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

USS WASHINGTON BB47 FOR WOWS

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

156
[LUJSV]
Members
1,016 posts
35,418 battles

Hello everyone, this beautiful battleship that existed for a short time was reviewed. It is beautiful with its dark blue almost black camouflage, it can be created in the game with the 1924 configuration, all original in T5, the most likely thing is that it does not carry dual purpose cannons, they would be minimum AA and a super structure similar to ships from WW1 .

 

add it to the game but with the original configuration, the most recommended T5 since it does not have anything AA, and we are talking about a battleship with the configuration of 1924.

I remember in 2015 when the colorado used 3 helmet and helmet A was from 1924, of course in T7 it was a nightmare so that helmet was removed, but it can be put in T5 with the premium washington.

this is part of the history of the USA............

 all upgrades from

colorado 1945 - T7
the west virginian 1935 - T6
Washington 1925 - T5

 

Name: Washington
Namesake: State of Washington
Builder: New York Shipbuilding Corporation
Laid down: 30 June 1919
Launched: 1 September 1921
Sponsored by: Jean Summers
Struck: 8 February 1922
Fate: Sunk as target, 25 November 1924
Class and type: Colorado class
Displacement: 32,600 long tons (33,100 t)
Length: 624 ft (190 m)
Beam: 97 ft 6 in (29.72 m)
Draft: 30 ft 6 in (9.30 m)
Speed: 21 kn (39 km/h; 24 mph)
Complement: 1,354 officers and men
Armament:
Armor:
  • Belt: 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm)
  • Barbettes: 13 in (330 mm)
  • Turret face: 18 in (457 mm)
  • Turret sides: 9–10 in (229–254 mm)
  • Turret top: 5 in (127 mm)
  • Turret rear 9 in (229 mm)
  • Conning tower: 11.5 in (292 mm)
  • Decks: 3.5 in (89 mm)

d69c9cc6e8c98eca28aa74757926b259.jpg

USS_Washington_LOC_ggbain_32932.jpg

v1o6oz3ytjb31.jpg

unnamed (6).jpg

unnamed (5).jpg

1438116982653.jpg

bb-47.jpg

USS_Washington_BB-47.jpg

eb5be334ea0209582f7330dbdaa8de5a.jpg

Colorado-class-web.jpg

Colorado_wows_main.jpg

800px-Launch_of_WASHINGTON_LCCN2014713142.jpg

800px-USS_Washington_LOC_ggbain_32936.jpg

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,891
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,843 posts
4,285 battles

So you want West Virginia's armament at T5? :Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy:

 

How about no, that'd be so OP it'd make Belfast look balanced.

We already have a down-tiered CO, it's called West Virginia. 16in at T6 is already pushing it, 16in at T5 is ridiculous. Just reducing AA is in no way enough to balanced that amount of firepower. 

Also, why do we need a third CO class in game? WG has already said another WV variant will be added in full AA spec, so I don't see why we need another slow USN standard.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,105 posts
44,174 battles

Did you know that the ship was sunk by the Battleship Texas?

It was one of many stories about Texas BB35.

Due to Washington Treaty, Washington was towed out and the Texas was to sink her. This served a purpose however. The ship was the last of the super dreadnaughts.

And the Navy wanted to see if the armor belt would hold up to 14 inch guns. It was that data that would later be applied to future designs that includes NC, South Dakota, and finally Iowa classes.

It would be nice to have all the Colorado class ships in game. Maryland would be up next.

We still have yet to see WV 1943-44.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
582
[RTXN]
Banned
1,416 posts

There are 2 options for Washington - 

BB 47 - another Colorado class that had no history as the hull was built but sunk during gunnery exercises due to the Washington Naval treaty.  No need for another Colorado and definitely would be OP for T5.

BB 56 - North Carolina Class - the most likely candidate for a premium as she was built and had a storied career.

 

If you want another BB at T5, look at the Nevada class.  (Nevada or Oklahoma)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada-class_battleship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[LUJSV]
Members
1,016 posts
35,418 battles
9 minutes ago, jmanII said:

There are 2 options for Washington - 

BB 47 - another Colorado class that had no history as the hull was built but sunk during gunnery exercises due to the Washington Naval treaty.  No need for another Colorado and definitely would be OP for T5.

BB 56 - North Carolina Class - the most likely candidate for a premium as she was built and had a storied career.

 

If you want another BB at T5, look at the Nevada class.  (Nevada or Oklahoma)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada-class_battleship

BRO WOWS HAS 5 KONGOS ARP t5!!! CRY for colorado class washington with configuration 1925 not AA, 20 guns secundaries , black camo. noT super structure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[LUJSV]
Members
1,016 posts
35,418 battles
13 minutes ago, jmanII said:

There are 2 options for Washington - 

BB 47 - another Colorado class that had no history as the hull was built but sunk during gunnery exercises due to the Washington Naval treaty.  No need for another Colorado and definitely would be OP for T5.

BB 56 - North Carolina Class - the most likely candidate for a premium as she was built and had a storied career.

 

If you want another BB at T5, look at the Nevada class.  (Nevada or Oklahoma)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada-class_battleship

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[LUJSV]
Members
1,016 posts
35,418 battles
23 minutes ago, Cpt_Whiskey72 said:

No.  If we have a USS Washington in game it needs to be BB-56.  We don’t need a cancelled Colorado.

if sure a battleship exactly T9 like iowa & missouri, nothing special

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[LUJSV]
Members
1,016 posts
35,418 battles
36 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

So you want West Virginia's armament at T5? :Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy:

 

How about no, that'd be so OP it'd make Belfast look balanced.

We already have a down-tiered CO, it's called West Virginia. 16in at T6 is already pushing it, 16in at T5 is ridiculous. Just reducing AA is in no way enough to balanced that amount of firepower. 

Also, why do we need a third CO class in game? WG has already said another WV variant will be added in full AA spec, so I don't see why we need another slow USN standard.

kongo has 54100 HP full upgrade , speed 30, range main guns + 20k ,full AA, amored reinforced

washington had, 49000hp, not upgrade, speed 23, range main guns 16, not AA, amored stock 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
582
[RTXN]
Banned
1,416 posts
Just now, rafael_azuaje said:

BRO WOWS HAS 5 KONGOS ARP t5!!! CRY for colorado class washington with configuration 1925 not AA, 20 guns secundaries , black camo. noT super structure

Yes, but that was for a special event with ARP.

BB 47 would still be OP at T5.  Look at Arkansas Beta at T4 - but ARK has 14" guns - and you want 16" at T5??????

There is a lot of interest for BB 56 to be in game as Washington.  For much the same reason with the St Louis confusion (the reason for Helena), I think that another Colorado "Washington" has no chance.

 

Now an improved Colorado (1944 version) named Maryland may be a possibility, but at T7/8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[LUJSV]
Members
1,016 posts
35,418 battles
6 minutes ago, jmanII said:

Yes, but that was for a special event with ARP.

BB 47 would still be OP at T5.  Look at Arkansas Beta at T4 - but ARK has 14" guns - and you want 16" at T5??????

There is a lot of interest for BB 56 to be in game as Washington.  For much the same reason with the St Louis confusion (the reason for Helena), I think that another Colorado "Washington" has no chance.

 

Now an improved Colorado (1944 version) named Maryland may be a possibility, but at T7/8.

I have west viginian he is wood for the fires, the washington too, remember washington has hull A, 20 secondaries cassamate, not AA , sotck configuration 1925, much BB T6 are Op becase has better hull, HP, speed AA, for example, the viribus unite was T4 befoe, now is T5 he is OP? he has configure hull 1919

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
582
[RTXN]
Banned
1,416 posts
1 minute ago, rafael_azuaje said:

I have west viginian he is wood for the fires, the washington too, remember washington has hull A, 20 secondaries cassamate, not AA , sotck configuration 1925, much BB T6 are Op becase has better hull, HP, speed AA, for example, the viribus unite was T4 befoe, now is T5 he is OP? he has configure hull 1919

Regardless, I am not supporting BB 47 Washington at T5 or in game at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,486
[SALVO]
Members
26,136 posts
29,156 battles
12 minutes ago, rafael_azuaje said:

BRO WOWS HAS 5 KONGOS ARP t5!!! CRY for colorado class washington with configuration 1925 not AA, 20 guns secundaries , black camo. noT super structure

Those are ARP ships and they're nothing more than straight up copies of each other, with the only difference being a different perma-camo.

 

 

Furthermore, I see no good reason to include the Washington in either of these forms, i.e. as a Colorado class BB or as a North Carolina class BB.  We already have a down tiered Colorado in the form of the West Virginia 41.  And we already have the North Carolina as a tech tree ship, not to mention 2 South Dakota class premium BBs, all at tier 8.

If people want to see more USN BBs, they should be asking for a second USN BB tech tree line.  The USN build enough BBs to create a "built in steel" line from tier 3 up to tier 8, though beyond that would be dodgy.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,891
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,843 posts
4,285 battles
14 minutes ago, rafael_azuaje said:

BRO WOWS HAS 5 KONGOS ARP t5!!! CRY for colorado class washington with configuration 1925 not AA, 20 guns secundaries , black camo. noT super structure

That was an event for the ARP collaboration. And they're literally copy paste Kongos with different skins, no functional difference.

 

11 minutes ago, rafael_azuaje said:

 

What does the OK have to do with this?

11 minutes ago, rafael_azuaje said:

if sure a battleship exactly T9 like iowa & missouri, nothing special

It's T8, North Carolina Class. Not the same as IA class. And a premium with NC dispersion would be very nice, though I don't think it should be a priority.

 

8 minutes ago, rafael_azuaje said:

kongo has 54100 HP full upgrade , speed 30, range main guns + 20k ,full AA, amored reinforced

washington had, 49000hp, not upgrade, speed 23, range main guns 16, not AA, amored stock 

Why are we comparing stock to upgraded hulls? And you forget the biggest difference. Kongo has 4*2 14" guns, CO had 4*2 16 guns with approximately the same reload. Kongo is lightly armored, while the CO is not. And even a '24 CO is going to have some AA.

Remember, we have to compare it to the NY. How is the NY anywhere near equivalent to this thing?

Also, what does yet another downtiered CO add to the game? And this one wasn't even a functional ship...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,486
[SALVO]
Members
26,136 posts
29,156 battles
12 minutes ago, jmanII said:

Yes, but that was for a special event with ARP.

BB 47 would still be OP at T5.  Look at Arkansas Beta at T4 - but ARK has 14" guns - and you want 16" at T5??????

There is a lot of interest for BB 56 to be in game as Washington.  For much the same reason with the St Louis confusion (the reason for Helena), I think that another Colorado "Washington" has no chance.

Now an improved Colorado (1944 version) named Maryland may be a possibility, but at T7/8.

A late war Colorado would be difficult to place in the tiers.  The fully upgraded Colorado is a good tier 7.  But a late war Colorado (basically a fully upgraded Colorado with even better AA) would feel too slow for tier 8 but perhaps a smidge OP at tier 7.  I suspect that it would still end up at tier 7 mostly because aside from her stronger AA, a late war Colorado is still a Colorado, unless perhaps the devs decided to give her a fictional engine upgrade to make her speed competitive for tier 8.  I suppose that they could also enhance her main guns' accuracy to make her more tier 8 worthy as well.  But I'd worry that the Colorado's armor scheme wouldn't be up to facing tier 10 BB fire.

As an aside, I'm still waiting on the California.  We haven't heard anything about her in a while.  I sort of suspect that we'll see her get released around Memorial Day or July 4th, unless for some reason, WG is concerned that she's just not good enough for tier 7.

 

For what little it's worth, I think that this little discussion about the Colorado and California points out one of the weaknesses of the WoWS tier system.  I don't think that real life ships are quite so "digital" in their relative capabilities that they can be easily placed on a 1 to 10 scale of tiers.  And when you have a ship class like the Colorado that existed over a couple of decades and saw a number of refits, it's pretty easy to see how it can go from being a pretty solid tier 7 when stock to nearly tier 8 when in its late WW2 state with all the AA upgrades, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
169
[LOIN]
Supertester
851 posts
On 4/6/2020 at 12:18 PM, rafael_azuaje said:

Hello everyone, this beautiful battleship that existed for a short time was reviewed. It is beautiful with its dark blue almost black camouflage, it can be created in the game with the 1924 configuration, all original in T5, the most likely thing is that it does not carry dual purpose cannons, they would be minimum AA and a super structure similar to ships from WW1 .

 

add it to the game but with the original configuration, the most recommended T5 since it does not have anything AA, and we are talking about a battleship with the configuration of 1924.

I remember in 2015 when the colorado used 3 helmet and helmet A was from 1924, of course in T7 it was a nightmare so that helmet was removed, but it can be put in T5 with the premium washington.

this is part of the history of the USA............

 all upgrades from

colorado 1945 - T7
the west virginian 1935 - T6
Washington 1925 - T5

 

Name: Washington
Namesake: State of Washington
Builder: New York Shipbuilding Corporation
Laid down: 30 June 1919
Launched: 1 September 1921
Sponsored by: Jean Summers
Struck: 8 February 1922
Fate: Sunk as target, 25 November 1924
Class and type: Colorado class
Displacement: 32,600 long tons (33,100 t)
Length: 624 ft (190 m)
Beam: 97 ft 6 in (29.72 m)
Draft: 30 ft 6 in (9.30 m)
Speed: 21 kn (39 km/h; 24 mph)
Complement: 1,354 officers and men
Armament:
Armor:
  • Belt: 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm)
  • Barbettes: 13 in (330 mm)
  • Turret face: 18 in (457 mm)
  • Turret sides: 9–10 in (229–254 mm)
  • Turret top: 5 in (127 mm)
  • Turret rear 9 in (229 mm)
  • Conning tower: 11.5 in (292 mm)
  • Decks: 3.5 in (89 mm)

d69c9cc6e8c98eca28aa74757926b259.jpg

USS_Washington_LOC_ggbain_32932.jpg

v1o6oz3ytjb31.jpg

unnamed (6).jpg

unnamed (5).jpg

1438116982653.jpg

bb-47.jpg

USS_Washington_BB-47.jpg

eb5be334ea0209582f7330dbdaa8de5a.jpg

Colorado-class-web.jpg

Colorado_wows_main.jpg

800px-Launch_of_WASHINGTON_LCCN2014713142.jpg

800px-USS_Washington_LOC_ggbain_32936.jpg

Interesting idea. I'd say no. The Washington we'll most likely get is going to be NC one. Not this one, this one is less known while the NC one is very well known especially for its engagement with the Kirishima during the battle of Guadalcanal. (If I'm not mistaken it's one of the few U.S battleships that have destroyed a hostile battleship.)

Also a Colorado at tier 5, that's a little too powerful. 6 is more understandable. But we already have the West Virginia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
103 posts
2,727 battles
On 4/6/2020 at 1:18 PM, rafael_azuaje said:

eb5be334ea0209582f7330dbdaa8de5a.jpg

Some very nice pictures and I appreciate the post.  I love that people are still romantic about the old ships.   Being from New Jersey originally, I really appreciate this shot in particular.  :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
10 posts
1,907 battles

I am not so sure about this idea of having the original Washington at T-5, it just seems less likely that we will ever see it at T-5 mainly due to it's 16 inch cannons. The only way we will ever see the original Washington is by having it at T-6 or T-7. To be honest, I would rather see the North Carolina variant than the Colorado variant of Washington. I mean I would love to see this in game with the Maryland but at T-5, it literally would be punishing every single warship at that tier. Sorry man but I just don't see of how this can be a Tier-5 premium let alone this would be a torpedo magnet. Also if we wan't more USN BB's in the game, then we need to come up with a plan for a Second USN BB Line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
949 posts
2,321 battles

The North Carolina one is one of the most storied ships not already in the game. Likely the next US BB. I wouldn't be opposed to Washington if it just had a different name but the other Washington is too much of a no brainer. 

Also it's ironic that the near finished Washington had to be sunk because of......the Washington Naval Treaty. You're right it's an important part of our navy's history but at the same time can't see them including it. If they do a third Colorado someday for some reason it's going to be Maryland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[RST]
Members
53 posts
4,000 battles

Interesting that there are concerns about some mild to less-mild OP in American BBS when we have all of the Soviet BBs. I guess they are exempt from any OP concerns? :Smile_teethhappy: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×