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

What's Mikasa's class?

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
198 posts

Is it Mikasa class or 4th ship of Shikishima class?

if it's later, does that mean Mikasa is getting buffed with 510 mm?

I've been looking at number of sources in various languages, but they all claim different class names...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,660 posts
9 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Mikasa?  She was her own, Japan only built one of her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa

220px-Japanese_battleship_Mikasa.jpg

IJN Mikasa in the Premium shop | World of Warships

Technically, the British built her I believe.  A modified Formidable class battleship.  Ordered by the Imperisl Nsvy, no doubt, but outsourced to another country.

EDIT:  An excellent museum to visit if you get the opportunity.

Edited by Gunga_Dinner
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,954
[ARGSY]
Members
20,001 posts
14,281 battles
1 hour ago, Gunga_Dinner said:

Technically, the British built her I believe. 

There's nothing technical about it. Designed and built in Britain to a Japanese specification, she is the last of the pre-dreadnoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,660 posts
14 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

There's nothing technical about it. Designed and built in Britain to a Japanese specification, she is the last of the pre-dreadnoughts. 

The Katori and Kashima would politely disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,954
[ARGSY]
Members
20,001 posts
14,281 battles
7 minutes ago, Gunga_Dinner said:

The Katori and Kashima would politely disagree with you.

Do either of those ships still exist today?

Mikasa does. I used the present tense for a reason.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,660 posts
31 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Do either of those ships still exist today?

Mikasa does. I used the present tense for a reason.

Lol my mistake.  I was in the mindset off the OP's question.  In present tense, she is a building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,954
[ARGSY]
Members
20,001 posts
14,281 battles
Just now, Gunga_Dinner said:

In present tense, she is a building.

Set in concrete though she is, she is still the same ship.

I worry about that. It stops her from rusting and disappearing into the harbour, but I'm worried that a good, solid earthquake will rip her in two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
822
[WOLFB]
Members
3,144 posts
7,178 battles

I wish they would put the USS Olympia (C-6) into the a cement holding like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
198 posts
3 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Mikasa?  She was her own, Japan only built one of her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa

220px-Japanese_battleship_Mikasa.jpg

IJN Mikasa in the Premium shop | World of Warships

actually this is wrong information. I don't know why there's so much difference between Japanese wiki and English wiki, but here Japanese wiki shows Mikasa is, in fact, 4th ship of Shikishima class. I had to go to JP wiki because Korean version of wiki also stated it is 4th ship of Shikishima. 

Mikasa Shikishima Class Japanese Wiki

Which brings me to next question: since Mikasa IS Shikishima class, will t10 Shikishima change its name as well? :?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,896
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,733 posts
4,630 battles

Did CV-6 Enterprise become Tier XXIII when starship Enterprise was constructed?  No, of course not.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
Beta Testers
363 posts
12,391 battles
1 hour ago, VaygrEmpire said:

actually this is wrong information. I don't know why there's so much difference between Japanese wiki and English wiki, but here Japanese wiki shows Mikasa is, in fact, 4th ship of Shikishima class. I had to go to JP wiki because Korean version of wiki also stated it is 4th ship of Shikishima. 

Mikasa Shikishima Class Japanese Wiki

Which brings me to next question: since Mikasa IS Shikishima class, will t10 Shikishima change its name as well? :?

I dunno...

  • EN Wikipedia says Mikasa had Krupp Cemented armor, whereas Asahi/Hatsuse/Shikishima had Harvey armor.  From what I understand, given that they had the same belt thickness, that gave Mikasa on the order of 15% more protection.
  • Mikasa and Asahi also needed more horsepower out of their engines - 15000 HP versus 14500 HP - to make the same 18 knots speed.
  • Shikishima and Hatsuse had three funnels, while Mikasa and Asahi had two.

Were they similar?  Yes.  But I think they had enough differences to call them separate classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
198 posts
23 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

Did CV-6 Enterprise become Tier XXIII when starship Enterprise was constructed?  No, of course not.

 

 eh I merely posted this in question of whether WG knew about Mikasa's class or not. There's certainly no other duplicates where there are huge tier difference between same class names in game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,954
[ARGSY]
Members
20,001 posts
14,281 battles
1 hour ago, VaygrEmpire said:

Which brings me to next question: since Mikasa IS Shikishima class, will t10 Shikishima change its name as well? :?

Of course not. 

Navies are well known for recycling the names of famous ships to use in future ships of the same class or of a class equivalent in importance. Even in the span of the 20th Century, we saw Invincible used for a battlecruiser in the early 1900s and then an aircraft carrier (technically a "through-deck cruiser" to get it past the anti-CV faction in the British Parliament) in the late 1970s. Lion was Beatty's flagship at Jutland, but it almost became the name of the last British battleship; if Lion (and her sister Temeraire) had been built, likely Vanguard would not have been. And speaking of Vanguard, there were at least three of those in the Royal Navy between the late 19th and mid 20th Century. 

The first Warrior in the ironclad era has nothing in common with the last. The first still exists, and is currently a museum ship; the last was a heavy armoured cruiser that was severely damaged at Jutland and had to be scuttled on her way home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
198 posts
1 hour ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Of course not. 

Navies are well known for recycling the names of famous ships to use in future ships of the same class or of a class equivalent in importance. Even in the span of the 20th Century, we saw Invincible used for a battlecruiser in the early 1900s and then an aircraft carrier (technically a "through-deck cruiser" to get it past the anti-CV faction in the British Parliament) in the late 1970s. Lion was Beatty's flagship at Jutland, but it almost became the name of the last British battleship; if Lion (and her sister Temeraire) had been built, likely Vanguard would not have been. And speaking of Vanguard, there were at least three of those in the Royal Navy between the late 19th and mid 20th Century. 

The first Warrior in the ironclad era has nothing in common with the last. The first still exists, and is currently a museum ship; the last was a heavy armoured cruiser that was severely damaged at Jutland and had to be scuttled on her way home.

In Real Life, yes, but I'm wondering if things will be that way in game as well. afaik, there are no ships with same class name in game beside Shikishima. WG never have done it before so I was wondering if they overlooked Mikasa's class or it was intentional and will be making more ships in the future with same class name as ship name. As we all know, Shikishima is a fake ship - well, blueprint - and Yamato class. (Wait, so they are using TWO CLASS NAMES as SHIP NAME?) For example, Imperial Russia had Gangut class battleships which consisted of Gangut, Petropavlovsk, Sevastopol, and Poltava..........oh wait. They already have done it before

 

Weeeee now I know how the ship names are being made for paper ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,954
[ARGSY]
Members
20,001 posts
14,281 battles
Just now, VaygrEmpire said:

WG never have done it before so I was wondering if they overlooked Mikasa's class or it was intentional and will be making more ships in the future with same class name as ship name.

I think you're being either deliberately obtuse or particularly obsessive. Just because the Mikasa might have been a member of the Shikishima class of pre-dreadnought battleships does not mean there is any connection - AT ALL - between her and the Tier 10 battleship called Shikishima.

Classes are generally named after the lead ship of that class, whether or not it finishes construction first, although there are exceptions depending on a nation's naming conventions; e.g. the T9 UK DD Jutland is part of the Battle class, because she and all of her sister ships were named after prominent battles, and other small ships of which the UK either built or bought large numbers are similarly lumped under a generic class category that informs all the name choices (e.g. the Flower-class corvettes not in game). 

Shikishima, had she been built, would not have been a Yamato-class battleship as her main armament was radically different. It's important to note that some ships are a class of one and some are so unique or groundbreaking (e.g. Dreadnought) that they become a ship archetype rather than a single-unit class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,174
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,897 posts
11,584 battles
6 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Mikasa?  She was her own, Japan only built one of her.

Mikasa be like

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
523
[GRAVE]
Members
1,260 posts
18,743 battles
7 hours ago, VaygrEmpire said:

Is it Mikasa class or 4th ship of Shikishima class?

no, she's her own one off design

7 hours ago, VaygrEmpire said:

if it's later, does that mean Mikasa is getting buffed with 510 mm?

even if it is physically possible to put 2 Shikishima turrets on Mikasa (which including the massive shells would probably weigh more than Mikasa ever did) Mikasa would still be a crap T2 because she can't hit a damn thing, not to mention all the overpens on the AP, although 85mm of HE pen with over 8k per HE citadel HE would be by far the only viable option

3 hours ago, VaygrEmpire said:

Which brings me to next question: since Mikasa IS Shikishima class, will t10 Shikishima change its name as well? :?

Shikishima started out named Yashima, so her name has already changed once

Also, WG does not put ships with the same name in one nation's tech tree. Ex: Helena is the T7 US light cruiser, even though the lead ship of her class was St. louis, and St. Louis already is the class name for the T3 US protected cruiser. However, this is fine for the name to appear in different nations, like T9 FR cruiser St. Louis. There will not be another ship in the Japanese tech tree named Mikasa

59 minutes ago, VaygrEmpire said:

In Real Life, yes, but I'm wondering if things will be that way in game as well. afaik, there are no ships with same class name in game beside Shikishima. WG never have done it before so I was wondering if they overlooked Mikasa's class or it was intentional and will be making more ships in the future with same class name as ship name. As we all know, Shikishima is a fake ship - well, blueprint - and Yamato class. (Wait, so they are using TWO CLASS NAMES as SHIP NAME?) For example, Imperial Russia had Gangut class battleships which consisted of Gangut, Petropavlovsk, Sevastopol, and Poltava..........oh wait. They already have done it before

 

Weeeee now I know how the ship names are being made for paper ships. 

Also worth mentioning that Gangut is in game twice: herself at T4 as completed, and then herself as October Revolution as she appeared in 1944, as all four of the Ganguts (also referred to as the Sevastopol class) were renamed at some point between the world wars. Petropavlovsk herself was even a proposed name for the Soviet Admiral Hipper, before it became Tallinn

One more thing, almost every nation reused names of ships from WW1 era vessels on WW2 ships. a fair few WW2 US cruisers (even BBs) were at one point had armoured or protected cruisers named after them in WW1.

The Iowa could either be represented in game like it already is, or as a pre-dreadnought from the 1890s

Montana also had an armoured cruiser named after her (Tennessee class) which also included North Carolina and Tennessee, which all became lead ship classes for US BBs that served with distinction in WW2

the South Dakota class has two classes: the 1920 class (which incidentally, all names used for this class would later be used on WW2 US BBs) and the 1939 class, of which Sodak's three sisters, only Alabama was not a planned 1920 Sodak.

the Virginia Pre-Dreadnoughts used names Georgia (which gives its name to a proto Iowa with 18in guns) and New Jersey (which would give its name to the second Iowa class BB and become the most decorated battleship in US history)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
9,204 battles
6 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Set in concrete though she is, she is still the same ship.

I worry about that. It stops her from rusting and disappearing into the harbour, but I'm worried that a good, solid earthquake will rip her in two.

Yeah, me too. Keeps me up at night.

And birds, of course.

Very worried by all the birds. All that flying around, what are they up to?

And clouds. Never been happy with clouds. Might rain, see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
636
[THREE]
Members
2,142 posts
10,897 battles
6 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Set in concrete though she is, she is still the same ship.

I worry about that. It stops her from rusting and disappearing into the harbour, but I'm worried that a good, solid earthquake will rip her in two.

She's probably more sturdy then the cement holding her. She'll be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,587
[WOLF3]
Members
26,992 posts
23,790 battles
5 hours ago, VaygrEmpire said:

actually this is wrong information. I don't know why there's so much difference between Japanese wiki and English wiki, but here Japanese wiki shows Mikasa is, in fact, 4th ship of Shikishima class. I had to go to JP wiki because Korean version of wiki also stated it is 4th ship of Shikishima. 

Mikasa Shikishima Class Japanese Wiki

Which brings me to next question: since Mikasa IS Shikishima class, will t10 Shikishima change its name as well? :?

Google Translate is worthless.

You think Pre-Dreadnought-era ship Mikasa is Shikashima???

This... Mikasa

220px-Japanese_battleship_Mikasa.jpg

Is this ship?

You're out of your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,359
[WOLFG]
Members
9,559 posts
8,505 battles
12 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Google Translate is worthless.

You think Pre-Dreadnought-era ship Mikasa is Shikashima???

This... Mikasa

220px-Japanese_battleship_Mikasa.jpg

Is this ship?

You're out of your mind.

Maybe this one?

image.jpeg.e15fcb5221c058219d823bb7337bd1e7.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,031
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
11,379 posts
15,783 battles

You may enjoy this.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,954
[ARGSY]
Members
20,001 posts
14,281 battles
23 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

You think Pre-Dreadnought-era ship Mikasa is Shikashima???

OP seems to be confusing or conflating the Shikishima-class pre-dreadnoughts (of which the Mikasa is NOT a class member, according to Wikipedia) with this hypothetical development, to which WG has assigned the same name. 

Interestingly, Yashima - the name WG formerly assigned to this ship - is one of the Fuji-class pre-dreadnoughts, not Shikishima-class, and again bears NO class relation to the Mikasa or to this project. There were great similarities among all the British-built Japanese pre-dreadnoughts, but significant-enough detail differences to make Mikasa (and Asahi) one-offs rather than part of a class. 

 

WG simply took a name that was historically associated with Japanese battleships and applied it to this T10... thing. And I have no problems with that. I just wish Mikasa's main battery would shoot even half as straight in-game as this thing seems to do.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

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.

×