Historynerd

I agree with ColonelPete. Jumping from the Wyoming to the New Mexico might be too much of a step. Besides, New York teaches you how to deal with a relatively short ship, how to avoid torps, and how to position yourself at the start (at lower tiers there are still many slower cruisers and destroyers, but climbing up they become faster and end up all over the place). Basically, if you forget about the New York's amidships turret (and it's a good idea), you learn to angle and shoot like the New Mexico. And that's very good - since you'll have to do it a lot when jumping to Tier 6.

Well, I'd say the Roma, of course, but I cannot. Because she sank in a sea not an ocean...

The New York is not that hot, that's true. I have done worse in her than in the Wyoming. Pretty much, in the Wyoming, you can rely on your firepower - those twelve 305 mm rifles were just lovely. In the New York, the increase in caliber does not compensate the reduction in barrels, not to mention that to use the amidships turret you have to expose your side quite a bit. Your armor is not quite enough to protect you from enemy BBs, and your speed is a huge drawback (once committed, you cannot go back). Also, having the Kongo as an enemy is something that can really frustrate you; while the Wyoming had the Myogi, which is less fearsome in perspective. Plus, something funny can happen, as it did to me. I once took a torpedo directly amidships, and it detonated me. Pretty easy to guess why, I have a *beep*-ing magazine right there, so of course it could detonate me. Honestly, though, I was not that bothered. It was funny, though, when a teammate started complaining how much of a n00b I was, for exposing my broadside to a BB (which had not killed me), blah blah... I admit I liked informing him that it had been the DD with a torpedo. He shut up, I wonder why... Anyway, the New York is not a great ship; and she feels even worse, because she's stuck between a good ship (the Wyoming) and a wonderful ship (the New Mexico - it's heaven for me!). Still, with all said and done, even though I ended up with a losing winrate, I still did some decent damage in her. I have had worse ships. No love lost, but no hate wasted, either.

Months ago I would have said Karlsruhe. But now that I read that she was buffed, I might give her another go sometime soon... And I know it's heavily subjective, but I just don't get the Kirov hate. Again, you gotta know how to play it, and if your playstile does not agree with being a second-line support, then it's going to be hard; but those guns just slice cruisers apart!

I may be wrong, but the easy incapacitation or destruction of turrets is something that won't be a feature of just the Kent. Given that the Surrey suffers from the same issue, only at Tier 9 and 10 I guess we might see sturdier turrets.

...Now that I think about it... We might find a point in common with some cruisers, namely the British ones. To be precise, the lack of HE shells! (Ain't that true that the Littorio didn't have any HE shells for their 381 mm rifles, but only AP and SAP ones? Confused the heck out of me when I read that. I couldn't understand what difference there was between proiettili a palla and perforanti.)

I must have missed that memo! I never went that deep to look at German and French AA, but that's the impression one gets. The Breda seems to have had a short cartridge, but the German gun, while with a high muzzle velocity, is painfully slow-firing, and so is the French one! Of course, WG doesn't need to implement the fact that the Breda vibrated so much on most mounts that it made aiming difficult... However, the Breda 20 mm doesn't seem that bad; other than a low barrel life, its performance doesn't seem to be particularly inferior to the German C/30 (even if the later C/38 does get the edge with its higher rate of fire).

I'd bet they would be somewhat meh. The 90 mm's technology doesn't help them very much here. And the 37 and 20 mm will have low-ish power, because of their low RpM value. In this, Defensive fire might be a welcome bonus.

Given that we have cruisers with BB abilities, how about a battleship with a CA/CL ability? Namely, defensive fire. It might gave her a boost to her AA power.

The answer I found so far to the title's question is this: New Mexico. Although I have not unlocked the Fuso or the Bayern yet, I believe that what they'll bring to the table, even if good, won't make them feel better to me. Slow, yes, and that can lead to uncomfortable situations. But the firepower is outright devastating. With upgraded range and accuracy, I can deal damage like crazy. And if you have a pesky DD trying to torp you, your twelve rifles can really make him regret that decision. Plus, with rudder upgrade she turns on a dime, and her armor is good, not to mention that you can angle like a S.O.B. and still bring all your guns to bear. I'll keep it even after I'll unlock the Colorado, I swear. However, am I the only one that found the South Carolina moderately appreciable? Sure, painfully slow, and her guns have a small firing range, but she doesn't have that annoying wing turret stuff (though it may be my feelings about it more than a distinct disadvantage), and she is small and has nice armor. I know we'll never have a Tier III BB that we'll truly fall in love with, but honestly I didn't feel mistreated by her.

Guys, I just had an epiphany! Given that there's a chance that the Italian premium that sooner or later will grace the seas of WoWs will be the Roma, I know one thing for sure! She'll have torpedoes! /sarcasm Sorry, but I can't help but be puzzled a bit by this trend. When it was the lone Tirpitz, I said, "Ok, why not? Let's see how this works!" But now the number of torpedo-outfitted BBs has risen quite a bit... And frankly, I really hope WG doesn't decide to try them on an Italian premium BB. Also because I am horrible with torps, so it would seriously hurt my gameplay with them.

Also a few Italian ones... I clearly remember Revel and Millo. EDIT: Also Bergamini.

....Ok, let's come clean. Even though it's not the ship I played the most, as a favourite I absolutely hold dear the New Mexico. If, with my discontinued playing syle, I'll ever manage to get enough XP for the Colorado, well, alright, but I'm not going to sell it. Example: I sailed with her today, after months of inactivity. I am not much more than a n00b, yet I managed Dreadnought, Fireproof and Devastating Strike, while bottom Tier, while doing acceptable damage. ...Ok, might as well admit that I have a whopping 50 GAMES with her...

Excellent work, as always!

I don't know. Perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it, since torpedo reduction is, in my opinion, something else that WG does according to its own wishes to balance everything out. Moreover, we'll have to wait and see how the soft stats all add up, but putting good torpedo reduction plus a tight turn radius (which, on the other side, is pretty fixed by the length/beam ratio, and as Deamon noted we're good on that) might make her too buffed. But again, given the sweet time WG takes to implement Italy in its games, maybe a ship somewhat OP wouldn't be something I'd protest that much...

Doesn't the Zao have the 100 mm as secondaries? Granted, they're a bit heavier, but not that much. In any case, against DDs the best defense we're going to have is the great turning radius. If WG doesn't give it to us... well, I'll have to turn them into something else. Something bloody!

That goes without saying, not to mention that I recently realized WG doesn't care for the IRL filler, so the fact that it had a small bursting charge isn't gonna do anything for its alpha... I don't see the secondary armament being that bad... but maybe it's because I've read that the 90 mm guns were used against ships as well, so I don't see why it should be different here. With those and the 152 mm... I'd say we're pretty much well off.

Right; then again, since plunging fire isn't a big deal around here, the class does get one advantage from WG's take on things. I wondered the same. Since everyone points out the "huge volumes that the system took up".... well, maybe in this case it would be an edge.

So, hits from above the main belt should not be dangerous? That's good. I know the Pugliese concept is totally different from what we have, but I don't have a clue on what would have happened IRL. I know very little about these things, so maybe I'm completely wrong about this, but I'm not sure that anything other the Type 91 (perhaps) might have obtained a hit on that area with an angle close to horizontal. And even that, how would the fuze react? Would the outer plate activate the fuze, or would it get off later? I know this requires a far more detailed knowledge that we can claim (no disrespect intended), but I'm still uncertain on what we're gonna get. WG's going to set whatever torpedo reduction damage it likes for the class, but how is the whole thing down there going to be modelled, in case an underwater hit gets there?

Guys, let's have yet another of my pointless technical discussions! Given that a few signals given from WG may indicate that an Italian premium might be in the works, and given that one of the likeliest candidates for said premium would be the Roma, there are a few things that worry me. While for the armament we'll have to wait and see what WG does with that, we can guess how the armor will be (eschewing the "decapping plate" for a uniform 350 mm belt). However, we know that in here nominal thickness isn't everything. Since one of the critics often laid at the Littorio class is the height of the belt (which I, however, don't agree with very much, since, while not very high, it doesn't look at me that narrow either), I asked myself how the scheme (with the modification I mentioned above) will work. Namely, how is the belt going to be sitting in the water? Is she going to be too high? Is the upper belt going to be a weakness? Is it conceivable that a shell might went through there and somehow get in the vitals? And, last but not least, given that I seem to remember that underwater hits are possible, how is the presence of the Pugliese cylinders going to influence them? Can they, again, "escape" below the belt and get to where they can inflict citadel damage? Sorry for the questions, but I'd like to discuss this, as we all want to have a balanced ship, and the armor scheme is a vital part of the packet.

Spoken like the many who believe themselves "smart" and "knowledgeable" because they repeat the old stereotypes that an objective historiography has put in proper perspective, and just outline their ignorance for all to see. Maybe you should know that, while the Italian major ships were used very cautiously indeed, the amount of "running away" was somewhat fairly balanced between them and their opponents, at least in daytime (since in nighttime the British and Commonwealth ships had a vast edge and therefore were much more aggressive). And if you had bothered to read a bit some good book, you would know it. Educate yourself, and don't joke around on matters which you clearly don't know, please.

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help. And, joking aside, your phrase is not very off the mark, to what went down back then. Even if we do have to remember that quite a few hits were scored, and they weren't pleasant to receive. What work? Deamon93 did it all; I merely threw (and keep throwing, if I find new info) a few suggestions. You're right, I should have specified that. As a mitigating circumstance, I did put some examples that kind of hinted that accuracy wasn't about issues with the gun itself, but behind it...

I'll put my answer under spoiler, so as not to take too much space with this slight OT.

Hope the answer's yes to both questions! Also, nice openings. I'd apply, but it's been years since I dropped out of WoT, and haven't the slightest idea of what the heck has gone down there. Besides, I'm not a dedicated online gamer, so my knowledge in this area is less than optimal...