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

American Steel

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
199 posts
458 battles

There are several ships ingame that have armament upgrades that weren't ever done in reality, just planned.  So I come today with a proposal for the American Battleship line.

 

Incorporate the optional 45.7cm twins for the Iowa & Montana.

 

US Gun:

18"(45.7cm)/47 Mark A (or I) (Twin Turret)

AP Shell: Type B 'Super-Heavy' 3,850 lbs shell.

Muzzle Velocity: 732 meters per second

 

This gun would shed range in favor of a devastating shell weight, even heavier than that of Yamato.  Though with the sacrifice of less overall shells, the damage output would be scaled proportionately. 

 

Salvo-weight size, the Yamato would still be king and capable of putting out 9 rounds compared to the Iowa's 6 or Montana's 8.

 

 

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,072 posts
4,514 battles
24 minutes ago, Blackgunner said:

There are several ships ingame that have armament upgrades that weren't ever done in reality, just planned.  So I come today with a proposal for the American Battleship line.

 

Incorporate the optional 45.7cm twins for the Iowa & Montana.

 

US Gun:

18"(45.7cm)/47 Mark A (or I) (Twin Turret)

AP Shell: Type B 'Super-Heavy' 3,850 lbs shell.

Muzzle Velocity: 732 meters per second

 

This gun would shed range in favor of a devastating shell weight, even heavier than that of Yamato.  Though with the sacrifice of less overall shells, the damage output would be scaled proportionately. 

 

The problem with this is that it robs the Yamato of its main strength and draw. You would also be giving a battleship with excellent speed, excellent accuracy and pretty good maneuverability the ability to punch through any armor it encounters at any angle, making the ships not only incredibly overpowered but making the IJN BB tech tree not worth the time to grind out. You could argue that the twin turrets might have worse sigma at longer ranges, but that's not really how these ships are designed to be played.

Personally I think the Iowa and Montana have amazing penetration values, especially when you move to close and medium ranges in the latter half of the engagement. Theyd be pretty good  rawlers if their secondaries had better range but such is life. It does take some time getting used to the shell behavior of upper tier US BB after the Colorado but they're not bad at all in my opinion.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,031 posts
1 minute ago, KingCakeBaby said:

The problem with this is that it robs the Yamato of its main strength and draw. You would also be giving a battleship with excellent speed and pretty good maneuverability the ability to punch through any armor it encounters at any angle, making the ships not only incredibly overpowered but making the IJN BB tech tree not worth the time to grind out.

Personally I think the Iowa and Montana have amazing penetration values, especially when you move to close and medium ranges in the latter half of the engagement. It does take some time getting used to the shell behavior of upper tier US BB after the Colorado but they're not bad at all in my opinion.

The only reason the Yamato had a "strength" to begin with is the completely arbitrary overmatch mechanics.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
199 posts
458 battles
6 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

The only reason the Yamato had a "strength" to begin with is the completely arbitrary overmatch mechanics.

True.

 

This fascination that the Yamato should be 100% the most powerful ship in the game is about as close to misguided historical bias as you can get.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 4
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,072 posts
4,514 battles
10 minutes ago, Blackgunner said:

True.

 

This fascination that the Yamato should be 100% the most powerful ship in the game is about as close to misguided historical bias as you can get.

I would not call the Yamato the most powerful ship in the game. Even among tier x BBs it isn't the undisputed king of the hill. It does have the largest caliber guns mounted on a BB, which I think is only right. You can make guns equally effective without going simply for shell diameter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
771
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,265 posts
1,869 battles
13 minutes ago, Blackgunner said:

True.

 

This fascination that the Yamato should be 100% the most powerful ship in the game is about as close to misguided historical bias as you can get.

The only reason Yamato should be the most powerful Tier X BB is that it is the only one that was actually built and thus, some of us, would prefer it that real ships edge paper ships when absolute balance cannot be obtained.  This is true of Iowa at Tier IX as well.

That said, Yamato is not the best Tier X BB.  For competitive modes Montana is the best, followed by Yamato, although Republic may have displaced Yamato in the second spot.  In randoms Montana and Grosser Kurfurst are better than Yamato, perhaps Republic too.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,424
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,266 posts
2,029 battles

Interesting, I've never once heard of a planned or even considered upgrade to the Iowa's armament that would see it use the 18"/47 Mk.A. 

I'm curious, when was this planned? I know there consideration for the gun for slower designs, but not the ones like the Iowa we know, and I though they were completely thrown out in favor of the 16" Mk.7 when it came to the Montana-class.

 

That being said, because of the prohibitory weight, something like Iowa could only hope to take 5 or 6 of the 18"/47, and Montana only 7 or 8.

 

In-game, while the gun would be very powerful, it would be more of a downgrade. Your raw damage would be insanely high, somewhere around 15500, and have absurdly high penetration - basically, nothing it going to resist your shells.

 

However with so few guns, even if we ignored the hit to rate of fire, your damage output is going to drop like a rock, and you're going to overpen the crap out of anything that isn't a battleship. At the same time, you also lack the same overmatch of Yamato's 460mm guns, so you're really not overcoming that major advantage that Yamato's guns have in-game.

 

To be totally honest, you're actually turning the Iowa's into weaker battleships with such an upgrade. Having more of the 16" Mk.7's is the better armament, and that's always been the case when it comes to the advantages of the American high-tier BBs. You get a large number of very good, powerful guns for their caliber. Yamato's only got three quarters of the gun count of Montana, and her only real edge is the overmatch factor. There's a very good reason why Montana is favored over any other battleship for clan battles - she's just a solid ship with lots of very solid guns. You're better off sticking with the 16"/50's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
199 posts
458 battles

I actually prefer the 16"/45's over the 16"/50's.  The difference in barrel length means at maximum ranges the shells will be impacting at:

 

16"/45 = 43-45*

16"/50 = 37-39*

 

Giving the 16"/45 a substantially better deck armor penetration angle capability.

 

The 18"/47 super heavy also allowed it to penetrate 6.25" of deck, versus the ~3" of deck armor from the 16"  This meant hits down onto the superstructure could still penetrate into the machinery spaces beneath rather effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,509
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,503 posts
3,435 battles

They could be included in theory, but balancing them would be a Nightmarish PITA that WG has given up on. Look no further than the 8x18" attempt they did with Conqueror before giving up.

For the record, the RN 18" also had greater Alpha per shell than Yamato's 18.1", but WG couldn't balance 8 of them even if they gave it a lower 35s reload. What more when one takes into account that the USN version by comparison only had a 35~40s reload and does even more Alpha with the ShS over the RN's 18" AP.

WG in theory could go for a more traditional 3x3 18" design for both the RN (L3 derivative) and USN (Montana redone as a 3x3 18"). However, given the line flavors, the RN one would still suffer from short-fuse AP and only be even more brutal with the RN HE advantage; not to mention being able to go bow on and spam 6 of those 18" HE at anything while zombie resurrecting, while the USN one would be forced to accept a 35-40s reload in compensation for having the biggest Alpha and best overall flexibility (AA, maneuverability, traverse, DCP, and speed-wise), not to mention also being able to go bow on and massacre anything that isn't a Yamato, with that level of Alpha.

It makes sense why WG said they won't bother with USN 18" guns in-game, though the 16"/56 variant of the 18" could be a possibility. Or so they said off and on in the past.

Edited by YamatoA150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
341 posts
2,096 battles
1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Interesting, I've never once heard of a planned or even considered upgrade to the Iowa's armament that would see it use the 18"/47 Mk.A. 

I'm curious, when was this planned? I know there consideration for the gun for slower designs, but not the ones like the Iowa we know, and I though they were completely thrown out in favor of the 16" Mk.7 when it came to the Montana-class.

 

That being said, because of the prohibitory weight, something like Iowa could only hope to take 5 or 6 of the 18"/47, and Montana only 7 or 8.

 

In-game, while the gun would be very powerful, it would be more of a downgrade. Your raw damage would be insanely high, somewhere around 15500, and have absurdly high penetration - basically, nothing it going to resist your shells.

 

However with so few guns, even if we ignored the hit to rate of fire, your damage output is going to drop like a rock, and you're going to overpen the crap out of anything that isn't a battleship. At the same time, you also lack the same overmatch of Yamato's 460mm guns, so you're really not overcoming that major advantage that Yamato's guns have in-game.

 

To be totally honest, you're actually turning the Iowa's into weaker battleships with such an upgrade. Having more of the 16" Mk.7's is the better armament, and that's always been the case when it comes to the advantages of the American high-tier BBs. You get a large number of very good, powerful guns for their caliber. Yamato's only got three quarters of the gun count of Montana, and her only real edge is the overmatch factor. There's a very good reason why Montana is favored over any other battleship for clan battles - she's just a solid ship with lots of very solid guns. You're better off sticking with the 16"/50's.

 

There was never any plans too.

There was however the Iowa preliminaries. One of the designs leading up to the final Iowa design we see today would of been similar in size to the Iowa while carrying 9 of those 18" guns.

The 18" guns designs were however dropped because the USN felt the increased firepower was not worth the higher weight of the turret and barbette compared to the 16" /50 Mk 7.

 

Spoiler

KhJRYPl.png

April 1938 design is the one I'm talking about. And note the 18" /48 and 18" /47 are the same gun, the /47 simply had the threaded tip cut off the barrel and newer SHS used as ammo.

 

And actually there was a alpha thread on these forums I believe were people would voting what the Tier 10 USN BB would be. The choice was between Montana (which won the vote), this which came in 2nd (or it would be a modified Montana that carried 9 of the 18" /47), a Tillman design, and something else.

Edited by Phaere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
473
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
2,149 posts
3,665 battles
2 hours ago, KingCakeBaby said:

The problem with this is that it robs the Yamato of its main strength and draw. You would also be giving a battleship with excellent speed, excellent accuracy and pretty good maneuverability the ability to punch through any armor it encounters at any angle, making the ships not only incredibly overpowered but making the IJN BB tech tree not worth the time to grind out. You could argue that the twin turrets might have worse sigma at longer ranges, but that's not really how these ships are designed to be played.

Personally I think the Iowa and Montana have amazing penetration values, especially when you move to close and medium ranges in the latter half of the engagement. Theyd be pretty good  rawlers if their secondaries had better range but such is life. It does take some time getting used to the shell behavior of upper tier US BB after the Colorado but they're not bad at all in my opinion.

for the same reason no one uses the 457s on the conq....no it wont. 31.8 < 32. and the loss of the extra shells make it a less consistent ship. 

sigma is decided but the number of mounts, from what ive seen.

 

2 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

The only reason the Yamato had a "strength" to begin with is the completely arbitrary overmatch mechanics.

theyre trash and i hate them.....

 

 

OP to your idea as an addition to the Iowa or monty, i say nay. However i would support it in some premium fashion.

Share this post


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

Just give the US the Tillman with 15 18" guns and make up a fantasy modernization for it like they did the Myogi. 

  • Cool 1

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.

×