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

Idea for high tier USN and RN BBs (especially Montana)

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

75
[KIA-T]
Members
320 posts
6,543 battles

Radar, and especially its operational use, is an area where the allies have pulled far ahead of the Axis during WW2. USN radars have substantially higher power output and generally better resolution than Kriegsmarine and IJN counterparts. Given that the Montana is quite underperforming, why not give it a buff in SA by giving her much much longer acquisition range of enemies by default? Also make her immune to cyclones.

 

I think this can apply to upcoming Royal Navy BBs as well, since the British and Americans both have comparable and advanced radars.

 

EDIT: This may sound unpopular but I think the Iowa and Montana speeds should be nerfed slightly to 32 knots and 28 knots, respectively. I think 32 knots was the highest that the Iowa class achieved in WW2 under realistic combat load.

Edited by RadDisconnect
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
171 posts
3,883 battles

I feel like this is the old "something isn't as good as something else at something, therefore it must be changed in order to be equal". The Montana has a more powerful broadside than Yamato (in theory) the only reason that Yamato is capable of beating Montana is lolpen through the bow. If Yamato couldn't lolpen the bow of Monty I would imagine that the Monty would be more powerful than Yamato, due to it's speed and very good AP rounds. (Written when I was half asleep, take anything said here as seriously as you see fit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
873
[MPIRE]
Beta Testers
3,804 posts
6,762 battles

If anything, USN Radar in the war gave it a very high accuracy advantage (especially at long ranges) over the IJN...

 

 

Maybe a US BB consumable in the mid to high tiers that temporarily decreases dispersion for a few salvos? (90-120 seconds or so.)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[LSNB]
[LSNB]
Beta Testers
117 posts
1,476 battles

Iowa and Montana both have better Fire Control then the Yamato did (in real life).  The easiest way to do a buff to Montana is to buff the dispersion on Montana since it's currently worse then Yamato's.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,740
[SPTR]
Members
28,237 posts
21,936 battles

Also give the montana historical  intended deck armor thickness... Im in for the dispersion buff too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
766
[SPTR]
Members
20,155 posts
6,159 battles

Also give the montana historical  intended deck armor thickness... Im in for the dispersion buff too.

But she's already having an ahistorical top speed, higher than the Yammy. I mean, I am of the opinion that the Yammy is far better and Monty must be buffed, but there's a limit to it. I think her speed may need to be slightly nerfed, but dispersion and armor increased. Of course, keeping it doesn't mean that it will be OP, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,672
[SALVO]
Members
28,247 posts
43,798 battles

Iowa and Montana both have better Fire Control then the Yamato did (in real life).  The easiest way to do a buff to Montana is to buff the dispersion on Montana since it's currently worse then Yamato's.

 

 

^This.  Radar enhanced fire control should be represented in game by improved accuracy (i.e. reduced dispersion).  

 

This should also be true for USN Cruisers as well, and would be a significant way to help make up for the relative weakness they have due to their lack of torpedoes.  It seems to me that USN higher tier cruisers could easily make up for their relatively lower DPG numbers by simply improving their main guns' accuracy and perhaps RoF.

 

 

And BTW, it's better (or worse) THAN, not better "then".

 

 

 

Edited by Crucis
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
163 posts
6,068 battles

Also give the montana historical  intended deck armor thickness... Im in for the dispersion buff too.

 

You guys need to stop complaining about yamato, it was the ultimate battleship ever built, Montana is nothing but a piece of paper that never materialized, it never come to be real and so this "historical thing" means nothing.

It's dispersion is virtually the same as yamato, ( 259m vs 265m ) and they gave US bbs too many buffs already, specially to it's armor and guns.  

If WG decides to buff Montana just a tiny bit more users will be in line to asking for refunds, pissed with real reasons I heard that some users are doing this already. Also, German bbs line is coming out and my guess is that they come out oped as &%$.

Edited by ThatLungfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[KIA-T]
Members
320 posts
6,543 battles

 

You guys need to stop complaining about yamato, it was the ultimate battleship ever built, Montana is nothing but a piece of paper that never materialized, it never come to be real and so this "historical thing" means nothing.

It's dispersion is virtually the same as yamato, ( 259m vs 265m ) and they gave US bbs too many buffs already, specially to it's armor and guns.  

If WG decides to buff Montana just a tiny bit more users will be in line to asking for refunds, pissed with real reasons I heard that some users are doing this already. Also, German bbs line is coming out and my guess is that they come out oped as &%$.

 

Ultimate by what measure? At what? Size? Gun caliber? Those didn't save it from the dismal shooting in the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

 

The Montana's design was finished and approved to be built in 1942 with estimated completion date in 1945. Only reason it wasn't made was that the USN realized CVs are the way to go and chose to build more Essex CVs. All the armor dimensions are accurate, and not only that, the 1.5" (38 mm) weather deck on the Iowa (and 2.25" (57 mm) on the Montana class) are currently ignored by the game, so what's wrong with asking for the historical inclusion? What exactly is "too many buffs"? Making the armor model in 0.5.9 more accurate is "too many buffs"? And 0.5.9 still have not given the Iowa class its 1.5" (38 mm) STS and 0.625" (16 mm) HTS plates that would be in front of the main belt armor.

 

If you complain about Montana then why not complain about Zao and Hakuryu?

 

And your "ultimate battleship" got demolished by Essex in real life. :trollface:

Edited by RadDisconnect
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
149 posts
3,028 battles

 

You guys need to stop complaining about yamato, it was the ultimate battleship ever built, Montana is nothing but a piece of paper that never materialized, it never come to be real and so this "historical thing" means nothing.

 

Yamato might have been legendary when she was built, but she was a useless relic by the time WWII rolled around. Montana might be a paper ship, but essentially was an Iowa with an extra turret. The Iowa is not a paper ship, in fact she was so successful that all four ships saw use into the nineties. Her armor was superior and her accuracy was unmatched. Iowa was deemed more than a match for Yamato, so I'm pretty sure that Montana is equally if not more capable at destroying her IJN rival. So, as far as this "historical thing" goes, the Montana would be seriously overpowered should Wargaming use historical fact to determine game play.

As it stands, the Montana has very little chance at taking down a Yamato in game as Yamato has better accuracy for long range fights and better penetration in short range fights. Well, I've heard that the Montana is not meant to be a Yamato killer in game, she is a cruiser killer. Killing something involves hitting it first, and with the horrible dispersion that currently plagues the USN, I don't see the Montana living up to her potential as a cruiser killer either.

Radar would be a nice little equalizer for the USN since we suck at everything except AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[KIA-T]
Members
320 posts
6,543 battles

 

Her armor was superior and her accuracy was unmatched. Iowa was deemed more than a match for Yamato, so I'm pretty sure that Montana is equally if not more capable at destroying her IJN rival. So, as far as this "historical thing" goes, the Montana would be seriously overpowered should Wargaming use historical fact to determine game play.

 

Uhhhh no, the Iowa's armor may be of better quality but it's not more effective than Yamato. The combined thickness of the Class A belt and the STS and HTS plates in front of it would give an effective thickness of maybe around 13.5" (345 mm). On the other hand the VH steel armor used on Yamato is on average 7.5% inferior to USN Class A, but the Japanese used it anyways not because they don't know how to make good armor but because it's the only armor they can manufacture in adequate quantities. So the 16.1" (410 mm) belt on the Yamato is likely only as good as about 380 mm Class A. So Yamato has the best protection of BBs on paper, that is not disputed. The Yamato is not all powerful but it's still formidable.

 

The problem is the game ignores significant USN advantages, such as much more effective radar and fire control, which should give the USN BBs much better SA and practical accuracy (different from gun precision). Since fire control affects accuracy and not gun precision, I think dispersion buff doesn't make sense, but the USN should have much better SA and be immune to weather effects.**

 

By the way, the Yamato has other problems that isn't considered in the game. A very poorly designed joint between the upper and lower belt, combined with incorporating belt armor into the torpedo defense (problem shared with Iowa class, though the poor jointing on Yamato likely makes the problem worse) makes the torpedo defense less effective than expected.

 

**In fact, in Battle of Surigao Strait the West Virginia with its radar directed gunfire hit the Yamashiro on its first salvo at 20.8 km.

Edited by RadDisconnect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,462 posts
5,897 battles

 

Uhhhh no, the Iowa's armor may be of better quality but it's not more effective than Yamato. The combined thickness of the Class A belt and the STS and HTS plates in front of it would give an effective thickness of maybe around 13.5" (345 mm). On the other hand the VH steel armor used on Yamato is on average 7.5% inferior to USN Class A, but the Japanese used it anyways not because they don't know how to make good armor but because it's the only armor they can manufacture in adequate quantities. So the 16.1" (410 mm) belt on the Yamato is likely only as good as about 380 mm Class A. So Yamato has the best protection of BBs on paper, that is not disputed. The Yamato is not all powerful but it's still formidable.

 

The problem is the game ignores significant USN advantages, such as much more effective radar and fire control, which should give the USN BBs much better SA and practical accuracy (different from gun precision). Since fire control affects accuracy and not gun precision, I think dispersion buff doesn't make sense, but the USN should have much better SA and be immune to weather effects.**

 

By the way, the Yamato has other problems that isn't considered in the game. A very poorly designed joint between the upper and lower belt, combined with incorporating belt armor into the torpedo defense (problem shared with Iowa class, though the poor jointing on Yamato likely makes the problem worse) makes the torpedo defense less effective than expected.

 

**In fact, in Battle of Surigao Strait the West Virginia with its radar directed gunfire hit the Yamashiro on its first salvo at 20.8 km.

 

The Iowa's had 1.5" of STS steel as the outer hull of the ship, the Class A was cemented to and bolted to .75" of STS backing steel.   The outer was intended to decap projectiles and yaw any that make it through that.... The 1.5" of plate could only decap up to 10" guns, but could yaw some larger shells too.

 

The Montana's Class A was backed by 1" of STS steel and had no external armor plate but it was designed to be 17" thick angled 20º.  The bomb deck on a Montana has 10" of various types of steel, mostly STS but some class B in there too.  Both the bomb deck configurations of the Iowa and Montana are MISSING from the game and it is only being treated as one "thick" plate that isn't very thick.  The front bow armor is less than 1mm of preventing the [edited]lolpens from a Yamato's shells.

 

If we don't use historical accuracy for this, then balance the damn game.  Right now, avg dmg, win rate, etc, are all lower than the Yamato... IE:  Not balanced.  At least attempt to close the 12k dmg gap.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
163 posts
6,068 battles

 

Ultimate by what measure? At what? Size? Gun caliber? Those didn't save it from the dismal shooting in the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

 

The Montana's design was finished and approved to be built in 1942 with estimated completion date in 1945. Only reason it wasn't made was that the USN realized CVs are the way to go and chose to build more Essex CVs. All the armor dimensions are accurate, and not only that, the 1.5" (38 mm) weather deck on the Iowa (and 2.25" (57 mm) on the Montana class) are currently ignored by the game, so what's wrong with asking for the historical inclusion? What exactly is "too many buffs"? Making the armor model in 0.5.9 more accurate is "too many buffs"? And 0.5.9 still have not given the Iowa class its 1.5" (38 mm) STS and 0.625" (16 mm) HTS plates that would be in front of the main belt armor.

 

If you complain about Montana then why not complain about Zao and Hakuryu?

 

And your "ultimate battleship" got demolished by Essex in real life. :trollface:

 

It is world wide know as the mightiest battleship ever build. That's undisputed .

Its torpedo protection was top notch it's armor was the best armor in that time. Montana has never been built and the real world compromises of such project Is unknow. There are a few things missing in the in-game yamato but you don't see people asking for more and more.

 

To me it is like you guys want a ship that can freely broadside to an yamato or any Tier 10 BBS and deny any damage. Learn to play the Montana, stop broadsiding too much...it is already a great BBS with only 6 meters more dispersion than Yamato, great speed and armor. I don't really know what else you guys are asking for.

 

Yamato was sent to a suicidal mission and the Essex did a great job by sinking it. I am not pro Japan or anything like, if you ask me I think they of deserved what they got but guess what, war is over,  it is 2016 and Yamato is know to be the real deal.  Japs did a great job with Yamato and most of it's of cruisers.

USN had the numbers + the british radar, Japs got the guns and armor. 

Edited by ThatLungfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
149 posts
3,028 battles

 

It is world wide know as the mightiest battleship ever build. That's undisputed .

Its torpedo protection was top notch it's armor was the best armor in that time. Montana has never been built and the real world compromises of such project Is unknow. There are a few things missing in the in-game yamato but you don't see people asking for more and more.

 

To me it is like you guys want a ship that can freely broadside to an yamato or any Tier 10 BBS and deny any damage. Learn to play the Montana, stop broadsiding too much...it is already a great BBS with only 6 meters more dispersion than Yamato, great speed and armor. I don't really know what else you guys are asking for.

 

Yamato was sent to a suicidal mission and the Essex did a great job by sinking it. I am not pro Japan or anything like, if you ask me I think they of deserved what they got but guess what, war is over,  it is 2016 and Yamato is know to be the real deal.  Japs did a great job with Yamato and most of it's of cruisers.

USN had the numbers + the british radar, Japs got the guns and armor. 

 

It's obviously disputed because we're arguing about it. As I said before, though the Montana was never built, it has the exact same guns as an Iowa, just more of them. Iowa was known for its accuracy, firepower, and while the armor is inferior on paper, history proved every ship has its weak spots. While a lucky shell can sink any ship with the right hit, the Montana could land more shells on target with deadly accuracy while Yamato never once hit anything with her main guns in her entire career.

 

As for broadsiding, Montana drivers typically don't show their side unless they are caught off guard or really bad players, what usually happens is the Montana and Yamato turn bow on, then Yamato starts the lolpens while Montana tries to burn the Yamato because AP is useless against a Yamato. Montana is a good ship, but you keep saying the dispersion is practically the same. Yes it is, however the Sigma value (RNG) is worse than that of Yamato's, meaning the gunners can fire all day and not hit anything.

 

You stated that the IJN had the guns and armor, well that's true in game, but you also stated that the USN had radar, well that's what the original poster was talking about, so you kind of are validating his argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
163 posts
6,068 battles

 

It's obviously disputed because we're arguing about it. As I said before, though the Montana was never built, it has the exact same guns as an Iowa, just more of them. Iowa was known for its accuracy, firepower, and while the armor is inferior on paper, history proved every ship has its weak spots. While a lucky shell can sink any ship with the right hit, the Montana could land more shells on target with deadly accuracy while Yamato never once hit anything with her main guns in her entire career.

 

As for broadsiding, Montana drivers typically don't show their side unless they are caught off guard or really bad players, what usually happens is the Montana and Yamato turn bow on, then Yamato starts the lolpens while Montana tries to burn the Yamato because AP is useless against a Yamato. Montana is a good ship, but you keep saying the dispersion is practically the same. Yes it is, however the Sigma value (RNG) is worse than that of Yamato's, meaning the gunners can fire all day and not hit anything.

 

You stated that the IJN had the guns and armor, well that's true in game, but you also stated that the USN had radar, well that's what the original poster was talking about, so you kind of are validating his argument.

 

Most montana players tend to broadside ALOT, I don't know what is wrong with them.

 

I was talking about the reality during WWII since you have touched the topic. USN had numbers + british radar, IJN had fewer ships with better guns + armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
163 posts
6,068 battles

Radar would not change the dispersion characteristics, It would help you to place your shots more accurately. 

 

Since most American players were complaining so much WG has decided to give to the USN  two exclusive upgrades ( while taking the original plotting room from other nations ships ) which increased the historical short ranged guns while decreasing dispersions .  Those exclusive upgrades did put USN guns on par of those from IJN, denying the historical range and dispersion advantage of IJN guns.

If you want the "history" then we should roll back and take out all exclusive upgrades that were given to the USN line in trade for the radar or whatever.. 

 

IJN guns had better dispersion and range characteristics than those of USN, fact.

Edited by ThatLungfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[KIA-T]
Members
320 posts
6,543 battles

 

The Iowa's had 1.5" of STS steel as the outer hull of the ship, the Class A was cemented to and bolted to .75" of STS backing steel.   The outer was intended to decap projectiles and yaw any that make it through that.... The 1.5" of plate could only decap up to 10" guns, but could yaw some larger shells too.

 

The Montana's Class A was backed by 1" of STS steel and had no external armor plate but it was designed to be 17" thick angled 20º.  The bomb deck on a Montana has 10" of various types of steel, mostly STS but some class B in there too.  Both the bomb deck configurations of the Iowa and Montana are MISSING from the game and it is only being treated as one "thick" plate that isn't very thick.  The front bow armor is less than 1mm of preventing the [edited]lolpens from a Yamato's shells.

 

If we don't use historical accuracy for this, then balance the damn game.  Right now, avg dmg, win rate, etc, are all lower than the Yamato... IE:  Not balanced.  At least attempt to close the 12k dmg gap.

 

I'm not including the backing plate and cement because every battleship has that, though the Iowa and Montana backing plates are STS (which has some armor qualities) and somewhat thicker than what most other ships use, with 0.875" (22 mm) on the Iowa vs 16 mm on Yamato. Also, Montana Class A belt is actually 16.1", which is almost identical to Yamato. It also has a separate Class B lower belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
165 posts
1,980 battles

How about a consumable just for Tier VIII+USN BBs, and Tier VI+ CAs? Radar Assist: Lowers dispersion by 15-20% for 90 seconds, with a cool down of 180-240 seconds?

 

OP? Probably, but if you're going to say something isn't correct,at least include an option to build off of, or to counterpoint. Right now, the only the USN has going for it is formidable AA. But as CVs are like unicorns, and only rarely appear in high tier games, the AA is wasted.

As LWM put in another thread:

 

"The reason that USN ships, particularly USN Cruisers, seem to be lacking compared to their IJN counterparts has nothing to do with the mass production methods used by the United States, but everything to do with the arcade-nature of World of Warships.  World of Warships does not take into account such traits as seaworthiness, ship balance, range and ease of maintenance -- traits at which most USN ships excelled and many IJN ships struggled.  Take a look at the Gnevny-class Destroyers as a great example (this time with an Italian-Soviet design).  In game?  Awesome boats.  In real life?  Decent boats, but struggled with structural durability, seaworthiness and reliability.  But you don't need to worry about your ship coming apart in rough seas... or capsizing ... or maintenance in game.  So the big flaws of the Gnevny-class are made moot.

 

The greatest strengths of the USN are largely ignored in World of Warships -- industrial might, seaworthiness, reliability and radar-assisted fire control."

 

And the big deal is, USN is average is nearly all respects. While other nations excel at certain traits.

Think of it like this: USN is an accountant. Average in many areas with only a small specialty. All the other nations are Rock-stars. Their great attributes are fully realized without any visible drawbacks. Are there any? Perhaps, but they don't matter in an arcade game like WoWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[KIA-T]
Members
320 posts
6,543 battles

 

It is world wide know as the mightiest battleship ever build. That's undisputed .

Its torpedo protection was top notch it's armor was the best armor in that time. Montana has never been built and the real world compromises of such project Is unknow. There are a few things missing in the in-game yamato but you don't see people asking for more and more.

 

To me it is like you guys want a ship that can freely broadside to an yamato or any Tier 10 BBS and deny any damage. Learn to play the Montana, stop broadsiding too much...it is already a great BBS with only 6 meters more dispersion than Yamato, great speed and armor. I don't really know what else you guys are asking for.

 

Yamato was sent to a suicidal mission and the Essex did a great job by sinking it. I am not pro Japan or anything like, if you ask me I think they of deserved what they got but guess what, war is over,  it is 2016 and Yamato is know to be the real deal.  Japs did a great job with Yamato and most of it's of cruisers.

USN had the numbers + the british radar, Japs got the guns and armor. 

 

"World wide know"? Undisputed? Where are you pulling this from?

 

Yamato's "top notch" torpedo protection took on 3000 tons of water from a single torpedo hit from USS Skate, far more than anticipated due to a design and manufacturing flaw of the system with poor upper and lower belt jointing. Yet this flaw isn't reflected in game and Yamato for some reason has much higher torpedo damage reduction than anything else. Best armor? The Japanese VH armor like those used on the Yamato is on average 7.5% inferior to USN Class A, tested with 15 inch plates.

 

post-1004468730-0-19596200-1446248759.jpg

 

We're asking WG to fix the issue where the Montana is on average doing 12000 less damage than the Yamato, and with lower win rate. No one is asking for the Montana and Iowa to be invincible (and to be fair the Iowa doesn't really need a buff) but the fact of the matter is that both ships are missing some of the armor they would otherwise have. Montana underperformance needs to be addressed.

 

Radar would not change the dispersion characteristics, It would help you to place your shots more accurately. 

 

Since most American players were complaining so much WG has decided to give to the USN  two exclusive upgrades ( while taking the original plotting room from other nations ships ) which increased the historical short ranged guns while decreasing dispersions .  Those exclusive upgrades did put USN guns on par of those from IJN, denying the historical range and dispersion advantage of IJN guns.

If you want the "history" then we should roll back and take out all exclusive upgrades that were given to the USN line in trade for the radar or whatever.. 

 

IJN guns had better dispersion and range characteristics than those of USN, fact.

 

You repeating the word "fact" does not make it so. Give some evidence or citations if you want to be taken seriously.

Edited by RadDisconnect
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
163 posts
6,068 battles

 

"World wide know"? Undisputed? Where are you pulling this from?

 

Yamato's "top notch" torpedo protection took on 3000 tons of water from a single torpedo hit from USS Skate, far more than anticipated due to a design and manufacturing flaw of the system with poor upper and lower belt jointing. Yet this flaw isn't reflected in game and Yamato for some reason has much higher torpedo damage reduction than anything else. Best armor? The Japanese VH armor like those used on the Yamato is on average 7.5% inferior to USN Class A, tested with 15 inch plates.

 

post-1004468730-0-19596200-1446248759.jpg

 

We're asking WG to fix the issue where the Montana is on average doing 12000 less damage than the Yamato, and with lower win rate. No one is asking for the Montana and Iowa to be invincible (and to be fair the Iowa doesn't really need a buff) but the fact of the matter is that both ships are missing some of the armor they would otherwise have. Montana underperformance needs to be addressed.

 

 

You repeating the word "fact" does not make it so. Give some evidence or citations if you want to be taken seriously.

 

 

Like I've said, give up on the exclusive upgrades that have been given to USN battleships, negating the superiority of IJN guns ( range and dispersion ) then talk about any other buffs to it's weapons.

The so called british radar that US ships had would not change the dispersion of guns but WG has decided to give USN line of BBS exclusive modules to match the dispersion of IJN guns, and that's. You want to give up on those upgrades ( give up on range and dispersion ) to have on montana the same damage as yamato guns ????? Im fine with that. By the way, Iowas armor is oped as of right now.

 

 

Montana's underperformance has more to do with the people playing it than with the ship itself. You guys should learn to exploit the superior speed and turret rotation of Montana instead of crying over the only strong points that Yamato or any other IJN battleship have.

 

There is nothing to fix, learn to play the ship and enjoy what you already have.

 

By the way, google is your friend ! 

 

 

Edited by ThatLungfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
29,074 battles

I still think Montana could use a rudder shift time reduction (right now both her shift time and turning circle are inferior), but otherwise it's fine.  Lungfish isn't wrong when he says that a lot of Montanas broadside because they want the 12-gun salvo off.  Montana can out-DPM Yamato at range by using HE spam and fires (given that both players are WASDing), and up close the Yamato's armor isn't nearly as invincible as people think: the bulges in the hull are very poorly-protected and even 14" AP at 10km or below can smash through it and citadel.  Adding to that is the fact that literally all of the ship around that area is part of the citadel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6 posts
1,530 battles

Cadwell,

Just a little correction to your statement, yes the Four (4) Iowa Class ships were in service in the 90's, however, 3 of the ships were in ports by 1997 - 1998. The only Iowa Class BB that stayed "on active duty" and the only BB in Desert Storm was the New Jersey (which BTW, is the most decorated ship in the USN).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
149 posts
3,028 battles

Thank you Reaper, I will keep that in mind.

 

By the way, google is your friend ! 

 

Thanks for the tip! I did some research and found that during the battle Surigao Strait, the USS West Virginia managed to hit the battleship Yamashiro on her first salvo due to her radar guided guns, while the Japanese, and I quote "the Japanese battleships—with their inferior fire control systems—could not return fire."

During the battle of Guadalcanal, the USS South Dakota, after engaging previous targets, lost power due to an error in the engine room. The Japanese battleship Kirishima and two cruisers used spotlights to illuminate the battleship. Even though the ship was engage for over a half hour, she only received 26 hits that did cause serious damage but it was nowhere near the amount needed to sink her. In the meantime, the USS Washington managed to track the Japanese ships using radar and closed to within 5,000 yards. In the first seven minutes of the fight, the Washington managed to score nine 16" hits and forty or more 5" hits. Kirishima eventually capsized from the amount of fire that poured into her.
During the battle of Leyte Gulf, the Japanese opened fire on Taffy 3. By the time the USS Johnston had turned around, sailed 20 miles, launched her torpedoes at Kumano and caused fires on another heavy cruiser, she finally took three fourteen inch shells that severely damaged her but she still continued to operate. An estimated 15 ships of various types all firing at one destroyer and failing to hit for over half an hour is. . . about what happens in game almost. Additionally, the USS White Plains, a lowly escort carrier, managed to severely damage and immobilize the Chokai by detonating her torpedoes. Wish they had THAT in game.

 

Overall, the Japanese gunnery was decent, but they lacked the technology that the Americans had, radar tracking and early versions of computers. This allowed the Americans to reliably track their targets, get definite bearings and speed while using a computer (That box sitting on top of the Fletcher, it took about thirty seconds to pump out the information.) to aim their guns.

 

Should this type of accuracy be implemented in game? That is a definite no. But all of this talk about how good the USN upgrades are is stupid, the fact is that whether it's at range or up close, Yamato can land more shots that can go right through the bow of a Montana. USN dispersion maybe the same but the Sigma (RNG) is far worse than that of the IJN. While I have learned to cope with this considering my repair bill cost as much a tier 4 cruiser, it would be nice if WG gave a little more incentive for players to pick the USN line.

Edited by Caldwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
29,074 battles

Cadwell,

Just a little correction to your statement, yes the Four (4) Iowa Class ships were in service in the 90's, however, 3 of the ships were in ports by 1997 - 1998. The only Iowa Class BB that stayed "on active duty" and the only BB in Desert Storm was the New Jersey (which BTW, is the most decorated ship in the USN).

Desert Storm employed Missouri and Wisconsin, not New Jersey.  New Jersey was the only member of the class reactivated for Vietnam.

Should this type of accuracy be implemented in game? That is a definite no. But all of this talk about how good the USN upgrades are is stupid, the fact is that whether it's at range or up close, Yamato can land more shots that can go right through the bow of a Montana. USN dispersion maybe the same but the Sigma (RNG) is far worse than that of the IJN. While I have learned to cope with this considering my repair bill cost as much a tier 4 cruiser, it would be nice if WG gave a little more incentive for players to pick the USN line.

Here's the thing: APR2 gives an 11% buff to dispersion while GFCS1 gives 7%.  As long as WG makes one statistically better there's no accuracy buff coming for Iowa and Montana.

 

Another thing you may want to check up on is how distinct the Yamato's overmatch advantage is after 0.5.9.  Don't mistake me: it's still there.  The refined armor models of Iowa and Montana don't help when shells penetrate straight through the bow.  But it makes it easier to angle against the Yamato in any other situation: remember that by overmatch logic Yamato barely overmatches the 32mm bow.  Striking anywhere else on a ship if the armor is thicker than that can still result in a bounce.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×