Thoughts about the Royal Navy

[Adwaenyth]

No not about when they will be released. I was more thinking about how their high tier battleships will fare, especially their main armament compared to the other nations.

 

While the US and Japanese navies both sport 16 inch guns from tier 7 onwards, both the German and the British ships (will) have guns with smaller calibre at least on T7 and T8. While the Nelson and Lion class both would have also 16 inch guns, the Revenge and the Vanguard class only had 15 inch guns, the King George V class even only 14 inch, or if you go for the German BBs the Bismarck class has 15 inch an the Scharnhorst class only 11 (or guess 15 inch when upgraded) guns.

 

So how do you think these will be balanced in the top tiers? Higher ROF like the Tirpitz has? More accurate than the others?

 

 

[Deamon93]

KGV had a 15" armed variant, axed due to the London Treaty(the only one which strictly follows that set of rules). If she is found weak they can give that upgrade to her.

 

Regarding the others i think they'll do fine in their respective tiers.

[Scilya]

just because its "only" a 14 inch gun does not mean it was bad. infact the 16 inchers on the nelson class were not that geat. meanwhile some of our 14/15 inch guns were some of the best performaing guns of the war (arguably of course and i am sure someone will )

[cracktrackflak]

The tech stats for ships of course say nothing about the ships fought - or would have potentially fought - in battle. There are a load of soft stats that could be incorporated: skill of gun crews and gunnery officer, ditto engineering, damage control and executive, nation's overall tradition oif sea powere, etc.

 

I.e. the RN had some beat up old ships in its fleet, but these still had slick crews and much better fleet experience than most other navies of the time.

 

Incidentally, I've noticed one technical stat that WG has (deliberately?) overlooked that should give the RN a significant advantage in WoWS: the Jap, US and German ships in the games tend to have clipper bows which make them look good and give them improved speed at sea. However, the reason that the RN has stumpy, flat bows (ie on Warspite) was that this enabled the main armament to fire directly ahead at zero elevation, ie in short range combat. This was a deliberate design feature, not removed until Vanguard was built. Thus, in theory - and especially on the compressed WoWS maps, all of the clipper bow ships should be incapable of firing ahead, or have limited arcs ahead dependent upon range, whilst Warspite and her future sisters should have this ability as an RN perk (it would compensate Warspite for that dreadful fake turret turning rate...).

[Historynerd]

No not about when they will be released. I was more thinking about how their high tier battleships will fare, especially their main armament compared to the other nations.

 

While the US and Japanese navies both sport 16 inch guns from tier 7 onwards, both the German and the British ships (will) have guns with smaller calibre at least on T7 and T8. While the Nelson and Lion class both would have also 16 inch guns, the Revenge and the Vanguard class only had 15 inch guns, the King George V class even only 14 inch, or if you go for the German BBs the Bismarck class has 15 inch an the Scharnhorst class only 11 (or guess 15 inch when upgraded) guns.

 

So how do you think these will be balanced in the top tiers? Higher ROF like the Tirpitz has? More accurate than the others?

 

 

 

Caliber is not synonimous with efficiency, reliability and performance.

 

The 16-inch Mark I gun fitted on the Nelson-class was an unsuccessful weapon, with only marginal improvement in terms of armor penetration compared to the 15-inch Mark I fitted on the older battleships-

 

While its caliber was low, the 14-inch Mark VII fitted on the KGV was overall a good weapon, capable of faring well against the other European guns, i.e. the French, German and Italian 15-inch guns.

 

just because its "only" a 14 inch gun does not mean it was bad. infact the 16 inchers on the nelson class were not that geat. meanwhile some of our 14/15 inch guns were some of the best performaing guns of the war (arguably of course and i am sure someone will )

 

I agree.

 

About the 15-inch guns... well, it can surely be described as a very successful and reliable weapon, no one can argue against that; and they were still thoroughly useful, by all means. However, in terms of pure performance, those weren't quite on par with the latest WWII guns. It might have emerged more clearly, had the battleships been involved in more engagements.

[Adwaenyth]

 

Caliber is not synonimous with efficiency, reliability and performance.

 

The 16-inch Mark I gun fitted on the Nelson-class was an unsuccessful weapon, with only marginal improvement in terms of armor penetration compared to the 15-inch Mark I fitted on the older battleships-

 

While its caliber was low, the 14-inch Mark VII fitted on the KGV was overall a good weapon, capable of faring well against the other European guns, i.e. the French, German and Italian 15-inch guns.

 

But in WoWs it will come down to the numbers - and that means those 14" guns will likely end up with 10k AP damage. Maybe penetration will be higher when the shell speed is faster, but if they keep their scheme, the penetration value will likely be also medicore.

 

So how would you balance that?

[Eisenengel]

Speaking from experience, 15" is enough to pen/crit the Yamato. I don't think you need much more than that, do you?

 

With that said, the 14" guns on the KGV also had somewhat moderate muzzle velocity.

 

Still, the British did have the N3 battleship design (Which after the treaties were cut down to the Nelson class) which was planned to have 18" guns, and WG isn't adverse to having paper designs.

 

Funny detail: British warships had K-shells, which contained dye to mark from which ships what shells were from.

[Pardinas_82]

 

But in WoWs it will come down to the numbers - and that means those 14" guns will likely end up with 10k AP damage. Maybe penetration will be higher when the shell speed is faster, but if they keep their scheme, the penetration value will likely be also medicore.

 

So how would you balance that?

 

ROF, Shell velocity or dispersion

[Historynerd]

 

But in WoWs it will come down to the numbers - and that means those 14" guns will likely end up with 10k AP damage. Maybe penetration will be higher when the shell speed is faster, but if they keep their scheme, the penetration value will likely be also medicore.

 

So how would you balance that?

 

I might be wrong about this, perhaos they don't care about this at all, but if they go around with the values for the bursting charge, then the 14-inch guns would have the samue value as the later APC shells made for the 15-inch.

 

 

ROF, Shell velocity or dispersion

 

Yes, these factors would give us ways to balance them out.

 

I'd go especially with dispersion... as far as I know, these weapons had consistent patterns in terms of fall of shot, also because their barrels were mounted relatively far from each other (in contrast with what happened with the Dunkerque and the Richelieu's quadruple mounts).

[Pardinas_82]

 

I might be wrong about this, perhaos they don't care about this at all, but if they go around with the values for the bursting charge, then the 14-inch guns would have the samue value as the later APC shells made for the 15-inch.

 

 

Yes, these factors would give us ways to balance them out.

 

I'd go especially with dispersion... as far as I know, these weapons had consistent patterns in terms of fall of shot, also because their barrels were mounted relatively far from each other (in contrast with what happened with the Dunkerque and the Richelieu's quadruple mounts).

 

I would love to see the weapons of the RN being more acurate, reflecting the "experience" of the sailors, being the royal navy one of the better trained.

[Eisenengel]

 

But in WoWs it will come down to the numbers - and that means those 14" guns will likely end up with 10k AP damage. Maybe penetration will be higher when the shell speed is faster, but if they keep their scheme, the penetration value will likely be also medicore.

 

So how would you balance that?

 

It's kind of funny, that.

 

Muzzle velocity is important at close range, but as range increases, shell velocity tapers off, and shell weight (and design) becomes more important for its penetration characteristics. 

 

The British 16" guns for the Nelson were the result of a study suggesting that high muzzle velocity and low shell weight would have superior penetration characteristics, but the study was flawed; 

Source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk1.htm

 

The 14" guns for the KGV was after that flaw was corrected, and it was actually fairly high-weight low-velocity guns (Roughly same weight as the Nelson's shells). They were also less than ideally reliable - after half an hour of firing, half the guns on the KGV were not functional. 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm

 

 

[Historynerd]

 

I would love to see the weapons of the RN being more acurate, reflecting the "experience" of the sailors, being the royal navy one of the better trained.

 

If we talk about accuracy, I think that until the introduction of fire-control radar all the major navies were pretty much on the same level in terms of optical instrumentation; after that, the Allied navies had an undisputable edge.

 

If we talk about dispersion, I don't see how it can be affected by "experience" and "training", since IMHO it's very dependent on the weapon, the shell and the equipment. And, to a degree, also by fire-control methods: part of the reason why the Italian battleships tended to fire salvoes with huge dispersion was that the dominating concept emphasized straddling the enemy first, going as far as aiming with the first and last turrets a bit forwards or backwards of the enemy; instead the Royal Navy emphasized having tight salvoes, that in case of a straddle would get many hits, but the number of straddles was comparatively lower.

 

The 14" guns for the KGV was after that flaw was corrected, and it was actually fairly high-weight low-velocity guns (Roughly same weight as the Nelson's shells). They were also less than ideally reliable - after half an hour of firing, half the guns on the KGV were not functional. 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm

 

But that was mainly because of the troublesome quadruple mounts, not because the guns per se, as was the case of the Nelson's guns...

[Thonar]

 But that was mainly because of the troublesome quadruple mounts, not because the guns per se, as was the case of the Nelson's guns...

 

Well, the British 14"/VII is not really comparable to the German 38cm on BM-Class, which is already the "weakest" gun on T8... not to mention the "weak" 16"/I gun of Nelson.

Japan and the US already have quite potent 16" on Tier 7...

 

So, raw firepower won't be the strength of the British ships on these tiers probably...

[Userext]

Well one thing i know is that royal navy has good AA. Sharana said that Iowa and Montana might keep their "Best AA" title but i doubt they will.

 

This is N3 class battleship(tier 10 british ship)'s AA power

 

Armament:

6 × single 4.7-inch (120 mm) AA guns 10 × quadruple-barrel 2-pdr pom-pommountings

 

In case if you are wondering 2pdr pom pom guns are 40mm guns. It has 10x4 40mm guns. 

[Kais_S012]

my guess/hope is that the RN will be the all rounder fleet. their ships being that  center point between the 3 nations, they will lack the (predicted) range of the Germans, the AA power of the US or the stopping power of the IJN.

but...

my pragmatic side reminds me it's Wargaming... so I expect the vast majority of the British lines to be garbage save for a few exceptions (repeating WoT) and when players start to ask why they are so lack luster compared to the other nations Wargamings Devs will shrug and claim "the RN lines are for more experienced players" and slap a 'hard mode' sticker on them.

 

however, the RN had almost no heavy cruisers in the WoWS era their cruiser line is probably going to be entirely CL (light cruisers) so their cruisers could be faster and with a lower spotting range they may even give the RN stronger/faster torpedoes to counter the armour (making them glass hammers so to speak)

[Historynerd]

 

Well, the British 14"/VII is not really comparable to the German 38cm on BM-Class, which is already the "weakest" gun on T8... not to mention the "weak" 16"/I gun of Nelson.

Japan and the US already have quite potent 16" on Tier 7...

 

So, raw firepower won't be the strength of the British ships on these tiers probably...

 

Well, the German 38cm had a slight advantage in terms of range, it had better RoF (without looking at the astronomical value obtained by Tirpitz during gunnery practice) and better performance against side armor, and pretty much the same against deck armor.

So, I can agree that the 14-inch wasn't right there alongside the German gun, but it was a match. Besides, the weight of the KGV's broadside was superior to that of Bismarck.

 

The 14-inch had a similar range to the 16-inch Mark I of the Nelsons, slightly worse performance against side armor and pretty much the same performance against deck armor, but it had better RoF.

I'm not sure wheter it can be considered "not comparable"...

 

So, not a killer gun, I agree. But neither a particularly underwhelming gun, either.

And I agree, the edge of the RN won't be probably firepower.

[Adwaenyth]

however, the RN had almost no heavy cruisers in the WoWS era their cruiser line is probably going to be entirely CL (light cruisers) so their cruisers could be faster and with a lower spotting range they may even give the RN stronger/faster torpedoes to counter the armour (making them glass hammers so to speak)

 

Yeah well besides the County class (which will probably be T8) they have only the York and the Hawkings class which could only fill lower tiers (5/6 maybe). All others would be CLs... although the idea of having the (proposed) Town class enlargement with 4x4 6" guns is a little dreadful, although in the end they couldn't make those 4 guns per turret work IRL.

 

The RN however did have quite a large amount of DDs.

[Thonar]

 

Well, the German 38cm had a slight advantage in terms of range, it had better RoF (without looking at the astronomical value obtained by Tirpitz during gunnery practice) and better performance against side armor, and pretty much the same against deck armor.

So, I can agree that the 14-inch wasn't right there alongside the German gun, but it was a match. Besides, the weight of the KGV's broadside was superior to that of Bismarck.

 

The 14-inch had a similar range to the 16-inch Mark I of the Nelsons, slightly worse performance against side armor and pretty much the same performance against deck armor, but it had better RoF.

I'm not sure wheter it can be considered "not comparable"...

 

So, not a killer gun, I agree. But neither a particularly underwhelming gun, either.

And I agree, the edge of the RN won't be probably firepower.

 

The problem is the following:

The German 38cm is already below average on Tier 8, as I pointed out in another topic, it stands somewhere between Tier 6 and 7... well, that is already arguable for Bismarck-Class ships ( Bismarck-Class as Line-Ship in comparison to Tirpitz will need a main-gun buff due to not being premium and missing torps but that is another story and Tirpitz looks fine to me as a premium).

An even worse British gun on T8 as line-gun... I just can't believe that this works out well.

 

Broadsight-Weight is just "DPM" ingame... well, DPM alone tells you nothing valuable, Fuso for example has a higher DPM than Amagi or NC... still nobody would believe Fuso would be on par with both.

 

Honestly: I don't see KGV or Nelson on T8... more like both on T7 (so usually no T10 in their battles).

[Historynerd]

 

The problem is the following:

The German 38cm is already below average on Tier 8, as I pointed out in another topic, it stands somewhere between Tier 6 and 7... well, that is already arguable for Bismarck-Class ships ( Bismarck-Class as Line-Ship in comparison to Tirpitz will need a main-gun buff due to not being premium and missing torps but that is another story and Tirpitz looks fine to me as a premium).

An even worse British gun on T8 as line-gun... I just can't believe that this works out well.

 

Broadsight-Weight is just "DPM" ingame... well, DPM alone tells you nothing valuable, Fuso for example has a higher DPM than Amagi or NC... still nobody would believe Fuso would be on par with both.

 

Honestly: I don't see KGV or Nelson on T8... more like both on T7 (so usually no T10 in their battles).

 

Aright... so, what would be a viable Tier 8?

[cracktrackflak]

 

Aright... so, what would be a viable Tier 8?

 

Vanguard

[Historynerd]

 

Vanguard

 

...Which was armed with eight 15-inch Mark I guns, even older and less performant than the 14-inch Mark VII.

[Thonar]

 

Aright... so, what would be a viable Tier 8?

 

Lion-Class.

Still worse guns than Bismarck (not as worse as KGV or Nelson) but better armor and AA.

[Historynerd]

 

Lion-Class.

Still worse guns than Bismarck (not as worse as KGV or Nelson) but better armor and AA.

 

...I wouldn't say that the 16-inch guns of the Lions would be worse... more or less same range, still somewhat inferior RoF, somewhat worse performance against vertical armor but a better one against horizontal armor.

[cracktrackflak]

WG will just have to invent something for the RN in tiers 8/ 9/ 10, as they'll have to do with most nations' tech trees.

 

In the real world, the RN had recognised the end of the battleship era as early as 1942-ish, which is why there are no new guns or blueprint super-BBs to implement in the game. The US and Jap heavy battleships were largely an aberration - a doomed waste of resources for the Japs, and an unnecessary and expensive white elephant for the US.

[Userext]

WG will just have to invent something for the RN in tiers 8/ 9/ 10, as they'll have to do with most nations' tech trees.

 

In the real world, the RN had recognised the end of the battleship era as early as 1942-ish, which is why there are no new guns or blueprint super-BBs to implement in the game. The US and Jap heavy battleships were largely an aberration - a doomed waste of resources for the Japs, and an unnecessary and expensive white elephant for the US.

 

there is already a decided RN BB line WG created. it has full set of BB but not DD I also saw full set of CV