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

Pan-American Battleships?

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

34
[NFA]
Members
47 posts
4,617 battles

Thought I might take a shot at some sort of Pan-American BB line

This line should be similar to the Pan-Asian DD line as the ships themselves weren't built by the specified countries but by companies based out of super power countries like Vickers or Fore River.

So, these are my thoughts:

 

Tier III

Minas Geraes - Builders, Armstrong Whitworth

MINAS GERAIS battleships (1910)

Main Guns

(6x2) EOC 12-inch 45-calibre naval guns

34 sec reload / 1.76 rpm

13 km firing range

60 sec 180° turret traverse

Secondary Guns

(22x1) 4.7-inch 50-calibre guns

6 sec reload / 10 rpm

3 km range

Main Belt

9 inches

Maneuverability

21 kts

11.8 sec rudder shift

Detectability

13.3 km sea

7.9 km air

Consumables

Damage Control Party 

Ship Repair

At completion Minas Geraes was the most powerful battleship in the world, outclassing both the Dreadnought and South Carolina battleships. For this reason she would make an excellent pick for the T3 Pan-American BB Line.

 

Tier IV

Rivadavia - Builders, Fore River Company

Index of /Armada Argentina/Buques1900a1970/Acorazados/Moreno

Main Guns

(6x2) 12-inch 45-calibre naval guns

30 sec reload / 2 rpm

14.4 km firing range

45 sec 180° turret traverse

Secondary Guns

(12x1) 6"/50 caliber gun

10 sec reload / 6 rpm

3.5 km range

Main Belt

12 inches

Maneuverability

22.5 kts

15.3 sec rudder shift

Detectability

14.1 km sea

7.7 km air

Consumables

Damage Control Party 

Ship Repair

Rivadavia retains the same armament as Minas Geraes mounting 12 inch guns in 6 double barrels. Built by the Americans, her play style in WoWs would be similar to that of Wyomings.

 

Tier V

Almirante Latorre - Builders, Armstrong Whitworth

Armada de Chile - The Chilean Navy in WW2

Main Guns

(5x2) EOC 14-inch 45-calibre naval gun

30 sec reload / 2 rpm

15.4 km firing range

56 sec 180° turret traverse

Secondary Guns

(16x1) BL 6-inch Mk XIII naval gun

10 sec reload / 6 rpm

3.5 km range

Main Belt

9 inches

Maneuverability

22.7 kts

18.9 sec rudder shift

Detectability

14.9 km sea

8.2 km air

Consumables

Damage Control Party 

Ship Repair

Almirante Latorre makes a great pick for T5, she has the same gun layout and fire power as New York with a slightly better speed and downgraded armor. Very balanced.

 

Tier VI

Riachuelo - Queen Elizabeth for Brazil

 

 

Armstrong's proposals for Brazilian “Riachuelo” battleships ...WARSHIPSRESEARCH: Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes 1907-1954

 

Image on Top: Riachuelo as designed by Vickers in 1914

Image Below: Minas Geraes as modernized in 1936

Main Guns

(4x2) BL 15-inch Mk I naval gun

30 sec reload / 2 rpm

16.8 km firing range

60 sec 180° turret traverse

Secondary Guns

(10x1) BL 6-inch Mk XIII naval gun

10 sec reload / 6 rpm

4.5 km range

(10x2) QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XVI

3 sec reload / 20 rpm

4.5 km range

Main Belt

13.5 inches

Maneuverability

24.5 kts

17.9 sec rudder shift

Detectability

14.4 km sea

9.2 km air

Consumables

Damage Control Party 

Ship Repair

I figure the model added into WoWs would be a hybrid of the two designs above, Brazil would have done the job themselves as they did with both their Minas Geraes class battleships. This would give Riachuelo a single funnel, a tripod mast slanting aft wards, and a number of new secondary and AA guns.

 

Tier VII

Belem - Armstrong Whitworth Riachuelo Design Variant 

sistema-pugliese-da-dg-441.jpg

Main Guns

(5x2) BL 15-inch Mk I naval gun

32 sec reload / 1.87 rpm

16.1 km firing range

60 sec 180° turret traverse

Secondary Guns

(14x1) BL 6-inch Mk XIII naval gun

10 sec reload / 6 rpm

5 km range

(12x1) QF 4.7-inch Mk VIII naval gun

5 sec reload / 12 rpm

5 km range

Main Belt

13.5 inches

Maneuverability

24 kts

18.5 sec rudder shift

Detectability

15.4 km sea

10.1 km air

Consumables

Damage Control Party 

Ship Repair

Again with this ship, I figure it will be a fictional 1930s refit. With this firepower and armor, I think Belem would go toe to toe with Sinop.

 

 

 

Edited by jo_jo_nerd
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,325 battles

Things are kind of alright up to T7. T8-10 are disastrous. You are going with a WW1 ship with just 4x2 406mm guns at T8, there are several issues with that; insufficient displacement, insufficient deck space to mount decent AA, insufficient hull space to accommodate the 16"/50 Mk7 barbettes (same reason as to why the Colorados never received the North Carolina's guns). It is lacking in gunpower, hitpoints, AA and honestly you just created a frankenstein ship that doesn't make any kind of sense. If you're going to make up a ship, just make one up instead of saying that magic happens and a 1942 refit can accomplish all you've said.

The T9 shows poor progression from the T8 (you're going from 16" to 15" guns, something that WG is quite against), you've used WW1 cannons that already show sub-par performance at T6 and due to the size of the ship, I'm struggling to see why ANY person would've chosen those guns when even the Italians had already looked into switching them out in 1922. Furthermore, once again, if you're making up ships, make them up in a sensible manner please. The rest of the ship could be plausible, but as far as I can tell you've literally made the ship's design up. I'd be glad to be proven wrong though.

The T10... I've no words for it. Just having 4x2 16" guns is already lacking, and you've chosen to use a 1922 gun which actually has a weaker striking power than even the Colorado's modernized 16"/45s. I struggle to understand why you've deliberately chosen to grab old and crap guns for the top ships in the line when they were never under any consideration to arm any ships like you've done. You mention that those guns are "rail guns" with a velocity of 914m/s, but that's firing a 1920s shell that's only 954kg, so it will not have great penetration nor air drag coefficient and will lose speed very quickly. For comparison, the Superheavy shells fired by the Iowa's Mk7s are 1225kg and fire at 762m/s, and even the modernized Colorado's 16" fired a 1016kg shell at 768m/s. Don't count on those guns to do anything of note at T10.

 

Seriously. While up to T7 the line follows a decent progression, from T8 onwards it is a proper disaster, with T9 and T10 being particularly egregious as you've made up ships and even those made up ships make no sense from a design standpoint.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[CAZA]
[CAZA]
Alpha Tester
371 posts
14,824 battles

Hi.
I am happy about the interest in Latin American battleships, but the effort and creativity are still very limited. There are more developed presentations in the forum, you can use them to take content and apply new ideas or you can communicate with their creators to develop something as a team.
Regards

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NFA]
Members
47 posts
4,617 battles
17 hours ago, Fr05ty said:

Things are kind of alright up to T7. T8-10 are disastrous. You are going with a WW1 ship with just 4x2 406mm guns at T8, there are several issues with that; insufficient displacement, insufficient deck space to mount decent AA, insufficient hull space to accommodate the 16"/50 Mk7 barbettes (same reason as to why the Colorados never received the North Carolina's guns). It is lacking in gunpower, hitpoints, AA and honestly you just created a frankenstein ship that doesn't make any kind of sense. If you're going to make up a ship, just make one up instead of saying that magic happens and a 1942 refit can accomplish all you've said.

The T9 shows poor progression from the T8 (you're going from 16" to 15" guns, something that WG is quite against), you've used WW1 cannons that already show sub-par performance at T6 and due to the size of the ship, I'm struggling to see why ANY person would've chosen those guns when even the Italians had already looked into switching them out in 1922. Furthermore, once again, if you're making up ships, make them up in a sensible manner please. The rest of the ship could be plausible, but as far as I can tell you've literally made the ship's design up. I'd be glad to be proven wrong though.

The T10... I've no words for it. Just having 4x2 16" guns is already lacking, and you've chosen to use a 1922 gun which actually has a weaker striking power than even the Colorado's modernized 16"/45s. I struggle to understand why you've deliberately chosen to grab old and crap guns for the top ships in the line when they were never under any consideration to arm any ships like you've done. You mention that those guns are "rail guns" with a velocity of 914m/s, but that's firing a 1920s shell that's only 954kg, so it will not have great penetration nor air drag coefficient and will lose speed very quickly. For comparison, the Superheavy shells fired by the Iowa's Mk7s are 1225kg and fire at 762m/s, and even the modernized Colorado's 16" fired a 1016kg shell at 768m/s. Don't count on those guns to do anything of note at T10.

 

Seriously. While up to T7 the line follows a decent progression, from T8 onwards it is a proper disaster, with T9 and T10 being particularly egregious as you've made up ships and even those made up ships make no sense from a design standpoint.

You are quite incorrect on a number of things here, I am going to start with wargaming being against going from 16 to 15 inches, just take a look at the British Battleship line where it goes from queen elizabeth to KGV 15 to 14 inch guns. Also the reason i chose to replace the 16 inch guns from the design proposal is because the americans had done some impressive things before, take the battleship West Virginia for example, the ship ws widened by nearly 40 feet to accommodate the extra AA guns and secondaries, my refit of Brasilia would not be that tough. As for the t9, the ships armament are fictional but the hull design of the ship was not. It was a design for Argentina in 1936 but never made any progress. And for the T10 ship, its just as real as the Conqueror, some could argue that "uh well its a super lion proposal" ok sure, then this is just a variant of the Montana Preliminary design.  You are also wrong about the date in which the 16"/56 calibers were produced, it was 1927 not 1922. And the performance of these guns were proven to be superior to the 18"/48 calibers that will be set up on the upcoming battleship Vermont. The design could be shifted to mount a (2x2)(2x3) setup but that would simply be too powerful and you would start complaining about that. Wargaming takes in no account of shell weight against performance so that argument is also invalid. Almirante Cochrane's guns would have great penetration angles but weaker damage. And I still dont understand why you are so bent out of shape over the T8, the idea is identical to California. Had it been heavily rebuilt like California it would weigh significantly more resulting in it being able to mount the large guns, have more engine space, better torpedo protection, and much more AA and secondary guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,325 battles
1 hour ago, jo_jo_nerd said:

You are quite incorrect on a number of things here, I am going to start with wargaming being against going from 16 to 15 inches, just take a look at the British Battleship line where it goes from queen elizabeth to KGV 15 to 14 inch guns. Also the reason i chose to replace the 16 inch guns from the design proposal is because the americans had done some impressive things before, take the battleship West Virginia for example, the ship ws widened by nearly 40 feet to accommodate the extra AA guns and secondaries, my refit of Brasilia would not be that tough. As for the t9, the ships armament are fictional but the hull design of the ship was not. It was a design for Argentina in 1936 but never made any progress. And for the T10 ship, its just as real as the Conqueror, some could argue that "uh well its a super lion proposal" ok sure, then this is just a variant of the Montana Preliminary design.  You are also wrong about the date in which the 16"/56 calibers were produced, it was 1927 not 1922. And the performance of these guns were proven to be superior to the 18"/48 calibers that will be set up on the upcoming battleship Vermont. The design could be shifted to mount a (2x2)(2x3) setup but that would simply be too powerful and you would start complaining about that. Wargaming takes in no account of shell weight against performance so that argument is also invalid. Almirante Cochrane's guns would have great penetration angles but weaker damage. And I still dont understand why you are so bent out of shape over the T8, the idea is identical to California. Had it been heavily rebuilt like California it would weigh significantly more resulting in it being able to mount the large guns, have more engine space, better torpedo protection, and much more AA and secondary guns.

Well, let's see what your points are:

1. Yes, I am aware that the British battleship line goes from 15"->14"->15". WG however has stated that they're reluctant to do such a thing again, and the other line which had a similar progression (soviet cruisers) has had that issue rectified (by replacing the Kirov so as to not go from 180mm to 152mm guns).
2. The West Virginia got an extra 40ft in beam, and a corresponding reduction in speed. You've however gone with a design that was meant to do ~23kts, increased its speed to 28.5kts, added 6x2 127mm DP guns, changed the main battery and their barbettes and still consider that to be realistic. If you're increasing the beam by 40ft like the West Virginia, good luck getting a powerplant capable of doing 28.5kts inside of a ship that also now has massive barbettes. How you manage to accommodate all this? It's a mystery, since even the USN couldn't manage it in even their largest reconstructions. The issue with all this is that you've decided to improve ALL parameters of a ship massively. Should you have just improved speed to 25kts, it might be doable, but changing from 23kts to 28.5kts while also dedicating so much internal space to larger barbettes (which therefore limits the size of your citadel for placement of machinery) and widening the ship to increase deck space is impossible in real terms.
3. The ship's armament is not fictional. Those guns existed and were already considered to be poor in 1920 (consider that they're even worse than the 15" used by the Queen Elizabeth) which is why Vickers was designing a 381mm/45 gun already in 1922 for the Italian Navy. If the design was made for Argentina in 1936 (even if it's the hull), I'd love to see your source for it, since it doesn't show up in any of the declassified documents from the Argentine Navy. I'll await your source, and if possible a picture of it. If indeed the ship was from 1936 and Italian, why is it not using the 381mm/50 guns used by the Roma?
4. WG does take into account shell weight against performance. In fact, shell weight and muzzle velocity determine damage for AP shells, while penetration of a shell is determined by the shell's mass, velocity at the time of striking and the shell's Krupp value. For clear examples of this, compare the 16" shells from Colorado and Iowa (muzzle velocity is quite similar, but shell mass is quite different), you'll see a big difference in AP shell damage and their penetration characteristics. The issue is that the guns that you've selected (and forgive me for saying 1922 instead of 1927, the shells however used were from before 1920 and thus pretty crap) have lacklustre performance and were never considered to be better individually than the 18" guns. The consideration was that for the small improvement in performance gained from going from 16" to 18", the mass and size for the weapon increased so much that the number of cannons you could place in a ship was reduced. The 16"/50 used by the Iowa is a lot more powerful than the 16"/56s you've used. You could even make it 4x3 with the 16"/56 guns, and it will still be a lot weaker than the Montana and other ships at T10. The issue is that you've consistently chosen poor guns at T9-10 and for the T10 in particular, you've also given it too few guns.

You've got several misconceptions about how WG comes up with the numbers for their game, which are things that others (like me) have spent years studying. It's gotten to the point that I derived formulas to get all those numbers and they're rather accurate. In fact, a lot of people use my formulas in these very forums to find out in-game values of weapons and ships, so I know what WG uses to find out gun performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NFA]
Members
47 posts
4,617 battles
46 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

Well, let's see what your points are:

1. Yes, I am aware that the British battleship line goes from 15"->14"->15". WG however has stated that they're reluctant to do such a thing again, and the other line which had a similar progression (soviet cruisers) has had that issue rectified (by replacing the Kirov so as to not go from 180mm to 152mm guns).
2. The West Virginia got an extra 40ft in beam, and a corresponding reduction in speed. You've however gone with a design that was meant to do ~23kts, increased its speed to 28.5kts, added 6x2 127mm DP guns, changed the main battery and their barbettes and still consider that to be realistic. If you're increasing the beam by 40ft like the West Virginia, good luck getting a powerplant capable of doing 28.5kts inside of a ship that also now has massive barbettes. How you manage to accommodate all this? It's a mystery, since even the USN couldn't manage it in even their largest reconstructions. The issue with all this is that you've decided to improve ALL parameters of a ship massively. Should you have just improved speed to 25kts, it might be doable, but changing from 23kts to 28.5kts while also dedicating so much internal space to larger barbettes (which therefore limits the size of your citadel for placement of machinery) and widening the ship to increase deck space is impossible in real terms.
3. The ship's armament is not fictional. Those guns existed and were already considered to be poor in 1920 (consider that they're even worse than the 15" used by the Queen Elizabeth) which is why Vickers was designing a 381mm/45 gun already in 1922 for the Italian Navy. If the design was made for Argentina in 1936 (even if it's the hull), I'd love to see your source for it, since it doesn't show up in any of the declassified documents from the Argentine Navy. I'll await your source, and if possible a picture of it. If indeed the ship was from 1936 and Italian, why is it not using the 381mm/50 guns used by the Roma?
4. WG does take into account shell weight against performance. In fact, shell weight and muzzle velocity determine damage for AP shells, while penetration of a shell is determined by the shell's mass, velocity at the time of striking and the shell's Krupp value. For clear examples of this, compare the 16" shells from Colorado and Iowa (muzzle velocity is quite similar, but shell mass is quite different), you'll see a big difference in AP shell damage and their penetration characteristics. The issue is that the guns that you've selected (and forgive me for saying 1922 instead of 1927, the shells however used were from before 1920 and thus pretty crap) have lacklustre performance and were never considered to be better individually than the 18" guns. The consideration was that for the small improvement in performance gained from going from 16" to 18", the mass and size for the weapon increased so much that the number of cannons you could place in a ship was reduced. The 16"/50 used by the Iowa is a lot more powerful than the 16"/56s you've used. You could even make it 4x3 with the 16"/56 guns, and it will still be a lot weaker than the Montana and other ships at T10. The issue is that you've consistently chosen poor guns at T9-10 and for the T10 in particular, you've also given it too few guns.

You've got several misconceptions about how WG comes up with the numbers for their game, which are things that others (like me) have spent years studying. It's gotten to the point that I derived formulas to get all those numbers and they're rather accurate. In fact, a lot of people use my formulas in these very forums to find out in-game values of weapons and ships, so I know what WG uses to find out gun performance.

Wargaming seems to enjoy letting unrealistic things slide, take for example the design for battleship Sinop, the ship in game is a fictional modernization of a 1916 Baltic fleet design in which the ship is apparently modernized to travel 2.5 kts faster than originally designed, along with carrying a heavier armor belt and a raised barbette, something the original design never had. Completely fictional modernizations like this are nothing new to Wargaming. And also West Virginia was capable of going 21 knots after her reconstruction in 1944 although traveling at 18.5 was much smarter because of how fuel was consumed by the engine, 10 knots being the most efficient, 21 knots being monstrous consumption and 18.5 knots also being surprisingly efficient.

The reconstruction very well could have increased the speed as the Italians did with their Conte Di Cavour Class battleships, the Americans would have been very capable of rebuilding a ship like that. I know that an entire gun was removed to accommodate extra engine space but the final weight was heavier than the original design anyway. Sure it would be a stretch to go from 24.5 to 28.5 but entirely possible in real life let alone WoWs which defies many aspects of reconstruction. 

As for the 1936 Italian battleship hull for Argentina you can find a description in Jane's Fighting Ships 1937, although there is no image.

As for Wargaming taking shell weight and density into account. They do not. There are a number of inaccuracies in WoWs and I will start with the guns of Scharnhorst, the 11"/55s had a belt penetration of 11.5 inches at 20,000 yards while the KGVs 14"/45s penetration was 11.2 inches at 20,000 yards. This is not demonstrated in WoWs. The fact that Colorado's penetration is less than Iowa's is a matter of balance within the game and has nothing to do with weight. 

The reason I chose the 381/40s for Cordoba, its a matter of balance, if Cordoba had Roma's guns she would not be a fun ship to play against. And the 16"/56 rifles have a heavier weight and higher velocity than Slava's guns. And on that note, there is another example of how wargaming does not take into account weight into penetration. Almirante Cochrane would have higher performance guns than Slava but less of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,325 battles
7 minutes ago, jo_jo_nerd said:

Wargaming seems to enjoy letting unrealistic things slide, take for example the design for battleship Sinop, the ship in game is a fictional modernization of a 1916 Baltic fleet design in which the ship is apparently modernized to travel 2.5 kts faster than originally designed, along with carrying a heavier armor belt and a raised barbette, something the original design never had. Completely fictional modernizations like this are nothing new to Wargaming. And also West Virginia was capable of going 21 knots after her reconstruction in 1944 although traveling at 18.5 was much smarter because of how fuel was consumed by the engine, 10 knots being the most efficient, 21 knots being monstrous consumption and 18.5 knots also being surprisingly efficient.

The reconstruction very well could have increased the speed as the Italians did with their Conte Di Cavour Class battleships, the Americans would have been very capable of rebuilding a ship like that. I know that an entire gun was removed to accommodate extra engine space but the final weight was heavier than the original design anyway. Sure it would be a stretch to go from 24.5 to 28.5 but entirely possible in real life let alone WoWs which defies many aspects of reconstruction. 

As for the 1936 Italian battleship hull for Argentina you can find a description in Jane's Fighting Ships 1937, although there is no image.

As for Wargaming taking shell weight and density into account. They do not. There are a number of inaccuracies in WoWs and I will start with the guns of Scharnhorst, the 11"/55s had a belt penetration of 11.5 inches at 20,000 yards while the KGVs 14"/45s penetration was 11.2 inches at 20,000 yards. This is not demonstrated in WoWs. The fact that Colorado's penetration is less than Iowa's is a matter of balance within the game and has nothing to do with weight. 

The reason I chose the 381/40s for Cordoba, its a matter of balance, if Cordoba had Roma's guns she would not be a fun ship to play against. And the 16"/56 rifles have a heavier weight and higher velocity than Slava's guns. And on that note, there is another example of how wargaming does not take into account weight into penetration. Almirante Cochrane would have higher performance guns than Slava but less of them.

So you're proposing a reconstruction like the Italians did, which was making the ships quite a fair bit longer to get them to that speed. You're asking for the ship to be both widened, lengthened, reconstructed pretty much fully to the point that it no longer is the ship you're starting from. In fact, according to the Italians, for the cost of what you're proposing, it is cheaper to just build a new battleship instead of doing the reconstruction you suggest. It is possible by widening and lengthening the ship, but considering all that, you might as well build a new ship.

Wargaming do take shell weight and density into account, the issue with many weapons is that there is no easy way to compare their penetration performance, so WG then does what they want. Or they change performance due to balance, which is what they did regarding KGV.  Colorado's penetration is less than Iowa in game because the Iowa's shell is more massive and has a better krupp value, which means that even though the shell itself is less aerodynamic, it will still penetrate a lot more once it hits, just like it was designed to do in real life.

Like I said before, the 381/40s are absolutely crap. They are not even good at T6, and yet you want them to be at T9. I'm assuming you don't own the Roma, else you wouldn't say that her guns are overpowered. While they have excellent penetration, that also means that they are very prone to overpenetrations and thus don't do quite as well as you'd hope in the game. Stop playing around with the 381/40s as NO ship apart from the Caracciolos would've used them.

The Slava's guns are a lie. They have an unusually high Krupp value and ridiculously low air drag coefficient. That's why they're so good, and that's purely on Wargaming doing making up stuff just on a whim. You shouldn't do the same practices that Wargaming does with their Soviet ships, there's a reason why people complain of soviet bias... We used to have the same shell that you want to use on the 16"/56s in the game before (on the now defunct Colorado A hull), and those shells had terrible penetration (as befits a WW1 era shell). Seriously, stop with the idea that 4x2 16"/56 guns firing shells from WW1 are appropriate for T10. The only thing that'd work out is if you did Wargaming magic and made the shell have no air drag and have ridiculously high krupp, though you'd still have very low DPM as your shells would have ~12500 damage.

In which page is the 1936 Argentine design description? Because I can't find it in Jane's Fighting Ships 1937.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[CAZA]
[CAZA]
Alpha Tester
371 posts
14,824 battles

Wargaming is a video game company but its goal is to make a profit. For that they need Wows to be a coherent and cohesive game, even with the unfortunate errors of its mechanics or volunteers with certain implementations. All the above you can learn from Frosty.


Regarding the history, my favorite place, or you have some information confused or you are lying. Allow me to clarify these details to you and any reader:

48 minutes ago, jo_jo_nerd said:

As for the 1936 Italian battleship hull for Argentina you can find a description in Jane's Fighting Ships 1937, although there is no image.

There is no mention of that ship in "Jane's Fighting Ships 1937" McMurtrie, F.E., 1937.

Fw5j0sL.jpg

Not in the Argentina section (page 112).

DdayuDu.jpg

And not in the Italy section (page 265).

48 minutes ago, jo_jo_nerd said:

The reason I chose the 381/40s for Cordoba, its a matter of balance, if Cordoba had Roma's guns she would not be a fun ship to play against. And the 16"/56 rifles have a heavier weight and higher velocity than Slava's guns. And on that note, there is another example of how wargaming does not take into account weight into penetration. 

What is certain is that Argentina tried to buy the Caracciolo in 1920, that considered buying a battleship from Germany in 1937 and build a battleship similar to the Littorio circa 1943. But you do not mention this, probably because you have not investigated and you have only proposed to throw inaccurate ideas with the mixture between the battleships.

Sadly your proposal has no foundation. Let me help you with the Argentine-Littorio: https://reportedebatalla.wordpress.com/2020/05/30/argentina-y-su-deseado-acorazado-de-37000-toneladas/?fbclid=IwAR3SPRQHFQvplbRKq5ZDYLVr6S8vooChKhaceZ-yxnXb31IRy5XYu0MZMl8 .

48 minutes ago, jo_jo_nerd said:

Almirante Cochrane would have higher performance guns than Slava but less of them.

Another fake ship. There is no need to lie. The need is in research.

 

Unfortunately, it is another topic that misinforms the community.

Edited by COLDOWN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
482
[FALCO]
Alpha Tester
1,048 posts
9,736 battles
1 hour ago, jo_jo_nerd said:

As for the 1936 Italian battleship hull for Argentina you can find a description in Jane's Fighting Ships 1937, although there is no image.

Maybe you could take a look at this topic for a reference:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,435 posts
1,863 battles

There is a book-titled Battleships, though I forget which author-with many Pan-American preliminary designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[CAZA]
[CAZA]
Alpha Tester
371 posts
14,824 battles
43 minutes ago, black_hull4 said:

There is a book-titled Battleships, though I forget which author-with many Pan-American preliminary designs.

Friedman, N. - 2015 - British Battleship. 1906-1946?

Sadly all those designs can't reach an standard tier VII in Wows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NFA]
Members
47 posts
4,617 battles
2 hours ago, Fr05ty said:

So you're proposing a reconstruction like the Italians did, which was making the ships quite a fair bit longer to get them to that speed. You're asking for the ship to be both widened, lengthened, reconstructed pretty much fully to the point that it no longer is the ship you're starting from. In fact, according to the Italians, for the cost of what you're proposing, it is cheaper to just build a new battleship instead of doing the reconstruction you suggest. It is possible by widening and lengthening the ship, but considering all that, you might as well build a new ship.

Wargaming do take shell weight and density into account, the issue with many weapons is that there is no easy way to compare their penetration performance, so WG then does what they want. Or they change performance due to balance, which is what they did regarding KGV.  Colorado's penetration is less than Iowa in game because the Iowa's shell is more massive and has a better krupp value, which means that even though the shell itself is less aerodynamic, it will still penetrate a lot more once it hits, just like it was designed to do in real life.

Like I said before, the 381/40s are absolutely crap. They are not even good at T6, and yet you want them to be at T9. I'm assuming you don't own the Roma, else you wouldn't say that her guns are overpowered. While they have excellent penetration, that also means that they are very prone to overpenetrations and thus don't do quite as well as you'd hope in the game. Stop playing around with the 381/40s as NO ship apart from the Caracciolos would've used them.

The Slava's guns are a lie. They have an unusually high Krupp value and ridiculously low air drag coefficient. That's why they're so good, and that's purely on Wargaming doing making up stuff just on a whim. You shouldn't do the same practices that Wargaming does with their Soviet ships, there's a reason why people complain of soviet bias... We used to have the same shell that you want to use on the 16"/56s in the game before (on the now defunct Colorado A hull), and those shells had terrible penetration (as befits a WW1 era shell). Seriously, stop with the idea that 4x2 16"/56 guns firing shells from WW1 are appropriate for T10. The only thing that'd work out is if you did Wargaming magic and made the shell have no air drag and have ridiculously high krupp, though you'd still have very low DPM as your shells would have ~12500 damage.

In which page is the 1936 Argentine design description? Because I can't find it in Jane's Fighting Ships 1937.

That is funny, it would be easier to build a new ship but there is no other design for a T8 ship so I'm stumped on that one. 

And with that note on KGV, they could just tweak the shells performance for Almirante Cochrane and give her a stupidly good penetration angles. Also, I do have Roma and I am very impressed with her guns, although the amount of overpens i get against cruisers is insane, I do enjoy hitting battleships with them when my dispersion isn't trolling me. But I would say that 12 of them on a t9 Ship would be problematic. Sorry that I offended you with the 16"/56s, I just thought it would be a unique design layout something that is new to world of warships, and personally I'd say if they were given Tallinn's or Petropavlosk's penetration that she would fit in fairly.

I'm fairly sure it's in Janes Fighting Ships 1937. I was looking through my uncles book a couple of years ago. Try checking 1936, 38, and 39. 

And if you can, try to find the K-1000 Soviet Battleship design, probably in between the 1949 and 1955 editions and send me an image please. I have always wanted to see what that looked like. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NFA]
Members
47 posts
4,617 battles
2 hours ago, BrunoSchezer said:

Maybe you could take a look at this topic for a reference:

 

Maybe it was that design but I remember only reading about the hull, there was no information on the main guns or secondary weapons. So with Cordoba I just filled in the blanks that it left out, giving her twelve 15 inch guns (which is completely fictional), fictional speed and secondary armament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NFA]
Members
47 posts
4,617 battles
3 hours ago, COLDOWN said:

Wargaming is a video game company but its goal is to make a profit. For that they need Wows to be a coherent and cohesive game, even with the unfortunate errors of its mechanics or volunteers with certain implementations. All the above you can learn from Frosty.


Regarding the history, my favorite place, or you have some information confused or you are lying. Allow me to clarify these details to you and any reader:

There is no mention of that ship in "Jane's Fighting Ships 1937" McMurtrie, F.E., 1937.

Fw5j0sL.jpg

Not in the Argentina section (page 112).

DdayuDu.jpg

And not in the Italy section (page 265).

What is certain is that Argentina tried to buy the Caracciolo in 1920, that considered buying a battleship from Germany in 1937 and build a battleship similar to the Littorio circa 1943. But you do not mention this, probably because you have not investigated and you have only proposed to throw inaccurate ideas with the mixture between the battleships.

Sadly your proposal has no foundation. Let me help you with the Argentine-Littorio: https://reportedebatalla.wordpress.com/2020/05/30/argentina-y-su-deseado-acorazado-de-37000-toneladas/?fbclid=IwAR3SPRQHFQvplbRKq5ZDYLVr6S8vooChKhaceZ-yxnXb31IRy5XYu0MZMl8 .

Another fake ship. There is no need to lie. The need is in research.

 

Unfortunately, it is another topic that misinforms the community.

Yes I know about that design, and I'm sorry about making up the main and secondary armament, I just figured if wargaming can make up entire warships in the actual game, then I can make up the armament on a proposal

Edited by jo_jo_nerd
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,435 posts
1,863 battles
13 hours ago, COLDOWN said:

Friedman, N. - 2015 - British Battleship. 1906-1946?

Sadly all those designs can't reach an standard tier VII in Wows.

Nah, it went back to when you still had sails on turret ships.

I did see some neat designs like 14 twelve-inchers or 12 fifteen inchers. But they would need to be modified for AA at tier 10. Closest I ever saw was a planned modernization for Rio de Janeiro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,155
[FURIA]
WoWS Community Contributors
2,088 posts
6,344 battles

I agree with your proposal except for the high tiers. As it had been told. 

Yet some clarifications are in order.

3. Minas Gerais. Excelent ship in the tier. She had numerous upgrades in her life. Specially AA. But may be we should avoid all the AA she recieve because she could get a tiny Overpowered in tier 3. By the way did you change this fancy camouflage?

Color3.jpg

 

4. Rivadavia. Another strong candidate for the tier. But be carefull with assuming to be a tipical american battleship. Her armour scheme is closest to german practice. She had a 75mm turtleback behind her armour belt. And after that she had another 75mm wall protecting the citadel. Is quite the opposite of the all-or-nothing armor scheme that the american used. Actually his armor may be too god for the tier. 

5. Latorre. She is like the opposite of Rivadavia. She carry a nice punch but her armour may by to thin. May be she will need a buff. Did you check the upgrades proposed after ww2?

6. Riachuelo. Back to the armour. A really beefy ship. Everybody liked warspite. Well Riachuelo is like an extreme Warspite. With his pros enhanced and with flaws also enhanced.

7. Belem is a good proposal. Not sure if she won't need a little buff. May be a couple of knots on speed.

8. This I don't agree. You are streching too much those 1914 design. I think is better to use them as a tier 7 premiun. The shells are not adecuate for tier 8. Besides you said you enjoy Roma. So why not use the Gonzales request of 1943? Is almost like a Roma except for the secondarie and AA. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[C_NT]
Members
960 posts
2,477 battles

When you mentioned you'd be doing this was curious how. There just weren't major paper designs after Riachuelo and even at the lower tiers the Argentines and Chileans just had one class of BB's because they really didn't need more cause their navies outside of that were better than Brazil's whose BB's were pretty much the only powerful ships they had. You really stretching here using the Riachuelo for three tiers. With Euros(which you also mentioned you'd be doing) you got enough ships issue is they all are in that same tier range as minor European navies weren't really looking into capital ships in that era except for the Project 1047's(which per WG precedent would be considered cruisers along with her would be peers). But with Pan-America there just weren't enough ships, BB building was a phase that lasted less than a decade during the dreadnought era. 

Were the Cordoba(seems this was real looking through the thread) and Almirante Cochrane projects that were actually considered? Even if the Cochrane was real paper I do not think 8 16 inch guns is adequate for a T10 BB regardless though the rest of the stats seem to compensate for that. 

One ship you missed that could be a premium is the Rio de Janeiro which initially was designed for the Brazilians before being sold to the Ottomans and commandeered by the UK. Would put it in the Pan-American faction cause it was designed for Brazil.  I'd also consider putting that at 5 and bumping Lattorre and Riachuelo(maybe a little buffed using one of these redesigns) up to T6 and T7 to get the furthest up the line you could get though before resorting to possible fantasy ships/clones of ships in other navies. But yeah Riachuelo in particular would be pretty underwhelming at T7 though I think Lattore at T6 wouldn't be a disaster. 

Anyway curious about the Euro BB proposal. 

Edited by Aristotle83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NFA]
Members
47 posts
4,617 battles
56 minutes ago, Talleyrand said:

I agree with your proposal except for the high tiers. As it had been told. 

Yet some clarifications are in order.

3. Minas Gerais. Excelent ship in the tier. She had numerous upgrades in her life. Specially AA. But may be we should avoid all the AA she recieve because she could get a tiny Overpowered in tier 3. By the way did you change this fancy camouflage?

Color3.jpg

 

4. Rivadavia. Another strong candidate for the tier. But be carefull with assuming to be a tipical american battleship. Her armour scheme is closest to german practice. She had a 75mm turtleback behind her armour belt. And after that she had another 75mm wall protecting the citadel. Is quite the opposite of the all-or-nothing armor scheme that the american used. Actually his armor may be too god for the tier. 

5. Latorre. She is like the opposite of Rivadavia. She carry a nice punch but her armour may by to thin. May be she will need a buff. Did you check the upgrades proposed after ww2?

6. Riachuelo. Back to the armour. A really beefy ship. Everybody liked warspite. Well Riachuelo is like an extreme Warspite. With his pros enhanced and with flaws also enhanced.

7. Belem is a good proposal. Not sure if she won't need a little buff. May be a couple of knots on speed.

8. This I don't agree. You are streching too much those 1914 design. I think is better to use them as a tier 7 premiun. The shells are not adecuate for tier 8. Besides you said you enjoy Roma. So why not use the Gonzales request of 1943? Is almost like a Roma except for the secondarie and AA. 

Thanks I appreciate your interest, I have taken notice of the British Littorio design for Argentina, and I figure it would make a strong candidate for T8 but now there would be 4 different versions of Littorio by the time the italian battleship line is released, let alone a 5th littorio if there is to be a Pan-European BB line (the spanish one) at T8. But anyhow the Gonzales design would be great for T8, I just thought it would be fun to switch it up a little instead of repeating things in WoWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[CAZA]
[CAZA]
Alpha Tester
371 posts
14,824 battles
51 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

One ship you missed that could be a premium is the Sau Paulo which initially was designed for the Brazilians before being sold to the Ottomans and commandeered by the UK.

Rio de Janeiro.

I think it will be a bi/trinational premium tier V (as the Nueve de Julio/Boise).

Edited by COLDOWN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NFA]
Members
47 posts
4,617 battles
47 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

When you mentioned you'd be doing this was curious how. There just weren't major paper designs after Riachuelo and even at the lower tiers the Argentines and Chileans just had one class of BB's because they really didn't need more cause their navies outside of that were better than Brazil's whose BB's were pretty much the only powerful ships they had. You really stretching here using the Riachuelo for three tiers. With Euros(which you also mentioned you'd be doing) you got enough ships issue is they all are in that same tier range as minor European navies weren't really looking into capital ships in that era except for the Project 1047's(which per WG precedent would be considered cruisers along with her would be peers). But with Pan-America there just weren't enough ships, BB building was a phase that lasted less than a decade during the dreadnought era. 

Were the Cordoba(seems this was real looking through the thread) and Almirante Cochrane projects that were actually considered? Even if the Cochrane was real paper I do not think 8 16 inch guns is adequate for a T10 BB regardless though the rest of the stats seem to compensate for that. 

One ship you missed that could be a premium is the Sau Paulo which initially was designed for the Brazilians before being sold to the Ottomans and commandeered by the UK. Would put it in the Pan-American faction cause it was designed for Brazil.  I'd also consider putting that at 5 and bumping Lattorre and Riachuelo(maybe a little buffed using one of these redesigns) up to T6 and T7 to get the furthest up the line you could get though before resorting to possible fantasy ships/clones of ships in other navies. But yeah Riachuelo in particular would be pretty underwhelming at T7 though I think Lattore at T6 wouldn't be a disaster. 

Anyway curious about the Euro BB proposal. 

Almirante Cochrane is completely made up, I just thought it would be nice to utilize those 16"/56 that the US navy built it 1927 on a battleship. My design for Cordoba seems to be the Gonzales design but when I read about the hull a couple of years ago, I recall it being designed by the Italians and not the british but again it seems I was wrong. I don't quite think that Riachuelo would strong enough for T7, I actually the design with ten 15 inch guns is great for T7, but there just aren't enough real designs for T9 and T10, they would have to be made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[C_NT]
Members
960 posts
2,477 battles
1 hour ago, COLDOWN said:

Rio de Janeiro.

I think it will be a bi/trinational premium tier V (as the Nueve de Julio/Boise).

You're correct my bad.

 

And yeah I think all the continental BB's will be premiums. But this is about a hypothetical tech tree. For BB's in particular I think Italian BB's will be the last one and after that they will revert to releasing BB's in drips and drabs as premiums. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,325 battles
20 hours ago, jo_jo_nerd said:

That is funny, it would be easier to build a new ship but there is no other design for a T8 ship so I'm stumped on that one. 

And with that note on KGV, they could just tweak the shells performance for Almirante Cochrane and give her a stupidly good penetration angles. Also, I do have Roma and I am very impressed with her guns, although the amount of overpens i get against cruisers is insane, I do enjoy hitting battleships with them when my dispersion isn't trolling me. But I would say that 12 of them on a t9 Ship would be problematic. Sorry that I offended you with the 16"/56s, I just thought it would be a unique design layout something that is new to world of warships, and personally I'd say if they were given Tallinn's or Petropavlosk's penetration that she would fit in fairly.

I'm fairly sure it's in Janes Fighting Ships 1937. I was looking through my uncles book a couple of years ago. Try checking 1936, 38, and 39. 

And if you can, try to find the K-1000 Soviet Battleship design, probably in between the 1949 and 1955 editions and send me an image please. I have always wanted to see what that looked like. Thanks!

It doesn't offend me to see you use those strange guns, I'm all for it. The issue is using them where they don't make sense. You could've instead used the 16"/56 with modernized performance and it would've been a well performing gun, so you could've used the shells used by the modernized Colorado and had a decent 16" gun with quite a bit better muzzle velocity (850m/s or higher); or even used the 16" shells from the Iowa and they'd have more penetration, damage and muzzle velocity. You'd still need to change from 4x2 16" to something a bit more powerful at T10, but the guns are not the only issue, it's the fact that you've tried to make a poor gun, with a small amount of barrels as the masterstroke at T10 and then refusing to acknowledge the feedback offered. Seems like you've now understood the point I was making, so kudos for that. I agree that the issues for T9 & T10 with finding proper designs is very difficult. We haven't found anything that could be placed at T9 or T10 in archives, so our best bet currently is taking the Argentine Littorio (which isn't really a Littorio as it doesn't use Italian guns, nor the Italian armour scheme) and enlarging it to T9 and T10. In fact, the guns used by the Argentine Littorio aren't even defined, which gives us a lot of leeway. In the interest of keeping a line's flavor consistent, we'd probably stick with 15" guns up to T9, possibly until T10.

You've done a good job up until T8 as the line even has a sort of decent and consistent flavor, but your attempt to get a bunch of strange ships at T8-10 with no regards for design considerations and attempting to use a rather weird mess of guns dooms the line. Like I said before, you can give the T9 the Roma's guns and it won't be overpowered, and you can give the T10 the modernized 16"/56s in a 2x3+2x2 configuration and it'd probably be fine as an initial attempt.

As a bit of advice: If you're trying to make a line, do not follow in WG's gimmicks for Soviet lines. The Petropavlovsk's penetration is comparable to 380mm guns, so that is about as real as a fairy. Try to go with what would've happened historically, you can then use a few gimmicks to push things up or down a bit powerwise to make them fit. And if you want the formulas to translate from real life to game values, I'm happy to provide them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NFA]
Members
47 posts
4,617 battles
11 hours ago, Fr05ty said:

It doesn't offend me to see you use those strange guns, I'm all for it. The issue is using them where they don't make sense. You could've instead used the 16"/56 with modernized performance and it would've been a well performing gun, so you could've used the shells used by the modernized Colorado and had a decent 16" gun with quite a bit better muzzle velocity (850m/s or higher); or even used the 16" shells from the Iowa and they'd have more penetration, damage and muzzle velocity. You'd still need to change from 4x2 16" to something a bit more powerful at T10, but the guns are not the only issue, it's the fact that you've tried to make a poor gun, with a small amount of barrels as the masterstroke at T10 and then refusing to acknowledge the feedback offered. Seems like you've now understood the point I was making, so kudos for that. I agree that the issues for T9 & T10 with finding proper designs is very difficult. We haven't found anything that could be placed at T9 or T10 in archives, so our best bet currently is taking the Argentine Littorio (which isn't really a Littorio as it doesn't use Italian guns, nor the Italian armour scheme) and enlarging it to T9 and T10. In fact, the guns used by the Argentine Littorio aren't even defined, which gives us a lot of leeway. In the interest of keeping a line's flavor consistent, we'd probably stick with 15" guns up to T9, possibly until T10.

You've done a good job up until T8 as the line even has a sort of decent and consistent flavor, but your attempt to get a bunch of strange ships at T8-10 with no regards for design considerations and attempting to use a rather weird mess of guns dooms the line. Like I said before, you can give the T9 the Roma's guns and it won't be overpowered, and you can give the T10 the modernized 16"/56s in a 2x3+2x2 configuration and it'd probably be fine as an initial attempt.

As a bit of advice: If you're trying to make a line, do not follow in WG's gimmicks for Soviet lines. The Petropavlovsk's penetration is comparable to 380mm guns, so that is about as real as a fairy. Try to go with what would've happened historically, you can then use a few gimmicks to push things up or down a bit powerwise to make them fit. And if you want the formulas to translate from real life to game values, I'm happy to provide them.

Yes I think the 16"/56s would have to be a modernized variant. Frankly, I don't think they should put twelve 15" Roma guns on a T9 because the other ships like Alsace and Pommern with that same firepower have incredibly brutal dispersion, not sure that I would want that because I love italian ships/guns and I hate to see them slaughtered in game... Like Roma... and I can never forgive Wargaming for that. Also, since you have the formulas, I want to know how HP is calculate in relation to displacement. Do you know the formula for Battleships? And if you know the formula for cruisers, destroyers, and carriers also let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
Members
456 posts
4,325 battles
5 hours ago, jo_jo_nerd said:

Yes I think the 16"/56s would have to be a modernized variant. Frankly, I don't think they should put twelve 15" Roma guns on a T9 because the other ships like Alsace and Pommern with that same firepower have incredibly brutal dispersion, not sure that I would want that because I love italian ships/guns and I hate to see them slaughtered in game... Like Roma... and I can never forgive Wargaming for that. Also, since you have the formulas, I want to know how HP is calculate in relation to displacement. Do you know the formula for Battleships? And if you know the formula for cruisers, destroyers, and carriers also let me know.

All hp formulas are derived from a ships displacement. You say that 4x3 15" guns are too much, but WG just announced the Hizen which has 4x3 16" guns at T9, and Roma's guns will always have poor dispersion in-game due to their muzzle velocity meaning that the dispersion ellipse is massive vertically. It is somewhat appropriate as high velocity guns in real life had dispersion issues, but all high-velocity guns have such an issue though Roma's are doubly nerfed. I'll PM you the formulas later.

Edited by Fr05ty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[NFA]
Members
47 posts
4,617 battles
2 minutes ago, Fr05ty said:

All hp formulas are derived from a ships displacement. You say that 4x3 15" guns are too much, but WG just announced the Hizen which has 4x3 16" guns at T9, and Roma's guns will always have poor dispersion in-game due to their muzzle velocity meaning that the dispersion ellipse is massive vertically. It is not appropriate, but all high-velocity guns have such an issue. I'll PM you the formulas later.

Thanks, but also I just saw Hizen and I am pissed. That ship is completely unnecessary and overpowered. Did you check its stats? 30 second reload, where Minnesota gets 40? What the hell?

 Wargaming is just a bunch of clowns at this point, all they do is improve the Japanese and Russian Navies while screwing the French and the Americans, for the next 3 updates they haven't even mentioned Italian Battleships or any important realistic new lines.

Also if you check out the changes to the American BBs they listened to youtubers slight complaints about Florida and they made it a pile of garbage. While we have been screaming in their ears to nerf Soviet ships. I'm done with this game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×