M0rbihan

Hello everyone. Ever since PR came back (and this time I managed to get it) Ive been quite a fan of USN large(super) cruisers. I don't have Alaska and don't see myself getting it (without gambling and that is a big no-no). So anyway, sometime ago I was wondering, what if we get an Alaska/PR line but with Georgia/Ohio. You know how, Alaska and PR are kind of Iowa and Ohio but minituarized and in cruiser form. Well I though why not try to mock up the same type of ship but with the Georgia and Ohio ? Since I don't have an Alaska, I couldn't make a mock up of it, but I could make one for PR. Without further ado, here it is TX USS Samoa : https://imgur.com/BmhLI8s Here is a diagram of it and (most) of its armament : As you can see, there are some upgrades to the AA, mostly replacing some of the quad 40mm with twin 76mm. But most important is the main battery. Instead of the 305 of the current Large cruisers, we get the 356mm (new mexico) guns and shells in twin turrets. Now for the stats, here you can check detailed stats of the ships CLICK NOTE: all stats are for base ships, no modules, no captain skills. First, how I "made up" the ships' stats. What I did, is check to see what the relationship was between Alaska and Iowa (ie ratio between their respective stats). Then I applied the same ratio to Georgia to create the T9 ship - Hawai. Did the same thing with PR and Montana, then applied it to Ohio to make the T10 ship - Samoa. Anyway, here is the gist of it. With Hawai , the T9 large cruiser, you get the following compared to Alaska: With Samoa, the T10 large cruiser, you get the following compared to PR: As you can see, you generally get higher per shell damage, better reload and dispersion, but at the cost of reduced Alpha, DPM and volume of fire. There is some weirdness going on, that is to say scaling isn't that great. For example, Hawai (Alaska counterpart) gets hilarious base speed of 37 knots. We will address these at the end of the post. Now, lets see how the "new" ships in the line relate to each other, compared to Alaska and PR: As you can see, the Hawai performs better than Alaska when compared to its own T10 counterpart (Alaska being compared to PR). Now lets see how Hawai (T9) and Samoa (T10) compare to the other (really) large gun cruisers. We will compare Hawai to Siegfried and Samoa to Sevastopol: As can be gleamed, Sieg and Sevastopol are superior in per shell characteristics and range, but give way to the larger volume of fire (at T10) and faster reload (T10 and T9). Now lets check the final "balancing" sheet, where the stats of the Hawai and Samoa have been adjusted a bit so they are not 1:1 translation of Iowa->Georgia to Alaska and Montana->Ohio to PR: Overall, the new ships gain a bit of HP advantage, have better shell characteristics, have better reload and accuracy, but lose on DPM and Alpha ( full broadside ) damage, range and fires per minute. Haven't really included AA as it seems less relevant and frankly, doesn't matter much (if at all), but considering the updated armament (on the T10) at least, an increase of 10-15% of the medium aura damage would be nice. As for consumables, obviously can be said a lot, but for the sake of keeping it simple - def AA for both, no switching to hydro. Both get Radar, but with shorter duration than Alaska/PR duration. That should bring them to about the same performance (IMHO). Overall, I think such ships would be an interesting addition. More of a sidegrade than anything else. You get better but also fewer guns and similar ship to the existing ones. Gun caliber is the large, but not the largest, for cruisers, but it doesn't provide meaningful overmatch and not making life for cruisers even harder than it already is. Feel free to chime in, suggest adjustments or ideas for those ships and generally, have a good time ! Cheers !

Let us hope then that if we get those ships, we might enjoy them as a TT line.

Oh sure. I meant that most of the time she isn't available and I didn't have her currently to make her a mock up like PR.

Hello everyone. As a big fan of German BBs and especially secondary focused I cant help but feel somewhat disappointed by the designs of a particular new ship (Brandenburg). From what I've read about it it looks very much like a Bismarck with 4x3 305s and an extra 105 mount. From the few prelimenary mental calculations (assuming stock ships), the Brandenburg will fire 5% more shells per minute from its 105s and 20% less from its 150s than T9 German BB (assuming same builds and slot6 secondary module). She does get torpedoes just like its T9 counterpart - the Pommern but misses out on the hydro. When compared to Bismarck, she will have a 25% increase in 105s total RoF but the same 150s RoF. Looking at all that I cant really see her as anything particulary interesting. However, that lack of interest inspired me to "design" an improved version of Graf Spee, a Graf Spee 2 if you like. I came up with it partially inspired by the "true" battlecruisers - long range and fast ships , able to outgun what they cant outrun and also outrun what they cant outgun, or so they say. I am not quite sure Admiral Graf Spee managed to get the whole outgun/outrun thing quite right (albeit she want a BC but as a raider she needed the same strenghts). So I decided (being the ingenious naval engineer that I am /s) to improve* upon her. Taking some design choices from various german BBs I came up with the following T8 BB: codename Tyr: Main battery - 2x3 380mm (Pommern turrets) split in A-Y configuration , like her predecessor - Graf Spee. Reload - 26s (Like Bismarck's) Secondary battery (H) - 2x3 150mm (Odin turrets) split into B-X configuration, superfiring her main armament. Reload - 7s ( Like Odin's) Secondary battery (L) - 5*x2 128mm (Gneisenau turrets) on each side. Reload - 4s (Like Gneisenau's) + standard German BB Hydro AA - LOL, lets imagine 12x1 20mm ; 10x4 20mm ; 8x2 37mm HP - abt 60k Armour - Classic German turtleback with 32mm extremeties Speed - 31 kn Turning Circle - 850m Concealment - 16km base Having stated all that, lets compare her to the golden standard that is the Bismarck,Gneisenau (assuming no module upgrades and no captains skills in effect) and Pommern(with slot6 secondary module otherwise its just a Bismarck). Tyr will have 3/4 of Bismarck MB firepower regardless of orientation (having the same reload) but also, the marked weakness of having her main armament concentrated in 2 turrets. Tyr's dispersion is supposed to be like Bismarck's or slightly better but generally the MB has to be worse at range as Tyr will be compensating at closer ranges when her secondaries start roaring. As far as they are concerned , lets look at 150s first. All calculations are done with "stock" ship and no skill commander except for Pommern where she will have +20% RoF thanks to having a 6th slot module(something T8 dont get). Tyr's RoF is 8.57 shots per minute x6 (as they are 2 triple turrets). That gives us a total of 51.42 shells every 60s. Compared to Bismarck's 150s which are 3 twin turrets with 7.5s reload giving us each side RoF of 48 shells. That is 7.13% increased RoF for Tyr as compared to Bismarck, however, being Tyr's centerline, Bismarck's theoretical total output is still larger (albeit much less accurate). Further, Tyr's 150s have higher initial velocity - 960ms against 875ms of the Bismarck's. Looking at Pommern , whose secondaries arrangement are 1:1 with Bismarck, its 150s RoF 57.6 shells per 60s on each side. This is thanks to T9 access to an additional module slot giving a 20% RoF advantage against T8. That gives the Tyr's 10.73% decreased RoF of its 150s against the Pommern's150s. Now for the 128s, comparison will be more difficult, but I will include Gneisenau's (a T7) 128 for more 1:1 comparison. Bismarck has 4x2 105s with reload of 3.35s giving us RoF 17.91 for a total of 143.28 shells per minute (per side). Pommern has also 4x2 105s with reload of 3.35s, giving us RoF 21.49 for a total of 171.94 shells per minute (per side, again thanks to its slot 6 secondary module). Gneisenau on the other hand has 6x2 128s (1 being centerline) with reload of 4s , giving us RoF 15 for a total of 180 shells per minute. Tyr having the same 128s as Gneisenau, she will have total of 150 shells per minute. Comparing all four ,the Tyr 128s will have a 16.66% lower RoF than Gneisenau 128s, but also 4.69% inreased RoF compared to Bismarck's 105s. Tyr's 128s output is 12.76% lower than Pommern's 105s. Keeping also in mind that 128s have higher chance to cause direct damage (thanks to 32mm pen) and do more damage 1500 (128) vs 1200 (105), which is an 25% damage increase per penetration. Armour and HP I find it much more difficult to put a number here. Considering the sacrifice of the MB and the risk of having only 2 turrets I feel its somewhat justified to have HP pool of about 60k. Torpedo protection - 25%, pretty standard for germans. Armour layout is even more difficult but a 32mm extremities feel justified, all things considered. Maneuverability - cant really put hard numbers, but somewhere between Bismarck and Odin seem apropriate for this kind of ship, considering what is the concept behind it - speed is king (well endurance as well but that doesnt factor ingame). === *I've included this recalculation solely in case 5x2 128 is too OP. The below is valid if Tyr has 4x2 128 (a decrease of 20%) Bismarck 105s - 143.28 shells per minute. Gneisenau 128s - 180 shells per minute Tyr 128s - 120 shells per minute. Pommern 105s - 171.94 shells per minute Comparing them,the Tyr will have a 16.25% lower RoF than Bismarck's 105s, 30.2% lower RoF than Pommern's 105s and massive 33.33% lower RoF compared to Gneisenau's 128s. Considering Tyr will sacrifice 1/4 of its MB firepower (compared to Bismarck), I feel like the 5x2 128s per side are justified. === In summary, MB and secondary output of TYR in % (for the original 2x3 380mm, 2x3 150mm and 5x2 128mm of Tyr) compared to Gneisenau , Bismarck , Pommern and GK: Battery type Gneisenau Bismarck Pommern GK 380mm 100% 75% 63.46% X 150mm X 107.12% 89.27% 133.9% 128/105mm 83.33% 104.69% 87.23% 83.33% 128/105mm if 8x2 for TYR 66.66% 83.75% 69.8% 66.66% Anyway, the point of this whole post is just to have a bit of fun,theorycraft a bit and may be talk about what is good/useful and what is not. Ways to improve or better balans TM such a ship. Feel free to change,add or subtract things from the above.

There are ... other ways you can pay.

I dont mind it at all. I do consider the infamous already commander skills which does lack secondary battery enhancements for cruisers so it "had" to be a BB. I havent played Scharnhorst either so I cant really say much about the 283mm.

Indeed, I make no pretense to be "real". I just made it up and it had no basis (or at least I have done 0 research) in reality. I did make extensive use of the rule of cool. I did however mean it to be a T8 Battleship , filling the samish role as Odin / Brandenburg.