Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
OrbitalStrike47

A case for Nevada and Pennsylvania 1944 refits

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
41 posts
1,614 battles

Alright this has to be getting just a little old by now but I've learned just a little more on these ships that would make them quite a bit interesting to see in game, yes they are yet another class of slow 21kt American Super Dreadnoughts but there are a couple things that would make them interesting in my opinion. I know that not everybody wants more slow dreadnoughts and that I'm not exactly new to supporting the idea of adding more dreadnoughts but if you're interested I've learned a couple more things about these two rather interesting dreadnoughts that make them stand out.

First of all the obvious, during the post Pearl Harbor refits both ships received extensive AA refits and only got more and more as time went on and by 1944 both ships were veritable fortresses basically made from guns. The ships also received thicker deck plating hoping to avoid the fate of a certain famous US super dreadnought. During the attack the deck ranged from 2-4in deck thickness but post attack the older battleships were upgraded to have 4-6in armored decks. Both ships were made to steam along at 21kts but while Nevada was struggling to push 21 Pennsylvania was almost pushing 22 (amazing I know, truly inspiring speed) and surprisingly the additional armor didn't seem to affect this all too much. Not that it would've mattered anyway, the ships were never speed demons to begin with. Their secondary batteries were also replaced with the DP rapid fire dual 5in gun mounts with four twin turrets per side. Though I can guess none of this has really surprised anybody, this is fairly standard and probably already well known to most battleship enthusiasts well there were a couple more things I learned about these ships.

Now the lesser known benefits. Turret elevation was increased from 15 to 30 degrees significantly increasing range of fire of the main guns from a former range of roughly 21 kilometers to about 31 kilometers! That's not all though, the guns were armed with longer and heavier shells capable of far more penetration and carrying a far more powerful bursting charge. These shells weighed roughly 1500lbs which is a bit impressive for a 14in shell not to mention these were coming at the enemy at 2600fps these shells were comparable in weight and velocity to the KGV class but slightly smaller and slower but in reality performed better due to the inherent advantages of American shells at that time which were far more rigid enabling them to defeat far heavier armor than their contemporaries meaning in game you'd get a lot less "shatters" or Non-penetrating hits. This represented in game would give Nevada and Pennsylvania impressive penetration and damage for just being armed with 14in guns a (comparatively) modest caliber for a battleship. 

All these factors together present two battleships unlike any other American battleship we have. Better armor than Arizona, main guns comparable to New Mexico's, and aa on par with the likes of North Carolina. Yeah they're slow but supported by a decent team they'd be incredible tanks and damage dealers and they'd be able to engage from long range as well (I'm not saying to give them their historical 31km range, that'd be ridiculous but something in the 20km ballpark would be nice at least unlike Arizona's painful 16km non-upgraded and only 18km upgraded which is quite confusing honestly). And again another typical idea dump from me, don't expect anything to actually come from it nor do I expect anyone to actually care much about this considering how the majority of people view these ships.

Image result for uss nevada 1944Image result for uss pennsylvania 1944

Edited by OrbitalStrike47
addition of pictures
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,313 posts
4,585 battles
Spoiler

 

Tanking in my battleship? 

mpqymUs.gif?noredirect

How dare you.:Smile-_tongue:

 

You never know. Mouse made a suggestion with Thunderer and it came true. Someone made a Wichita proposal and that came true too. 

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/57318-uss-wichita-t8-ship-proposal/

Edited by Yoshiblue
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,728
[INTEL]
Members
13,062 posts
36,040 battles

Your case is too wordy. Let me simplify:

$$$$$$$

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,728
[INTEL]
Members
13,062 posts
36,040 battles

Seriously, would love to see them in game as premiums.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
885
[LWA]
Members
1,126 posts

Sorry, but the USS West Virginia in a 1944 refit has already been promised by WG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,629
[WOLF3]
Members
27,063 posts
23,845 battles

There are so many Premium USN BBs in the game right now, to include an obviously overpowered one named Ohio that is a WiP ship that this needs to rest for a bit, and more non-USN Premiums need to enter the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,089
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,030 posts
11,611 battles

I want both ships, especially PA - but I want them in the tech tree. They should be part of an alternate branch that may be a bit slower but yeah, tanks hits like no other. Which in-game AZ already does pretty well.

And both despite in the tech tree should default to 1944 layouts or close to it. One of the biggest issues in CV balance since alpha testing is the gap in power between tier 4 and tier 10 AA and all the tiers between. All the tech tree ships from at least tier 4 up, 5 up only if we shield the tier 4 CV's, should have later life refits or where needed ones created. Removes the excuse for the problematic power gaps that cause +2 ships to shred CV planes and -2 ships to be targeted at will by CV planes. 

Since they added some of these newer premiums always felt the second USN line should have these ships with a faster CD DCP and repair party (unless we just give all ships the roughly 40 second cooldowns) to make up for speed and help with tanking, and good secondaries and decent enough guns. Kinda like Michael Myers or a zombie in a horror film. Slow moving and tenacious and maybe not as threatening at range but if you haven't put them down by the time they creep closer your in trouble. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
771
[REVY]
Members
2,286 posts
12,275 battles
3 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

There are so many Premium USN BBs in the game right now, to include an obviously overpowered one named Ohio that is a WiP ship that this needs to rest for a bit, and more non-USN Premiums need to enter the game.

The problem is the US, UK, and Germans has alot of BBs of this era that were built but are not represented in the game. This isn't including the BCs built by the UK and Germany.

It would be nice if the missing BBs were put into a second line for each country.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[TASC]
Members
411 posts
9,649 battles

this would be fun as premiiums or a 2nd line 

. i can just hear Yuro's start up with " you are a big slow American shooting big fat American shells" 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
41 posts
1,614 battles
On 7/31/2019 at 7:40 AM, WanderingGhost said:

I want both ships, especially PA - but I want them in the tech tree. They should be part of an alternate branch that may be a bit slower but yeah, tanks hits like no other. Which in-game AZ already does pretty well.

And both despite in the tech tree should default to 1944 layouts or close to it. One of the biggest issues in CV balance since alpha testing is the gap in power between tier 4 and tier 10 AA and all the tiers between. All the tech tree ships from at least tier 4 up, 5 up only if we shield the tier 4 CV's, should have later life refits or where needed ones created. Removes the excuse for the problematic power gaps that cause +2 ships to shred CV planes and -2 ships to be targeted at will by CV planes. 

Since they added some of these newer premiums always felt the second USN line should have these ships with a faster CD DCP and repair party (unless we just give all ships the roughly 40 second cooldowns) to make up for speed and help with tanking, and good secondaries and decent enough guns. Kinda like Michael Myers or a zombie in a horror film. Slow moving and tenacious and maybe not as threatening at range but if you haven't put them down by the time they creep closer your in trouble. 

this is honestly how I would want them implemented, call me cheap but I don't exactly have money to put down for ships at the moment and I'd see it as a bit cheap to add even more USN premium ships especially battleships when we already have Texas, Arizona, Alabama, Massachusetts, Missouri, Georgia, and soon to be Ohio. I would want the USN BB line split that me and many others have been anticipating with Nevada as the T5 or T6 and Pennsylvania as either the T6 or T7 maybe followed by Tennessee? That being said there's a lot to be done before WG would even consider this so we'll have to see what the future holds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
41 posts
1,614 battles
On 7/31/2019 at 8:19 AM, Lord_Slayer said:

The problem is the US, UK, and Germans has alot of BBs of this era that were built but are not represented in the game. This isn't including the BCs built by the UK and Germany.

It would be nice if the missing BBs were put into a second line for each country.

Yeah I'd love to see something like a battlecruiser line for Germany and the UK because there were so many interesting and powerful ships they made along the restrictions set by the battlecruiser as a class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,089
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,030 posts
11,611 battles
11 hours ago, OrbitalStrike47 said:

this is honestly how I would want them implemented, call me cheap but I don't exactly have money to put down for ships at the moment and I'd see it as a bit cheap to add even more USN premium ships especially battleships when we already have Texas, Arizona, Alabama, Massachusetts, Missouri, Georgia, and soon to be Ohio. I would want the USN BB line split that me and many others have been anticipating with Nevada as the T5 or T6 and Pennsylvania as either the T6 or T7 maybe followed by Tennessee? That being said there's a lot to be done before WG would even consider this so we'll have to see what the future holds.

Part of it would be where they start the line (two tier 3 ships or one tier 3, two tier 4) But a general line would be -

Tier 3 - Delaware

Tier 4 - Florida

Tier 5 - Nevada 

Tier 6 - Pennsylvania

Tier 7 - Tennessee

Tier 8 - SD (1939)

Tier 9 - Ship X

Tier 10 - SD (1920)

With the other SD (39) ships at tier 8, barring some other improvements it seems hard to sell it at a higher tier, and SD (20) is easily comparable enough Montana for tier 10. The others for the most part line up too, just need to add the AA guns they should have had years ago to the current USN ships so a PA 44 won't drastically outclass NM in that field.

That said - one could make the line -

Tier 4 - Delaware

Tier 5 - Florida

Tier 6 - Nevada

Tier 7 - Pennsylvania

Tier 8 - Tennessee

Tier 9 - South Dakota (39)

Tier 10 - South Dakota (20)

Delaware, while less main battery guns than Wyoming, has more secondaries than when Wyoming is upgraded - also being in the tech tree allows for some fudging/what if - and there was a plan to outfit Delaware with 6 inch guns instead of 5 inch, much as the 5 inch was chosen, though may end up overall being her sister North Dakota (which lasted longer). Florida While having smaller guns (that can have better accuracy as compensation if needed) in 1929 still had double what New York in game has for secondaries. Nevada although NM has some weird outfitting of 9x 127 mm guns per side (While Mississippi did have the most of the class at 22 at one point I can find nothing that points to the ingame configuration of secondaries/AA existing) but I think better range, angles and consistent rate of fire of 8x 5/38's would be better than 4x 5/25's and 5x 5/51's with less range and one having 4.3 reload the other 6.6, plus any other tweaks that could put Nevada as a match. Similar story for PA vs CO as is, however upgraded to the standard of Maryland or West Virginia it'd have to be PA having smaller but more accurate guns vs Colorado's fewer not as accurate ones and any other tweaks to PA as MD and WV both had the same 8x2 5/38's as PA. Tenn vs NC is where it gets kinda dicey. NC has 4x3 406's and a speed advantage along with an extra pair of 5/38's vs Tenn's 4x3 356's. It's a tech tree ship so WG could add a fake upgrade of some sort, who knows what, of more or bigger secondaries and all or something but the question is a slow standard type at tier 8 with smaller guns vs a tier of higher speed BB's that are basically BB hunters, save for Bismarck. South Dakota if we give her Indiana's secondary battery combined with the SD's autocannon AA plus a few tweaks may be able to go toe to toe with Iowa.

And then you have SD 20 which as a paper ship has a lot of wiggle room as is. Obviously slower than Montana, maybe up the armour protection to justify it or increase the speed. Has the same main battery in terms of 4x3 406's. AA for the most part would be whatever they toss on it. One change, that is actually painful to suggest as a CV player, is that given the ship was meant to have a 6 inch secondary battery (16x1) instead it have a secondary battery of 10x2 6"/47 DP guns - the same found on Worcester instead of 5"/38's. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
162
[SWOLF]
Members
276 posts
3 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

And then you have SD 20 which as a paper ship has a lot of wiggle room as is.

Less paper than the Montanas. The Montanas were designed, ordered, but never laid down, the 1920s SoDaks were designed, ordered, and under construction when they were scrapped on the ways due to the WNT.  You'd need to posit what modifications would have been made - would they have been rebuilt with 5"/38s? How much AA would be crammed on the hulls? Would the guns haven been changed to fire the ~1100kg superheavy AP shells? (The Colorado-class didn't change the main guns and fired the ~1000kg AP shell.) You certainly wouldn't want the 1920 SoDak at Tier 10 without upgrading to WWII level AA  and fire control. I suspect they wouldn't have gotten the 5"/54s, the upgrades would have happened before then. 

Plus, don't forget the Lexington as CCs rather than CVs. (I'd call that ship the Constellation to avoid name conflict with the Lex/Sara CVs, but Constitution or United States would works as well. We already have a Ranger as a CV.)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,089
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,030 posts
11,611 battles
2 hours ago, User_the_n00b said:

Less paper than the Montanas. The Montanas were designed, ordered, but never laid down, the 1920s SoDaks were designed, ordered, and under construction when they were scrapped on the ways due to the WNT.  You'd need to posit what modifications would have been made - would they have been rebuilt with 5"/38s? How much AA would be crammed on the hulls? Would the guns haven been changed to fire the ~1100kg superheavy AP shells? (The Colorado-class didn't change the main guns and fired the ~1000kg AP shell.) You certainly wouldn't want the 1920 SoDak at Tier 10 without upgrading to WWII level AA  and fire control. I suspect they wouldn't have gotten the 5"/54s, the upgrades would have happened before then. 

Plus, don't forget the Lexington as CCs rather than CVs. (I'd call that ship the Constellation to avoid name conflict with the Lex/Sara CVs, but Constitution or United States would works as well. We already have a Ranger as a CV.)

Except that as it stood the ships were canceled with really not much work done. More than enough ships could have been massively redesigned or the like. Conceptually to me it's taking the SoDak 20 design out of storage and going "Let's start building these again" instead of "what if they built them anyway and somehow kept a 1920's ship combat capable on par with ships a decade or two newer". As it was if they wanted to maintain the heavier broadside the 6"/47 makes sense, as it was more or less a followup to the 6"/53 that they intended to arm the ship with anyway. Which also goes into why I go toward resurrecting the design as opposed to finish and mod as they go as you bring up AA because by 1943 you have the dual purpose  6 inch mounts, that as part of a line looking to be more secondary build is a big advantage over the 5"/38's in targeting ships, possibly aircraft given the nightmare that is Worcester, along with a battery of 40 mm and 20 mm batteries on par with any other ship. Obviously better fire control and well, it's up to Wargaming as to does it use SHS or not.

I also did not forget that the Lexington CC's are a thing - I'm actually a huge proponent of renaming Lexington Saratoga and giving the Lexington name to the CC should Wargaming add it in anyway. The ship is Saratoga so they might as well call it that. But that's me. However - for a line of secondary focused USN BB's that's a bit on the slow side but tanky as hell, Lexington class doesn't really fit in. Better off as a premium or part of a line of CC's. But that's just my opinion. 

Given time and more research I could likely toss up something more detailed that even has weapon placements like when I created the last ship needed for a German CV line a few years ago. Or my more recent attempts on some CV suggestions. But that said beyond some names and all - I fully admit BB's are not my area of expertise in design and all. I can, and have, gone on rants about the numerous issues on CV's planes and what certain CV's have, like trying to say a year ago that a 1938 Bf-109E naval modification with armament comparable to the A6M2 was on par with the N1K and F4U-1. I don't have that level of knowledge on BB's.

Other than giving her 10x twin 6 inch DP guns, the obvious fire control upgrades and all, don't have much else for a relatively off the cuff suggestion. Other than say 20x4 40 mm bofors +/- 2 mounts and maybe 30x2 20 mm mounts +/- a few. Depends on whats needed as the 6 inch guns on Worcester have a comparable RoF to the 5"/38's typically in game but a bigger bang and the fact this would be slower than Montana and maybe need a bit more AA to compensate vs air attacks. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
41 posts
1,614 battles
On 7/31/2019 at 3:44 AM, Battleship_Elisabeth said:

Nevada is definitely up there for me. I always liked her gun layout.

It is a rather unique and rather visually appealing look for sure

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×