Roma - Tier VIII Premium Italian BB suggestion

[Historynerd]

10 hours ago, SmartassNoob said:

@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.

The issue with firing arcs of amidships turrets was the superstructure; and the superstructure may have resulted in identical or in different firing angles for them. Take the Wyoming. The arc of the third turret is not as good as that of the other turrets, if firing forwards. That's what I mean.

About the Izumo... contrary to what you implied before, it doesn't have amidships turrets, no more than the Nelson does; it has an all-forward arrangement, which is not the same thing, since the turrets and the magazines are well away from the boiler and the turbines. 

Theoretically, although there might have been other reasons (keeping spaces for secondary or AA mounts), to get these speed a navy had to forget about fitting as many turrets as they could (and as they did before), and had to devote that space to machinery spaces. The shift from twin to triple and even quadruple turrets is telling for me, about this topic. Streamlined hulls and improved engines helped to improve speeds, but you can have WWII-era refined hulls and machinery, and still have a floating brick, if you slap too many guns on that.

The point is, people managed to eventually obtain balanced, not compromised battleships without using amidships turrets. And this to me means that such a concept was found to be wanting and less than ideal for battleship design.

[SmartassNoob]

One of the main reasons to give up middle turrets (inn all navies) was probably how much open space the guns needed around them to rotate. That space could have been made more useful when filled with AA guns.

 

Oh and just because I spoke of good BB philosophy before, I'll mention that the second to last well designed (in my opinion) BB was the cancelled Super-New Mexico ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1920) ) and the last was Montana. The Montana is not well represented in the game. Really the Iowa was about as good as the Yamato. Montana should be tier 11, along with the likes of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_A-150_battleship and some variation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_battleship_proposals , or something. And it has always confused me why the Iowa class was ever approved, if they then just immediately designed almost the exact same ship with 1 more turret. I know the Montana has numerous other not insignificant improvements, but I would have told them immediately to stick one more turret on it. Then maybe built like 2 ships and by that time there would have been an improved design for maybe 2 more ships.

[Historynerd]

Given your interest in USN battleship design, I can recommend reading Friedman's book, which I mentioned before; it is very interesting, and it might be able to answer your questions. Because there are plenty of things that must be taken into consideration when you start designing a battlewagon.

[SmartassNoob]

Well I'm also kind of waiting for Roma, to see how well its historical advantages do in the game. Tho the game has balance™ with ridiculous gimmicks.

 

The Roma was in reality compared to the Bismark a lot for having on-paper similar statistics. The Roma has the rear turret at the greater altitude, specifically so that it could fire over the boats and secondary turrets at a much steeper angle. That means bow-tanking with all its 9 guns. In theory, it should be 1 gun better than the french ships at bow-tanking and superior to them by being able to shoot backwards.

 

And I've mentioned this before, but contemporary media had actually pointed out that the Bismark has 1 more turret, but the Littorio has 1 more gun, in reference to the scene in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator where Hitler and Mussolini were jacking up their hydraulic chairs.

[The_Aegis]

On 7/23/2016 at 3:05 PM, ImperialAdmiral said:

 

Littorio class - Principal Technical Characteristics*

 

Displacement (tonnes): standard 41,650, light load 44,050, full load 46,215 (Roma)

 

Dimensions (metres):    overall lenght 238.8 (Roma); waterline 232.4;

                                         between perpendiculars 234.5

                                         overall width 32.9; waterline 32.4

                                         average draught under full load 10.5; under light load 9.8

 

Machinery:                      Eight Yarrow boilers with angled water tubes, with superheating

                                         Four Belluzzo geared turbine groups, simple reduction

                                         Four three-bladed propellers; three rudders, one main and two auxiliary

                                         output at normal speed at full power = 133,000 hp

                                         output developed during trials: 139,561 hp (Littorio), 134,616 hp (Veneto)

 

Speed:                             maximum 29 at full load (trials Littorio 31.2 at 41,782 tonnes; Veneto 31.4 at 41,900 tonnes)

 

Range (miles/at knots): 4,580/16; 3,920/20; 1,770/30 with 4,000 tonnes of fuel

 

Armour (mm):                 maximum vertical, at waterline 350 (composite 70 + 280); maximum

                                        horizontal 207; tower 260; main gun turrets 380-350; medium calibre turrets 280-150

 

Underwater protection:  Pugliese "absorbing cylinder" system

 

Armament (mm)             Nine 381/50 guns in triple turrets

                                        Twelve 152/55 guns in four triple turrets

                                        Four 120/40 guns for illumination rounds in single shielded mounts

                                        Twelve 90/50 anti-aircraft guns in stabilised single turrets

                                        Twenty 37/54 guns in eight twin mounts and four single mounts

                                        Twenty 20/65 guns in ten twin mounts (from 1942: Roma twenty-eight in fourteen mounts)

                                        One traversing catapult, at the stern, and three aircraft (three Ro 43 floatplanes; from the end of 1942: two or one Ro 43 and one or two Re 2000 GA fighters)

 

Radar:                            Type EC 3/ter "Gufo" (Roma, one from June 1943)

 

Crew:                             normal complement 1,866 (comprising 92 officers, 122 warrant officers, 12 civilians, 134 petty officers, 1,506 seamen)

 

 

 

*Technical data based on the book: The Littorio Class: Italy's Last and Largest Battleships 1937-1948 by Erminio Bagnasco and Augusto de Toro

This looks and reminds me of the Andrea Doria from navyfield 

[SmartassNoob]

How much longer until it comes out?

[ImperialAdmiral]

1 hour ago, SmartassNoob said:

How much longer until it comes out?

 

We are still waiting for Guilio Cesare.

[SmartassNoob]

13 minutes ago, ImperialAdmiral said:

 

We are still waiting for Guilio Cesare.

Asteroids do not concern me, I want that ship!

[Danny202]

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Affeks]

25 minutes ago, Danny202 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

 

need sauce

 

 

but same anyhow

[Historynerd]

11 hours ago, Danny202 said:

 

 

10 hours ago, Affeks said:

 

Not official, it does't mean anything.

[ImperialAdmiral]

Might be another school project.

We need source first.

[Danny202]

Taken from world of warships discord. 

Spoiler

 

Stalingrad

Yes. Maybe it's fake or school project. Maybe not. 

[HipHipHipper]

They might do the same thing as the Warspite, release the premium ship wait a couple of years, and then bring the full Italian battleship line. By that time thought they’ll probably release soviet carriers “god that’s a scary thought”

[ImperialAdmiral]

Roma is behind the corner though. I think they are gonna release her either around Christmas time or alongside French BB line.

[Affeks]

14 hours ago, ImperialAdmiral said:

Roma is behind the corner though. I think they are gonna release her either around Christmas time or alongside French BB line.

I think christmas is a bit early for the frenchies. WG hasnt come too far afaik and you can bet therell be 1 or 2 testing cycles which in itself takes a couple months. I think febuary 2018 at the earliest.

 

Roma however can still be released dur7ng christmas

[phoenix_jz]

On 10/6/2017 at 0:15 PM, SmartassNoob said:

One of the main reasons to give up middle turrets (inn all navies) was probably how much open space the guns needed around them to rotate. That space could have been made more useful when filled with AA guns.

 

Oh and just because I spoke of good BB philosophy before, I'll mention that the second to last well designed (in my opinion) BB was the cancelled Super-New Mexico ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1920) ) and the last was Montana. The Montana is not well represented in the game. Really the Iowa was about as good as the Yamato. Montana should be tier 11, along with the likes of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_A-150_battleship and some variation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_battleship_proposals , or something. And it has always confused me why the Iowa class was ever approved, if they then just immediately designed almost the exact same ship with 1 more turret. I know the Montana has numerous other not insignificant improvements, but I would have told them immediately to stick one more turret on it. Then maybe built like 2 ships and by that time there would have been an improved design for maybe 2 more ships.

 

Without getting into the gun placement debate, Iowa vs Montana is a different story.

 

This is going to grossly oversimplify things, but a lot of the hesitancy from the brass to move on to the Montana was because of her beam, which would've prevented her from transversing the Panama Canal, a massive disadvantage to the design.

 

As far Iowa's reason to exist, she was a step away from USN design philosophy, but deemed necessary for dealing with the Kongo-class battleships. The USN realized that, old as they were, these ships still posed a threat because they could easily outrun any USN BB at the time, and while their cruisers were fast enough to catch them, they didn't have a hope in hell of outfighting a Kongo. The Iowa's, to be blunt, were very much South Dakota's with an extra 10k displacement in order to get another 5 knots of speed (some of that extra displacement went towards the 16"/50's over the /45's). Montana was a continuation of the USN's doctrine of relative homogeneity in the battle line when it came to speed. Previously it was the standard types at 21 knots, while the new generation of 27.5-28 knot BBs started with the North Carolina & South Dakota classes, and would've continued with the Montana. Iowa was a large deviation from this.

 

By the time the Montana came around... well, carriers were the name of the game, not more BBs.

 

As for in-game... well, the Montana's a tier X because Iowa couldn't cut it, even when Yamato was far weaker than she is now. I won't drag this argument into real life, but as far as in-game goes... from what I understand, back in alpha, when WG wanted Iowa to be tier X... no BB's bows were safe from overmatch, and Yamato had an awful 40 second reload. She still stomped Iowa. The fact is, at the ranges we fight, Yamato is hands-down the better ship. Belt penetrations are everything, and for her displacement, Iowa's got a terrible belt, even if it does have the benefit of being inclined - there's not a range in-game Yammie can shoot to where she can't punch clean through Iowa's belt, and even at a 45º angle an Iowa isn't safe at all within 20 km... Yamato can angle in a similar manner and safely close within 15 km of an Iowa - and that's ignoring overmatch!

 

 

[_DeathWing_]

15 hours ago, phoenix_jz said:

back in alpha, when WG wanted Iowa to be tier X... no BB's bows were safe from overmatch, and Yamato had an awful 40 second reload.

 

Can't remember that Yamato ever had such long reload (was always the same like today) + USN BBs were introduced during beta not alpha. 

[Affeks]

On 31.10.2017 at 8:15 AM, _DeathWing_ said:

 

Can't remember that Yamato ever had such long reload (was always the same like today) + USN BBs were introduced during beta not alpha. 

WG tested IJN CVs in Alpha long before they were introduced as a full tech tree in Beta.

 

I dont know for certain, but there is a big chance Iowa was in the game during alpha

[Danny202]

ST, Italian battleship Roma, tier VIII.

Hit points - 65400, plating - 32 mm, belt - 375 mm. Main battery - 3x3 381 mm. Firing range - 18.1 km. HE damage - 5100, AP damage - 12000. Reload time 30 s., 180 degree turn time - 30 s., maximum dispersion - 244 m. HE initial velocity - 805 m/s. AP initial velocity - 880 m/s. Sigma count - 1.9. Maximum speed - 30 kt. Turning circle radius - 850 m., rudder shift time - 15.6 s. Surface detectability - 14.5 km, air detectability - 13.3 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke - 13.7 km. Anti-torpedo defense damage reduction: 25%

Available consumables:
Slot 1 - Damage Control Party
Slot 2 - Repair Party
Slot 3 - Spotting Aircraft

All stats are listed without crew and upgrade modifiers.

 

[Historynerd]

 

...It's happening.

 

I... I'm not quite sure what I'm feeling right now.

[ImperialAdmiral]

Mother of god.

 

I'm simply speechless.

 

Thank you all that supported that ship and thank you Wargaming for implementation.

 

[_DeathWing_]

[Gnirf]

Wow real beauty 

[MungaH]

Thanks god

 

I see they've put the old  120/40s, wonder how they'll work