Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About mr3awsome

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • Position
  1. Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    Stalin!Guns, 100mm/70 secondaries and AA second only to the Cleveland. Also, detection range.
  2. Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    Tier V.
  3. Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    An Arethusa at tier VI. WG is even madder than I thought.
  4. British Battleship line for 2017?

    No, its implied that the guns would be leftovers from the 1920s. However, as far as I'm aware the 18"/45 studies were referred to as 16"/50, and the 18"/40 were 15" B. Given that post Hood pre-1920 a number of studies had 18"/40 twins, there is a chance that WG found that design rather than the later 18"/45 ones. The entire premise is very flimsy, given that the RN had a pretty clear idea of Bismarck's characteristics after she sank (i.e. for Tirpitz) but didn't change their plans. Know of anything larger than the 6" but smaller than the 16"? Three 18"/40 Mk I were built; one for Furious' A turret, one for her X turret, and a spare. When the decision was taken to convert her, that freed up those guns. The 12" monitors off the Belgian coast were badly outranged by some German coastal emplacements. So they decided to add them to three of these ships. Only two were mounted before the end of the war. One way later bored down to 16" for tests for what would become the 16"/45 Mk I.
  5. British Battleship line for 2017?

    Official discourse on "Conqueror" is thus: I did ask for one for "Monarch" in Q&A XV, but was ignored (What a suprise ) The 1942 Lion in 1945 form actually has basis, in the form of Vanguard, her half sister. As for the tier X, 1945 B itself is probably better than B3, which is smaller, and lacks some of the features that make B hilarious.
  6. New ship preview: Monarch

    Its not even one of the preliminary studies; the displacement of those was 35,000t or near enough, this is 40,000t. Plus the former had QF 4.5"/45 Mk I/III guns as the QF 5.25"/50 hadn't been adopted yet. Hence, it is fake. They can only work with what they are given.
  7. New ship preview: Monarch

    No idea. They do kinda remind me of the ones you get on the Panther II though. Another example of ineptitude to add to the list, I guess. Been waiting since 2012. Unfortunately it seems to have been going downhill since Alpha. But adding the 128mm DP secondaries is completely false, as far as we are aware. Which is what he's talking about, rather than the main guns. "Monarch" wasn't drawn, or even considered. Its a Wargaming fantasy.
  8. New ship preview: Monarch

    Sup. Common Sense? And no, its still not here. No, the 15" studies were from before the QF 5.25"/50 Mk I was chosen to be the secondary battery weapon. With the Escalation Clause they went straight to the 16"/45 Mk II. I think its pretty bad. For one thing, the turrets look like they've just been stolen from Nelson rather than WG actually being bothered enough model proper turrets along the line of KGV's. There are Mk IV Bofors mounts on turrets. These were known to suffer quite badly from vibration issues, which had a bad habit of damaging their radar. Hence they shouldn't be there. The already mentioned FAKE nature of the ship.
  9. British battleships incoming

    Thats a pretty long winded way of saying its fake. All of the H3 designs are crazy. a is just less crazy than the other two. They serve their purpose, which is to demonstrate the cost of speed (whilst retaining protection).

    They have a very mismatched system on the RN. Most of the RN cruisers have hodge-podge AA suites, so I didn't really consider them. As in Warspite, the ships started with 2 x 1 20mm Oerlikon on turret roofs. In the rebuilt ships these were replaced by power operated twins (Mk V) [As can be seen on the Queen Elizabeth screenies]. In Valiant only (of the QEs) there were quad pom-poms. Malaya seems to only have had singles. The Rs definitely had quadruple pom-poms as they only had 2 octuple pom poms. Royal Sovereign seems to have twin Oerlikons with them, Ramillies looks like singles (but might be manual twins), but Revenge and Resolution don't seem to have them, from a quick google search spate.
  11. RN best BB line

    Well, as challenging as it is to make KGV work at tier VIII, it can be done, and is certainly less problematic than Nelson at tier VI. As for Vanguard, she is definitely premium material.

    Whilst I have no objections to hypothetical upgrades, indeed, they offer a degree of interesting insight, given that in most if not all cases we have precedents that can be used as a guide. Unfortunately some of them seem to be rather sloppily done. For example; both Koenig and Emile Bertin have the view from their bridge blocked by an anti aircraft gun (and a rangefinder in Koenig's case) None of the Brit BBs seem that bad (aside from Conqueror, which is a general mess imho). However, several points do stand out: - Iron Duke appears to carry octuple pom-poms on her B & X turret roofs; however even the larger QEs & Rs could only carry quads. - Iron Duke is also carrying four quadruple pom-poms. Historically, battleships carried the octuple pom-pom, with only the quadruples only going on certain ships during the war, and all but three of those upon turret tops*. - Orion is said to date from 1934. However, whilst she carries the QF 4"/45 Mk XVI twins, she still carries 2pdr Mk II singles. Only the Nelsons carried these for any extended period of time, and by the end of 1934 both of these had replaced their 8 singles with a single octuple. Indeed, in most cases, ships received the octuple pom-poms before they got the 4" twins. - As the older weapon, it is also far more likely that the 2pdr Mk IIs would be on the decks of the ships rather than on the turret tops, which the Admiralty were reluctant to use after some unsatisfactory experience in WWI. * TLDR; "I don't mind that you're naughty, Jack. I hate that you're sloppy."
  13. “Hear me roar” – The Lion designs in game

    Because WG has a fetish for gimmicks? Just throwing ideas out there. All tier VIII-X BBs have aircraft after all. That definitely fits the "weird gimmick" bill that WG love. Perhaps. It is very long and quite squishy with it, so the 20s reload helps counter that. As for Vanguard, I think thats a case of fine balancing for when it would be tested.
  14. The Lion class designs are clearly top end material in terms of the game. Given the multitude of studies, there are a number of options available. This is how I see it: Most British high tier ships will likely not have a catapult. In its place, a slightly modified Spotting Aircraft consumable could be had, which in compensation for being invulnerable to damage from the enemy would have a greater cool-down period. Alternatively, they just get a range boost. Whichever works best. History: Note: Naturally, things aren’t a clean translation from history into the game. As such some things are not completely historical, but have been chosen for the sake of balance. Some things weren’t given in the source material. All have historical basis, however. Particular exceptions are noted below: - 1942 Lion has been given the proposed shells for the 16”/45 Mk IV gun, to increase her potency. - 1945 B has been given the discussed 1,225kg 82” long 16” shells, along with the discussed 50 calibre barrel length. - Octuple pom-poms weren’t liked for the new triple turrets. Hence quadruple pom-poms instead. Statistics: Regular: Lion (1938) – “Temeraire” [Tem-err-air] Lion 1942 – “Conqueror” Lion 1945 B – “Thunderer” Premium: Vanguard – “Vanguard”
  15. The Lions

    As started in the Washington Naval Treaty, and continued in the London Naval Treaty, the signatories voluntarily postponed the building of battleships until 1937. Exceptions were made for the French & Italians, who had both weaker and fewer ships. Once the holiday period was over, battleships could be replaced once they were overage, this being 20 years after their date of completion. Consequently, the Royal Navy would have 10 such ships once the building holiday was over. The Queen Elizabeth class were better suited to modernisation, so they were rebuilt, with the Revenge class going to the breakers first. Their replacements would be the King George V class, as recounted elsewhere. Developments overseas meant that the replacements for the Queen Elizabeths would be different from the King George Vs. Chief amongst these was the news that the American North Carolina class were a balanced design, something that they had not though possible on 35,000t. As a result, the next class would have 16” guns. The first two ships would be ordered under the 1938/9 Estimates. Consequently 1938 was a busy year, with 9 designs being considered, ranging from a 12 14” ship (14A-38) though the 9 16” gun majority to a 48,500t 12 16” gun mammoth (16E-38). Eventually, a modified version of 16F-38 was selected as the design, which was then further developed into 1939. Changes included the moving of the after main battery director from Y turret to the after superstructure, and an increase in main gun elevation from 30° to 40°. Drawings went out to Vickers-Armstrong and Cammell Laird on the 21s, with Lion being laid down on 4th July 1939 and Temeraire on the 1st June 1939. Construction was expected to take four years. The two ships of the 1939/40 Estimates were named Conqueror and Thunderer, going to John Brown and Fairfield respectively. Neither was actually ordered, however. Data for these four ships, as planned, is listed below. Light Anti-Aircraft battery was to be considered once the ships were finished, and hence is undocumented. Lion 1939: There are three major bottle-necks in battleship construction. Machinery, armour plate and guns. As a result of the post WWI contraction of the British shipbuilding industry, there was a significant decrease in capacity of the latter two compared to the period leading up to WWI. Consequently, in order to build the tenth ship in good time, the use of existing mountings came up several times during the rearmament process. Several such mountings existed; Furious’ second spare turret (later used on the monitor Abercrombie), Tiger’s 13.5” turrets (sold to Turkey) and the four turrets removed from Glorious and Courageous when they were converted into aircraft carriers. This ship, later called Vanguard, was the last of the 10 replacement ships, to be ordered as part of the 1940/1 estimates. Her data, as of early March 1940: Vanguard 1940: Wartime experience, particularly the Bismarck chase and the sinking of Prince of Wales & Repulse, led to a number of improvements to the two designs. These were primarily focussed on endurance and air defence. Both Lions were suspended early on, and never restarted, with all reusable material going to Vanguard. The development of the 40mm Bofors Mk VI mount to replace the 2pdr Mk VIA* mount and the general adoption of the 40mm Bofors wear possible in new construction led to Vanguard having a better close range battery than originally intended. Data is shown for Lion as intended in the 1942 design, and Vanguard as completed. Lion 1942: Vanguard By the start of 1945, it was clear that the war was not going to last too much longer. Consequently, thought began to turn the post-war fleet. Battleships were still considered to be a key component. Important developments had taken place since the last studies; key amongst these the USA’s Uncle Tom rocket, the German Fritz X and more powerful regular ordinance (e.g. 4000lb bombs). The size and weight of a ship able to defeat all of these was beyond the size that British docks could handle. Having realised this, the Naval Staff outlined what they would like in a ship. The design created to satisfy is shown below. Underwater protection received particular focus, being designed to resist 1200lb warheads, and mitigate the effects of the large rockets being tested. Lion 1945 B: Designs B1-7 were reduced versions of this, to try and make the ships more economically feasible. B1 featured a weaker TDS (resisting 1000lb warheads), B2 featured the stronger 1200lb resistant TDS but only a 10” belt. B3 had both 10” belt and 1000lb warhead resistant TDS. None were less than 55,000t standard. The remaining four only had six main guns, with alternating belt & TDS strengths. None were less than 45,000t, and the largest were close to 48,000t; 7 years prior that tonnage was associated with a twelve gun design, showing the change demanded by progress caused by the war. These were followed by even smaller studies. These had very little by way of underwater protection, relying on compartmentalisation, and only a 9” belt. They were compared to Renown, to which they proved to be remarkably similar. Ultimately these came to nothing. The post-war economic slump and subsequent austerity killed many projects, as resources were focussed more on technologies with what money there was. This was mainly as a result of the plethora of war-built ships that there were available to fulfil the roles required of them. So ends the design of the British Battleship.