Great carriers, subs, BBs, cruisers, etc.  U.S. ships are just fine in this game. Why you say they play badly. Some do some don't.  This is true of ALL nations in this game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
104
[-THOR]
Members
633 posts
3,279 battles

In WOWS the only ships I really disliked were the USN standard battleships but IF played right they are solid.

 

USA was producing high quality ships in WW2 in 1943 and up. They were very good ships that they were making and they made a lot of em too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,192 battles
51 minutes ago, M8i said:

American warships in the game play badly but how bad in real life? If so then why, did engineers care?

US Battleships were top of the line for their time and very powerful. There only real weakness was the lack of speed caused by Standard Doctrine and the lack of AA due to thinking about carriers at the time. But then again why do you care? Most of the ships are WW I "steamboats". Personally though my thoughts are more like this right now;

Freemans-mind_Logo.png.1c9ac4d37114dc003fe52dd29efdf729.png

And I'm one of them. Here you were posting things that was not stupid but here you are back to form. Going to go back to critiquing movies now? Also Infinity War has broken world records, not exactly a bomb huh? Still it has become clear that you will never learn no matter how much we stomp on you and prove you wrong you will never learn so I will now be doing this whenever you post something this stupid; Now introducing the spin-off of "Guess the Kanmusu!" it is the game "Is it stupid?". Just like the title says tell me is the ship below is stupid;

 300px-USSStLouisC20cropped.jpg

Bonus points if MS paint is used to explain your reasoning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
646 posts
4,282 battles

The American ships in-game, with a few exceptions, play just fine. IRL there were some classes of ships that were lame ducks and some that were excellent. Many of the ships that the USN started the war with were built during the 20's and 30's and were compromised by trying to keep to the terms of the London Naval Treaty. 'Treaty cruisers' are a good example where armor was sacrificed to keep tonnage down and in some cases they paid dearly for it. Doctrine though was the real handicap in that in 1941 the IJN had a much better idea of how to fight surface actions (see First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal).

Later in the war, American ships tended to have better fire control (radar) and more comfortable crew quarters than their peers in other navies. Exceptions again existed in ships like the 4 stacker DD's built 20 years before the war that were brutal on their crews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
110
[BLHK]
Members
363 posts
3,472 battles
38 minutes ago, dmckay said:

OP in WWII the U.S. Navy was the best in the world by 1943/44. Who, pray tell, do you think was better? Brits were good but we out produced them and everyone else...put together. Fine ships.  Great carriers, subs, BBs, cruisers, etc.  U.S. ships are just fine in this game. Why you say they play badly. Some do some don't.  This is true of ALL nations in this game. 

One of the problems with real life and WG is damage control. An area the US were absolutely outstanding at. The other area that WG can not replicate is the size of the fight in the dog. Again an area the US navy excelled in.

US ships were no better or worse designed or built than the other combatants. They were simply driven by better trained sailors. Again something that can not be replicated in a video game.

There is a funny urban legend from the war involving a US and British destroyers sharing signals late in the war.

US to UK ship "How does it feel to be part of the second biggest navy in the world"

response from UK ship "How does it feel to be part of the second best navy in the world"

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
929
[WOLF9]
Members
1,110 posts
1 hour ago, M8i said:

American warships in the game play badly but how bad in real life? If so then why, did engineers care?

Since the Germans offered no real opportunity for a major surface engagement, I assume you are referring to the Pacific Theater. America fared poorly there to start because the Japanese had better torpedoes, and were much more proficient at night fighting due to having trained extensively for it. Toss in joint ventures with the British, Dutch, and Australians and you have a muddled command structure and ships that seldom worked together. Topping all that off was Japanese control of the skies at the outset of hostilities. American fortunes improved when industry and technology offset Japanese skill. Japan had 170 destroyers in WWII, losing 130 of them. By comparison, the US built 175 Fletchers alone. Radar  and flashless powder nullified the advantage the Japanese held in nighttime engagements, and airplanes relegated surface combatants to the role of cheerleader during daylight hours.(Yes, get the image of Jesse Oldendorf in a skirt with pom poms out of your head, muaaahahahahahaha).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
Members
26 posts
1,899 battles
56 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

US Battleships were top of the line for their time and very powerful. There only real weakness was the lack of speed caused by Standard Doctrine and the lack of AA due to thinking about carriers at the time. But then again why do you care? Most of the ships are WW I "steamboats". Personally though my thoughts are more like this right now;

Freemans-mind_Logo.png.1c9ac4d37114dc003fe52dd29efdf729.png

And I'm one of them. Here you were posting things that was not stupid but here you are back to form. Going to go back to critiquing movies now? Also Infinity War has broken world records, not exactly a bomb huh? Still it has become clear that you will never learn no matter how much we stomp on you and prove you wrong you will never learn so I will now be doing this whenever you post something this stupid; Now introducing the spin-off of "Guess the Kanmusu!" it is the game "Is it stupid?". Just like the title says tell me is the ship below is stupid;

 300px-USSStLouisC20cropped.jpg

Bonus points if MS paint is used to explain your reasoning!

The "ship" below is a pile of junk. It looks like a 1800s cargo ship then a ww2 warship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,192 battles
1 minute ago, M8i said:

The "ship" below is a pile of junk. It looks like a 1800s cargo ship then a ww2 warship.

That is a protected cruiser and one of the funnest ships in the game; USS St.Louis. But then again according to you it sucks.

Well then; Is This Stupid?

300px-USS_Ward_(DD-139).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
Members
26 posts
1,899 battles
1 minute ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

That is a protected cruiser and one of the funnest ships in the game; USS St.Louis. But then again according to you it sucks.

Well then; Is This Stupid?

300px-USS_Ward_(DD-139).jpg

And you are just a 19 year old pain in the neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,192 battles
Just now, M8i said:

And you are just a 19 year old pain in the neck.

And you are a poor fool that can't take criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
Members
26 posts
1,899 battles
1 minute ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

And you are a poor fool that can't take criticism.

But I can at least drink beer you can't so hush. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,192 battles
Just now, M8i said:

But I can at least drink beer you can't so hush. 

What type of argument is that? Honestly that as bad as your argument about how the St.Louis is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
Members
26 posts
1,899 battles
Just now, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

What type of argument is that? Honestly that as bad as your argument about how the St.Louis is bad.

World of warships is about powerful vessels not little hunks of junk.

  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
788
[STW-M]
Members
2,122 posts
5,927 battles

By the end of the war, I'd say the USN was the undisputed world naval power, ahead of even the British.

Unfortunately, a lot of USN strengths aren't capable of being modeled in-game due to certain restrictions. Conversely, a lot of weaknesses with Axis ships aren't modeled either.

A few examples:

  • Radar fire control: IRL, the USN and a few other allied navies were the only ones that properly implemented this point-and-click gunnery system. In-game, a universal basic control setup means that all ships are granted this.
  • Damage control/Repair ability: I'd say the USN were absolute kings of damage control during the war. The Yorktown carriers took a tremendous amount of punishment before sinking (never mind Enterprise basically getting a solo warrior at Guadalcanal and the Solomons), compared to Taiho and Shinano going down in incredibly embarrassing ways. In-game, the way damage control works means such a thing could never work (just imagine giving all USN ships a Conqueror-esque heal...dear god)
  • All-or-nothing armor: the sinking of Bismarck demonstrated quite decisively how turtleback armor was inferior, as the ship was rendered completely combat-ineffective despite the belt armor holding up to most shots (although there is some evidence that a few British battleships managed to penetrate it); compare this to when South Dakota took superficial damage from multiple Japanese ships, including Kirishima, after having been rendered helpless thanks to a flaw in the electrical circuitry (thank her chief engineer for that). In-game, that just means that citadel hits are feasible compared to turtleback ships
  • Carrier power: aka, the reason why the USN came to dominate the world's oceans from 1943 onwards. In-game, a combination of smaller battle zones, restricted loadouts, nerfed damage on dive bombers, the relative shortage of carrier players, and other factors means that USN CVs don't have nearly as much of an influence on the battlefield as they do IRL.
  • The lack of torpedoes: in-game, not having torpedoes is an objective weakness, making USN cruisers relatively helpless should a battleship manage to close the range compared to other cruisers. IRL, torpedoes proved themselves to be just as much of a weakness, if perhaps more so, than a strength. The long-lance, for instance, was found to cause catastrophic damage to the ships that carried it when hit, as Choukai found out to her detriment when USS White Plains managed to hit her torpedo tubes with her single 5-38 secondary gun.
  • The almost ubiquitous presence of radar: as it turns out, having better-seeing lookouts and night tactics can be negated fairly easily by the ability to see the enemy without visual contact. While proper use of said radar is still necessary (cough, Battle of Savo Island, cough), the early warning and information it gives is priceless, allowing things like Washington devastating Kirishima in the dark.
  • Espionage: code-breaking and other intelligence work was crucial to US success in a number of important battles like Midway and Philippines Sea. Obviously, such a move in-game would most likely result in a ban.

Finally, the most important one of all, that shall never, ever be modeled in-game:

INDUSTRIAL/LOGISTICAL STRENGTH.

The US was probably the only nation in-game that ever had both the knowledge and industrial capacity to mass-produce high tier designs during the war. It's also probably the nation with the most tier 10 ships that actually existed IRL.

Of all the tier 10 battleships in-game, probably the only ones that were feasible were Yamato (actually built, for all the good that did Japan) and Montana (the US definitely had the ability to build the planned ships, but rightfully decided that carriers were more important). The USN was the only navy that could actually build and maintain these ships. Building Grober Kurfurst might just have accelerated Germany's defeat by a few months, and Yamato/Musashi proved to be a massive waste of resources on Japan's part.

In addition, without adequate logistics, even the most powerful of warships become about as useful as a stack of rocks. Compare how the USN's abilities to quickly repair Yorktown and Enterprise proved crucial at Midway and Guadalcanal to Shokaku and Zuikaku being forced to retreat back to mainland Japan to restock their planes, thus leaving the Japanese dangerously undermanned at the most crucial moments of the Pacific War. Yamato probably is the crowning example of logistical failure: the biggest and most heavily armed battleships in the world never sortieing out until 1944 only to get nuked by aircraft without accomplishing anything of note.

It wouldn't be very fair if one team could simply throw 6+ tier 9 carriers at you from beyond the border while you're stuck with a single tier 8 with no planes, would it?

Edited by Avenge_December_7
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,714
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,887 posts
11,607 battles

What's wrong with American ships? They are pretty strong (excluding CVs), they have one of the best BB lines and one of the best DD lines, their cruisers are good (though sometimes a bit challenging to play)

 

O that's right... you're a troll.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,192 battles
2 minutes ago, M8i said:

World of warships is about powerful vessels not little hunks of junk.

Oh so this is not a powerful warship is it?

image.jpeg.6e4f037246bff88ff9169a141e602e54.jpeg

or this?

Arizona_(BB39)_Port_Bow,_Underway_-_NARA

or this?

d2f616443848a481c9cee5b036de5165.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,192 battles
Just now, Kapitan_Wuff said:

you're a troll.

ssshhhh.........don't tell him that. If he learns this we will lose a very entertaining idiot.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
680
[-VT3-]
Members
1,628 posts
3,364 battles

With the exception of the carrier line, the USN is pretty solidly represented ingame, and the upcoming cruiser split promises to rebalance some of the more power-creeped examples back to where they should be.  (Although it still leaves out Phoenix and Omaha, both of which have been kinda left behind by other lines.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×