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

What if Britian had a Battlecruiser line?

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[CGU]
Members
36 posts
701 battles

Totally hypothetical question, what if Britain had an alter BB line which would be made up of battlecruisers (but not being an entirely new ship class) Since Britain had a lot of BCs. I'd think it could break off at T6, on the Iron duke or QE. The iron duke option would be continuing on the to QE or going to Renown. With the QE option it'd be switching to Renown or continuing to KGV. It go from T6 to T8 and maybe be like the alternate Japanese DD line, basically finishing it in another update. i think it would go as Renown for T6 and would be a British Gneisenau, next would probably be an admiral class for T7, but not hood. (Maybe HMS Anson which would be a hood, but WG would have to redesign the Superstructure and probably take off the DFAA). After that i dunno, a G3 class BB?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
190
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
861 posts
8,099 battles

Id like to see this. Love the british bbs. However allow them to not be fire starters.  😑

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[-KAK-]
Members
359 posts
7,739 battles

Yes x1000. I really wish they'd include a line like this. You could hypothetically even start off at T3 or T4 with Stuff like HMS Tiger.

 

(And please - No HE Gimmics, like OP _greifer said)

Edited by TheOmegaDuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,999
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,909 posts
12,228 battles

What if indeed!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,128
[SALVO]
Members
21,706 posts
22,016 battles
25 minutes ago, mofton said:

What if indeed!

 

Mofton, if I had any complaints about your first post in the thread, it would be that there was almost too much information.  It was reaching information overload for me.  

Regarding your bit about what consumables the RN BCs might mount.  Yes, obviously DCP and Rep Party.  There might … might … be some of the higher tier BCs that have catapults and could launch planes, but I don't really know.  I could see the RN BCs getting the somewhat typical strong RN repair parties.

As for whether these ships should be HE spammers like the RN BBs, I don't like saying this, but yes they should.  As long as the RN BBs are HE spammers, so too should the RN BCs.  If anything, the BCs are the ones that should be staying at longer ranges and spamming the HE, since they don't really have the armor to brawl.  HOWEVER, note that I would rather than both the RN BBs and BCs were traditional AP slingers and only situational HE spammers, same as all other nations' BBs!!!

Oh, and BTW, I saw no problems with your proposed BCs, though I'd rather have the Invincible class be the tier 3, and the tier 4 be properly called the Lion class.  But I understand why it can't be, unless WG was willing to do some name switching.  And since it was only a class of 2, it's not like there are many choices.  In truth though, I suppose it could also be called the Queen Mary class, since the QM was very similar to the Lion class BCs, and was a singleton between the Lions and the HMS Tiger, which was also a singleton.  Also, Anson is a good name for the tier 7 class, since it was meant to be the second ship in that class after the Hood.

Overall, though, that's a good post on the RN BCs.  :cap_like:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CGU]
Members
36 posts
701 battles
47 minutes ago, mofton said:

What if indeed!

 

Oh dear god, i had no idea that i accidentally copied you, i'm sorry. And i feel like im being sarcastic here, but i'm seriously not. Heck im not even sure if i should be apologizing, maybe this was just a joke? Am i overthinking this?

Edited by TheHamOfAllHams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[-KAK-]
Members
359 posts
7,739 battles
1 minute ago, TheHamOfAllHams said:

Oh dear god, i had no idea that i accidentally copied you, i'm sorry. And i feel like im being sarcastic here, but i'm seriously not. Heck im not even sure if i should be apologizing, maybe this was just a joke? Am i overthinking this?

I can't speak for Mofton, but I think it's good you're bringing this topic up again - If we don't keep mentioning ships we want to see, we probably won't see them anytime soon (Think of things like Haida, Enterprise, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,999
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,909 posts
12,228 battles
5 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Mofton, if I had any complaints about your first post in the thread, it would be that there was almost too much information.  It was reaching information overload for me.  

Fair, if I could hyperlink to the mid point about the ships I would to spare people.

A variation of the repair party was my thought too, though with more trade-offs than direct strength to reinforce flavor. HE might have to be something they go with, but... maybe WG will change the RN BB we have. Probably not. I don't know if HE would be competitive given they're usually lighter armed than their BB equivalents, AP can be more of a force multiplier. HE also lends itself to farming battleships rather than targeting cruisers which is a bit against the battlecruiser 'ethos'.

Thanks for the kind words. There's not much difference between Indefatigable and Invincible, both I suspect will be inevitably terrible. I guess with WV '41 we could have a Lion '12 as the T4,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,999
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,909 posts
12,228 battles
4 minutes ago, TheHamOfAllHams said:

Oh dear god, i had no idea that i accidentally copied you, i'm sorry. And i feel like im being sarcastic here, but i'm seriously not. Heck im not even sure if i should be apologizing, maybe this was just a joke? Am i overthinking this?

Don't worry about it, my ideas in turn weren't original, I drew heavily from others, in fact if you dig back through the 'ship suggestions forum' well, it goes all the way back to 2012.

There are not that many original ship suggestions left. Bringing them up from time to time isn't a bad thing, I don't think it does anything to make WG prioritize things but it can't hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,128
[SALVO]
Members
21,706 posts
22,016 battles
25 minutes ago, mofton said:

Fair, if I could hyperlink to the mid point about the ships I would to spare people.

A variation of the repair party was my thought too, though with more trade-offs than direct strength to reinforce flavor. HE might have to be something they go with, but... maybe WG will change the RN BB we have. Probably not. I don't know if HE would be competitive given they're usually lighter armed than their BB equivalents, AP can be more of a force multiplier. HE also lends itself to farming battleships rather than targeting cruisers which is a bit against the battlecruiser 'ethos'.

Thanks for the kind words. There's not much difference between Indefatigable and Invincible, both I suspect will be inevitably terrible. I guess with WV '41 we could have a Lion '12 as the T4,

Actually, you're not really correct about RN BCs being more lightly armed than their BB counterparts.  Contemporaneous BC and BBs of that era in the RN tended to mount the same size main guns.  It was the German BCs that were more lightly armed than their BB contemporaneous counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,999
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,909 posts
12,228 battles
9 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Actually, you're not really correct about RN BCs being more lightly armed than their BB counterparts.  Contemporaneous BC and BBs of that era in the RN tended to mount the same size main guns.  It was the German BCs that were more lightly armed than their BB contemporaneous counterparts.

Well, barrel count is frequently lower and was what I was alluding to. Invincible/Indefatigable were 4 turreted to Dreadnought's 5, though sometimes they might be able to use the same number of turrets. The Lion/QM/Tiger all had 4 turrets to the 5 of Orion/Iron Duke. The Renown's ended up with 3 turrets to 4 on the QE's. Hood matched a QE but 8x 15in on 40,000t compares poorly to a lot of ships in that size range.

Generally same caliber, but frequently short a turret.

The Germans were quite similar overall, 11in guns on Nassau and Von der Tann, 12in on Konig/Kaiser and Derfflinger. Generally short a turret. Some of the designs did start to lag on caliber you're right, Mackensen only mounting 13.8in to the 15in of the Bayerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,128
[SALVO]
Members
21,706 posts
22,016 battles
6 minutes ago, mofton said:

Well, barrel count is frequently lower and was what I was alluding to. Invincible/Indefatigable were 4 turreted to Dreadnought's 5, though sometimes they might be able to use the same number of turrets. The Lion/QM/Tiger all had 4 turrets to the 5 of Orion/Iron Duke. The Renown's ended up with 3 turrets to 4 on the QE's. Hood matched a QE but 8x 15in on 40,000t compares poorly to a lot of ships in that size range.

Generally same caliber, but frequently short a turret.

The Germans were quite similar overall, 11in guns on Nassau and Von der Tann, 12in on Konig/Kaiser and Derfflinger. Generally short a turret. Some of the designs did start to lag on caliber you're right, Mackensen only mounting 13.8in to the 15in of the Bayerns.

Part of that fewer turrets thing was probably part of the tonnage trade-off required to gain some tonnage to use for additional boilers and engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,678
[ARGSY]
Members
12,927 posts
8,245 battles
8 hours ago, Crucis said:

Part of that fewer turrets thing was probably part of the tonnage trade-off required to gain some tonnage to use for additional boilers and engines.

Tonnage AND space. At least in regard to the Hood, you can fit a more powerful powerplant if there's not a turret and all its equipment dropped in slap-bang where you need more boilers and turbines to be.

Alas for those who don't want the BC's to be fire spammers; British WW1 capital ship ammunition was infamous for its use of Lyddite, a highly-sensitive filler that was very good at starting fires.

Conversely their AP was garbage; the fuzes went off too soon, and full pens were rare with the RL equivalent of citadel hits practically nonexistent. Lutzow literally got battered to death, while Seydlitz was practically on the bottom by the time she was near home. Meanwhile, the ships from the main body of the High Seas Fleet that did take fire did not take single critical hits the way the British battlecruisers did (although Tiger received a hell of a beating without exploding, and it turned out to be magazine safety practices - or lack thereof - which sank her compatriots). It did a lot of superficial damage, and the German ships that were hit needed a lot of repair work, but none of them were permanently crippled the way they should have been. It was a crime, because Jellicoe crossed Scheer's T twice and ought to have destroyed him. (Part of the problem was that he was transferred out of responsibility for ordnance development at a critical moment and wasn't there to crack down on the godawful QC the British had for their shells.)

It wasn't until 1943 (North Cape) that British AP ammo finally got to do the thing it had specifically been redesigned to do after Jutland - get into a fleeing enemy ship's machinery spaces, wreck stuff, and slow her to the point where escape was impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,637 posts
3,938 battles

I propose the RN CA gimmick is that their shells act as a reverse adrenaline rush. The more you batter the enemy, the slower they can react.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×