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

First Look: Tier VIII Premium American Aircraft Carrier USS Hornet

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,437
[-K-]
WoWS Community Contributors, WoWS Community Contributors
2,783 posts
15,299 battles

Wargaming recently announced Tier VIII Premium American carrier USS Hornet would be coming to the game. We were gifted Hornet on the 0.11.1 public test server, and so I present a First Look video! There's a lot going on here, so buckle up.

 

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,422 posts
17,998 battles

Wow, B-25 Mitchells.  One from the Doolittle raid actually did bomb Ryuho while she was still undergoing her conversion. 

Japanese light cruiser Yura was bombed by AAF B-17s, leading to her scuttling.

And Hornet “survived” Pearl Harbor by being in the Atlantic at the time…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,080
[NGA-A]
Members
2,654 posts
17,751 battles
37 minutes ago, Mono_De_Mantequilla said:

Wow, B-25 Mitchells.  One from the Doolittle raid actually did bomb Ryuho while she was still undergoing her conversion. 

Japanese light cruiser Yura was bombed by AAF B-17s, leading to her scuttling.

And Hornet “survived” Pearl Harbor by being in the Atlantic at the time…

The B-25s were pretty much the whole reason I was eventually hoping to see her. Admittedly back then I'd have thought skip-bombing would be her unique thing and she'd only have one or two uses of them and be restricted from launching any other aircraft (this was back in the days of RTS CVs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,422 posts
17,998 battles
3 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

The B-25s were pretty much the whole reason I was eventually hoping to see her. Admittedly back then I'd have thought skip-bombing would be her unique thing and she'd only have one or two uses of them and be restricted from launching any other aircraft (this was back in the days of RTS CVs).

Yeah, skip bombs and the 75mm-cannon armed version for strafing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,080
[NGA-A]
Members
2,654 posts
17,751 battles
1 minute ago, Mono_De_Mantequilla said:

Yeah, skip bombs and the 75mm-cannon armed version for strafing.

Yeah. Though real strafe, not that [edited] fighter squadrons could do. We kept telling Wargaming to just try removing ALT attacks and adjusting from there but NOOO! They had to entirely redo things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
938
[NUWES]
Members
3,848 posts
15,806 battles
6 hours ago, Mono_De_Mantequilla said:

 

And Hornet “survived” Pearl Harbor by being in the Atlantic at the time…

Yep. She had only been commissioned 2 months earlier as I recall and was still training her crew. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
938
[NUWES]
Members
3,848 posts
15,806 battles
6 hours ago, JediMasterDraco said:

The B-25s were pretty much the whole reason I was eventually hoping to see her. Admittedly back then I'd have thought skip-bombing would be her unique thing and she'd only have one or two uses of them and be restricted from launching any other aircraft (this was back in the days of RTS CVs).

The early B-25s that Hornet carried weren't equipped for that. Using Mitchells to skip bomb occurred later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,653
[CLUMP]
Members
2,861 posts
3,004 battles

Meh 3-minute cooldown on mitchells and then been stuck with AP bombs and tier 6 torp planes :Smile_sceptic:

fyef3It.gif

Imagine being in a tier 10 match with tier 6 torp planes :Smile_hiding: 

9yYiVbU.jpg

I am sure some whales will buy it because the name but yeah :fish_sleep:

Edited by LastRemnant
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[GPORT]
Members
351 posts
20,598 battles

My only question is do you have a limited number of planes ? Doolittle's raid was a one-way flight for these planes. They could take off from the carrier , but cannot land on it , they landed in China, if I remember correctly.

What is their reasoning for these aircraft , knowing full well once launched they could not return to the carrier .

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,852
[WOLFC]
Members
6,097 posts
17,227 battles
58 minutes ago, Gafwmn said:

My only question is do you have a limited number of planes ? Doolittle's raid was a one-way flight for these planes. They could take off from the carrier , but cannot land on it , they landed in China, if I remember correctly.

They behave like the planes of hybrid ships. The squadron behaves like a consumable: a squadron = an attack flight, and the entire squad recharges at once rather than plane-by-plane. When you launch the B-25s, the cooldown timer for the next launch starts.

58 minutes ago, Gafwmn said:

What is their reasoning for these aircraft , knowing full well once launched they could not return to the carrier .

Because this is an arcade game and not a sim, and the Doolittle raid is CV-8’s most well-known action during the war? We already have DDs that carry multiple torpedo reloads and can reload in battle, a completely arbitrary and illogical spotting system, and surface search radar as a consumable that is only active for a few seconds at a time followed by a large cooldown, among other things. Being able to launch multiple flights of B-25s over the course of a match and other squadrons in between is no more of a break from reality than all the other arbitrary mechanics we see in this game.

Edited by Nevermore135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
424
Members
869 posts
9,489 battles

Another turd bote.  Wallet is still safe, 2 years running now. Of course being a CV, even if it was amazing, I'd never buy it. Unless they rolled things back to the RTS days. Who am I kidding, I still wouldn't. My old Tier 7 Saipan perhaps though...

Edited by Valas1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
957
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
2,488 posts
29,180 battles

Cool ship with a historical twist.  Those T6 planes though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WFR]
Members
622 posts

Going to be honest, personally big bombers don't do anything for me here. The B-25's just scream being out of place, and feels like a hamfisted gimmick. They were a one-time deal that required extensive preparation/training/modification that send the planes on a one-way attack, used to bomb fixed land targets with limited effect.

Being available to repeatedly launch against nearby enemy surface vessels for which they were neither trained nor equipped to fight (and which the entire task force was specifically ordered to avoid), feels kinda like a WoT game set up during the Battle of Britain using a Covenanter to try and shoot down JU-88's.

Edited by Molonious
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,080
[NGA-A]
Members
2,654 posts
17,751 battles
5 hours ago, Tzarevitch said:

The early B-25s that Hornet carried weren't equipped for that. Using Mitchells to skip bomb occurred later.

I'm aware. But I think at this point Wargaming have lost the ability to make any claim to being historically accurate to that degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,437
[-K-]
WoWS Community Contributors, WoWS Community Contributors
2,783 posts
15,299 battles
15 hours ago, Mono_De_Mantequilla said:

Wow, B-25 Mitchells.  One from the Doolittle raid actually did bomb Ryuho while she was still undergoing her conversion. 

Japanese light cruiser Yura was bombed by AAF B-17s, leading to her scuttling.

And Hornet “survived” Pearl Harbor by being in the Atlantic at the time…

So the AAF DID land some aerial bomb hits.  Good to know. =D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,437
[-K-]
WoWS Community Contributors, WoWS Community Contributors
2,783 posts
15,299 battles
6 hours ago, jr_token said:

I feel like I've been verbally mugged by a used car salesman pushing a 1976 Pacer 

I'm confused, did I recommend anyone buy the ship? 

My "job" here ain't to sell ships.  That's Wargaming's problem.  My "job" is to tell you what they're up to and let you decide for yourself if you want to give them your money.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
508
[ARGSY]
Members
1,079 posts
14,757 battles
14 hours ago, Tzarevitch said:

Yep. She had only been commissioned 2 months earlier as I recall and was still training her crew. 

Yep at Midway, her green air crews were pretty much useless. I am not sure that they ever scored a hit on a Japanese CV. Might be wrong about that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,653
[CLUMP]
Members
2,861 posts
3,004 battles

I can understand them using Mitchells on that particular CV but still, though those AP planes should be HE planes instead and those tier 6 torp planes should be tier 8 :Smile_sceptic: I can tell you how many times I have ended up in coop fighting tier 9 and tier 10 ships in the Kaga  :fish_palm: I am sure its the same in randoms its about between 60 to 65 percent of the time:Smile_hiding:  That's just a crime putting tier 6 torp planes in tier 8 CV when it will end up in tier 10 matches :Smile_facepalm:

 

Edited by LastRemnant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,437
[-K-]
WoWS Community Contributors, WoWS Community Contributors
2,783 posts
15,299 battles
14 hours ago, handybilly said:

Yep at Midway, her green air crews were pretty much useless. I am not sure that they ever scored a hit on a Japanese CV. Might be wrong about that. 

They didn't hit the carriers at Midway, but they did beat up Mikuma and Mogami (of the Invasion Fleet) pretty thoroughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
938
[NUWES]
Members
3,848 posts
15,806 battles
On 2/1/2022 at 12:21 PM, JediMasterDraco said:

I'm aware. But I think at this point Wargaming have lost the ability to make any claim to being historically accurate to that degree.

I don't recall them making any such claim. That ship sailed long ago. The fictional Russian CVs alone make that clear.  They're pretty clear it's a video game not a historical simulation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,080
[NGA-A]
Members
2,654 posts
17,751 battles
7 hours ago, Tzarevitch said:

I don't recall them making any such claim. That ship sailed long ago. The fictional Russian CVs alone make that clear.  They're pretty clear it's a video game not a historical simulation. 

I'd argue that ship was half way out of port when they had that video talking about historical ships and named the Monarch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,964
[ARS]
Beta Testers
8,336 posts
9,613 battles
7 hours ago, Tzarevitch said:

I don't recall them making any such claim. That ship sailed long ago. The fictional Russian CVs alone make that clear.  They're pretty clear it's a video game not a historical simulation. 

How do the fictional Russian CVs make that any clearer than the earlier released fictional German CVs?

This forum's bias for Germany is blinding sometimes.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,080
[NGA-A]
Members
2,654 posts
17,751 battles
2 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

How do the fictional Russian CVs make that any clearer than the earlier released fictional German CVs?

This forum's bias for Germany is blinding sometimes.

Fair enough, though, the Germans at least made a decent attempt (however unsuccessful) at trying to field aircraft carriers. The Russians by contrast didn't do anything of the sort in the era the game covers baring the bizarre fever dreams that inspired the Russian line. Plus it's funnier to dunk on the Russians for their fictional ships that tend towards being OP vs. dunking on the German lines that tend towards being underpowered.

Edited by JediMasterDraco
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×