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

Can someone explain the difference between new US BB and old tech line?

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,888
[SGSS]
Members
5,763 posts

Both have 16 inch guns, same number of guns. I am assuming basically the same armor AA and so on.

What's the advantage of the new BB with there no speed and no reload?

Are they actually bigger than 16 inch?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
1,112 posts
11,822 battles

The t10 Vermont gets 18” guns but the speed, play style, armor, reload, and other things make the 2 lines quite a bit different 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,142
[PISD]
Members
1,844 posts
6,112 battles

They do not have the same numbers of guns:

Tier 8 : 9 modern vs 12 older design (poorer penetration).

Tier 9: 9 vs 12

tier 10: 9 16’’ vs 12 18’’

 

overall, the new line is slower (23 knots is pedestrian at tier 8 and above) , less versatile but have more fire power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
736
[TIMT]
Members
1,387 posts
4,926 battles

It is basically a split between a "historic" line that is closely modeled by the ships from WWII and their designs, and a line inspired by designs for next generation BBs dating back to the end of WWI before these were shelved due to the various naval conferences restricting naval build-up around the world.

The original line after T7 Colorado is T8 North Carolina, T9 Iowa, and T10 Montana:

  • were actually build, apart from Montana which was canceled due to WWII coming to an end and no further BBs were needed. Montana is an evolution of the Iowa design afaik.
  • they were designed much later than "standard BBs" of pre-WWI which lead up to the Colorado
  • they are designed as fast BBs, meaning speed is important in the design.
  • The guns are all 16", but of a more modernized design with NC & Iowa having 3x3 barrels, and Montana 4x3 barrels.
  • focus is on accuracy and speed

The alternate line is the "what if" scenario for all those designs towards the end of WWI.

  • they are slow, meaning 21-23kts top speed
  • 16" guns of older design, but much more of them
  • Vermont even has 18" guns, which are quite accurate
  • AA armament, for whatever reason is stronger than on the WWII designs (I mean they need it, but it makes no historic sense to me)
  • The armor scheme is closer to the older standard type BBs like Colorado, just thicker. You can actually look at the armor schemes in the port, just look at the preview of a ship in the tech tree.
  • focus on large alpha strike and heavy broadside, think battle barges as platforms for insane gun power.

Basically, it is historic "treaty era" and WWII designs vs "what-if" post-WWI designs. For differences in how they play, there are many reviews out there on YouTube and I would assume people who actually played both lines will chime in here soon.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[GT3]
Members
176 posts
7,417 battles

having only played kansas so far..  the ship is slow, eats lots of pens.. not a brawler really.. cant disengage (too slow)

HOWEVER

after that 40 sec of reload you get to fire something close to a montana salvo at tier 8.. and she likes to hulk smash things.

also the AA is pretty spicy too.

its a good center map bb to smash the broadsides of those trying to flank... just gotta work with its limitations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
193
[Y0L0W]
Members
377 posts
9,105 battles
16 hours ago, Karstodes said:

tier 10: 9 16’’ vs 12 18’’

Should be 12 16" vs 12 18", both Montana and Vermont have 4x3 turret layouts

Edited by SirPent13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,142
[PISD]
Members
1,844 posts
6,112 battles
7 minutes ago, SirPent13 said:

Should be 12 16" vs 12 18", both Montana and Vermont have 4x4 turret layouts

True my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[-CFI-]
Members
369 posts
3,792 battles
23 minutes ago, shinytrashcan said:

 

  • AA armament, for whatever reason is stronger than on the WWII designs (I mean they need it, but it makes no historic sense to me)

It makes perfect sense. The designs assume a post-Pearl Harbor refit like the historic ships mostly got. The US philosophy for those refits was "bolt AA on to the ship in any available space". Think of USS Texas.

Larger hulls means more space for AA mounts.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
736
[TIMT]
Members
1,387 posts
4,926 battles
2 minutes ago, Incomitatus said:

It makes perfect sense. The designs assume a post-Pearl Harbor refit like the historic ships mostly got. The US philosophy for those refits was "bolt AA on to the ship in any available space". Think of USS Texas.

Larger hulls means more space for AA mounts.

Hmm... I mean if you go by the logic that WWII happened exactly the same way and that they got the same refits etc. I can see that.

I just strikes me as odd to see these monsters that were way too large to be sustainable even on the drawing board being built, and then assume they survive through the 30s and get completely refitted after Pearl Harbor. By that logic I would have assumed they'd decommission them in the 30s or 40s in favor of the fast BBs (which were fast for a reason) and more CVs. But then again, alternative history in this game is not really logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,065
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,772 posts
6,009 battles
42 minutes ago, shinytrashcan said:

Hmm... I mean if you go by the logic that WWII happened exactly the same way and that they got the same refits etc. I can see that.

I just strikes me as odd to see these monsters that were way too large to be sustainable even on the drawing board being built, and then assume they survive through the 30s and get completely refitted after Pearl Harbor. By that logic I would have assumed they'd decommission them in the 30s or 40s in favor of the fast BBs (which were fast for a reason) and more CVs. But then again, alternative history in this game is not really logical.

Keep in mind that the Tier VIII and IX are both based on the actually laid down, but canceled due to the Washington Naval Treaty, South Dakota class.  Tier X is themed on one of the more reasonable of the silly Tillman BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
909 posts
14,429 battles

Simple, the old line is good the new line is a steaming pile of crap. Just because you occasionally get a good volley from those terrible guns on the new line doesn't make them good at all.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,244
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
29,865 posts
25,782 battles
5 minutes ago, hexeris said:

Simple, the old line is good the new line is a steaming pile of crap. Just because you occasionally get a good volley from those terrible guns on the new line doesn't make them good at all.

I'd add that the new Tier IX-X have an odd situation. 

 

With Iowa & Montana, as well as old Georgia, Ohio, they access Slot 6.  For that slot they can get APRM2 for a great 10% dispersion bonus.  MBM3 is there also, but IMO it's not needed because the 30 seconds base reload is fine.

 

MinneSLOWta & Vermont have a tougher choice.  They too can access the same APRM2 and MBM3 upgrades as the prior USN BBs in these tiers.  The problem however is they need both.  They have to go with APRM2 for more accuracy, but suck a** 40 seconds reload, or go for MBM3 for a faster reload which they desperately need, but lose out on the potent 10% dispersion buff.  And as a reminder for those familiar with how USN BBs work, there is no ASM1 for them.  Up and down the tiers, they don't get access to that Slot 3 item like every other ship line in the game does.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,888
[SGSS]
Members
5,763 posts
43 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Keep in mind that the Tier VIII and IX are both based on the actually laid down, but canceled due to the Washington Naval Treaty, South Dakota class.  Tier X is themed on one of the more reasonable of the silly Tillman BBs.

Tillmans are like Russian ships. 

There amazing and powerful but could never sail.

Wasnt there one with 18 18 inch guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,888
[SGSS]
Members
5,763 posts
2 hours ago, Mego_Splat said:

having only played kansas so far..  the ship is slow, eats lots of pens.. not a brawler really.. cant disengage (too slow)

HOWEVER

after that 40 sec of reload you get to fire something close to a montana salvo at tier 8.. and she likes to hulk smash things.

also the AA is pretty spicy too.

its a good center map bb to smash the broadsides of those trying to flank... just gotta work with its limitations.

 

Hulk smashhhhh :)

thing is I have Roma and will have the rest of Italian BB. I have GA and OH another basically the same BB does not interest.

the new line could do the trick the though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
168
[WOLF3]
Members
509 posts
11,733 battles

I want the Tillman IV with (24) 16-inch guns.

iu.jpeg

Edited by Drifter_X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
452
[KAPPA]
Members
1,447 posts
8,165 battles
13 minutes ago, Drifter_X said:

I want the Tillman IV with (24) 16-inch guns.

iu.jpeg

That sketch is both tremendously awesome and all kinds of horrifying at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,981
[A-I-M]
Members
3,862 posts
14,886 battles
3 hours ago, SirPent13 said:

Should be 12 16" vs 12 18", both Montana and Vermont have 4x4 turret layouts

Make that 4x3

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
755
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
2,533 posts

New tech Really FAST. Georgia etc.

Old Tech, BIG, FAT AND SLOW. Fortunately the obese guns can kill something before the fight is finished by the time it left spawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
556
[CAAT]
Members
1,030 posts
4,626 battles
8 hours ago, shinytrashcan said:

AA armament, for whatever reason is stronger than on the WWII designs (I mean they need it, but it makes no historic sense to me)

Well, assuming the What If ships received modernization by about WW2, the prevalence of air power would lead the US Navy to put as many AA guns as possible on these larger ships. And since they're larger, they can field more AA guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[P33DZ]
Members
13 posts
759 battles
10 hours ago, jags_domain said:

Both have 16 inch guns, same number of guns. I am assuming basically the same armor AA and so on.

What's the advantage of the new BB with there no speed and no reload?

Are they actually bigger than 16 inch?

 

New BB line:

  - they're pretty slow, 24 kts for a T10 BB is terrible

  - they have nice guns (3x4) with cool AP penetration and DMG

  -their AA is aweome, and they have DFAA, so they are not vulnerable from air (except if FDR attacking them)

  -their armor is stronger than their counterparts', so they are not so easy to cit than the Montana for example, but they can be citted

  - they've very good torp protection

  -bad concealment

Old BB line:

 - nice speed and AA

 - pretty good maneuverability (the only drawback is Montana's rudder shift time)

 -modest armor, their cit is waterline cit so it can be hit

 -pretty nice concealment

 -decent guns, they can inflict heavy DMG

 -easy to learn, hard to master (personally I recommend this line first)

 

Hope this helps :D

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
755
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
2,533 posts
9 hours ago, CaptHarlock_222 said:

That sketch is both tremendously awesome and all kinds of horrifying at the same time.

That is horrifying.

There isnt enough ship in tonnage to soak the recoil of all those guns, the broadside will shove it about 15 to 20 feet sideways in the water and squat it down far enough to the railings at the deck.

I don't think you can cast then lift turrets that big into place with WW2 crane tech. You could do with a few hundred tons at most.

Edited by xHeavy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,744 posts
8,862 battles
2 hours ago, _LordVoldemort said:

New BB line:

 

  -their armor is stronger than their counterparts', so they are not so easy to cit than the Montana for example, but they can be citted

  

 

The citadels on the new line are a bit better protected, but they are much more vulnerable to HE and to cruiser AP. They have much more surface area that is easily penetrated for full damage, so they are very vulnerable if they get too far forward. Even DD AP will pen for full damage over most of the ship. 
 

The old line are lower, smaller targets and a much larger portion of their exposed area is taken up by harder armor, like turrets, conning tower, and casements, so shells more frequently break without damage, and DD/CA AP bounces more often, in addition to the faster, lower ships being more difficult targets. 
 

The extreme vulnerability of the new line is the hardest thing to adapt to in my opinion. The armor scheme is the same as on tier 6 and 7 USN BBs, and works pretty well in those tiers, but as enemy range, accuracy, and DPM all improve at higher tiers, it becomes really painful to play a ship that takes full pens everywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[P33DZ]
Members
13 posts
759 battles
32 minutes ago, inktomi19d said:

The citadels on the new line are a bit better protected, but they are much more vulnerable to HE and to cruiser AP. They have much more surface area that is easily penetrated for full damage, so they are very vulnerable if they get too far forward. Even DD AP will pen for full damage over most of the ship. 
 

The old line are lower, smaller targets and a much larger portion of their exposed area is taken up by harder armor, like turrets, conning tower, and casements, so shells more frequently break without damage, and DD/CA AP bounces more often, in addition to the faster, lower ships being more difficult targets. 
 

The extreme vulnerability of the new line is the hardest thing to adapt to in my opinion. The armor scheme is the same as on tier 6 and 7 USN BBs, and works pretty well in those tiers, but as enemy range, accuracy, and DPM all improve at higher tiers, it becomes really painful to play a ship that takes full pens everywhere. 

Of course, I forgot to mention these informations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,744 posts
8,862 battles
16 minutes ago, _LordVoldemort said:

Of course, I forgot to mention these informations

Wasn’t trying to sharpshoot you :)

Just trying to highlight that one of the big differences isn’t immediately obvious. People tend to forget how the arrangement of armor impacts the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[P33DZ]
Members
13 posts
759 battles
4 minutes ago, inktomi19d said:

Wasn’t trying to sharpshoot you :)

Just trying to highlight that one of the big differences isn’t immediately obvious. People tend to forget how the arrangement of armor impacts the game. 

Of course, I think so :)))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×