mr3awsome

Yes, along with the Honour 'Coronel' give on the bridge.

Basically a simple, easy to read compilation of everything we know about ships. It has a twin on the NA forum. Post in the thread with anything you know/can find that isn't here already. Massive thanks to Daimon_Frey_89 Trainspite for making the tech trees. Enjoy! NOTE: all info listed below is subject to change . USN (USA) . IJN (Japan) . . RN (Great Britain) . . HSF/KM (Germany) .

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.

As you are no doubt aware, the French tier VIII cruiser, Charles Martel, is a paper design with the designation C5 A3. That design is not alone, however. Compared to C5 A3 the aircraft and their associated facilities were suppressed; with the space and weight gained form that being dedicated to enhanced secondary and anti-aircraft batteries. Hence its designation, C5 SA1; Croisseur 5 San Aviation 1. Statistics (Real Life): Dimensions: As C5 A3 (Charles Martel) Displacement: 12,070 tonnes normal Powerplant: 100,000CV Speed: 32.5kts. Main armament: 9 203mm (3 x III) Secondary armament: 14 100mm Mle 1933 (7 x II) Anti-Aircraft armament: 12 37mm ACAD Mle 1935 (6 x II) 16 13.2mm MG (4 x IV) Torpedo battery: 6 550mm Torpedo Tubes (2 x III) Protection: As C5 A3 (Charles Martel) Compared to C5 A3, the gains are notable. More health, if only a little, due to greater displacement (11,970t vs 12,070t) 40% more secondaries, and long range AA. 50% more mid range AA. An actual close range AA battery Statistics (In game): General: Health: 34400 Purchase Price: 10,500 Dubloons Citadel armour: 59mm-140mm Gun Casemate armour: 25mm Armoured Deck: 25mm-80mm Forward & After Ends armour: 25mm Main Battery: 3 x 3 203mm/50 Mle 1931 5 rpm, 6.5°/s traverse speed 16.79km range, 143m maximum dispersion. 2,800 HE dmg with a 15% fire chance, 850mps MV 4,800 AP dmg, 820mps MV Secondary Battery: 7 x 2 100mm Mle 1931 15rpm, out to 5.0km 1,400 HE dmg with a 6% fire chance Anti-Aircraft Battery: 7 x 2 100mm Mle 1931 47.6dps @ 5.0km 4 x 2 40mm Bofors Mk 2 45.2dps @ 3.5km 6 x 2 37mm ACAD Mle1935 72.6dps @ 3.5km 16 x 1 20mm Oerlikon 57.6 @ 2.0km Torpedo Battery: 2 x 3 550mm 0.67rpm, 25°/s traverse speed. 550mm 23DT Torpedo: 14,833 dmg out to 9.0km at 60 knots Maneuverability: Speed: 32.5kts Turning Circle Radius: 690m Rudder Shift Time: 11.8s Concealment: Surface Detectability Range: 13.68km Air Detectability Range: 8.16km Battle Levels: 8, 9 & 10 *Soft stats have been taken as a rough average between Stock & Elite Charles Martel, which can be seen on the Wikia. Charles Martel has additional Bofors & Oerlikon guns in game. As a result, I have suggested that this ship gets them too. Do you think I got the number right? What name should this ship have? Both the French tier VIII & X cruisers use two of the names chosen for the Saint Louis class of cruisers, which is the tier IX ship. This leaves Charlemagne, Vercingetorix and Brennus as options, if one goes by the same theme. Or would you prefer a different name? If so, what? PS: Sorry for the bold text: the formatting got borked when it posted it in from a doc, and my mouse is dying.

Stalin!Guns, 100mm/70 secondaries and AA second only to the Cleveland. Also, detection range.

Tier V.

An Arethusa at tier VI. WG is even madder than I thought.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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”

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.

The devil is in the detail.

Looking at destroyers (extended version), are Acasta, Matchless and Venomous competitive enough against Laforey, Radstock and Amazon? Indeed, are the Thorncroft specials different enough to warrant a separate regular slots in terms of gameplay without resorting to gimmicks?

Going for something a little different this time. The other renders are shown in the spoilers, due to picture/post limitations Nelson The listed data is said to be Nelson as she was in 1941. However, that is not the case. She was refitted between the January and October of the previous year, where she received three more octuple pom-poms in addition to the two she already had, for a total of five. She also had four UP, two each on B & X turrets. Furthermore, the number of Oerlikons fitted was ~8, rather than 20. It is not Rodney either, for the same reasons, save that she started the war with three, and gained two more octuple pom-poms by 1941. The renders themselves definitely show Nelson. This is apparent from the arrangement of scuttles on the bridge structure; Nelson had three in a row, as seen on the render, whilst Rodney only had two. However, of the two, only Rodney ever carried a catapult, and the associated crane at the port base of the bridge. This is supported by the fact that there are two HACS on the bridge. However, when originally fitted, these were at an equal height; only in the 1944 refit was the fore system raised up as seen in the renders. The renders themselves show Wargaming’s 1941 Nelson therefore, except that only 18 20mm Oerlikons can be accounted for. The image that comes with the information list is different, however. It shows a distinctly larger number of weapons carried, Oerlikons in particular, for a total of 33 x 1 20mm Oerlikons, 6 x 8 2pdr Mk VIII and 6 x 1 4.7”/40 Mk VIII. However, this Oerlikon battery is inconsistent with any outfit actually carried. Overall, it’s pretty consistent with non-premium ships in-game. However, usually they do try to get these cards correct. King George V The listed data is said to be King George V as she was in 1941. However, once again, that is not the case. During her chase with Bismarck, she carried four octuple pom-poms and four UPs. By the end of the year, she carried five octuple pom-poms, one quadruple pom-pom and eighteen Oerlikons. Once again the incorrect listing data does not match any of the shown images. All of the renders have the Direction Finding (D/F) hut, which was only added to the ships as they joined the British Pacific Fleet. Whilst this is consistent with the position of the ship’s boats on the former catapult deck along with the octuple pom-poms on the after superstructure, there is a general lack of lighter guns to accurately illustrate this. This means that the ship is shown post war, which the bases of the US Quad 40mm Bofors and empty Oerlikon tubs attest. However, the cross shaped structure on the aft superstructure only ever had twin power Oerlikons. Overall, it’s pretty consistent with non-premium ships in-game. However, usually they do try to get these cards correct. Lion The listed data is said to be Lion as she was in 1944. The given length matches that of the 1938 & 1939 designs; the 1942 design was slightly longer at 241.7m. The absence of a main battery director on the after superstructure means that the design is from 1938, shown below. This brings us to the first error. When the drawings went out to the builders, it was after the after main battery director had been relocated to the after superstructure, as shown below. Thus, had Lion been built, then she would look like this, at least initially. Naturally, the progress of the war would have led to changes. This is where we encounter our second set of errors. Deep displacement as designed was 46,300t, with a speed of 30 knots. Whilst they have gained weight, existing policy seems to be based on design speed, if a ship wasn’t finished, regardless of whatever “improvements” Wargaming have added. Assuming that the upgrades that a built Lion would have got would be in the same vein of the King George V’s, then their light anti-aircraft armament return would be something along the lines of; 8 x 8 2pdr Mk VIII on Mk VI*A mounts, 2 x 4 2pdr Mk VIII on Mk VII*P mounts & 36 x 1 20mm Oerlikon Mk III on Mk IIA mounts going in to 1944 with 8 x 8 2pdr Mk VIII on Mk VI*A mounts, 8 x 4 2pdr Mk VIII on Mk VII*P mounts, 6 x 2 20mm Oerlikon Mk III on Mk V mounts & 15 x 1 20mm Oerlikon Mk III on Mk IIA mounts leaving it. Neither of these lists matches any of the three sets given by Wargaming. As in Nelson, neither of the two renders correlates to the list. Once again the three without the list match each other, with the one on the card being different. For the three: 10 x 8 2pdr Mk VIII on Mk VI*A mounts, 2 x 4 40mm Bofors Mk 1/2 on Mk II mounts, 4 x 2 40mm Bofors Mk XI Mk V mounts & 6 x 2 20mm Oerlikon Mk III on Mk V mounts. Given the similarity between this and the given list, it is entirely possible that Wargaming missed out the 2pdrs by mistake. The other render has the following: 10 x 6 40mm Bofors Mk IX on Mk VI mounts, 6 x 2 40mm Bofors Mk IV on Mk IV mounts & 4 x 1 40mm Bofors Mk NI on Mk VII mounts. The as of yet unrepresented Mk IV “Hazemeyer” Bofors mount. As you may have noticed, the Hazemeyer is very similar in appearance to the later STAAG Mk II. This is because, whilst the Royal Navy was very impressed with the mount, it was found to be unreliable in service, and replaced by either STAAG Mk IIs or Mk Vs in service. It also on saw service on destroyers, specifically: S, T, U, V, W, Z, Ca & Battle (1942). One of the complaints was that it was rather fragile. This makes Wargaming’s decision to place them in front of and on main armament turrets rather inconsistent with history. Furthermore, the forward end of the ship would likely be wet; King George V were notoriously wet due to their lack of sheer forward, as a result of a Staff Requirement that the main armament should be able to fire at 0° elevation through their entire traverse arc. This was amended for the Lion class, but their half sister Vanguard still proved to be quite wet in the rough waters of the Atlantic. For these reasons no power operated guns were mounted on the deck forward of B barbette. Even those there were distinctly in-board, and presumably weren’t heavier due to strength considerations. Overall, it’s a relatively poor showing. There are multiple historical inconsistencies and errors, with little to make up for it. “Conqueror” The data list claims that if L2 had been built, this is what it would look like in 1949. This is, as far as I am aware, what L2 was designed as in 1920. Something of importance to note is that the six boiler rooms are all adjacent to each other. This makes a split funnel arrangement impossible, as on the four rebuilds the boiler and turbine rooms did not change places. Now note the displacement shown in the 1920 diagram. Its 52,100t standard. Her close relative Nelson has a deep displacement nearly 8,000t larger than her standard displacement. The slightly larger 1945 designs gain around 10,000t between standard and deep displacement. Wargaming use the deep displacement figure as their basis for Health Points. Now note that the given length in 1920 is around 10m shorter than WG’s listed length. Given the hull form, which we can see is not radically different, there is nowhere for that extra 10m length to go without it increasing the displacement figures by a significant degree. Thus, it can be said that, with a degree of certainty, that “Conqueror” is not L2, although it cannot be definitively said until the armour scheme is seen. Summary: What should have been a “strong and stable” performance by Wargaming seems to be more in the vein of “weak and wobbly”. Will the rest of the line reflect this? I hope not, but knowing them it might just do.

Sure? This seems to fit the bill, by and large. Officially its L2 modernised. Until we get armour profiles we can't be sure. Vanguard is definitely a source of inspiration. You are too kind

Said diagram also had the firing angles of the other (Centreline) tubes (25° each side of the parallel of the beam, 50° total).

18" Mk VII* has 7025 damage at 60.5knots to 2.7km or 49 knots to 6km. However thats being warm fired. I seem to have mistaken the torpedo tubes being removed soon after the war for them not being fitted at all However, it does seem that they may have a fixed firing angle of 90°, being rotated inboard when not being used. I don't believe that the S class can fit the Mk V torpedo. Indeed they were only issued to the W class destroyers, the Scotts, Shakespeares, Danaes, Emeralds, Renowns, Eagle and Hood.

The torpedo tubes are fixed on the Thornycroft ships and not fitted on the Admiralty ships. As the 18" torpedoes are cold fired, their stats are somewhat dismal. As in 47 knots to 1.8km or 43.75 knots to 2.75km All whilst carrying a warhead half the size of the 21" Mk II (200lb vice 400lb) Which is the same as Sampson's stock torpedoes, so 5,900 damage. Those also have a 900m range bonus, but they are still unlikely to be much help except against targets of opportunity. EDIT: Naturally its the Russian torpedo that is buffed the most