Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
wot_2016_gunner

Possible future US BB alternate line

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,612 posts
3,235 battles

I've been thinking about this for a while and this is my proposal for a possible alternate BB line for the US. (i think that premium ships are starting to become too many and we should see more alternate lines)

 

Tiers, from tier 5, after the Wyoming, up to tier 8, next to the North Carolina

 

Tier V - USS Nevada (BB-36), Nevada class battleship, it makes sense to be at the same tier as the New York (BB-34)/Texas (BB-35) because of the registry number.

Uss_nevada.jpg

 

Service: 1916 to 1945

Total dispacement: 34.000 tons

Lenght: 177,8 m 

Width: 32,9 m

Draft: 9,9 m

Powerplant: 12 Yarrow boilers and 2 Curtiss turbines

Total power: 26.500 shp

Maximum speed: 20,5 knots

Range: 10.000 miles at 11 knots (irrelevant to the game but worth to know)

Crew: 2.220 members

Weaponary (in 1945, as in the image):

 - Main armament: 10x356 mm guns in tow triple and two dual turrets

 - Dual purpose artillery: 16x127 mm guns in dual turrets

 - AA  artillery: 32x40 mm Bofors and 40x20 mm Oerlikon

Armour:

 - Hull: from 76 mm to 343 mm

 - Main turrets: from 127 mm to 406 mm

 - Conning tower: 406mm

 

 

Tier VI - USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), sistership of the USS Arizona

USS_Pennsy_BB-38_1934.jpg

 

Service: 1916 to 1946

Total dispacement: 36.500 tons

Lenght: 185,3 m 

Width: 32,4 m

Draft: 10,2 m

Powerplant: 6 boilers and 4 Curtiss turbines

Total power: 31.000 shp

Maximum speed: 21 knots

Range: 9.300 miles at 17 knots 

Crew: 1.358 members

Weaponary (final configuration):

 - Main armament: 12x356 mm guns 

 - Dual purpose artillery: 14x127 mm guns

 - AA  artillery: 45x40 mm Bofors and 50x20 mm Oerlikon

Armour:

 - Hull: from 51 mm to 340 mm 

 - Main turrets: from 230 mm to 381 mm

 - Conning tower: 410 mm

 

 

Tier VII - USS Tennessee (BB-43) it looks like the New Mexico just because the design was influenced by the New Mexico

USS_Tennessee_BB43.jpg

 

Service: 1920 to 1947

Total dispacement: 35.190 tons

Lenght: 190,4 m 

Width: 29,7 m

Draft: 10,7 m

Powerplant: 8 Babcock & Wilcox boilers, 2 Curtiss turbines and 4 electric motors

Total power: 28.500 shp

Maximum speed: 21 knots

Range: 9.000 miles at 12 knots 

Crew: 1.480 members

Weaponary (final configuration):

 - Main armament: 12x356 mm guns (i know it's a tier 7, but the King George V has 356 mm too)

 - Dual purpose artillery: 16x127 mm guns

 - AA  artillery: 56x40 mm Bofors and 48x20 mm Oerlikon

Armour:

 - Hull: from 127 mm to 356 mm 

 - Main turrets: from 127 mm to 457 mm

 - Conning tower: 406 mm

 

 

Tier VIII - USS South Dakota (BB-57) sistership of Alabama and Massachusetts

USS_South_Dakota_(BB-57)_off_the_Norfolk

 

Service: 1942 to 1947

Total dispacement: 44.374 tons

Lenght: 207,3 m 

Width: 33 m

Draft: 11,1 m

Powerplant: 8 Babcock & Wilcox boilers, 4 General Electric  turbines

Total power: 130.000 shp

Maximum speed: 27,5 knots

Range: 15.000 miles at 15 knots 

Crew: 2.354 members

Weaponary:

 - Main armament: 9x406 mm guns 

 - Dual purpose artillery: 16x127 mm guns

 - AA  artillery: from 24 to 32x40 mm Bofors and from 30 to 56x20 mm Oerlikon

Armour: 

 - Hull: from 188 mm to 310 mm 

 - Main turrets: from 185 mm to 455 mm

 - Conning tower: from 185 mm to 405 mm

 

Let me know what do you think about this alternate line, i think that it whould  be good, but let me know your opinion.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
853 posts
907 battles
27 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

What should be the defining feature of the alternate line?

I can answer this - more BBs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
7,613 posts
13,873 battles
3 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

What should be the defining feature of the alternate line?

 

Why does it always have to have one?

Can't we just have more ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4 posts
2,688 battles

Well firstly, I don't really see the sense in doing 14" standard BBs from T5 to T7. The entire point was that they performed similarly. So at T5 the Nevada is just objectively better, mostly in armour, than the New York. Too good. At T6 the Pennsylvania would be fine, because that is the tier the standards actually slot into. Then at 7 you hit a major problem. The Tennessee is not significantly superior to the New Mexico. It is basically the same, with better torpedo protection and higher gun elevation. The elevation seems to be basically irrelevant to range in game, so it won't affect that is WG is consistent. And compared to the KGV, the WWI era US 14inchers were significantly inferior. And the KGV shoots great HE in game. Are you suggesting implementing that into a single ship in game, but not the other standards (would make them OP), or the South Dakota (also would be OP, see why later). The standards only make sense at 6, all of them. The South Dakota is less of an issue at 8, though it was objectively better than the NC, it could be bent a little by WG to fit. But if HE was made a line feature, which is the only way WG would do it, it would just become OP. 
And to look at the issue of line features, more ships is not a line feature. They would essentially be an identical progression, assuming you solve the balance issues. So you need to work out some flavour you can give them to make them interesting and unique. Which wouldn't make much sense, given you would be saying that 3 standard classes have ..., but for some reason the other 2 did not. I think it is an inherently bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,875 posts
14,403 battles
9 minutes ago, Zemeritt said:

 

Why does it always have to have one?

Can't we just have more ships?

Then you can just add sister ships of existing ones. Pennsylvania and Tennessee are just slightly different New Mexicos. Even Nevada is not that much different.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-IWP-]
Players
9 posts
753 battles
On 4/18/2019 at 5:54 PM, dubsy1021 said:

And compared to the KGV, the WWI era US 14inchers were significantly inferior. 

This is objectively false especially by WWII. British Armor Piercing shells were a joke being made of low quality, soft materials that were prone to deformation resulting in deflection on heavy armor. Even the 14"/45s of the Nevada and Pennsylvania classes (the ones on Arizona in game) had better penetration characteristics and numbers by 1941 even more so by 1943. Yeah the KGV class fired a heavier shell faster than the standards at a higher rate of fire but the standards fired a far superior shell made of rigid, high quality materials that had much better penetration characteristics at the cost of a smaller bursting charge. This is because two main reasons resources and the philosophy behind shell manufacturing. Put one way the British didn't really see the point in putting high grade materials to waste on something that'll be used a singular time, like-wise they didn't have the quality resources to spare on shells that might not get results. The US on the other hand saw a shell as one chance to deal the enemy a serious blow and they were going to give that chance the utmost likelihood of dealing devastating damage, the US also had the materials to spare to make these shells as high quality and rigid as they could. The proof is in the numbers and I'm not about to claim something and not back it up with numbers, here are penetration numbers at different ranges from reliable sources, mainly NavWeaps.com.

 

UK 14"/45 - 26.9in at 0yd (668mm at 0m), 15.6in at 10000yds (396mm at 9,144m), 11.2in at 20000yds (285mm at 18288m)

US 14"/45 - no data, 18in at 11,500yds (457mm at 10520m), 12in at 23400yds (305mm at 21400m)

US 14"/50 - 28.03in (712mm) at 0yd, 20.12in at 10000yds (511mm at 9,144m), 13.75in at 20000yds (349mm at 18288m)

 

You get the point. There are many more numbers I could list but there's no point in dragging this out. While the USN 14"/45 was untested at a lot of the ranges the other two guns were it still outperforms the UK 14"/45 at even (slightly) greater ranges and the competition with the USN 14"/50 just isn't even close. The USN 14"/50 is widely regarded as the best 14in artillery piece ever mounted on a ship even outperforming certain 15in guns in armor penetration tests. The only reason that KGV is placed over New Mexico and Arizona in game is due to deficiencies in historical armor piercing values in game, not taking shell quality into account, armor thickness and quality (not design), speed, and AA all save for the last three are problems fabricated by the game itself and the last of which was fixed on all USN battleships post 1941. This isn't to say which battleship is better but don't think to claim something is superior if you don't have the data to back it up. Because in almost all regards USN 14in guns VASTLY outperformed all others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
493 posts
25,178 battles

You could make the second Line into Brawlers by Increasing the Range of the Secondaries.

Base Range forTier 6-7 is 5km

Base Range for Tier 8-10 is 7km

 

There is also the Possibility for the Florida Class (10 305mm Guns) to become a Tier 3 BB.

Maybe a Premium one if the new Line does not start at Tier 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×