The USN BB line (Tiers 4-9)

[clivman]

 

 

This will compare the (expected) second line of US BBs with the current BBs

T4-Florida, Wyoming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida-class_battleship

Note: Florida will most likely have a fictional refit in-game (similar to Myogi) so I am comparing STOCK SHIPS

Speed: Florida-21 Knots   Wyoming-18 Knots

Florida is much faster until Wyoming gets a refit

Displacement: Florida-21,825, Wyoming-26,000

Florida will have MUCH less HP than Wyoming

Armor: Florida: 229-279mm belt, Wyoming: 279mm belt

Florida will have weak spots on her sides but will be a smaller target (12m shorter)

Florida: 38mm deck Wyoming: 19-59 mm deck

They will both have horrible deck armor before their refit

Guns:  Florida:  305mm Mark 5, Wyoming 305mm Mark 7

Number of Guns: Florida-10, Wyoming-12

Florida has the South Carolina guns

ROF: Florida: Probably about 2.2, Wyoming: 2.0

Dispersion: Florida: 160m, Wyoming: 170m

Shell Damage: 8300 for both

Rotation Speed:  Florida: 45 seconds, Wyoming:60 seconds

Florida will have better dispersion, traverse, and ROF but gives up a turret.  Florida will have higher DPM but Wyoming will have higher DPS, meaning Florida will have to stay at range

Secondary Battery: Florida:  16x127mm, Wyoming: 16x127mm

Nothing to be said

AA:  Florida: 4x76mm Wyoming 7x76mm

While stock both have horrible AA- after they are upgraded they will be similar

Conclusion:  Florida will be an interesting ship.  Low HP but good armor means it will hold up well in medium range fights but will be devastated at close range.  She will have a small turning circle for a BB and will be faster than Wyoming, but will be slower than Myogi.  She will have good guns but not enough to strait up duel a Wyoming or a Myogi because of their broadside firepower (DPS).  She will most likely end up as an excellent cruiser killer.

 

T5- Nevada, New York

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada-class_battleship

Speed: Nevada-20.5 Knots   New York-21(18.4) Knots

This speed is post refit

Displacement: Nevada-27,500, New York-27,000

They will have similar HP

Armor: Nevada: 343mm belt, New York: 305mm belt

Nevada will be somewhat more armored than New York

Nevada: 76mm deck New York: 44mm deck

Nevada will have tough deck armor relative to New York, New York gets an 89mm upgrade but Nevada upgrades to 127mm!!!!

Guns:  Nevada:  356mm Mark 2, New York 356mm Mark 2

Number of Guns: Nevada-10, New York-10

Turret Arrangement:  Nevada: 3+2+2+3, New York: 2+2+2+2+2

Secondary Battery: Nevada:  12x127mm to 20x127mm, New York: 16x127mm to 6x127mm

Upgraded Nevada will have a huge secondary battery

AA Upgraded:  Nevada: 8x28mm, 8x76mm; New York: 8x20mm, 4x2x40mm, 10x1x62mm

Nevada will have bad AA as it will not get its heavy 1942 refit (Like NY did not get its 1945)

Conclusion:  Nevada will beat New York in secondary batteries and armor, be equal to it in firepower, and be slightly less maneuverable (shorter beam).  She will be a great target for CV’s as it will have almost no AA.

 

 

T6- Pennsylvania, New Mexico

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania-class_battleship

Speed: Pennsylvania-21 Knots   New Mexico-21 Knots

This speed is post refit

Displacement: Pennsylvania -29,150, New Mexico-32,000

New Mexico will have better HP then Pennsylvania

Armor: Pennsylvania: 343mm belt, New Mexico: 343mm belt

Pennsylvania will be similarly armored to New Mexico

Pennsylvania: 127mm to about 160mm deck, New Mexico: 89mm to 144mm deck

Depending on the upgrade WG gives to Pennsylvania she may have better deck armor than New Mexico

Guns:  Pennsylvania:  356mm/45, New Mexico 356mm/50

Gun Differences:  Pennsylvania will trade shell velocity for better dispersion and a 25% increase in turret traverse speed.  It will likely have a higher range as well to make up for lack of HP

Number of Guns: Pennsylvania -12, New Mexico -12

Turret Arrangement:  Pennsylvania, New Mexico: 3+3+3+3

Secondary Battery: Pennsylvania:  12x127mm, New Mexico: 14x127mm to 18x127mm

Pennsylvania will have a small secondary battery

AA Upgraded:  Pennsylvania: 4x76mm, 8x127mm; New Mexico: 8x2x20mm, 4x2x40mm, 4x1x40mm, 8x1x62mm

Similar to Nevada, Pennsylvania will be lacking in AA

Conclusion:  Pennsylvania will be more of a long range fighter than New Mexico. It will trade off HP for range, shell velocity for Turret Traverse.  Like Nevada she will be a better target for carriers then her BB counterparts.

 

 

T7- Tennessee, Colorado

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee-class_battleship

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/55845-a-detailed-look-at-tennessee/

Speed: Tennessee-19.5 Knots   Colorado-21 Knots

Colorado will be faster than Tennessee

Displacement: Tennessee-41,000, Colorado -31,000

Tennessee will not have Colorado’s problem of low HP

Armor: Tennessee: 343mm belt, Colorado: 343mm belt

They will be similarly armored

Tennessee: 89mm to about 140mm deck, Colorado: 89mm to 140mm deck

Tennessee will have the same armor scheme as Colorado

Guns:  Tennessee:  356mm/50, Colorado 406mm/45

Number of Guns: Tennessee -12, Colorado -8

Turret Arrangement:  Tennessee 3+3+3+3, Colorado: 2+2+2+2

Rotation Time: Tennessee-60, Colorado-45

Range: Tennessee: 18km-19.3km, Colorado: 15km-17km

Tennessee’s turrets had a huge range increase over both New Mexico and Colorado

ROF:  Tennessee: 1.8, Colorado: 2.0

Secondary Battery: Tennessee:  14x127mm, Colorado: 12x127mm to 18x127mm

Tennessee will have a smaller secondary battery

AA Upgraded:  Tennessee: 16x127mm, 40x40mm, 41x20mm; Colorado: 33x1x20mm, 5x2x40mm, 6x4x40mm, 8x1x127mm

Here is where the lines switch, Tennessee will have better AA then Colorado

Conclusion:  Tennessee will have more HP, AA and Range; she will lack in sheer firepower as she has T6 guns, the same as New Mexico.  This means she will have less penetration then Colorado, and will likely have less DPM as a result of her guns terrible ROF.  This will likely mean that she will end up as a sniper.

 

T8- South Dakota, North Carolina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1939)

Speed: South Dakota-27 Knots   North Carolina-27.5 Knots

Not enough to matter

Displacement: South Dakota -35,000, North Carolina -36,600

South Dakota is a bit smaller than North Carolina

Armor: South Dakota: 310mm belt, North Carolina: 305mm belt

South Dakota has a bit better belt armor, and it is better angled, so she will make up for lost HP in displacement

South Dakota: 150mm deck, North Carolina: 140mm deck

Same as in belt armor South Dakota will better hold up to arcing fire than North Carolina

South Dakota:  460mm turret, North Carolina 406mm turret

It will be very, very hard to knock out South Dakota’s turrets

Guns:  South Dakota:  406mm/45 Mark 6, North Carolina 406mm/45 Mark 6

Number of Guns: South Dakota -9, North Carolina -9

Turret Arrangement:  South Dakota 3+3+3, North Carolina: 3+3+3

The ships have the same guns

Secondary Battery: South Dakota:  8x2x127mm, North Carolina: 10x2x127mm to

South Dakota will have an okay secondary battery (16 guns)

AA Upgraded:  South Dakota: 16x127mm, 17x4x40mm, 72x1x20mm; North Carolina: 40x1x20mm, 4x2x20mm, 8x2x40mm, 6x4x40mm, 20x127mm

Alternatively South Dakota will have 16x127, 4x4x40mm, 20x1x28mm, 16x1x20mm (late 1942)

Conclusion:  South Dakota will play similarly to North Carolina, being a little bit smaller and better armored with a bit less HP and about the same AA.
 

 

T9- Indiana, Iowa

Note: Indiana is the second ship of the cancelled South Dakota class of battleships, I am calling the class Indiana to avoid confusion with the T8 ship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1920)

Speed: Indiana-23 Knots   Iowa-30.5 Knots

Indiana is a standard type battleship, and so she goes back to the <T-7 speeds

Displacement: Indiana -43,200, Iowa -45,000

Indiana will have a bit less HP then Iowa.

Armor: Indiana: 343mm belt, Iowa: 307mm belt

Indiana has thick belt armor.

Indiana: 152mm deck, Iowa: 152mm deck

They will have the same deck armor.

Guns:  Indiana:  406/45 Mk 2, Iowa 406mm/50 Mk7

Number of Guns: Indiana -12, Iowa -9

Turret Arrangement:  Indiana 3+3+3+3, Iowa: 3+3+3

At first it seems like Indiana will have more Alpha Damage

Shell Velocity: Indiana- 853 m/s, Iowa- 762 m/s

Shell weight: Indiana- 954.5 kg, Iowa- 1225 kg

Iowa fires a low velocity shell with similar armor penetrating capabilities and much higher damage

Indiana’s shells will only have a damage of 11,000(a bit more than New Mex) compared to 13,500

However, they will likely upgrade to the Mark V (Colorado’s upgraded guns)

Rotation Time: Indiana -55, Iowa -45

Range: Indiana: 19.6-21.7km, Iowa: 21.2-23.3km

Iowa outranges Indiana

ROF:  Indiana: 2.0, Iowa: 2.0

Secondary Battery: Indiana:  16x152mm, Iowa: 10x2x127mm

Indiana will have less, but larger, secondary guns,

AA Upgraded:  Indiana: 4x72mm, 4x57mm; Iowa: 12x1x20mm, 20x2x20mm, 14x2x40mm, 4x4x40mm, 10x2x127mm

Indiana will get a modernization…. But stock she will be a very easy target for Taiho and Essex

Conclusion: Indiana is a smaller, slower, better armored Montana with bad guns and AA.  She may need balancing but she fits well at T9.

 

 

 

 

Note: Apparently no one reads in suggestions so I didn't bother to finish that thread and instead re-did it and posted it here.

 

[suleiman71]

Here's my ideas.

 

Tier 4: Rivadavia or Delaware

Tier 5: Nevada '18

Tier 6: Nevada

Tier 7: Tennessee

Tier 8: South Dakota
Tier 9: Slow Iowa (more armor)
Tier 10: Fast Montana (less armor, faster)

 

May not be accurate to what was discussed a few months ago.

[clivman]

Here's my ideas.

 

Tier 4: Rivadavia or Delaware

Tier 5: Nevada '18

Tier 6: Nevada

Tier 7: Tennessee

Tier 8: South Dakota

Tier 9: Slow Iowa (more armor)

Tier 10: Fast Montana (less armor, faster)

 

May not be accurate to what was discussed a few months ago.

 

Are those supposed to be premiums?

Incase you didn't notice I was trying to use all real ships

I included every dreadnaught besides Delaware and only had one uncompleted ship

[suleiman71]

 

Are those supposed to be premiums?

 

Nope. A line idea cobbled together a few months back.

[clivman]

 

Nope. A line idea cobbled together a few months back.

 

Oh... Rivadavia would make a great premie

[Captain_Dorja]

wth is Rivadavia?

[suleiman71]

wth is Rivadavia?

 

An Argentine battleship.

[Arzoo]

I laughed at the thought of US BBs ever getting long range or good dispersion for balance purposes. Never going to happen; any ship that has poor hard stats will be left to rot.

[clivman]

I laughed at the thought of US BBs ever getting long range or good dispersion for balance purposes. Never going to happen; any ship that has poor hard stats will be left to rot.

 

Yeah, but the new line will be OK.  Until you get Tennessee.  Then you get a super well armored New Mexico with better HP than Colorado that can outrange IJN BBs.  It will be a fun ship

[suleiman71]

 

Yeah, but the new line will be OK.  Until you get Tennessee.  Then you get a super well armored New Mexico with better HP than Colorado that can outrange IJN BBs.  It will be a fun ship

 

Colorado needs an HP buff to 60k first, then we can add Tennessee in with around 62k, with a range of around 18-19km.

[clivman]

 

Colorado needs an HP buff to 60k first, then we can add Tennessee in with around 62k, with a range of around 18-19km.

 

I can justify Colorado at 57k, its supposed to be a lightweight.

Tennessee will be 61k

[Arzoo]

Wargaming uses rangefinder height to determine range, so unless Tennessee had a much longer range one than Colorado don't expect better ranges than the ones other lower tier US Battleships wallow in.

[Captain_Dorja]

Honestly, the shorter range of USN battleships really didn't both me. Above 15km, most shots are just total RNG. Sure, it's nice to be able to take the chance, but really, I didn't miss it. Hell on my North Carolina, where I have 20.5~ km range, I'm avoiding taking any range upgrades because more range than 20km just isn't valuable on that ship IMO.

[Kalstein]

I don't see enough of a distinction between the two lines to justify an entirely separate tree,

 

Will South Dakota, for example, play in a manner different from North Carolina since she will have an armor 5mm thicker at the cost of 0.5knot slower top speed, while all other armaments are basically the same? 

I really don't think so.

[chaplainDMK]

The supposed US 18 knot speeds until new engines doesn't have historic merit. Apart from the South Carolina class, all US dreadnoughts until the North Carolina had a speed of about 21 knots as launched. So generally Florida would for example also probably get a crappy stock engine to make her even more hell to get through. 

[clivman]

Wargaming uses rangefinder height to determine range, so unless Tennessee had a much longer range one than Colorado don't expect better ranges than the ones other lower tier US Battleships wallow in.

 

Well then I guess Tennessee is going to get a very good rangefinder upgrade.  The main point in the design was the ability to fire over the horizon.

[clivman]

I don't see enough of a distinction between the two lines to justify an entirely separate tree,

 

Will South Dakota, for example, play in a manner different from North Carolina since she will have an armor 5mm thicker at the cost of 0.5knot slower top speed, while all other armaments are basically the same?

I really don't think so.

 

They look a lot different- and South Dakota is smaller.  Besides, all the other ships are very different.

[clivman]

Anyone have ideas for T10?

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

The Tennessee is literally just a New Mexico were the turrets were built from the beginning allowing more elevation (30 degrees) which is completely meaningless in this game because gun elevation does not determine range. You are putting a tier 6 ship at tier 7.

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

Anyone have ideas for T10?

 

There are lots of tillman designs last I heard the devs were considering one with a fake modern rebuild.

[clivman]

The Tennessee is literally just a New Mexico were the turrets were built from the beginning allowing more elevation (30 degrees) which is completely meaningless in this game because gun elevation does not determine range. You are putting a tier 6 ship at tier 7.

 

It is definitely a T7 ship.

 

Look at the stats in the post.

It would crush at T6 with amazing armor, HP, and AA as well as 19km range.

BTW it's built on a larger Colorado hull

[clivman]

 

There are lots of tillman designs last I heard the devs were considering one with a fake modern rebuild.

 

No.....Just No......NOOOOOOOOOO

I really do not want some senator designed ship in-game

[1nv4d3rZ1m]

 

It is definitely a T7 ship.

 

Look at the stats in the post.

It would crush at T6 with amazing armor, HP, and AA as well as 19km range.

BTW it's built on a larger Colorado hull

 

The Tennessee is a New Mexico with more gun elevation, it has the same belt armor, same guns, same displacement, and less speed. 

 

 

No.....Just No......NOOOOOOOOOO

I really do not want some senator designed ship in-game

 

They were not designed by a senator, they were design studies by the Navy at the senator's request. 

[clivman]

 

The Tennessee is a New Mexico with more gun elevation, it has the same belt armor, same guns, same displacement, and less speed.

1000 tons more is not the same.  They were the same speed.  Tennessee had an improved armor layout with the same thickness.  Tennessee had better AA than Colorado.  She was 40 ft wider than New Mexico. She also had a better FCS (which was taller) and more accurate main/secondaries

They were not designed by a senator, they were design studies by the Navy at the senator's request.

They were still extremely unrealistic

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

 

There are lots of tillman designs last I heard the devs were considering one with a fake modern rebuild.

 

Tiilman will be interesting to fit into tier 10, I wonder which one is best for tier 10, and how will they compare others at their tier.