Iowa C Hull and Front Bulkhead armor

[Tk3997]

I've looked around and seen different opinions, but can't seem to find a definitive answer. So does anyone knows for certain regarding if the C hull has the thicker (368mm) front bulkhead found on Wisconsin and Missouri? I've heard people say the model is based on Wisconsin and it does, but the stat screen shows no increase in max citadel thickness (Izumo thicker forward bulkhead definitely showing up by contrast) and the Iowa honestly just feels weaker end on then Izumo in game so I'm really skeptical it does, but a definitive answer would be nice. (So maybe we can add that to the list of crapWG needs to fix on the ship like missing about 2 knots of speed, under-performing guns, non-historic and silly AA nerfs)

[Nightmare_Fluttershy]

 

 (So maybe we can add that to the list of crapWG needs to fix on the ship like missing about 2 knots of speed, under-performing guns, non-historic and silly AA nerfs)

 

 Honestly Iowa is not missing 2 knots of speed simply because with a full load of crew, ammo etc. Iowa was only capable of 30.5 knots the reason you seem to think Iowa is missing speed is because you got the 2 knots from a website saying that because it was the designed speed and the speed it could achieve with out any ammo and minimum crew. This being said it is not missing 2 knots of speed. The AA was nerfed in CBT because at the time there were only tier 8 carriers and Iowa melted all of the tier 8 planes with the quad bofors so Iowa was nerfed right around the time tier 9 and 10 carriers came in and can will probably stay that way unless the patch notes say otherwise. Iowa is not weaker than Izumo by any standards Iowa can outperform an izumo in turret survivability and overall it all comes down to the captain of the vessel.

 

[Komrade_Rylo]

 

 

 Honestly Iowa is not missing 2 knots of speed simply because with a full load of crew, ammo etc. Iowa was only capable of 30.5 knots the reason you seem to think Iowa is missing speed is because you got the 2 knots from a website saying that because it was the designed speed and the speed it could achieve with out any ammo and minimum crew. This being said it is not missing 2 knots of speed. The AA was nerfed in CBT because at the time there were only tier 8 carriers and Iowa melted all of the tier 8 planes with the quad bofors so Iowa was nerfed right around the time tier 9 and 10 carriers came in and can will probably stay that way unless the patch notes say otherwise. Iowa is not weaker than Izumo by any standards Iowa can outperform an izumo in turret survivability and overall it all comes down to the captain of the vessel.

 

 

no

[Tk3997]

 

 

 Honestly Iowa is not missing 2 knots of speed simply because with a full load of crew, ammo etc. Iowa was only capable of 30.5 knots the reason you seem to think Iowa is missing speed is because you got the 2 knots from a website saying that because it was the designed speed and the speed it could achieve with out any ammo and minimum crew. This being said it is not missing 2 knots of speed. The AA was nerfed in CBT because at the time there were only tier 8 carriers and Iowa melted all of the tier 8 planes with the quad bofors so Iowa was nerfed right around the time tier 9 and 10 carriers came in and can will probably stay that way unless the patch notes say otherwise. Iowa is not weaker than Izumo by any standards Iowa can outperform an izumo in turret survivability and overall it all comes down to the captain of the vessel.

 

Yeah no, Speed Trials on the Iowa where conducted under the wartime regime which was a representative full load displacement. New Jersey made speed trials at a displacement of 57,000 tons without notable overload and produced slightly less then 32 knots, with the plants design overload it would be closer to 33, instruments recorded speeds above 32 knots when maximum speed was ordered to chase a destroyer at Turk as well. Beside if you want to apply this logic many, MANY ships need sped nerfs (Fubuki and Fletcher down to about 35 max, Gearing down to 32) just to start naming a few) cause there supposed design or trial speeds were never attained at full load displacements or without forcing engines to outputs that where unsustainable long term.

 

Yet this ships magically are allowed their unrealistic speeds in game while Iowa is nerfed despite being one of the few ships to actually trial at full load displacements and design power producing a combat representative number.

 

 

 

[jagdoc]

I'm trying to figure out if the designers made a mistake between the B hull and the C hull both hulls have the same amount of Main Batteries and Secondary Batteries.  The B hull has 77 AA mounts and a 99 AA rating while the C hull has 60 AA mounts and a AA rating of 100...am I missing something?

It seems 17 more AA mounts should significantly increase the AA defense capability more than 1 point, not reduce the AA rating.  Perhaps the hulls should be reversed with the C hull having 77 AA mounts with 100 AA rating and the B hull 60 AA mounts with a 95 AA rating.

 

[Oddball_1943]

The Iowa class in this game is grossly inaccurate. All the ships made 33 knots. They turn faster than destroyers yet in the game they are sluggish. The twin rudders and skegs gave them extremely good ability to make tight turns at full speed. They never carried twin 20 mm or twin 40 mm mounts like they have in the game so their armament is also inaccurate. I do not believe the game takes into account the impacts with the outer plates that must occur prior to a projectile hitting the main belt. If this is ignored then their entire side protection is completely thrown off. The outer plates will remove the windscreen, cap head, and AP cap from Japanese shells up to 16-inch caliber. An AP projectile without its AP cap attached to protect the shell body's nose is 100% guaranteed to shatter on impact with the main belt. It is the reason why the armor was hardened to diamond level hardness. The result is when you look at the system as a whole, exterior 1.5" STS plate + 0.625" 2nd bulkhead, + 12.1" main belt backed by 0.875" STS plate and inclined 19 degrees, a projectile would have its nose coverings removed by the initial impacts with the two outer plates exposing its shell body to the main belt. On impact with the main belt the projectile shell body would shatter reducing its ability to penetrate the plate and also the shell would be made ineffective. The ship would be immune to 8-inch shell fire and South Dakota took an 8-inch shell fired as close as 3,500 yards at Guadalcanal and almost at normal angle (plate at zero degrees to projectile nose) of impact and the shell dug into the plate 8 inches but failed to penetrate the main belt. In this game Iowa is penetrated by cruisers all the time. Their secondary battery has a range of 17,000 yards not 7.2 km and it took only a few minutes for New Jersey to sink Miakaze off Truk with her secondary battery. 

 

Unintended consequences of attempting to balance the game by not making the ships accurate is to destroy the need for teamwork. The battleships main responsibility is to secure the sea so lesser ships can do their job without interference or exercise control of the sea. Destroyers and cruisers needed to stay close and combine their firepower because destroyers only had the one shot with their torpedoes so they needed to group to increase the odds of hitting but also to stay alive. When you give ships capabilities they never had such as unlimited torpedo ammunition and cloaking shields they do not need to stay with a group or need the battleship's protection. New Jersey killed one Japanese crewman and wounded 6-7 others on Nowaki at 42,000 yards when her HE shell detonated close to the ships side and fragments entered Nowaki according to her action report. The horror of naval warfare is there is no place to hide and no fox hole you can climb into. On the few occasions when a BB, CA, and destroyers push together you get a glimpse of the potential. If the BB quickly eliminates the enemy lesser ships and can gain the advantage in numbers the friendly destroyers and cruisers can overwhelm a surviving enemy BB. When you look at photos of the Truk action the U.S. forces are all in a tight formation and all ship types are pushing together. New Jersey and Iowa had complete blind fire capability and tracked the Japanese formation through out the action. New Jersey had requested permission to fire on Nowaki but had been denied because Admiral Badger in Iowa did not wish to waste 16-inch ammunition on lesser ships which allowed Nowaki valuable time to open the range. By the time New Jersey was allowed to open fire the range was already extreme but there was never a case of Nowaki vanishing while she was within gun range. 

 

 

[RoliePolie]

I'm trying to figure out if the designers made a mistake between the B hull and the C hull both hulls have the same amount of Main Batteries and Secondary Batteries.  The B hull has 77 AA mounts and a 99 AA rating while the C hull has 60 AA mounts and a AA rating of 100...am I missing something?

It seems 17 more AA mounts should significantly increase the AA defense capability more than 1 point, not reduce the AA rating.  Perhaps the hulls should be reversed with the C hull having 77 AA mounts with 100 AA rating and the B hull 60 AA mounts with a 95 AA rating.

 

 

Better AA guns. The number of mounts is irrelevant in this case since the guns in those mounts get better when going from the B to the C hull.

[SkyRail]

ships in game can never be as accurate as it was IRL, and in a gaming perspective, it makes sense for balancing.

and its not only Iowa, Fubuki and Shimakaze lost 2-3 kts in game, Atago lost the type 93 Torpedos, Kongo's AA is totally non accurate.

Imagine the developer gives the Iowa back the 2 kts and increase the accuracy, she might be quite good go against everything in Tier 9, and can have a good fight with Tier 10 yamato

and at the same time, gives Kongo the real Kongo/Haruna spec instead of a down ver. of Hiei, she would be absuloutly overpowered for a Tier 5

 

[RoliePolie]

ships in game can never be as accurate as it was IRL, and in a gaming perspective, it makes sense for balancing.

and its not only Iowa, Fubuki and Shimakaze lost 2-3 kts in game, Atago lost the type 93 Torpedos, Kongo's AA is totally non accurate.

Imagine the developer gives the Iowa back the 2 kts and increase the accuracy, she might be quite good go against everything in Tier 9, and can have a good fight with Tier 10 yamato

and at the same time, gives Kongo the real Kongo/Haruna spec instead of a down ver. of Hiei, she would be absuloutly overpowered for a Tier 5

 

 

To be honest I think that the Iowa is already pretty good at its tier. She's not too strong or weak. I would like the extra 2 knts back though. I don't think it'd affect the balance of the ship too much and it would be a cool little addition to separate her from the other fast BBs (Amagi and Tirpitz) in terms of speed, which is what she was designed for.

[Iron_Knickers]

 

 

 Honestly Iowa is not missing 2 knots of speed simply because with a full load of crew, ammo etc. Iowa was only capable of 30.5 knots the reason you seem to think Iowa is missing speed is because you got the 2 knots from a website saying that because it was the designed speed and the speed it could achieve with out any ammo and minimum crew. This being said it is not missing 2 knots of speed. The AA was nerfed in CBT because at the time there were only tier 8 carriers and Iowa melted all of the tier 8 planes with the quad bofors so Iowa was nerfed right around the time tier 9 and 10 carriers came in and can will probably stay that way unless the patch notes say otherwise. Iowa is not weaker than Izumo by any standards Iowa can outperform an izumo in turret survivability and overall it all comes down to the captain of the vessel.

 

 

Couldn't you really say that of any ship then?