US Battleship capabilities

[F8Driver]

I'm still well down the tech tree, but I find it irritating the BB's are not historically accurate.  As an example, Iowa class had 212,000 HP and were 33 knot ships.  The Montana's were lengthened Iowa's, same protection and power, yet they outperform the Iowas in ALL categories.  They would have been slower, had more gunpower, and slightly more defensive resilience simply based on their larger displacement.

 

And I'd REALLY like a South Dakota vice the North Carolina.  Four ships vice two, better protection at the cost of 1 knot.

 

Generally, the BB's don't offer much over the CA's.  One only has to reference the destruction of the Hood by Bismarck to appreciate that CA-level protection cannot stand against large caliber projectiles.  But in a gunfight, I think St Louis can easily handle BB's of similar level ... likely not the case in a real world encounter (I don't think that ever happened).

[Strike_Witch_Tomoko]

St Louis is....interesting

 

its an armored cruiser

 

armored to resist HE

but not armored enough that AP is good vs it.....so its in the spot where there is no good round against it.

 

as for BBs accuracy.   its to stop them from 2 shooting everyone.  

[Coldt]

This game sacrifices a lot of realism for gameplay purposes. 

 

A LOT OF REALISM!

[BGrey]

Montana isn't faster than the Iowa. Also I believe the game speeds are based on full rather than flank/emergency/full speed ahead (whatever the different countries called it).

[Macabe]

I'm still well down the tech tree, but I find it irritating the BB's are not historically accurate.  As an example, Iowa class had 212,000 HP and were 33 knot ships.  The Montana's were lengthened Iowa's, same protection and power, yet they outperform the Iowas in ALL categories.  They would have been slower, had more gunpower, and slightly more defensive resilience simply based on their larger displacement.

 

And I'd REALLY like a South Dakota vice the North Carolina.  Four ships vice two, better protection at the cost of 1 knot.

 

Generally, the BB's don't offer much over the CA's.  One only has to reference the destruction of the Hood by Bismarck to appreciate that CA-level protection cannot stand against large caliber projectiles.  But in a gunfight, I think St Louis can easily handle BB's of similar level ... likely not the case in a real world encounter (I don't think that ever happened).

Real-life ships don't have HP. This is not a simulator. This is an Arcade game where they have to keep everything balanced.

[Aloeus]

I'm still well down the tech tree, but I find it irritating the BB's are not historically accurate.  As an example, Iowa class had 212,000 HP and were 33 knot ships.  The Montana's were lengthened Iowa's, same protection and power, yet they outperform the Iowas in ALL categories.  They would have been slower, had more gunpower, and slightly more defensive resilience simply based on their larger displacement.

 

And I'd REALLY like a South Dakota vice the North Carolina.  Four ships vice two, better protection at the cost of 1 knot.

 

Generally, the BB's don't offer much over the CA's.  One only has to reference the destruction of the Hood by Bismarck to appreciate that CA-level protection cannot stand against large caliber projectiles.  But in a gunfight, I think St Louis can easily handle BB's of similar level ... likely not the case in a real world encounter (I don't think that ever happened).

1. The Iowa's speed isn't what it should be (32.5 knots)

2. The Montana had more protection (armored against the mk8 round as opposed to the mk5 ( I think) round the Iowa and Dakota were armored against). 

3. Montana actually has less power than an Iowa due to increased armor and better engine arrangement 

4. Monty really should be slower in game, but the extra speed helps set it apart from the Yamato

5. I believe the dakota is reserved for a second tech tree

6. St. Louis goes up against tier 3 bbs, which are completely crap. The Wyoming and Myogi will wreck a st louis in a few salvos. St Louis seems to have a citadel that is small enough compared to the rest of the ship that most shells don't fly far enough into the ship to actually citadel. The 14 inch guns of the Myogi will citadel a st Louis easily enough.

[Mizzerys_Fate]

My South Carolina 2 shot a St. Louis today. He couldn't 6 salvo me before my 2nd salvo got him.

Dispersion is part of the game, to balance the game play. Just like max range in game is actually what the Developers are calling "effective" range.

 My stock New York went 5 v 1 for 5 minutes. I got 221 decapitated points. 3 kills and was 2 minutes 2 seconds from a draw . The only reason I died, enemy CV went AFK at 80% cap point, encounter mode. He came back and typedef or gods sake cap"...i replied "sorry, I'll stop shooting".

Point is... a cruiser, of equal tier, 1 v 1 can possibly kill a battleship over time, but it takes just 1 AP shell from a BB to kill a cruiser...something a cruiser can't do.

 A lone Battleship is very vulnerable to multiple enemies, but a fleet seldom sails solo.

[TornadoADV]

Real-life ships don't have HP. This is not a simulator. This is an Arcade game where they have to keep everything balanced.

 

i think he's talking about Horsepower, not Hit Points.

[Macabe]

 

i think he's talking about Horsepower, not Hit Points.

 

I realized that a little bit ago. Maybe nobody else will notice. 

[Capt_Barkhorn]

 

I realized that a little bit ago. Maybe nobody else will notice. 

 

I noticed Macabe. We'll be laughing about this on TS for sure.

[Gasboy]

I'm still well down the tech tree, but I find it irritating the BB's are not historically accurate.  As an example, Iowa class had 212,000 HP and were 33 knot ships.  The Montana's were lengthened Iowa's, same protection and power, yet they outperform the Iowas in ALL categories.  They would have been slower, had more gunpower, and slightly more defensive resilience simply based on their larger displacement.

 

And I'd REALLY like a South Dakota vice the North Carolina.  Four ships vice two, better protection at the cost of 1 knot.

 

Generally, the BB's don't offer much over the CA's.  One only has to reference the destruction of the Hood by Bismarck to appreciate that CA-level protection cannot stand against large caliber projectiles.  But in a gunfight, I think St Louis can easily handle BB's of similar level ... likely not the case in a real world encounter (I don't think that ever happened).

 

The South Dakotas will be put into the game at some point.  As well, the nearly-complete-but-sacrificed-to-the-Washington-Treaty South Dakotas will also get in.

[Freakazee]

I'd also like to point out that the Montana class battleships were slated to have twelve 16"/50 Mark 7's compared to the Iowa's nine. 

Addendum: A quick wiki search also indicates the plans for the Montana to maintain the same speed of the Iowa class was dropped and the top speed was lowered to 28 knots so they could increase the armor to effectively take shells from their own guns. 

[byronicasian]

I'm still well down the tech tree, but I find it irritating the BB's are not historically accurate.  As an example, Iowa class had 212,000 HP and were 33 knot ships.  The Montana's were lengthened Iowa's, same protection and power, yet they outperform the Iowas in ALL categories.  They would have been slower, had more gunpower, and slightly more defensive resilience simply based on their larger displacement.

 

And I'd REALLY like a South Dakota vice the North Carolina.  Four ships vice two, better protection at the cost of 1 knot.

 

Generally, the BB's don't offer much over the CA's.  One only has to reference the destruction of the Hood by Bismarck to appreciate that CA-level protection cannot stand against large caliber projectiles.  But in a gunfight, I think St Louis can easily handle BB's of similar level ... likely not the case in a real world encounter (I don't think that ever happened).

 

Please refer to this CBT thread with regards to Iowa's top speed. All the arguments were hashed out there. 

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/30515-iowas-in-game-speed-is-unfortunately-historical/

[UrPeaceKeeper]

1. The Iowa's speed isn't what it should be (32.5 knots)

2. The Montana had more protection (armored against the mk8 round as opposed to the mk5 ( I think) round the Iowa and Dakota were armored against). 

3. Montana actually has less power than an Iowa due to increased armor and better engine arrangement 

4. Monty really should be slower in game, but the extra speed helps set it apart from the Yamato

5. I believe the dakota is reserved for a second tech tree

6. St. Louis goes up against tier 3 bbs, which are completely crap. The Wyoming and Myogi will wreck a st louis in a few salvos. St Louis seems to have a citadel that is small enough compared to the rest of the ship that most shells don't fly far enough into the ship to actually citadel. The 14 inch guns of the Myogi will citadel a st Louis easily enough.

 

1.)  I doubt we'll ever get the Iowa's theoretical top speed.  Might as well give up on trying to get it at this point.

2.)  Yes, the Montana's armor scheme was designed to stop the Mk.8 Mod 6 projectile.  It, and the Iowa's last hull, shoot the Mk.8 Mod 8 in this game.  The Mk.8 Mod 8 never served in WWII and it is unclear what, if any, improvement it would have made in armor punching capability.  The Iowa was designed to stop the Mk.5 16" AP round that the Colorado class, North Carolina Class, and South Carolina Class originally were designed to shoot.  The Mk.8 AP round (Mod 0 through Mod 6 in WWII) were also capable of being shot out of the earlier ships and BuOrd mandated replacing all Mk.5 rounds with the Mk.8 Mod 0 rounds when it came out due to superior penetrating capabilities.  This gives the Iowa's the unfortunate distinction of being the only battleship without a "balanced" armor scheme... meaning every BB prior to the Iowa class was designed to stop the round it was intended to shoot at creation.  The Montana was going to fix that issue had she ever been built.

3.)  Less Power?  I'm not so sure it had less power, so much as less speed due to the increased armor protection she had over the Iowas.  She also was wider and less hydrodynamic than the Iowa class was.

4.)  I'm pretty sure the Monty in game, at 28 knots, is moving exactly as fast as she was designed to be.

5.)  Yes, in addition to an uparmored Iowa class in T10.  This would be in the "Fast" BB tree, although technically the North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa and Montana are all Fast battleships.  I really don't see a reason to make the transition to the Fast BB's any more awkward than it is by using the South Dakota in the place of the North Carolina.  The NC was definitely out classed by the SD but it is a much larger leap from the Coloraderp than the NC is.

6.)  The St. Louis is easily citadelled by 12" guns, you just have to understand the armor layout of the ship.  She is what is called a Protected Cruiser.  Her "citadel" is actually a bubble at the waterline:

From Wikipedia

 

As you can see, the  citadel armor (in red) only protects the lower portion of the ship.  This makes hitting the citadel at close range extremely difficult.  You are almost better off shooting HE at the protected cruisers in the game because you'll never hit the citadel with the flatter shooting rounds.  The best range to citadel a St. Louis is between 9-14km and it is definitely possible to do with the Wyoming and South Carolina's 12" guns.  Aim at the waterline and pray really really hard to RNGesus.

[gonefishin1957]

I'm still well down the tech tree, but I find it irritating the BB's are not historically accurate.  As an example, Iowa class had 212,000 HP and were 33 knot ships.  The Montana's were lengthened Iowa's, same protection and power, yet they outperform the Iowas in ALL categories.  They would have been slower, had more gunpower, and slightly more defensive resilience simply based on their larger displacement.

 

And I'd REALLY like a South Dakota vice the North Carolina.  Four ships vice two, better protection at the cost of 1 knot.

 

Generally, the BB's don't offer much over the CA's.  One only has to reference the destruction of the Hood by Bismarck to appreciate that CA-level protection cannot stand against large caliber projectiles.  But in a gunfight, I think St Louis can easily handle BB's of similar level ... likely not the case in a real world encounter (I don't think that ever happened).

 

[gonefishin1957]

Re the Bismarck vs the hood, the hood had the same belt armor as the Bismarck, 12" the deck armor of the hood had never been completely installed so that when the shell hit her there was nothing to stop it. If hood had had her armor completed it should have been a very close fight. Both ships were 41000 ton standard displacement and had 8 15" guns, hood was capable of 32kn the Bismarck 29, hood was longer and narrower the Bismarck stockier, as such the Bismarck had a higher full load of 56000 tons. It would have been a closeŕ fight