Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Willy55_1955

Why Oklahoma and not Nevada?

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

377
[ONAVY]
[ONAVY]
Members
706 posts
16,239 battles

Oklahoma was, unfortunately, the only BB to roll over and sink (whereas Arizona blew up). It was salvaged but declared unrepairable and made no contribution during WWII. Nevada, on the other hand, was the only BB to get underway and try to sortie from the harbor. It was the first heavily damaged BB back in action after the Pearl Harbor attack. It garnered 7 battle stars during the war.

Nevada had a number of 'firsts' amongst US BBs:

1. First US BB to have triple gun turrets.

2. First to have an oil-fired steam power plant.

3. First to have geared turbines.

4. First to have the "all-or-nothing" armor scheme.

5. First of the US Navy's "Standard" type battleships.

I can't figure out why they would choose a ship with no impact in WWII over a ship that not only fought and survived the war, but also two atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll.

Oklahoma capsized:

image

Nevada under power attempting sortie from harbor:

W-Dec18-Nevada-6.jpg

I would be honored to have Nevada, the lead ship of its class and battle veteran, in my port, not so much the Oklahoma.

 

What do YOU think?

  • Cool 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,779
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
30,876 posts
25,982 battles

Why any of those and not Washington, savior of Battleship South Dakota and the spanker of the IJN at Guadalcanal?

Sank BB Kirishima with a surprise in the middle of the night, and stopped the last real attempt of the Japanese to neutralize Henderson Field.

USS_Washington_(BB-56)_off_New_York_City

USS_Washington_(BB-56)_firing_during_the

Washington as she's attacking Kirishima.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377
[ONAVY]
[ONAVY]
Members
706 posts
16,239 battles

I limited my op to the naming of the ship in the class being developed, not the class of BB. But thanks for reading and replying. Do have an opinion of the name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,779
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
30,876 posts
25,982 battles

To me it doesn't matter anymore with the USN Standard BBs.  The only one that had meaning was California, because she was built in my hometown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,532
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,504 posts
6,372 battles

Because Nevada is the lead ship of the class and must be saved for tech tree use until WG is sure they won't use it in the tech tree.  Note that Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and South Dakota, class leads all, have not been added.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
675
[WOLF7]
Members
898 posts

The Arizona is in game. The Oklahoma had a similar impact in WW II as did Arizona. The impact was that the deaths of the men aboard helped to galvanize the country's response to Japanese aggression. Numerous USN ships were named after Oklahoma sailors and one man was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor and another the Navy Cross for their actions during the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

"More than two years after its sinking, the Oklahoma was pried from the bottom of the harbor and turned right side up. Of the hundreds of bodies on board, only 35 could be positively identified. The rest were buried nearby in a mass grave at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, where they lay in 61 caskets beneath headstones declaring the identities of the bodies within “Unknown.” There they intermingled in the Hawaiian soil for nearly three-quarters of a century."

https://www.405magazine.com/not-forgotten-and-gone-the-fate-of-the-battleship-oklahoma/

https://oklahoman.com/article/2982272/sailors-still-remember-uss-oklahoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
675
[WOLF7]
Members
898 posts
18 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Because Nevada is the lead ship of the class and must be saved for tech tree use until WG is sure they won't use it in the tech tree.  Note that Nevada, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and South Dakota, class leads all, have not been added.

I'd like to see (the real) USS Florida added as a Tier 3 premium. Not gonna happen, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Florida_(BB-30)

Edited by HamAndCheez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,630
[PVE]
Members
8,500 posts
24,587 battles
39 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Why any of those...

Because Nevada's achievements are also noteworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,263
[SALVO]
Members
8,212 posts
6,098 battles

You can sell Oklahoma and later have a nice chance of profit by selling Nevada. 

If you sell Nevada first, why would anyone be interested in Oklahoma if they already have Nevada?

Oklahoma first, then Nevada is the sensible business choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,060
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,613 posts
13,182 battles

Oklahoma can easily fit at tier 5, in her final configuration. She looks like she could be a tier 5 Arizona (slow, good guns, limited AA, and should be really tanky)

Nevada, in her final configuration, is a really strange beast, tier 7 AA/secondaries, with solid tier 5 guns, and tier 4 or 5 speed. Armor could range from tier 5 to tier 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,107
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,829 battles
1 hour ago, Willy55_1955 said:

What do YOU think?

I think this ....

The Russians had the worlds worst excuse for a Navy during WW2, and actually, ever since the revolution of 1917. Their ships were not well put together, quality control being two words never used in the same sentence. Their ships were horribly maintained, to the point that when some western nations got theirs back after lending them to the Russians they just went ahead and scrapped them rather than fix them. Their training was so poor as to be a joke, with many of their sailors being unable to even read the written directions they were given. And their morale was so poor that they needed political officers aboard every ship so their crews didn't defect wholesale at any and every foreign port they sailed into.

Yet in the game, their ships are fast, with very good guns firing very good ammo, and they have things like radar no Russian ship ever saw during WW2. In fact, they have the best radar. 

So, with everything else from reality turned totally upside down in the game, why does it surprise you that their choice of USN ships shouldn't reflect the same attitude.

Nevada; good ship with solid combat history .... NO! Oklahoma, ignominiously sunk at Pearl Harbor without doing much of anything to contribute to the war effort ... YES!

You have to understand who you're dealing with.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,692
[WOLFG]
Members
12,612 posts
11,708 battles
59 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Oklahoma can easily fit at tier 5, in her final configuration. She looks like she could be a tier 5 Arizona (slow, good guns, limited AA, and should be really tanky)

Nevada, in her final configuration, is a really strange beast, tier 7 AA/secondaries, with solid tier 5 guns, and tier 4 or 5 speed. Armor could range from tier 5 to tier 7.

This.  If they don't add any more tech tree ships, can put out Nevada in the post Pearl Harbor refit form a tier higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,060
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,613 posts
13,182 battles
1 hour ago, DrHolmes52 said:

This.  If they don't add any more tech tree ships, can put out Nevada in the post Pearl Harbor refit form a tier higher.

I was thinking more along the lines of Oklahoma looks like a proven combination that's been dropped a tier, so it should be easy to get a nicely balanced ship. After all, crap AA, but can't see tier 8 CV's.  

As a tier 6, a refitted Nevada could see tier 8 CV's, which wouldn't be bad with the late war AA suite, but at best she's only 20.5 knots and down two barrels from Arizona. So you get in a match where a CV doesn't come after you, or just isn't there at all, and now you're really a tier 5 ship that doesn't get the benefits of being a tier down. Arizona, even if the AA isn't good, and her speed stinks, always has her dozen very nice guns.

If WG did a Dec41' Nevada, then we'd just do another lap around the same road that WG just did with West Virginia, why didn't we get the 1944 version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9 posts
289 battles
5 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Oklahoma was, unfortunately, the only BB to roll over and sink (whereas Arizona blew up). It was salvaged but declared unrepairable and made no contribution during WWII. Nevada, on the other hand, was the only BB to get underway and try to sortie from the harbor. It was the first heavily damaged BB back in action after the Pearl Harbor attack. It garnered 7 battle stars during the war.

Nevada had a number of 'firsts' amongst US BBs:

1. First US BB to have triple gun turrets.

2. First to have an oil-fired steam power plant.

3. First to have geared turbines.

4. First to have the "all-or-nothing" armor scheme.

5. First of the US Navy's "Standard" type battleships.

I can't figure out why they would choose a ship with no impact in WWII over a ship that not only fought and survived the war, but also two atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll.

Oklahoma capsized:

image

Nevada under power attempting sortie from harbor:

W-Dec18-Nevada-6.jpg

I would be honored to have Nevada, the lead ship of its class and battle veteran, in my port, not so much the Oklahoma.

 

What do YOU think?

Oklahoma is gonna be a premium right? If so then Nevada will probably be in the line itself.

That said OK is my home state so I am totally cool with it lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,939
[SYN]
Members
9,029 posts
16,295 battles

I'm pretty dubious on Nevada being in the tech tree as a branch, WG have just announced a split, and it has slow battleships, but only from T8 and up. It would be odd to flesh it out lower, and a 3rd branch seems odd. I'm also not quite sure what the point is. People seem to want a every single battleship the US ever built, but some are much less interesting than others.

Nevada is certainly a more deserving premium, but WG might just be planning to implement her separately later. Nevada's rebuild condition is probably about a T6, and plenty of precedence for up-tiering the rebuilds over the non. I suspect WG wanted a premium to give away with the line - like Genova, London, Mikoyan etc. - but not a T6 battleship, too generous.

 

Overall it is a bit perplexing, but WG has made far more strange premium ship choices before. It's a shame Nevada's not announced and that this announcement of Oklahoma probably pushes her back, but there are lots of deserving ships that get passed by.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,003
[REVY]
Members
2,824 posts
15,037 battles
15 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

I would be honored to have Nevada, the lead ship of its class and battle veteran, in my port, not so much the Oklahoma.

 

What do YOU think?

Would we get the '41 Nevada or the '44/'45 Nevada?

 

This is WG and when we asked for the '44 West Virginia they gave us '41.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
804 posts

I for one am glad to see the Oklahoma, ive asked for it for years.  I live in Oklahoma and at our mall here in town is a war memorial with a 6ft long scale model of the USS Oklahoma.  She didnt fight but she was important like the Arizona was, they were both lost due to Pearl Harbor and thus have a historical impact.   The Nevada should be used for either tech tree or a T6 premium with a updated end of war refit.  Think of the Nevada like a war refit of Arizona  she could have good AA when Arizona has none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,201
[TDRB]
Members
5,313 posts
13,743 battles
Quote

I can't figure out why they would choose a ship with no impact in WWII over a ship that not only fought and survived the war, but also two atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll.

WG seems to pick a lot of ships that were sunk in WW2 for the game. A quick check produced 13 of the British ships in this game were sunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[NBNG]
Beta Testers
1,586 posts
4,655 battles

I think Nevada could be a nice Tier 6 but with the Mass secondary build route. We have the Tier 8-10 in that avenue, it would be nice to get a tier 6 & 7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,064
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
4,324 posts
12,949 battles
15 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

I limited my op to the naming of the ship in the class being developed, not the class of BB. But thanks for reading and replying. Do have an opinion of the name?

This isn't true for Atlanta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,073
[SALVO]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,352 posts
6,951 battles

We will probably see Nevada as a Tier 6 with a full refit. I see a pattern here, Wargaming likes to uptier Pearl Harbor refit ships. Granted if that is the case, we SHOULD see WeeVee 44 as a Tier 7. 

[ img ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[XXX]
Members
663 posts
1,658 battles
58 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

WG seems to pick a lot of ships that were sunk in WW2 for the game. A quick check produced 13 of the British ships in this game were sunk.

Apart from Good Old Warspite. Survived two world wars, I think she, and her class, absorbed most of the luck of the RN considering they were hilariously outdated by the time WW2 came around but only 1 was lost to being sunk by U-boats. Meanwhile the Hood exploded, The Nelson and Rodney didn't sink.

I'm curious which ones were sunk, I know a lot of the Lead ships in the CL and CA line that exactly existed were sunk, especially the tiers 3-5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
748
[USN]
Members
1,632 posts
21,092 battles
7 minutes ago, Yandere_Roon said:

I'm curious which ones were sunk, I know a lot of the Lead ships in the CL and CA line that exactly existed were sunk, especially the tiers 3-5.

Hood, Edinburgh, Fiji, Valkyrie, Gallant, Cossack, Acasta, Cambletown*, Wakeful I think, and including Commonwealth ships, Perth and Vampire.
 

*: Look up Operation Chariot in case you’ve never heard of it

Edited by tfcas119

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,317 posts
5 minutes ago, tfcas119 said:

Hood, Edinburgh, Fiji, Valkyrie, Gallant, Cossack, Acasta, Cambletown*, Wakeful I think, and including Commonwealth ships, Perth and Vampire.
  

*: Look up Operation Chariot in case you’ve never heard of it

Valkyrie wasn't lost, she was sold for scrap in 1936.

To put together a complete list of Royal Navy ships represented in-game that were lost in action you'd get:

Destroyers: Campbeltown (intentional), Wakeful, Acasta, Gallant, Lightning and Cossack.

Cruisers: Exeter, Fiji and Edinburgh.

Battleships: Hood.

Aircraft Carriers: Hermes and Ark Royal. 

Including Commonwealth losses you also have Vampire and Perth, as you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×