On the Caliber of the Upcoming Royal Navy Cruisers

[Sir_Pengu1n]

 

Wargaming is planning to add Royal navy Cruisers to the tech tree soon. We all are exited for that, myself included, because that might mean more BB's, DD's, and CV's to play from. I took a look at some of them in the tech tree and noticed something: the gun caliber is extremely small, and the armor is sh*t. Take a look for yourself. They do, however, have multiple torpedo tubes, implying that they are torpedo boats, not gun boats. That's fine by me, but how are you supposed to fight other tier cruisers with those guns? HE does only so much damage..

 

Sure things are subject to change, but with armor like that, the Erie could penetrate the tier 10 RN Cruiser. I imagine that even with the amount of torpedoes on them, that they wont have a chance to get to fire them when they are being citadel'd from an Atlanta halfway across the map.

 

[ckupf]

Is this english? 

 

They are all light cruisers. They will play like light cruisers and probably be fine. They do have solid torps, but that does not make them "torpedo boats," their numerous fast firing guns will be their main weapon. The gun caliber is 6", which is not "extremely small."

[CAPTMUDDXX]

they are all light cruisers after all with 6 inch guns and light armor. that is what they are supposed to be.

[Vindicationn]

High Rate of fire. 

[awiggin]

Wargaming is planning to add Royal navy Cruisers to the tech tree soon. We all are exited for that, myself included, because that might mean more BB's, DD's, and CV's to play from. I took a look at some of them in the tech tree and noticed something: the gun caliber is extremely small, and the armor is sh*t. Take a look for yourself. They do, however, have multiple torpedo tubes, implying that they are torpedo boats, not gun boats. That's fine by me, but how are you supposed to fight other tier cruisers with those guns? HE does only so much damage..

 

Sure things are subject to change, but with armor like that, the Erie could penetrate the tier 10 RN Cruiser. I imagine that even with the amount of torpedoes on them, that they wont have a chance to get to fire them when they are being citadel'd from an Atlanta halfway across the map.

 

Seems like the latest rewrite on RN cruisers gives them no HE....

[GrandAdmiral_2016]

I do not know how they will model the RN armor plate, but every cruiser built after 1926 had improved quality armor that was known to be superior to any other nation's armor for the same thickness. From HMS Leander onwards, RN armor outperforms German, Japanese, Italian and American armor plate of identical thickness by about 12%. This was demonstrated during armor plate testing during the was done by both the USN and the RN with both navies present during the war, and after the war as well, when German, Italian and Japanese armor plate was available (Source:Norman Freidman, The British Battleship 1906-1946 and British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After). Russian armor plate was known to be equal to anything produced for the RN even before the war. The French armor in Algérie class CAs and Richelieu class BBs was the equal of the RN armor as well. Earlier French armor was slightly inferior, but not by much. How it gets modelled, well, only WoWs developers know...LOL.

[Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao]

So far they've scrapped RN CLs for the coming updates so they can find a way to fit them into the game better (WG doesn't want more invisible firing ships in game)

[Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao]

I do not know how they will model the RN armor plate, but every cruiser built after 1926 had improved quality armor that was known to be superior to any other nation's armor for the same thickness. From HMS Leander onwards, RN armor outperforms German, Japanese, Italian and American armor plate of identical thickness by about 12%. This was demonstrated during armor plate testing during the was done by both the USN and the RN with both navies present during the war, and after the war as well, when German, Italian and Japanese armor plate was available (Source:Norman Freidman, The British Battleship 1906-1946 and British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After). Russian armor plate was known to be equal to anything produced for the RN even before the war. The French armor in Algérie class CAs and Richelieu class BBs was the equal of the RN armor as well. Earlier French armor was slightly inferior, but not by much. How it gets modelled, well, only WoWs developers know...LOL.

 

100mm of armor plate is 100mm of armor plate, the game does not know the difference between USN, RU, IJN etc steel plates. So no as well either way the RN CLs are very poorly armored 

[Crucis]

I do not know how they will model the RN armor plate, but every cruiser built after 1926 had improved quality armor that was known to be superior to any other nation's armor for the same thickness. From HMS Leander onwards, RN armor outperforms German, Japanese, Italian and American armor plate of identical thickness by about 12%. This was demonstrated during armor plate testing during the was done by both the USN and the RN with both navies present during the war, and after the war as well, when German, Italian and Japanese armor plate was available (Source:Norman Freidman, The British Battleship 1906-1946 and British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After). Russian armor plate was known to be equal to anything produced for the RN even before the war. The French armor in Algérie class CAs and Richelieu class BBs was the equal of the RN armor as well. Earlier French armor was slightly inferior, but not by much. How it gets modelled, well, only WoWs developers know...LOL.

 

From a programming/algorithm perspective, it would seem like the easiest way to deal with armor being 12% better for the same thickness would be to just make that RN ship's armor 12% thicker and assume that all steel was the same.  It seems to me that trying to drill down to the point of having algorithms for grades of steel in the armor of a ship is getting too complex.  But if you know that one nation's armor is, for example, 12% better, then just add on 12% more to the thickness and move on.

 

But that's just me.

 

 

[HMSTog]

The 152 mm guns is not the problem. Neither is the low armor. Low armor can be made up for with maneuverability. The low caliber guns can just spam HE. The problem is that last I heard, the RN CLs are NOT gonna have ANY HE shells. This is just madness. That's gonna make them the worst ships in the game.

[mofton]

The Royal Navy built and used more classes of light cruiser than heavy (Hawkins, County, York), and combined with available design ships and WG's rules on gun progression it makes more sense to bring out a line with 6in guns. It's correct that the other nations universally get >6in at T9 and T10. The historic advantage of the 6in was in rate of fire and number of barrels which could be mounted.

 

In game it's worth noting that they're actually relatively different across tiers:

• Only the T9 and T10 have an exceptional rate of fire
• The T5 and T6 are hilariously undergunned, T7 and T8 lost out overall to the RU CL at those tiers when equipped with HE
• Only the T5, T9 and T10 have 8 torpedo broadsides. The T7 has only 3 per side, hardly a torpedo boat.
• The Zao gets 10 torpedo broadside and the Hindenburg gets 8
• Armor is variable, bad certainly at T9-T10, but middle-pack in T5-T8
• T1-T4 are relatively unremarkable compared to existing ships, not that it matters much

[Macabe]

Wargaming is planning to add Royal navy Cruisers to the tech tree soon. We all are exited for that, myself included, because that might mean more BB's, DD's, and CV's to play from. I took a look at some of them in the tech tree and noticed something: the gun caliber is extremely small, and the armor is sh*t. Take a look for yourself. They do, however, have multiple torpedo tubes, implying that they are torpedo boats, not gun boats. That's fine by me, but how are you supposed to fight other tier cruisers with those guns? HE does only so much damage..

 

Sure things are subject to change, but with armor like that, the Erie could penetrate the tier 10 RN Cruiser. I imagine that even with the amount of torpedoes on them, that they wont have a chance to get to fire them when they are being citadel'd from an Atlanta halfway across the map.

 

Why would you think they are torpedo boats instead of standard CLs?... By this logic, a very large number of CLs and CAs already in-game are torpedo boats.

[Lance53]

Sure things are subject to change, but with armor like that, the Erie could penetrate the tier 10 RN Cruiser. I imagine that even with the amount of torpedoes on them, that they wont have a chance to get to fire them when they are being citadel'd from an Atlanta halfway across the map.

 

The Atlanta can now shoot "halfway across the map" ?   Wow, that is really bad news.

 

I had always thought that the Atlanta's guns were rather short range.  

 

.

[inktomi19d]

 

The Atlanta can now shoot "halfway across the map" ?   Wow, that is really bad news.

 

I had always thought that the Atlanta's guns were rather short range.  

 

.

 

Hehe, I think that was meant to show how weak the armor is, not that the Atlanta can shoot far. Though to be fair, the Atlanta can citadel some BBs from outside of 7km or so, because many of the early ones have thin decks and thin citadel roofs, and the Atlanta's rounds drop straight down at that range. It's not an advisable tactic, but more of a 'How the heck did that happen?" thing.

 

Honestly, they just need to let them have HE and they'll be fine. The little 5" guns on the Atlanta can be useful with AP against tier 9 ships sometimes, and against 7 and below AP is generally good against cruisers at close range, so I'm sure the british 6" guns will be similarly versatile up to tier 10. The CL pattern is to fire mostly HE, but then switch to AP for opportunity shots at other cruisers at close range.

[crzyhawk]

they are all light cruisers after all with 6 inch guns and light armor. that is what they are supposed to be.

 

Where does this perception of light armor come from?  The town class for example had 4.5-inch belts (120mm I think).  Compare that to the vaunted Admiral Hipper's 3.1-inch belt (80mm)  The IJN heavy cruisers rocked a 3.9-inch belt (100mm).  Even the little Leanders had a 4-inch belt (102mm) over the machinery.  British cruisers were armored every bit as well as anyone else's cruisers were.  The only difference between a "heavy cruiser" and a "light cruiser" is the caliber of guns.  If the guns are 155mm or less, it's a CL.  156-203mm guns are Heavy Cruisers.  203+ are by treaty definition, capital ships.

 

Even the lowly Atlanta had a 3.75-inch belt, which is thicker than the Hipper's armor, and nearly equal to the IJN cruisers.  Just sayin'

[MrDeaf]

 

Hehe, I think that was meant to show how weak the armor is, not that the Atlanta can shoot far. Though to be fair, the Atlanta can citadel some BBs from outside of 7km or so, because many of the early ones have thin decks and thin citadel roofs, and the Atlanta's rounds drop straight down at that range. It's not an advisable tactic, but more of a 'How the heck did that happen?" thing.

 

Honestly, they just need to let them have HE and they'll be fine. The little 5" guns on the Atlanta can be useful with AP against tier 9 ships sometimes, and against 7 and below AP is generally good against cruisers at close range, so I'm sure the british 6" guns will be similarly versatile up to tier 10. The CL pattern is to fire mostly HE, but then switch to AP for opportunity shots at other cruisers at close range.

 

no, that's not citadelling through the deck.

That's either citadelling through holes or legitamately punching through thinner belt armor and into the citadel.

 

Atlanta requires, approximately, 14km, or more, to get the an angle of fall that exceeds deck autobounce angles.

Which is beyond the range Atlanta is allowed.

[inktomi19d]

 

no, that's not citadelling through the deck.

That's either citadelling through holes or legitamately punching through thinner belt armor and into the citadel.

 

Atlanta requires, approximately, 14km, or more, to get the an angle of fall that exceeds deck autobounce angles.

Which is beyond the range Atlanta is allowed.

 

It might be going through holes. I've done it against a Fuso, and a New York and in each case I was trying to hit the superstructure because I'd already saturated what I could hit with HE -- I figured I was hitting in the funnels or something. I really doubt it was a hit on the belt, since those tend to bounce, but it could just be a matter of spamming so many hits that one rolls lucky.

[Super_Dreadnought]

 

Where does this perception of light armor come from?  The town class for example had 4.5-inch belts (120mm I think).  Compare that to the vaunted Admiral Hipper's 3.1-inch belt (80mm)  The IJN heavy cruisers rocked a 3.9-inch belt (100mm).  Even the little Leanders had a 4-inch belt (102mm) over the machinery.  British cruisers were armored every bit as well as anyone else's cruisers were.  The only difference between a "heavy cruiser" and a "light cruiser" is the caliber of guns.  If the guns are 155mm or less, it's a CL.  156-203mm guns are Heavy Cruisers.  203+ are by treaty definition, capital ships.

 

Even the lowly Atlanta had a 3.75-inch belt, which is thicker than the Hipper's armor, and nearly equal to the IJN cruisers.  Just sayin'

 

I think you know very well that it's because of ignorance of history and the Washington Naval Treaty. Plus bad habits from other games such as WoT and it's light/medium/heavy tank shenanigans.

[GrandAdmiral_2016]

The 8-inchers like the Kents et al, Exeter, and York will probably be premiums or a separate line. Hawkins and Frobisher, with 7.5-inch guns, and Effingham with 6-inch guns? The Dido and Black Prince classes with 5.25-inch guns (Scylla with 4.5-inchers)? British cruisers are a dog's breakfast. The destroyers will be just as bad to do, if ever. Hard to say what they will do. The logical thing is to put the 6-inch Amphions (Perth, Hobart, Sydney) in as premiums and the 8-inch Australia, Canberra, and Shropshire as premiums (1 of each-I would buy as I like historical ships), unless they do split lines like the IJN DDs. And the AA cruiser conversions like Delhi in the D class and Curacoa in the C class? Clearly not justifiable as premiums but may make sense to do a C-hull AA build in module upgrades. Who knows what will happen.? Only WoWs

[mofton]

The logical thing is to put the 6-inch Amphions (Perth, Hobart, Sydney) in as premiums and the 8-inch Australia, Canberra, and Shropshire as premiums (1 of each-I would buy as I like historical ships).

Good news for you, but bad for your bank manager then! erth">Perth

 

Edit: Blasted links with smiley text in them - basically check out the WOWS Wiki, plus an announcement on the SEA server.

 

Destroyers should be fine, there are lots of classes very equivalent to the USN ships, some great ones I'd like to see in game. The torpedoes can be better than USN but worse than IJN based on historic available and what the Brit Cruisers have. The guns may be a bit arc-y like the USN but 8-gun Tribal, 8-gun LM and others look solid. The T8 and T9 may be a bit weak but playable, and the T10 similarish to Gearing if a bit slow.

 

Destroyers are, I think, easier to balance as they have so many soft stats to manipulate, take a km off concealment here, better torps there, ideal ROF on guns elsewhere and you're in balance-land.

[Romeo26]

The 8-inchers like the Kents et al, Exeter, and York will probably be premiums or a separate line. Hawkins and Frobisher, with 7.5-inch guns, and Effingham with 6-inch guns? The Dido and Black Prince classes with 5.25-inch guns (Scylla with 4.5-inchers)? British cruisers are a dog's breakfast. The destroyers will be just as bad to do, if ever. Hard to say what they will do. The logical thing is to put the 6-inch Amphions (Perth, Hobart, Sydney) in as premiums and the 8-inch Australia, Canberra, and Shropshire as premiums (1 of each-I would buy as I like historical ships), unless they do split lines like the IJN DDs. And the AA cruiser conversions like Delhi in the D class and Curacoa in the C class? Clearly not justifiable as premiums but may make sense to do a C-hull AA build in module upgrades. Who knows what will happen.? Only WoWs

 

absolutely...where is Dido?  would be a nice tier 6 cruiser...the fact that most of Brit Cruisers are virtually the same as the previous class...especially 5-7 is pretty disappointing.

[Apokita]

FIRE

[ArmouredCarriers]

Cruisers were the Royal Navy's most important ship type - though not the most hyped.

They aimed to have 60 or so available at any one time to spread around the world.

 

This was for fleet scout, trade protection and empire 'gunboat diplomacy' roles - with the AA escort role coming in during the late 1930s

 

This is why you see so many different classes of RN cruiser, with so many different configurations.

 

Some were intended to be 'torpedo boats'. But just for a time, mainly the late 20s, for the fleet boats.

 

[Jekub]

Does anyone have any more information about the British Cruisers? I'm starving for lack of rumors here.

[Eisennagel]

 

 

Now that the British cruisers are out, 

 

Here is another question.  Would the heavy County class with their 8 x 8" guns do any better than the Town class like the Edinburgh and Belfast, and the Fiji class?