battleships with worthless secondaries secondaries

[Hackerxe]

if WG is going to allow 9 and 10 CC's like des moines and Seattle to be invisible  when you can CLEARLY see the cannon flame when it fires, they should extend the secondary range to 15K or so or at least 10K  to givve BBs's a fighting change 

[Jethro_Grey]

Why does it sounds to me, like you were in Zoom view, and the DM/ Seattle were in smoke. 

Cause there is no other Explanation for invisble ships when they fire their guns and you're in range. 

 

And if you don't have LoS, and nobody else on your Team does, why should he be spotted if he's behind a Island? 

 

Where is the BBingo Card when i Need it? 

[_HomTanks_]

You want to be able to kill a dm or Seattle from 15km with secondaries? (Just so you know, there are BBs with 11.3km sec range).

Would youalso like BBS to get 15km radar?

 

[CptBarney]

While i am a fan of secondaries and would like some buffs to them. If you make them too good then you can auto one ship and solo another (good example of this with guy in his ohio on youtubes that does 410k damage).

Either way i don't know how you got yourself into said position but i suggest you learn when to push and when not to, not to go alone on a flank (teammates are too unrealible for such a thing) and also not to rush in blindly and keep aware of the map so you don't get overrun.

 

With positioning and clever plays you can actually avoid quite a bit of spammy cruiser fire unless, you f'up or your team suicides, sniffs glues, smells the air etc and dies quickly leaving you in a pretty dire situation.

Oh well at least you can play with yashima when she comes out.

[ColonelPete]

5 minutes ago, Hackerxe said:

if WG is going to allow 9 and 10 CC's like des moines and Seattle to be invisible  when you can CLEARLY see the cannon flame when it fires, they should extend the secondary range to 15K or so or at least 10K  to givve BBs's a fighting change 

• BB have more than a fighting chance vs cruiser
• secondaries cannot hit what you cannot see, no matter the range...

[aboomination]

This is why we can't have good stuff.

[GarrusBrutus]

BBaby bingo card anyone? 

[Marblehead_1]

[piet11111]

And here i came into this thread thinking it was about the mikasa.

 

 

[Sargento_YO]

Something that I really would like it's that secondaries would be more acurrate. Even with all the upgrades and skills only 33 / 45 % of the shoots hit the target.

[piet11111]

Just now, Sargento_YO said:

Something that I really would like it's that secondaries would be more acurrate. Even with all the upgrades and skills only 33 / 45 % of the shoots hit the target.

 

Same and even then a lot of the hits dont do damage.

[Bear__Necessities]

1 hour ago, Hackerxe said:

if WG is going to allow 9 and 10 CC's like des moines and Seattle to be invisible  when you can CLEARLY see the cannon flame when it fires, they should extend the secondary range to 15K or so or at least 10K  to givve BBs's a fighting change 

Just do one will ya.

[Yxkraft]

All battleships have worthless secondaries because they are so easily destroyed by either small caliber HE/AP fire or large caliber HE fire. If you are a bb and sharply angled against a minoutar his shells will bounce on your deck and hit your secondary turrets blowing them up. An entire side of your ship will be shredded in 30 seconds. This goes for all small caliber AP but it is more noticeable with british cruisers because of the insane rate of fire. 

 

It is silly when you lose one of the large triple 155 turrets on Jean Bart to  one 100 mm HE hit from a kitakaze. In the front too!  The turrets may sit on 90-120 mm thick ring casemates but the armor on the turret is the same as on rest of the superstructure and paper tier.  It was of course not like that in RL but wargaming decided to set it up like this because they really did not incorporate secondaries into their game model. They were meant to be ornamental only.  

[ForlornSailor]

12 minutes ago, Yxkraft said:

All battleships have worthless secondaries because they are so easily destroyed by either small caliber HE/AP fire or large caliber HE fire. If you are a bb and sharply angled against a minoutar his shells will bounce on your deck and hit your secondary turrets blowing them up. An entire side of your ship will be shredded in 30 seconds. This goes for all small caliber AP but it is more noticeable with british cruisers because of the insane rate of fire. 

 

It is silly when you lose one of the large triple 155 turrets on Jean Bart to  one 100 mm HE hit from a kitakaze. In the front too!  The turrets may sit on 90-120 mm thick ring casemates but the armor on the turret is the same as on rest of the superstructure and paper tier.  It was of course not like that in RL but wargaming decided to set it up like this because they really did not incorporate secondaries into their game model. They were meant to be ornamental only.  

 

Is it not enough, that you have 60% of your games in BBs? Is not enough, that you have your highest WR in BBs? Do you still have to whine about buffs for your pampered class?

[Pekoe_Darjeeling]

Buff muh secondaries.

[Hopeless_Guppy]

Just out of curiosity,in real life, what were the actual ranges of secondary gun on warships?

[_Dunc_]

My full secondarymong build YoloGeorgia endorses this thread. 

 

 

[howardxu_23]

5 hours ago, Yxkraft said:

All battleships have worthless secondaries because they are so easily destroyed by either small caliber HE/AP fire or large caliber HE fire. If you are a bb and sharply angled against a minoutar his shells will bounce on your deck and hit your secondary turrets blowing them up. An entire side of your ship will be shredded in 30 seconds. This goes for all small caliber AP but it is more noticeable with british cruisers because of the insane rate of fire. 

 

It is silly when you lose one of the large triple 155 turrets on Jean Bart to  one 100 mm HE hit from a kitakaze. In the front too!  The turrets may sit on 90-120 mm thick ring casemates but the armor on the turret is the same as on rest of the superstructure and paper tier.  It was of course not like that in RL but wargaming decided to set it up like this because they really did not incorporate secondaries into their game model. They were meant to be ornamental only.  

Use axiularuy(whatever is spelt)mod 1 for more sec batt HP

secondly JB secondaries are not as durable as the 150 on currywurst

 

[lovelacebeer]

37 minutes ago, Inappropriate_noob said:

Just out of curiosity,in real life, what were the actual ranges of secondary gun on warships?

 

Whist it does vary from ship to ship as a couple of examples: 

 

HMS Warspites 6" (15cm) Mk XII secondaries had a range of almost 20 km,

Bismarks 15cm SK C/28 secondaries had 23km range,

Yamatos 15.5 cm 3rd year type secondaries just over 27km range,

 

  

[Peroidas]

34 minutes ago, Inappropriate_noob said:

Just out of curiosity,in real life, what were the actual ranges of secondary gun on warships?

IRL they had same or longer range than identical guns installed as main battery. Currently in game, identical guns in identical turrets (US 5in/38) have 11.1 km on Gearing and Atlanta, 7,5 on battleships (TVIII and above) and 5km on cruisers (for ex Alaska).

 

In fact, those BB or Alaska mounted guns were more accurate and probably longer ranged than on DDs if only because BB hulls were more stable firing platforms.

[Yxkraft]

3 minutes ago, howardxu_23 said:

Use axiularuy(whatever is spelt)mod 1 for more sec batt HP

secondly JB secondaries are not as durable as the 150 on currywurst

 

 

That upgrade is useless because you will lose your main turrets way too easily when you are in secondary range and your main turrets are your only real weapons. 

[howardxu_23]

Just now, Peroidas said:

IRL they had same or longer range than identical guns installed as main battery. Currently in game, identical guns in identical turrets (US 5in/38) have 11.1 km on Gearing and Atlanta, 7,5 on battleships (TVIII and above) and 5km on cruisers (for ex Alaska).

 

In fact, those BB or Alaska mounted guns were more accurate and probably longer ranged than on DDs if only because BB hulls were more stable firing platforms.

Also theoretically more accurate since they also get access to their own FCS or more powerful ones

[howardxu_23]

8 minutes ago, Yxkraft said:

 

That upgrade is useless because you will lose your main turrets way too easily when you are in secondary range and your main turrets are your only real weapons. 

On select ships turrets are protected enough to get way with not using main batt mod

 

Yamato(lol 650mm turret face) comes to mind for improving AA HP, currywurst it’s more of a choice since it has weaker armor on main guns, but has high base secondaries HP and aux mod 1 is percentage based, so it buffs it more. Izumo has weak barbettes, so main armament mod for her

 

thirdy it also depends on how many turrets the ship actually has for redundancy, on a JB there is only 2 and poor secondary HP, so losing one turret is far more of a problem then on something like a Amagi, which has 5 turrets, so losing one basically gives you nagato firepower. Same goes to monty, losing one turret gives it the broadside weight equivalent to Iowa 

[Peroidas]

6 hours ago, Yxkraft said:

All battleships have worthless secondaries because they are so easily destroyed by either small caliber HE/AP fire or large caliber HE fire. If you are a bb and sharply angled against a minoutar his shells will bounce on your deck and hit your secondary turrets blowing them up. An entire side of your ship will be shredded in 30 seconds. This goes for all small caliber AP but it is more noticeable with british cruisers because of the insane rate of fire. 

 

It is silly when you lose one of the large triple 155 turrets on Jean Bart to  one 100 mm HE hit from a kitakaze. In the front too!  The turrets may sit on 90-120 mm thick ring casemates but the armor on the turret is the same as on rest of the superstructure and paper tier.  It was of course not like that in RL but wargaming decided to set it up like this because they really did not incorporate secondaries into their game model. They were meant to be ornamental only.  

 

Secondaries were not armoured to withstand heavy shells at all. JB's 100mm mounts were most probably unarmoured while 155mm turrets had 115mm fronts and some 70mm sides. Bismarck 150mm secondaries had even less armour (100-40mm). 

 

While single 100mm HE should not knock them out, at short range fire from 6in (150mm) on British cruisers would pen easily.

[howardxu_23]

6 hours ago, Marblehead_1 said:

While looking over the bingo card things, I noticed the square “torps should be more visable”

*looks at torp mod that is replacing TAM

Hmmmmm