Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
majormojo

Why no USS Nevada?

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3
[GLORY]
Members
62 posts
509 battles

She was quite famous so why didn't they add her?  Too much t5 saturation at t5 or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
933
Members
4,438 posts
6,129 battles

Good ship but an average ship I would argue by WWII..  Commissioned in 1914. Outdated by 1941.  She DID get underway at Peal Harbor but, ya know, inspiring but not the best decision. Made her famous however. 

Edited by dmckay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
57 posts
2,620 battles

The same with USS Honolulu (CL-48) having Bronze and Silver 8x battle stars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
933
Members
4,438 posts
6,129 battles
10 minutes ago, RickPatton said:

The same with USS Honolulu (CL-48) having Bronze and Silver 8x battle stars.

 

Launched in the late 1930's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,188
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,322 posts
9,387 battles

That AA looks like a Tier 8.

It'll shred planes real easy...   Balance-wise in a gun battle...?  -- Somewhere between tier 5 and 6.

Unless they give it a survival gimmick, it would be a difficult one to place in a game. 

Those dual 5" guns would make the Texas look defenseless, and would be a serious secondary build.

1200px-Uss_nevada.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
258
[CVA16]
Members
2,158 posts
9,613 battles

Another slow US BB would probably not generate a lot of demand. Arizona and Texas have far more name recognition. Then there is where to put it (depending on whether WG makes the 1941 or 1944 version).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,257 battles
39 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

That AA looks like a Tier 8.

It'll shred planes real easy...   Balance-wise in a gun battle...?  -- Somewhere between tier 5 and 6.

Unless they give it a survival gimmick, it would be a difficult one to place in a game. 

Those dual 5" guns would make the Texas look defenseless, and would be a serious secondary build.

1200px-Uss_nevada.jpg

If the Nevada was added as a tier 5 BB in a second USN BB line, I seriously doubt that the devs would allow it to have that WW2 era refit.  They didn't with the NY class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
258
[CVA16]
Members
2,158 posts
9,613 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

If the Nevada was added as a tier 5 BB in a second USN BB line, I seriously doubt that the devs would allow it to have that WW2 era refit.  They didn't with the NY class.

True. The Texas got its refit but that is all short range AA and pretty much no secondaries at all. The full refit would put it at T6. Think it would be a bit underpowered there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[MOH]
Members
186 posts
1,128 battles
11 hours ago, majormojo said:

She was quite famous so why didn't they add her?  Too much t5 saturation at t5 or what?

Wargaming built the US BB line around the introduction of new gun models and not the class.  For instance, the 14"/45cal guns that the Nevada uses were first introduced in the previous New York class, which is why we see the New York at T5 and not the Nevada.  The New Mexico class is the first class of battleships to receive the 14"/50cal guns. 

There is also potential balance reasons.  Compared to the New York's, the Nevada class sported much, much thicker armor.  You'd have a ship with the same firepower, AA, and mobility of the New York, but the armor of the New Mexico's, which is considerably beefier:  Thicker belt armor (~2"), thicker deck armor (~1.5"), slightly thicker barbette armor (~0.75"), and much thicker turret faces (~4").  Rough estimates there, but she'd be the heaviest armored BB at T5 by far.  The Nevada's would also have superior firing angles to the New York, making her way overpowered at T5. 

For her to be "Balanz'd, comrad!", she'd have to be in T6 territory.  Being that this is an arcade game, ships can't just be mirror copycats of each other, because that's not interesting.  The New Mexico fits a well-rounded playstyle, whereas Arizona fits a juggernaut playstyle, so the Nevada would either have to be built around an AA or secondary focus.  My vote goes towards being a secondary ship, but that's just because I'm biased towards that playstyle. 

To give you an idea of how tough the Nevada was IRL, read this from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nevada_(BB-36):

[After the war ended,] Nevada then returned to Pearl Harbor after a brief stint of occupation duty in Tokyo Bay. Nevada was surveyed and, at 32⅓ years old, was deemed too old to be kept in the post-war fleet.[4][56] As a result, she was assigned to be a target ship in the first Bikini atomic experiments (Operation Crossroads) of July 1946.[1] The experiment consisted of detonating two atomic bombs to test their effectiveness against ships.[87] Nevada was the bombardier's target for the first test, codenamed 'Able', which used an air-dropped weapon. To help distinguish the target from surrounding vessels, Nevada was painted a reddish-orange. However, even with the high-visibility color scheme, the bomb fell about 1,700 yd (1,600 m) off-target, exploding above the attack transport Gilliam instead.[88] Due in part to the miss, Nevada survived. The ship also remained afloat after the second test—'Baker', a detonation some 90 ft (27 m) below the surface of the water—but was damaged and extremely radioactive from the spray.[56] Nevada was later towed to Pearl Harbor and decommissioned on 29 August 1946.[1]

After she was thoroughly examined, Iowa and two other vessels used Nevada as a practice gunnery target 65 miles southwest of Pearl Harbor on 31 July 1948.[4][71][n] The ships did not sink Nevada, so she was given a coup de grâce with an aerial torpedo hit amidships.[89][4]

Two nukes and shelling from the Iowa couldn't bring her down.  Dang!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
258
[CVA16]
Members
2,158 posts
9,613 battles
1 hour ago, Ranari said:

Being that this is an arcade game, ships can't just be mirror copycats of each other, because that's not interesting.

not sure about this. What about Kamikazes. Graf Spee, Kongo sisters...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[70]
Members
959 posts
3,691 battles

I suggest Tier 6 with the AA refits, basically a Tier 6 counterpart to Texas. 30 second reload instead of the 32 that NM gets will make it balanced enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,308 posts
9,382 battles

Problem is, she'd be a tier 5.5. Slightly better gunnery than the New York or Texas, not quite to New Mexico or Arizona standards. Otherwise, she's functionally identical to a New Mexico.

Could make her a Tier 6 AA/Secondary battleship, and she's basically traded 2 guns for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,188
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,322 posts
9,387 battles
7 hours ago, Ranari said:

Two nukes and shelling from the Iowa couldn't bring her down.  Dang!

Fine....    Tier 10 it is.

And she needs Nuclear rounds in those rifles to compensate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[MOH]
Members
186 posts
1,128 battles
20 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

not sure about this. What about Kamikazes. Graf Spee, Kongo sisters...

I'm more looking at the original release of the Massachusetts.  It was exactly the same as the Alabama, and the demand for it was practically non-existent outside of collectors.  Only until it was created into something unique did its demand increase.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[SVF]
Members
852 posts
1,277 battles
On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 9:19 AM, Ranari said:

Rough estimates there, but she'd be the heaviest armored BB at T5 by far.

Not quite, but close.  Konig's got a 350mm casemate/armor belt at her waterline.  

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 10:22 PM, AVR_Project said:

That AA looks like a Tier 8.

*Looks at Friedman book*

Late war Nevada's AA suite was 8x2 127mm/38 (121 DPS @ 5.0km), 10x4 40mm (159 DPS @ 3.5km), and 5x1 and 20x2 20mm (140 DPS @ 2.0km).  T7/T8 AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[MOH]
Members
186 posts
1,128 battles
2 minutes ago, landcollector said:

Not quite, but close.  Konig's got a 350mm casemate/armor belt at her waterline.  

Nevada would have considerably thicker turret face and barbette armor.  The differences between belt armor would be mm's, but the differences in turret faces would be inches.  Deck armor would be better as well.  

No doubt though, Konig is a tough battleship, and a lot of fun to play.  That was one of my favorite ships in the German line (so far).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,287 posts
3,583 battles

Sometime in 2019 or 2020 another usn bb line will happen as Wargaming has said before that they have enough ships for it.  @LittleWhiteMouse What do you see Wargaming doing with usn Battleships? She is the expert on premium ship reviews. Remember one up Littlewhitemouse she gives very detailed answers after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,865 posts
1,365 battles
On 08/31/2018 at 2:02 AM, Sabot_100 said:

True. The Texas got its refit but that is all short range AA and pretty much no secondaries at all. The full refit would put it at T6. Think it would be a bit underpowered there.

Not as a close range brawler, being given better secondaries and slightly improved agility over the pure gin boats.  It would trade 2 guns for better brawling ability and mobility.  It wouldnt be UP, it would just be fun in the above config.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[POD]
Members
29 posts
3,357 battles
On 9/7/2018 at 1:40 PM, landedkiller said:

Sometime in 2019 or 2020 another usn bb line will happen as Wargaming has said before that they have enough ships for it.  @LittleWhiteMouse What do you see Wargaming doing with usn Battleships? She is the expert on premium ship reviews. Remember one up Littlewhitemouse she gives very detailed answers after all.

I am not going to pretend to know what they are doing with the second line however I can hope it follows suit with the Massachusetts.  From the looks of it the Nevada would fit in that line nicely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[TACG]
[TACG]
Alpha Tester
187 posts
2,111 battles
On 8/30/2018 at 9:51 PM, Sabot_100 said:

Another slow US BB would probably not generate a lot of demand. Arizona and Texas have far more name recognition. Then there is where to put it (depending on whether WG makes the 1941 or 1944 version).

The U.S actually has enough battleship designs to make 4 or 5 lines. WG is going to make different lines for battleships, eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Members
899 posts
6,266 battles

I would LOVE Nevada, in her 1944 configuration, as a secondary brawler like Mass at tier 6. Those 5" secondaries would definitely make up for being 2 barrels down on NM and AZ.

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.

×