Roma - Tier VIII Premium Italian BB suggestion

[Gnirf]

For the cruisers the early Zara proposals with thicker armour say 200 mm belt could be used in T9/10

[ImperialAdmiral]

With the recent leaked footage of French Battleships do you guys think that Roma will come alongside them?

[SmartassNoob]

2 hours ago, ImperialAdmiral said:

With the recent leaked footage of French Battleships do you guys think that Roma will come alongside them?

Can you link me to those rumored leaks?

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

6 minutes ago, SmartassNoob said:

Can you link me to those rumored leaks?

https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2017/09/30/wows-french-bbs-sneak-peek/

[SmartassNoob]

Thanks.

[SparvieroVV]

Not holding my breath. 

[SmartassNoob]

Well they do seem to be building up tier 8. Pretty much every nation has a premium tier 8 BB now. Roma and Jean Bart will complete this. The only exceptions will be english, who have so many ships that everyone think they'll just get an additional BB tree and the russians, who lack the ships for even a single tree.

 

I can believe that Russia had tiers 3 to 5 covered with Tzars era ships and I know they were planning on building some BB class near the start of WW2. They were also seriously considering building some battleships, or battlecruisers after WW2, which would realistically have been anything from tier 9 to tier 11, but there will never be more than fiction in between.

 

So yeah, there will certainly be a tier 8 premium.

[ImperialAdmiral]

 

 

Edit: Awaiting for source confirmation

 

Edit 2: Looks like it is fake ;_; Still nice model though

[SmartassNoob]

So it's not gonna have any boats then. The empty space directly in front of the rear secondary turret should be full of wooden boats.

[ImperialAdmiral]

10 minutes ago, SmartassNoob said:

So it's not gonna have any boats then. The empty space directly in front of the rear secondary turret should be full of wooden boats.

 

If It is not fake it looks like it is still missing some textures and other stuff.

[A_British_Hedgehog]

On 10/1/2017 at 1:31 PM, SmartassNoob said:

Well they do seem to be building up tier 8. Pretty much every nation has a premium tier 8 BB now. Roma and Jean Bart will complete this. The only exceptions will be english, who have so many ships that everyone think they'll just get an additional BB tree and the russians, who lack the ships for even a single tree.

 

I can believe that Russia had tiers 3 to 5 covered with Tzars era ships and I know they were planning on building some BB class near the start of WW2. They were also seriously considering building some battleships, or battlecruisers after WW2, which would realistically have been anything from tier 9 to tier 11, but there will never be more than fiction in between.

 

So yeah, there will certainly be a tier 8 premium.

 

Vanguard Tier 8?

[SparvieroVV]

Probably why it’s called WIP. 

[Verdius]

I mean Duca came out at the same time the french cruiser did right? Maybe they will release the Roma at the time of the french BBs. Those are still quite a way off anyway and S_O already confirmed that they were working on Roma's ingame model.

 

Maybe we will see Fuciliere or Camicia Nere in the not too distant future as well.

[SparvieroVV]

In the discussion thread of current news forum member @darioroma27 claims it is their project. 

 

I really doubt we see Camicia Nera for obvious reasons. I’d expect a Navigatori class has better odds of being a premium. More guns always sell better. 

[SmartassNoob]

If more guns sells better, why did they make the tier 5 Italian BB with a 1930s upgrade, as opposed to tier 4 in the WW1 configuration? Originally it had 1 more 3 gun turret in the middle. The middle turret was able to rotate 360 degrees, which would be a good advantage.

 

Italy actually had 2 classes of BBs with that exact turret configuration. Both had the middle turret removed in later upgrades. I hope at least one of them will be in WW1 configuration in the game.

[SparvieroVV]

1 hour ago, SmartassNoob said:

If more guns sells better, why did they make the tier 5 Italian BB with a 1930s upgrade, as opposed to tier 4 in the WW1 configuration? Originally it had 1 more 3 gun turret in the middle. The middle turret was able to rotate 360 degrees, which would be a good advantage.

 

Italy actually had 2 classes of BBs with that exact turret configuration. Both had the middle turret removed in later upgrades. I hope at least one of them will be in WW1 configuration in the game.

 

Yes, at tier IV. 

[Historynerd]

2 hours ago, SmartassNoob said:

If more guns sells better, why did they make the tier 5 Italian BB with a 1930s upgrade, as opposed to tier 4 in the WW1 configuration? Originally it had 1 more 3 gun turret in the middle. The middle turret was able to rotate 360 degrees, which would be a good advantage.

 

Italy actually had 2 classes of BBs with that exact turret configuration. Both had the middle turret removed in later upgrades. I hope at least one of them will be in WW1 configuration in the game.

Amidships turrets were a pain, and there's a reason why they fell out of use. Among which, their restricted and awkward arcs of fire (being limited by the superstructure), and the complication that their presence meant for the ship (amidships magazines). On USN dreadnoughts, it was found that, despite being refrigerated, the presence of steam conduits around them was enough to alter the temperature and therefore the behavior of the propellant, leading to dispersion problems.

 

Moreover, on the Italian battleships, the deletion of the amidships turret allowed for increased space for the new boiler and turbine rooms, from which their increased speed to 26-27 knots came.

 

All this is worth the price for the reduction of the weight of broadside from 5876 kg to 5250 kg.

[Verdius]

9 hours ago, SparvieroVV said:

I really doubt we see Camicia Nera for obvious reasons. I’d expect a Navigatori class has better odds of being a premium. More guns always sell better. 

 

Camicia Nera was renamed Artigliere after Mussolini got kicked out though.

 

The reason that I name these ships is the same reason Duca is in the game already.

[SparvieroVV]

2 hours ago, Verdius said:

 

Camicia Nera was renamed Artigliere after Mussolini got kicked out though.

 

The reason that I name these ships is the same reason Duca is in the game already.

 

 

 

[SmartassNoob]

19 hours ago, Historynerd said:

Amidships turrets were a pain, and there's a reason why they fell out of use. Among which, their restricted and awkward arcs of fire (being limited by the superstructure), and the complication that their presence meant for the ship (amidships magazines). On USN dreadnoughts, it was found that, despite being refrigerated, the presence of steam conduits around them was enough to alter the temperature and therefore the behavior of the propellant, leading to dispersion problems.

 

Moreover, on the Italian battleships, the deletion of the amidships turret allowed for increased space for the new boiler and turbine rooms, from which their increased speed to 26-27 knots came.

 

All this is worth the price for the reduction of the weight of broadside from 5876 kg to 5250 kg.

Pff...

 

• Restricted fire arcs... Tell that to Wyoming and Kaiser. And while we're on the subject, what about König, New York, Fuso, Amagi, Izumo and countless others that we don't have in the game? Real ships normally fired broadsides. The english even went as far as designing some abominations that could only fire at restricted side angles, tho these ships were cancelled.
• Alleged condensation, or something... See above.
• Speed? Pff... If you're a proper BB (meaning maximum armor and maximum firepower) you don't need speed. You can always take the war to where ever you want it to be.  It's up to the enemy to outrun you, or be defeated.
• I disagree.

[SparvieroVV]

All ships with significantly better armor. A Cavour or a Duilio as originally built at tier five would be eaten alive. 

[SmartassNoob]

So 4 then. Also, Italy had at least 3 classes of BBs with 5 turrets like that.

[Gnirf]

3 hours ago, SmartassNoob said:

Pff...

 

• Restricted fire arcs... Tell that to Wyoming and Kaiser. And while we're on the subject, what about König, New York, Fuso, Amagi, Izumo and countless others that we don't have in the game? Real ships normally fired broadsides. The english even went as far as designing some abominations that could only fire at restricted side angles, tho these ships were cancelled.
• Alleged condensation, or something... See above.
• Speed? Pff... If you're a proper BB (meaning maximum armor and maximum firepower) you don't need speed. You can always take the war to where ever you want it to be.  It's up to the enemy to outrun you, or be defeated.
• I disagree.

Well the USN made some gaming where during WW1 in the process in developing battle scouts later Lexington and they found that a portion of the navy that were faster and less armoured could help attack the front of enemy fleet from different angle and other favourable stuff, was an article about that in Warship yearbook some years ago. They were frightened that f.e. the DDs that were too small to scout in bad weather and that their armoured cruisers would be outclassed by f.e. the RN Battlecruisers and the Kongos. 

[Historynerd]

4 hours ago, SmartassNoob said:

Pff...

 

• Restricted fire arcs... Tell that to Wyoming and Kaiser. And while we're on the subject, what about König, New York, Fuso, Amagi, Izumo and countless others that we don't have in the game? Real ships normally fired broadsides. The english even went as far as designing some abominations that could only fire at restricted side angles, tho these ships were cancelled.
• Alleged condensation, or something... See above.
• Speed? Pff... If you're a proper BB (meaning maximum armor and maximum firepower) you don't need speed. You can always take the war to where ever you want it to be.  It's up to the enemy to outrun you, or be defeated.
• I disagree.

 

Real ships were designed to fire broadsides. Doesn't mean they would have had the chance to fire them, or they could always do that.

Besides, in a perfect world a battleship's target would have been straight in the middle, but battleships didn't work in a perfect world. We should check if the ships you mentioned ever fired their guns in anger at perfect angles. Or, in the case of the König, if they ever fired their wing turrets across the bridge (because if I'm not mistakes this was advised against).

How many of these designs were built, after the Great War, pray tell?

 

Check Norman Friedman's work on the history of design for USN battleships, if you want to dismiss my comment as something I made up out of thin air.

 

For speed, then all the designers that designed fast battleships and all the navies that accepted these designs and had them built were fools, according to your logic.

 

You are free to disagree; but I believe that I'd rather have four turrets in orthodox positions on a faster ship, with each shell liable to make higher damage, than to have one more turret in a way more awkward position, at the price of being decidedly slower.

[SmartassNoob]

@Gnirf

They were dumb to do that. By that time early aircraft carriers were already a thing. Scouting around the fleet of battleships should be done by a combination of planes and cruisers, if they wanted to avoid destroyers. Cruisers wouldn't stand up to enemy battleships for long, but their purpose is to scout, not to engage the enemy main fleet. And since battlecruisers have only slightly better armor than cruisers, they are more likely to be destroyed, because they're bigger and less maneuverable (easier targets).

 

@Historynerd

• I don't know about the König, but I've seen a picture of the Kaiser where the turrets were all pointing at the same broadside during some shooting exercise. Anyway, that's nothing. The 6 turret battleships that the US had before the Wyoming were even worse. They could only fire 1 turret directly back. A stock Wyoming should be able to fire 3 turrets straight back (beyond a certain range).
• And another thing: what makes you think that the middle turret wouldn't be able to fire at a similar angle than the rear turrets (when angled forward) and the same angle as front turrets (when angled backwards)?
• Navies were right to want their ships to be faster, but the thing about "fast battleships" is that the speed was achieved not by compromising armor, or armament, but by making more streamlined hulls (see Iowa and Yamato) and by improvements to engines. The fact that they had less turrets was because someone figured that less turrets means less armor needed and the less armor could still be thicker per turret. Obviously an ideal ship should have more turrets AND thicker armor too, but that would result in a much larger (and more expensive) ship.
• The italins removed the turret because for that specific ship that probably was the right sacrifice to make for all the upgrades they wanted. It doesn't mean I have to like it. I don't care if the 5 turret original configuration is tier 4. Let it be tier 4 then. My point is that the philosophy of a ship with less guns and more speed is stupid. A proper battleship that makes no compromises for armor and armament will beat a battlecruiser every time. Just look what happened with the english that one time when they used their pitiful battlecruisers against basically early fast battleships. Now I suppose they did lose more ships to criminal negligence than to enemy fire, but with out a doubt, the germans would have won anyway. You don't beat battleships with battlecruisers.
• My ideal BB would be something more like the Amagi, but with 3 guns per turret (except for the middle one, so it could fire at better angles) and lots more armor all over it and possibly make the ship much wider to let it carry the extra mass and to give it better torpedo protection. Oh and eliminate dedicated secondary guns in favour of dual purpose guns.