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

American BBs Left Behind?

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

184
[BLKBB]
Members
567 posts
2,918 battles

Why do several other battleships appear to preform as well or better than their american counter-parts, when the only thing the americans have are their guns; they have no torps and not good secondary.

 

German?

Secondary - Check

Torps - Check

Big Guns - Check

heavy armor - check

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26,592
[HINON]
Supertester
21,227 posts
14,826 battles

You're delusional if you believe that German guns are in any way, shape or form equivalent (or even comparable) to American guns.

  • Cool 9
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
Members
83 posts
9,328 battles

It sounds like you got stuck in the Colorado, which is I agree is probably indeed the lowest point in the US BB line that gets overmatched, poor dispersion with the few number of guns it has, and terribly difficult to maneuver in.
Compared to the more flexible Gneisneau, it can feel completely outclassed.

Once you get to the North Carolina, all of that changes and you'll see why the grind will be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,323
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,142 posts
5,955 battles
28 minutes ago, Desmios said:

Why do several other battleships appear to preform as well or better than their american counter-parts, when the only thing the americans have are their guns; they have no torps and not good secondary.

 

German?

Secondary - Check

Torps - Check

Big Guns - Check

heavy armor - check

i can agree on secondaries and heavy armor(balans turtleback) but big guns with dispersion that miss even the alien ship of the movie Battleship are not a pros.

the torps are "situational" in the sense where you need to get close to it,increasing the chance to get torped too.not exactly a pros since you want to stay alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
560
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,941 posts

American BB secondaries suffer from the unique problem of their mountings being so ubiquitous throughout the entire USN fleet, so WG loses it's marbles trying to balance them. (because they don't want to make separate program files for each ship at each tier.) So you only really get true USN secondaries on the Montana, when they don't really matter anymore if your name isn't Republique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
292
[DISST]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,003 posts

colorado has better (at least in range) secondaries than the follow on North Carolina... but i might have mine upgraded.. I really like colorado  but  you have to play to its strengths in a way it plays like indy in that you cant really get cut from your team and you cant really show broadside... but a full 8 gun broadside  of 16 inch will basically kill any cruiser . just have to be very self aware 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[NET]
Beta Testers
478 posts
4,419 battles

outside the Colorado at tier 7 the us bbs are very good tier for tier against the competition. the tier 7s of the other nations all have a handsome margin of speed over the rado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,412 posts
8,793 battles

No, I don't think there's much of a problem with American BB's, especially at high tiers.  They are appreciably more accurate and stealthy than their German counterparts, which are both huge strengths.  Also, while not having a turtleback kind of sucks sometimes, not getting deleted by AP divebombers is occasionally a nice offsetting perk.  And the crown of the line, Montana, is probably the best overall BB in the game, so there's a lot of reason to grind up the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,838
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

USN ships were great in the real world, but only because of the Brave, Ingenuity of the Crews. Wows does not add crew stats to any ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,323
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,142 posts
5,955 battles
6 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

USN ships were great in the real world, but only because of the Brave, Ingenuity of the Crews. Wows does not add crew stats to any ships.

USN ships should have the flavor of better damage control party,more seconds when it's active and less cooldown. but the  oct rev got that gimmick for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
421
[HUNGS]
Members
1,696 posts
3,603 battles

The reason American BBs under perform is because most new players go down that line, especially here on the NA server. Second is the USN BBs can be a hard line for newbs, the wrong move with the speed can easily get your sunk or put out of the fight. Mistakes are punished in this line

 

Personally I love the line and do great in it especially now that I'm a better player, when I first went down the line (which was my first line of ships) I didn't do that great. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
619 posts
699 battles

WG's incessant devotion to keeping USN firing arcs act like the shells are both subsonic and lighter than air certainly doesn't help things.  They also conveniently ignore (in the name of "balance", of course) that the SoDaks, NorCals, and Iowas (and by extension, the Montys) all had their main guns slaved to radar fire control.

Instead, they get middle of the road down the board guns, effectively useless secondaries, dispersion of "???" and have it all russianbalanced by a marginally faster damage control party.  They once had the best AA, but that's been taken away, it's not like the barely improved damcon matters to the pinpoint-accurate, greek fire spewing islands (I think they're supposed to be ships, but I could be wrong) and they're only allowed to hit things at range if wargaming allows it for the week.

Edited by Highlord
  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,412 posts
8,793 battles
Just now, Highlord said:

They also conveniently ignore (in the name of "balance", of course) that the SoDaks, NorCals, and Iowas (and by extension, the Montys) all had their main guns slaved to radar fire control.

Personally, I'm very glad that all ships in the game from pre-WW1 protected cruisers to the Iowa all use the same fire control system (ie: the game's aiming interface.)  I don't think it would be a great thing for the game if WG concocted some deliberately worse aiming interfaces and forced ships with worse fire control systems in the real world to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[HGTWN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
81 posts
2,685 battles

With the Brits, French and Germans getting fictional engine updates at lower tiers, the only area the US BBs are left behind is in speed. Otherwise they are fine

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
619 posts
699 battles
4 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

Personally, I'm very glad that all ships in the game from pre-WW1 protected cruisers to the Iowa all use the same fire control system (ie: the game's aiming interface.)  I don't think it would be a great thing for the game if WG concocted some deliberately worse aiming interfaces and forced ships with worse fire control systems in the real world to use them.

It would have been easily solved by reflecting it in-game as USN BB's and CA's having the tightest dispersion of their classes. But that would have made sense and actually made the US tree strong in something, which is a concept Wargaming is violently opposed to.

 

With the Brits, French and Germans getting fictional engine updates at lower tiers, the only area the US BBs are left behind is in speed. Otherwise they are fine

This too. WG is oddly devoted to keeping the USN BB's slow while giving European designs that barely even existed impossible performance envelopes.  I expect that when we get Soviet BB's, they're all have a base speed of 30 knots.

Edited by Highlord
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[KNTI2]
Members
887 posts
6,395 battles
23 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

USN ships were great in the real world, but only because of the Brave, Ingenuity of the Crews. Wows does not add crew stats to any ships.

They also had the Mk 37 FCS, which was the best in the world and set the post war standard for automation of fire control. This is the same system that allowed Taffy 3 to hold the line where DEs and DDs of any other nation would've gotten wrecked.

3 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

Personally, I'm very glad that all ships in the game from pre-WW1 protected cruisers to the Iowa all use the same fire control system (ie: the game's aiming interface.)  I don't think it would be a great thing for the game if WG concocted some deliberately worse aiming interfaces and forced ships with worse fire control systems in the real world to use them.

For reference, playing any other nation would be like playing without your turrets automatically elevating/depressing to hit the target at range, and having to fine adjust horizontally as you fire. This would be okay enough going in a straight line at constant speed but would require way more shots to hit under any other conditions.

Which wouldn't be very fun, not to mention being on the receiving end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,205 posts
6,027 battles
1 hour ago, Desmios said:

Why do several other battleships appear to preform as well or better than their american counter-parts, when the only thing the americans have are their guns; they have no torps and not good secondary.

 

German?

Secondary - Check

Torps - Check

Big Guns - Check

heavy armor - check

Ok ... 

Secondary guns:  Yep the Germans have good secondary guns, mostly, and a pretty decent range.  US Battleships aren't quite as good but still respectable especially starting when US battleships begin shipping the 5 inch/38 cals which provide good anti-ship capabilities along with some of the best AA fire around for a medium caliber guns.   The older US 5 inch/25 caliber isn't as good but it still does a decent job in both roles. 

Torps:  Yes Gneisenau, her sister Scharnhorst and Tirpitz have torps.  That and the piddling single launchers in Mutsu pretty much ends to list of torp carrying battleships. Anything other than those, only one of which is a tech tree ship, and you're going to be torpless regardless of nationality.  

Big Guns:  US ships usually beat out their German counterparts in this comparison so you're not making much of a point here. 

Heavy Armor:    US battleships have this as well.  It's not quite as good as German armor against mid to close range AP fire but it's better against plunging fire and aerial bombs.  They also have pretty much the best torpedo protection around, sometimes almost twice that of their German counterparts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,518 posts
8,959 battles

tbh, the 2 ships that could use a buff would be the NY and NM, and that is to make their reload 30 seconds from the 34 they have.   the rest of the line is pretty solid.   If they were to make up something to give them a bit more speed for the low to mid tiers, i wouldn't be against it.  they are painfully slow, and another knot or 2 would make them more comfortable to play.(especially for new players who don't position well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20
[HGTWN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
81 posts
2,685 battles

I do agree the NY needs some love. Remove the freaking peacetime lifeboats already so it's middle turret can have it's historical firing angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,412 posts
8,793 battles
11 minutes ago, Highlord said:

It would have been easily solved by reflecting it in-game as USN BB's and CA's having the tightest dispersion of their classes. But that would have made sense and actually made the US tree strong in something, which is a concept Wargaming is violently opposed to.

No it wouldn't have made sense.  Aiming an artillery battery with a radar doesn't make the dispersion tighter on long-range shots..

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
619 posts
699 battles
9 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

No it wouldn't have made sense.  Aiming an artillery battery with a radar doesn't make the dispersion tighter on long-range shots..

To paraphrase the go-to argument of DD players demanding invincibility; "This is an arcade game, not a simulator."

Tightening the dispersion would have been the best ingame method of abstracting the USN's advantage in fire control without making the turrets completely AI driven. Which I agree would have been absolutely boring and unfair. It would also have paired well with the absurd and completely arbitrary decision to make the shells lighter than air.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,705
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,250 posts
16,589 battles
36 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

Aiming an artillery battery with a radar doesn't make the dispersion tighter on long-range shots..

I find this very hard to believe, especially when the evidence of the battles fought over the Philippines in 1944 shows that USN BB big gun accuracy was freakin' spot on. But you could always ask the Japanese, who were on the receiving end, they would know best. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
696
[NOBS]
Members
1,119 posts
8,277 battles

The German BB's are better then the USN BB's at under 11.3 km, and the armour is better, because I eat a ton on salvo's trying to get the range under 11.3 km. 

The disappointment of sending a salvo from my German BB at a full broadside target at 20 km to get zero hits makes up for any advantage I have over any other ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×