Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[fumtu]

One of the ealry images from World of the Warships which is showing a Iowa Prototype

 

 

 

If you just change 406mm turrets with those with 457mm turrets you'll get a Georgia model.

 

[invicta2012]

Oh, so she's a kinda proto-Iowa? Not sure how keen I am on made up ships in the US line, though.

[Affeks]

1 minute ago, invicta2012 said:

Oh, so she's a kinda proto-Iowa? Not sure how keen I am on made up ships in the US line, though.

Yeah me neither I instead want all the ships og NC, south dakota and Iowa classes. I want 10+ premiums with the same base loadout and hard stats. None of these studies/preliminaries with unique loadouts and different guns.

 

Neither the guns nor the hull is made up though... The combination might be

 

[Affeks]

3 hours ago, BruceRKF said:

Does anyone now any source that has plans/drawings of this North Carolina/South Dakota/Iowa hull and/or these planned 457 mm (Georgia). I would be really interested in looking up the history on those. Normally, I find something after looking through the internet for a bit, but I couldn't for this. Would appreciate it.

 

Edit: Or is the hull made up by WG?

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_18-48_mk1.php

Shell is the "super heavy" type B-1 using the 18"/47 gun designed in 1942.

Idk about the hull, but its a weird combination of SoDak casemate, NoCal supersteucture and Iowa specs...

 

That gun is pretty badass though, shell is about 300kg heavier than Yamato shells.

 

 

[Panocek]

10 minutes ago, Affeks said:

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_18-48_mk1.php

Shell is the "super heavy" type B-1 using the 18"/47 gun designed in 1942.

Idk about the hull, but its a weird combination of SoDak casemate, NoCal supersteucture and Iowa specs...

 

That gun is pretty badass though, shell is about 300kg heavier than Yamato shells.

 

 

American Piercing

[LastButterfly]

4 hours ago, BruceRKF said:

Does anyone now any source that has plans/drawings of this North Carolina/South Dakota/Iowa hull and/or these planned 457 mm (Georgia). I would be really interested in looking up the history on those.

 

If I remember correctly, Friedsmann's Us Battleship can give you a lot of information about the base project and the guns.

There might even be a drawing for Gerogia's basis. I can't say for sure, I know it has a drawing for the "slow" design study but not sure the "fast" 33kn one.

 

If you have the occasion of checking it out, my sources direct to page 300 and the dozen after.

 

If you're interested in less official sources, I'd be glad to share as much as I could find in PM.

[HaachamaShipping]

Note, Georgia has pretty standard AA. Sehales just corrected the values and nothing indicates this being special. It's basically a proto-Iowa with 6 large guns.

[BruceRKF]

33 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

 

If I remember correctly, Friedsmann's Us Battleship can give you a lot of information about the base project and the guns.

There might even be a drawing for Gerogia's basis. I can't say for sure, I know it has a drawing for the "slow" design study but not sure the "fast" 33kn one.

 

If you have the occasion of checking it out, my sources direct to page 300 and the dozen after.

 

If you're interested in less official sources, I'd be glad to share as much as I could find in PM.

Thanks that you would go to that length. If you want, you can pm me those "unofficial" sources. The book I could probably get via my university, if I really wanted to, but I'm not sure I'm ultimately that interested ;)

[csatahajos]

8 hours ago, Affeks said:

Yeah me neither I instead want all the ships og NC, south dakota and Iowa classes. I want 10+ premiums with the same base loadout and hard stats. None of these studies/preliminaries with unique loadouts and different guns.

 

Neither the guns nor the hull is made up though... The combination might be

 

The gun is so real that it still exists, sitting around in Dahlgren , though it's not on public display (yet). More on this and the "Georgia" on my blog, coming soon ;) ( https://warshipprojects.wordpress.com/ )

 

Actually I've had a look at the 16" variant back in Alpha testing, she was already called Georgia back then (see last pic).

 

So despite all criticism WG nicely did their homework on this one. In fact even the twin turrets are correct shape and size as their drawings surfaced just recently. Hint: there is also a triple turret so expect it to be used on the 2nd USN BB line ;)

 

[josykay]

Hm, that looks like another ship having triple turrets... While the ingame model clearly has three twin turrets. But it appears  to be a rather recent picture?

[csatahajos]

Those are the original 16"/50 Mark 7 triples, which were alternatively replaced with the twin 18"/47 Mark As. Since originally Iowa was indended to be the T10 BB of the first line they needed something at T9, and it just made sense to put in the stretched SoDak prelim. version of BB-61. But as we know now Iowa was not strong enough for T10 and they had a free model laying around for years. With the recent find of turret and gun drawings for the 18" weapon it just made sense to reuse this model now, as this weapon was considered for the 45.000 ton battleship design effort. 

 

The picture is from the alpha phase as I wrote above, when all US ships had the default camo paint of Ms 22, that pretty much gives it away.

[josykay]

57 minutes ago, csatahajos said:

Those are the original 16"/50 Mark 7 triples, which were alternatively replaced with the twin 18"/47 Mark As. Since originally Iowa was indended to be the T10 BB of the first line they needed something at T9, and it just made sense to put in the stretched SoDak prelim. version of BB-61. But as we know now Iowa was not strong enough for T10 and they had a free model laying around for years. With the recent find of turret and gun drawings for the 18" weapon it just made sense to reuse this model now, as this weapon was considered for the 45.000 ton battleship design effort. 

 

The picture is from the alpha phase as I wrote above, when all US ships had the default camo paint of Ms 22, that pretty much gives it away.

So they just used an old picutre, wrote Georgia on it? Despite Georgia having other guns?

[creamgravy]

15 minutes ago, josykay said:

So they just used an old picutre, wrote Georgia on it? Despite Georgia having other guns?

 

Alpha.

Tier 9: Iowa prototype called Georgia (3x3 16"/45 guns)

Tier 10: Iowa (3x3 16"/50 guns)

 

Today.

Tier 9: Iowa, Missouri (3x3 16"/50 guns) Georgia (Recycled Iowa prototype hull with 3x2 18"/47 guns)

Tier 10: Montana. (3x4 16"/50 guns)

[Affeks]

So we can expect to see a preliminary Montana hull with the 457mm/47 guns in a 3x3 config in the future right? Cant Wait!

 

Considering the bigger barbettes we might see a fatter hull, like SoDak or Yamato. Funnily enough three of those triple turrets are about 5% lighter than 4 of Montanas triple turrets. So we might see the ship being overall lighter (less HP) than Monty due to the weight saving in guns or maybe itll actually end up being heavier due to the barbette making the ship wider and requiring a bigger engine to keep the speed at 30 knots.

[WashedandDeceased]

22 hours ago, Affeks said:

 

Considering the bigger barbettes we might see a fatter hull, like SoDak or Yamato. 

 

Not sure if that would be the case. If I'm not mistaken most US designs were limited due to the wight of the Panama canal. Anything wider than an Iowa wouldn't fit, and she could barely squeeze through:

 

Spoiler

 

Who knows, maybe we'll get something that's..

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Affeks]

11 minutes ago, Freyr_90 said:

 

Not sure if that would be the case. If I'm not mistaken most US designs were limited due to the wight of the Panama canal. Anything wider than an Iowa wouldn't fit, and she could barely squeeze through:

 

  Hide contents

 

Who knows, maybe we'll get something that's..

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Doesnt Montana already have a wider beam than Iowa?

[WashedandDeceased]

Spoiler

 

3 minutes ago, Affeks said:

Doesnt Montana already have a wider beam than Iowa?

 

Yea, you're right

 

In July 1939, a series of 45,000-ton BB65 design schemes were evaluated, but in 1940, with the start of World War II and the abandonment of the naval treaties, the Battleship Design Advisory Board moved to larger designs capable of simultaneously offering increased armament and protection.^[8][22] The design board issued a basic outline for the Montana class that called for it to be free of beam restrictions imposed by the existing Panama Canal, be 25% stronger offensively and defensively than any other battleship completed or under construction, and be capable of withstanding the "super heavy" 2,700 lb (1,225 kg) armor-piercing (AP) shells used by US battleships equipped with either the 16-inch/45 cal guns or 16-inch/50 cal Mark 7 guns

 

/Offtopic

[SparvieroVV]

Oh look another balance change to Leone, let me take a closer look.

 

[Nishi_Kinuyo]

And Azunyan changes:

Improved repair, returned hydro, and nerfed accuracy.

 

Somehow, I don't think the accuracy nerf was unexpected.

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

Japanese cruiser Azuma, tier IX

QUOTE

The "Hydroacoustic Search" consumable returned to the ship, and its parameters correspond to the standard for cruisers at tier IX. Its presence will allow the ship to feel safer in close combat, although the characteristics of the cruiser do not imply effective participation in the battle at short distances due to the peculiarities of the armor and a long reload of the Main Battery.

END-QUOTE

 

While any buff is welcomed, surely adding Hydro to a ship designed for longer-range combat is by Wargaming's own admission highly situational compared to a Main Battery Nerf which impacts every game.

[Humorpalanta]

25 minutes ago, Admiral_H_Nelson said:

Japanese cruiser Azuma, tier IX

QUOTE

The "Hydroacoustic Search" consumable returned to the ship, and its parameters correspond to the standard for cruisers at tier IX. Its presence will allow the ship to feel safer in close combat, although the characteristics of the cruiser do not imply effective participation in the battle at short distances due to the peculiarities of the armor and a long reload of the Main Battery.

END-QUOTE

 

While any buff is welcomed, surely adding Hydro to a ship designed for longer-range combat is by Wargaming's own admission highly situational compared to a Main Battery Nerf which impacts every game.

Comrade, did you just bring logic to the Motherland? Do you know what you deserve?

Spoiler

 

[fumtu]

From Reddit

Quote

• New space camos added: Pensacola, New orleans, Baltimore, Des Moines, Gearing, La Gallisoniere, Algerie, Martel, St Louis, Henri, Hindenburg, Z52, Shimakaze

• Georgia:

  • AP pen is very similar to Conqueror's 457mm. Pen curve Image

  • There are another shells for this ship but they are not used. This AP has almost the same pen value as Yamato. Curve pic

  • She has better Secondaries' dispersion. 9*x/333.333+30(m) (x in meter). base range:6000m

• Test version of Conqueror 419mm, Monarch: These experimental ships are now equipped with normal fuse AP.

 

 

 

Also while it is not mentioned in any post on Dev Blog, Missouri also got 10km radar. That ship really need a buff. 

 

[Affeks]

Okay so whats with Georgias abysmal krupp?

 

Its already far behind Musashi in every aspect? Why be worse in pen as well?

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

Also while it is not mentioned in any post on Dev Blog, Missouri also got 10km radar.

 

[Toivia]

It's all the more fun when you remember Conway or Sehales (EDIT: It was SubOctavian, see below) commenting that Missouri radar will not be buffed because it is already strong.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/111990-surveillance-radar-interface-improvement-flooding/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-2833589

 

Also, are they actually trying to make RN BBs normal BBs now? First they test citadels, now they test normal AP pen.