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

Nueve de Julio

Nueve de Julio  

79 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the ship be released with this name, or another?

    • Yes, there is no reason to change.
      39
    • No, it should be General Belgrano.
      15
    • No, they should use General Belgrano's original name, Diecisiete de Octubre.
      7
    • No, they should just make up a name if they want it to be Argentine.
      1
    • No, they should use another nation's Brooklyn-class for the ship (O'Higgins (Chile), Capitán Prat (Chile), Barroso (Brazil)).
      17

41 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

388
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,423 posts
3,367 battles

So, we finally get a review of the upcoming Nueve de Julio. Personally I'm excited to see South American ships joining the game and the possibility of exploring vessels like the Minas Geraes and the the South American naval arms race. A larger variety of nations and tech trees is always a good thing to me.

That being said, the point also comes up that Nueve de Julio did not have a terribly distinguished career; in fact it had rather the opposite, serving as a clandestine detention center for "disappeared" people during the Dirty War and not much else. Her sister General Belgrano did serve in the Falklands War however, and her sinking is still a rather touchy subject to this day as people continue to debate whether HMS Conqueror (no, not the tier X) was right in firing on and sinking her.

There are other options than General Belgrano though. Three other Brooklyn-class cruisers were sold to Chile and Brazil and, from what I can see, had much less troubled histories. That being said, going with the O'Higgins, Barroso, or Capitán Prat would mean changing the nationality of the ship and losing a potential Argentine premium. Another option would be to use General Belgrano's original name as commissioned by Argentina, Diecisiete de Octubre. There's not as much of a downside to this that I can see, other than the fact that the ship was not very remarkable under this name. Alternatively they could just make up a name, but that feels like a cop-out.

Now we're not Wargaming's marketing department, far from it. I'm not going to call this a petition or say that this will be anything more than a waste of time on my part. All I want with this topic and poll is to gauge how the community at large feels about this (and curse the fact that I failed Spanish and can't translate this for the part of the boards whose opinions (IMO) matter most on this subject). So what do the rest of you think? Should the name be changed, and if so to what? As always, let's try to keep the discussion civil and I look forward to seeing the poll results.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,740
[INTEL]
Members
8,599 posts
25,771 battles

I don't think the ship's use as a detention center should be an issue, that use reflects on the people who perverted it, not the ship itself. Further, every major navy in the game is similarly linked to colonial and authoritarian savagery one way or another.  

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,060
[HINON]
Supertester
19,281 posts
12,830 battles

This game is about ships, not politics. Though I understand some people might feel uneasy about buying / playing a ship with that history, similar was said when Arizona came out and look how that turned out.

As for Belgrano, maybe it had a somewhat different design and details are not as readily available as those of Boise / Nueve de Julio. I don't know. I just know that WG doesn't pull premium ships out of their aft and they do their research. They picked NdJ for a reason, and I'm sure it's not to promote the politics of what it was used for.

Also, as @Taichunger said, "I don't think the ship's use as a detention center should be an issue, that use reflects on the people who perverted it, not the ship itself."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
98 posts
6,635 battles

What i don't like is the ship has combat history with the USN and none with Argentina, ok with paper ships but not with real ships. Also don't like using one nations ships for others. Just my opinion.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,423 posts
3,367 battles
Just now, bohica_2017 said:

What i don't like is the ship has combat history with the USN and none with Argentina, ok with paper ships but not with real ships. Also don't like using one nations ships for others. Just my opinion.

The plan as of right now is to have ARA Nueve de Julio and USS Boise though. The point of Nueve de Julio is to be the first premium of the Pan American tree, not cover up Boise's achievements or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,808 posts
15,355 battles

Just call it the good ship Lollipop! (and give it Shirley Temple as a Captain, along with her voice.)

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,128 posts
4,750 battles

Well since it's being released in both versions I'll just get it as USS Boise because Boise did the most in combat as Boise. Any estimates as to release date? Will players likely prefer this over Helena?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles

I mean, it was basically a floating concentration camp, but..

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,128 posts
4,750 battles
1 minute ago, ramp4ge said:

I mean, it was basically a floating concentration camp, but..

The Argentinians blasphemed the reputation and service record of the Boise when she was Boise. Nueve De Julio was only used to quell a domestic uprising against the military junta. An honorable combat ship turns its guns at the enemy, at external threats, not on its own people.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,642 posts
2,159 battles
9 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

I mean, it was basically a floating concentration camp, but..

You realize we have (and have had for a long while) a large number of ships in game that were built and operated by literal Nazis and few players have issue with that. Because the players and the game doesn't focus on the affiliation behind the ship or any actions that it was involved with (this may be a focus of the ship but hardly the distinguishing in-game feature of it).

Having this ship in the game is fine, and if it really bothers you that much get the USS Boise version. 

Edited by Edselman
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
Just now, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

The Argentinians blasphemed the reputation and service record of the Boise when she was Boise. Nueve De Julio was only used to quell a domestic uprising against the military junta. An honorable combat ship turns its guns at the enemy, at external threats, not on its own people.

 

After that, though, she was used as a holding facility for political prisoners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
4 minutes ago, Edselman said:

You realize we have (and have had for a long while) a large number of ships in game that were built and operated by literal Nazis and few players have issue with that. 

 

There's a difference between a warship being used as a weapon to target military assets of the enemy and a warship being used to torture civilian political prisoners.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,128 posts
4,750 battles
4 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

There's a difference between a warship being used as a weapon to target military assets of the enemy and a warship being used to torture civilian political prisoners.

Exactly. While I certainly do not condone the taking of many lives, it's the nature of war. Using military assets on your own nation's civilians is a completely different matter.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,642 posts
2,159 battles
6 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

There's a difference between a warship being used as a weapon to target military assets of the enemy and a warship being used to torture civilian political prisoners.

I see what you mean and that was a horrible thing. But some (not me though) think that the adding of USS Indianapolis was unethical because of the role it played in the atomic bombings. The ship itself should not be stripped from the game because of the history behind it and if there is really a big issue with it leading to severe backlash,  wargaming will find out soon enough. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,128 posts
4,750 battles
1 minute ago, Edselman said:

I see what you mean and that was a horrible thing. But some (not me though) think that the adding of USS Indianapolis was unethical because of the role it played in the atomic bombings. The ship itself should not be stripped from the game because of the history behind it and if there is really a big issue with it leading to severe backlash,  wargaming will find out soon enough. 

I'd rather have USS Indianapolis renamed USS Portland. It's hard to stomach Indy's inclusion due to what happened to her. Portland received 16 battle stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,186
[SIM]
Members
2,553 posts
4,192 battles

I don't have an issue with the ship being in the game. Indeed, I had never even heard of the Dirty War before this controversy arose. I personally hold that the historical ships in WoWs are virtual monuments to the histories of those vessels, and a lot of military history is tragic, uncomfortable, or downright shameful. You could remove Julio from the game, but that doesn't change what happened, only obscures it. 

That all said, Wargaming made an odd choice by leading this new nation off with a ship carrying so much baggage. I would have no qualms if a Chilean Brooklyn class was added in her place.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,128 posts
4,750 battles
11 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

I don't have an issue with the ship being in the game. Indeed, I had never even heard of the Dirty War before this controversy arose. I personally hold that the historical ships in WoWs are virtual monuments to the histories of those vessels, and a lot of military history is tragic, uncomfortable, or downright shameful. You could remove Julio from the game, but that doesn't change what happened, only obscures it. 

That all said, Wargaming made an odd choice by leading this new nation off with a ship carrying so much baggage. I would have no qualms if a Chilean Brooklyn class was added in her place.

You do make a good point. This is what can be upsetting to me about lots of history curricula. Only a very biased side is taught, and of course we're all biased to one degree or another, but a lot of history teaching in different countries either glosses over, denies, or twists historical truths.

Will the Boise be in her WW2 configuration post-1942? I just read that the Brooklyns had their upper works slightly lowered after 1942.

Why did WG decide to give it a speed of 30.0 knots? It's unhistorical because all USN cruisers from the Pensacolas and up went the standard 32.5 knots. Why did WG choose to make her unhistorical in this aspect? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
3 minutes ago, Grand_Viceroy_Zhou_Ziyu said:

Will the Boise be in her WW2 configuration post-1942? I just read that the Brooklyns had their upper works slightly lowered after 1942.

 

They also went through a significant refit of their AA, getting rid of the 1.1" quad AA and replacing them with more of the 40mm Bofors as they became available. In late '42 through mid-'43, the 40mm Bofors were in short supply. It wasn't until late '43 and onward where you started to see them stacked en masse to absurdity. 

 

I'd honestly rather have Boise as she was at the Battle of Cape Esperance in October '42. But that would require a different model, so we'll probably get late-war Boise.

 

Nueve-De-Julio-1.png?fit=1629,744

9Bote

oLCIAqg.jpg

Boise in April 1943 after her repairs and modernization.

 

Notice how they have the same forward super structure. So yeah. If Boise does turn out to use exactly the same model resources, we'll get her after Cape Esperance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
143
[VVV]
[VVV]
Members
684 posts
10,576 battles

I'd rather have her as Boise not Nueve de Julio as others have said her history with Argentina is horrible. They could've picked any other Pan-American Vessel to Release but in my opinion chose one of the worst possible 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
[POP]
Members
1,172 posts
15,145 battles
2 hours ago, Umikami said:

Just call it the good ship Lollipop! (and give it Shirley Temple as a Captain, along with her voice.)

That sense of Dry Whit you have always gives me a good laugh when we have those posts that need some humour, keep up the good work.

plus 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
[POP]
Members
1,172 posts
15,145 battles
28 minutes ago, ReddNekk said:

Invalid poll; No bacon. :Smile_facepalm:

still waiting for a poll that gives me the option on cheesecakes as well, bacon bias is real :Smile_teethhappy:   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,128 posts
4,750 battles
15 minutes ago, yamato6945 said:

I'd rather have her as Boise not Nueve de Julio as others have said her history with Argentina is horrible. They could've picked any other Pan-American Vessel to Release but in my opinion chose one of the worst possible 

Don't worry we will get to have her as the Boise if that's what we wish. There will be the option to choose which version we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,423 posts
3,367 battles

Okay, so on a lark I decided to go down to the Spanish section and run and threads I found on the ship through a translator (again, failed Spanish) to see if the reaction was any different the closer the subject hit to home. The result? I honestly thought I was looking at the discussion of the ship in the English sections run through Google translate and back again. Exact same points, exact same reaction save one guy complaining about "Yankees" whining that it's not Boise when we already have a near sister and full tech tree to use. That is... I won't say it's necessarily surprising, but it's not what I expected. I guess the whole thing just isn't as big a deal as I thought.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2 posts
3,131 battles

As Chilean, i didn't live during the 70's and 80's but i know the feel about the dictatorships that were here. The problem here is that to this day the people is divided with who think it was necessary or was a dark period. 

But back to the game itself. When i first knew that a PanAm ship was coming i was really happy, because a new nation and also, the posibility of Chilean ships. When i saw it was ARA Nueve de Julio, i searched it's history and yeah, dark. In Facebook i'm in a WoWs latino group, and if i'm honest, i've never seen there any discussion about if it's right to be ARA Nueve de Julio or rather another ship, all people were happy by the fact of PanAm ships. 

In my opinion, i question why WG choosed this ship rather than the others Brooklyn-class ships (all already mentioned). Also, i think there would be more controversy for us latinos (speacially Argentines) if/when ARA General Belgrano is add, because you know, RN ships in the game and maybe Chileans too... 

Edited by Lanius_Nox
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×