770 [TXGUN] donaldEpott [TXGUN] Members 4,596 posts 13,562 battles Report post #1 Posted September 12, 2015 I am wondering if all British ships will have the slow turret rotation. I am using the Warspite to prepare Captains for future ships and am training my second Captain on the Warspite. Just working on some general skills for that would work on eveything but CVs and DDs getting them ready for cruisers and battleships. I am working the same with the Tirpitz on a second German captain on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3,186 BlazerSparta Members 11,026 posts 30,667 battles Report post #2 Posted September 12, 2015 I am wondering if all British ships will have the slow turret rotation. I am using the Warspite to prepare Captains for future ships and am training my second Captain on the Warspite. Just working on some general skills for that would work on eveything but CVs and DDs getting them ready for cruisers and battleships. I am working the same with the Tirpitz on a second German captain on it. Warspite is a premium that needs meaningful disadvantages for being a premium. I doubt British ships in general will have turret turn times that are that slow. But, not being a fortune teller, I suppose it's possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
682 [SCRAP] ArmouredCarriers Beta Testers 1,690 posts 5,592 battles Report post #3 Posted September 12, 2015 Historically a lot of British big gun turrets were not fast, so it would be a safe bet... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
139 [OJITT] Hereticus2142 Beta Testers 521 posts 3,221 battles Report post #4 Posted September 12, 2015 I don't imagine the turrets will rotate slow.... Maybe stock hulls will perform as well as the Warspite example.... but like any other tech tree navy, there's Module upgrades. I'm looking forward the the hull upgrades of a Queen Elizabeth class. AA guns on the main battery! http://smnzone.scalemodellingno.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/gallery/academy-hms-warspite-1350-1/warspite-gallery-9.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
682 [SCRAP] ArmouredCarriers Beta Testers 1,690 posts 5,592 battles Report post #5 Posted September 12, 2015 Hereticus: That picture you linked to is Warspite The Queen Elizabeth / Valiant upgrades did away with the casement guns and introduced 10x twin 4.5 'pillbox' mounts... But they also had the 20mm on the top of the main armament Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
770 [TXGUN] donaldEpott [TXGUN] Members 4,596 posts 13,562 battles Report post #6 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) I don't imagine the turrets will rotate slow.... Maybe stock hulls will perform as well as the Warspite example.... but like any other tech tree navy, there's Module upgrades. I'm looking forward the the hull upgrades of a Queen Elizabeth class. AA guns on the main battery! http://smnzone.scalemodellingno.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/gallery/academy-hms-warspite-1350-1/warspite-gallery-9.jpg What a good looking ship. Its a shame that the English didnt turn it into a museum ship. Edited September 12, 2015 by donaldEpott Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
770 [TXGUN] donaldEpott [TXGUN] Members 4,596 posts 13,562 battles Report post #7 Posted September 12, 2015 Hereticus: That picture you linked to is Warspite The Queen Elizabeth / Valiant upgrades did away with the casement guns and introduced 10x twin 4.5 'pillbox' mounts... But they also had the 20mm on the top of the main armament Was the Warspite the only one to be fully upgraded like that or were any of the other Queen Elizabeth class upgraded that far? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
682 [SCRAP] ArmouredCarriers Beta Testers 1,690 posts 5,592 battles Report post #8 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) Warspite was an experimental upgrade. Several years before the next two. She was not as completely updated as Queen Elizabeth and Valiant. The main difference was QE and Valiant's more modern dual-purpose and AA armament, but there was also some difference in armour arrangement and secondary magazine placement, directors etc. But all got new space-and-weight saving engines, improved deck armour, modified 15in mounts and the distinctive towers. Barham and Malaya didn't get the rebuilds. Same with the battlecruiser Renown: She was supposed to set the pattern for updating Hood and Repulse - but war stopped that. HMS London was also supposed to be the test rebuild ship for the Counties ... but again war happened. Edit: Donald, can you link to where you got that Warspite camo mod from please? She's the only battleship I play in game - until the German and RN lines come out. Edited September 12, 2015 by HMS_Formidable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
332 hoom Beta Testers 2,580 posts 4,750 battles Report post #9 Posted September 12, 2015 According to navweaps.com The lowish tier DDs will be manual traverse -> slow like IJN & low tier US DDs. Higher tier DDs get powered traverse 18s twin 4.7" which is decent but not US grade fast, nearly US fast 7.2s for Daring at the top. Cruisers get about 25s for the triple 6" mount which is slowish. Bit slower 30s for the 8" twins. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Guest 0 posts Report post #10 Posted September 12, 2015 Hereticus: That picture you linked to is Warspite The Queen Elizabeth / Valiant upgrades did away with the casement guns and introduced 10x twin 4.5 'pillbox' mounts... But they also had the 20mm on the top of the main armament I wonder how people would like the pre-refit/reconstruction look...with the Tripod. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
682 [SCRAP] ArmouredCarriers Beta Testers 1,690 posts 5,592 battles Report post #11 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) They still had very clean lines... The similarity between pre-1930s RN and IJN design philosophies is obvious - and a direct result of their close relationship. This is Barham. Edited September 12, 2015 by HMS_Formidable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
131 Shatara422 Beta Testers 537 posts 2,625 battles Report post #12 Posted September 12, 2015 I don't imagine the turrets will rotate slow.... Maybe stock hulls will perform as well as the Warspite example.... but like any other tech tree navy, there's Module upgrades. I'm looking forward the the hull upgrades of a Queen Elizabeth class. AA guns on the main battery! http://smnzone.scalemodellingno.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/gallery/academy-hms-warspite-1350-1/warspite-gallery-9.jpg Hereticus: That picture you linked to is Warspite The Queen Elizabeth / Valiant upgrades did away with the casement guns and introduced 10x twin 4.5 'pillbox' mounts... But they also had the 20mm on the top of the main armament You wanna know what else had AA on top of the main armament? North Carolina Iowa Kongo Nagato Yamato So don't get your hopes up... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,921 mr3awsome Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester 11,461 posts 1,963 battles Report post #13 Posted September 12, 2015 Its a shame that the English didnt turn it into a museum ship. Carrying Europe twice is expensive, and Britain is a small place. And you know, having to rebuilt is expensive too, and much more necessary. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
139 [OJITT] Hereticus2142 Beta Testers 521 posts 3,221 battles Report post #14 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) You wanna know what else had AA on top of the main armament? North Carolina Iowa Kongo Nagato Yamato So don't get your hopes up... Yeah, I'm familiar with that and always dismissed it as a technical problem... Guessing that they can't program or whatever with individual components ontop of individual components.... until Tirpitz came out showing that they can.... I made a post about that, how I wanted the Yamato in game model to match the Naval Legends Yamato model, on grounds of only Aesthetics, but it got derailed as a "Yamato doesn't need a buff!" discussion. With that said I'm still just hopeful that after Tirpitz, future ships will be fully modeled, not missing stuff like AA mounts on turrets.... Is it bad that my decisions are based on aesthetics and not performance? haha. I'm hopeful for the Royal Navy. Edited September 12, 2015 by Hereticus2142 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
113 [ARRSE] Turbogerbil Members 233 posts 1,532 battles Report post #15 Posted September 12, 2015 Given the low esteem WG seems to have for British tanks in WoT, I'm not very optimistic about the forthcoming British ships. WG are orientated (not unreasonably) on profits generated by targeting certain markets. Hence IJN/USN pitches to the Asia/US markets, and Russia/Germany pitches to their huge core market. The RN appeals to those interested in naval history, which is not a significant target market at all. Despite the fact that the RN historically dominates about 40 of the c.45 years the game covers, and led just about all of the ship and technology developments in that period, I fully expect that we'll get a WoT-style set of ships - slow, UP, probably the same low alpha armaments, and so on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,506 [SYN] Kuckoo Members 6,177 posts 14,455 battles Report post #16 Posted September 12, 2015 Given the low esteem WG seems to have for British tanks in WoT, I'm not very optimistic about the forthcoming British ships. Not to mention RN carriers. Yeah, they had excellent armor protection, but for the longest time they had a small aircraft compliment of limited capability. Still, when the RN proper finally does make it into the game, I'll be a-tow-row-row-row-rowing through that tech tree as well. Can't wait. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
332 hoom Beta Testers 2,580 posts 4,750 battles Report post #17 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) Given the low esteem WG seems to have for British tanks in WoT, The clunkers are really clunkers but thats because they were legit bad. But there are a load of really really good tanks in the British tree and I expect there to be a bunch of great ships in the WoWS tree too. Edited September 12, 2015 by hoom Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
145 [K-P-M] Montana_Prussian Members 1,616 posts 18,452 battles Report post #18 Posted September 12, 2015 Carrying Europe twice is expensive, and Britain is a small place. And you know, having to rebuilt is expensive too, and much more necessary. Carried? More like held the line 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Guest 0 posts Report post #19 Posted September 12, 2015 They still had very clean lines... The similarity between pre-1930s RN and IJN design philosophies is obvious - and a direct result of their close relationship. This is Barham. Personally I prefer this version of the ships, though I do not dislike the newer upgrades... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
719 [UFFA] SinqueScheiDeMona Beta Testers 3,784 posts 5,102 battles Report post #20 Posted September 12, 2015 Carrying Europe twice is expensive, and Britain is a small place. And you know, having to rebuilt is expensive too, and much more necessary. You keep saying this however the reality is the UK kept having to go back to the prodigal son with hat in hand. Along with the bits about dispersion, trying to angle for advantages for UK lines, etc. We get it. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
770 [TXGUN] donaldEpott [TXGUN] Members 4,596 posts 13,562 battles Report post #21 Posted September 12, 2015 The reskin is here. I was using Tanz reskin but this one is a little better. He has two reskins of it and i used the second one. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/48257-mod-wyverns-historical-skin-workshop/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,921 mr3awsome Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester 11,461 posts 1,963 battles Report post #22 Posted September 12, 2015 You keep saying this however the reality is the UK kept having to go back to the prodigal son with hat in hand. That was once, and only because it was the "prodigal son"'s fault in the first place. Along with the bits about dispersion, trying to angle for advantages for UK lines, etc. To be fair, dispersion shouldn't be much of a problem for most British ships Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
719 [UFFA] SinqueScheiDeMona Beta Testers 3,784 posts 5,102 battles Report post #23 Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) That was once, and only because it was the "prodigal son"'s fault in the first place. To be fair, dispersion shouldn't be much of a problem for most British ships More like the entire war. As much as the Italians get the blame for pursuing a parallel war Churchill only avoids this as being on the winning side. Edited September 12, 2015 by KorvusJunode Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
130 [DARTH] Korval_BB55 Members 555 posts 16,175 battles Report post #24 Posted September 12, 2015 Some mighty nice models/pictures on this thread Thanks for sharing them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,728 [ABDA] crzyhawk Beta Testers 17,538 posts 12,810 battles Report post #25 Posted September 13, 2015 More like the entire war. As much as the Italians get the blame for pursuing a parallel war Churchill only avoids this as being on the winning side. The British DID carry Europe twice. Let's not pretend that we Americans had a big role in WW1. We joined the winning team in the end. As for WW2, the Brits certainly did their fair share. The US could not have "just won" without them. Were we important? Sure enough. So were the Brits. They were every bit as critical as we were. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
