Royal BB line

[byronicasian]

 

Uhm...

 

The Dunkerque has 8x13 inch guns... That gives her less firepower then Kongo at tier 5 with 8x14 inch guns, and significantly less then the other tier 6:s with 15inch / 12x14inch guns!!! ( so the turret arrangement explains why she ends up at tier 6 regardless )

 

My entire point was that turret arrangement in combination with 16 inch guns on the Nelsons gives it way way to much firepower to be considered equal to tier 6 or 7.

 

Just take a look at the following comparison on tier 7 and judge if Nelson fit there:

Nelson: 9 forward 16 inch

Nagato: 4 forward 16 inch

Gneisenau: 4 forward 15 inch

Colorado: 4 forward 16 inch

 

At Tier 8 you at least got the 6 forward 16 inch of USA or Japans Amagi with so great angles you can most of the time use all 10 guns when angled forward still.

 

And I don't see why speed must be an argument seeing as Yamato is only going at 27 knots at tier 10, Nelson is 23.5 knots actually so only 3.5 knots slower of a tier 10 Battleship.

 

The fact those 16" guns weren't all that hot either compared to their contemporaries sorta justifies a slightly better turret arrangement IMHO. 

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

Some folks really should look beyond just the caliber of the gun. The Nelson's may have had 16" guns, but the shell was pretty light in comparison to the heavier 16" shells of their contemporise, so I doubt the pen would be the same. I read somewhere they weren't much of an improvement over the Mk1 15". Decent guns, but nothing exceptional. Oh and by the way, the Nelson had 6 x 16" guns forward not 9, due to the layout. I would expect quite an angle would be needed to fire all 9.

 

I personally think tier 8 is too much for the Nelsons. 7 feels right for me. But lets just suppose, for the sake of discussion though, its at tier 8. Where do you put the KGV? Tier 9? no, that's too high for it. So do we put it at 7 then? no, that could be far too OP for a KGV. The guns may be 14", but the armour/protection layout is way too high for 7. The admiralty may have skimped on the main gun caliber a little due to weight and time constraints, but they didn't on its armour. If Bismarck is at 8, then KGV should also be at 8, being as its one of Bismarck's contemporise.

[Historynerd]

My entire point was that turret arrangement in combination with 16 inch guns on the Nelsons gives it way way to much firepower to be considered equal to tier 6 or 7.

 

Just take a look at the following comparison on tier 7 and judge if Nelson fit there:

Nelson: 9 forward 16 inch

Nagato: 4 forward 16 inch

Gneisenau: 4 forward 15 inch

Colorado: 4 forward 16 inch

 

At Tier 8 you at least got the 6 forward 16 inch of USA or Japans Amagi with so great angles you can most of the time use all 10 guns when angled forward still.

 

I substantially agreee with those who object that caliber and gun layout do not justify an increase in Tier above 7.

 

The 16-inch Mark I, with its lightweight shell and its indifferent armor penetration performance, cannot really compete with the guns at Tier 8. Even with all the IRL issues it had, I would take the Italian 381 mm over the Mark I any day of the week.

Besides, its protection scheme makes me scratch my head a bit. I don't think it will be an issue in-game, but IRL it suffered a lot because of underwater hits to the huge bow section; not to mention that my eyebrow rise a bit at seeing a belt so short (it seems also a bit narrow to me, but it might be just an impression).

[BuccaneerBill]

Problem with the Italian 381mm is that it had a problem hitting anything. I wonder how many direct hits it landed on warships in WW2.

 

Regarding Nelson, seems like she will make a fine brawler, with the guns losing power at range. The armour looks trollish and even has a decent 12" frontal bulkhead if these numbers are right.

[Historynerd]

Problem with the Italian 381mm is that it had a problem hitting anything. I wonder how many direct hits it landed on warships in WW2.

 

Apart from all the issues with the Italian tendency towards overcautiousness in deploying their battleships, which led to only one encounter with British battleships (in which the Littorio-class ships were not present), it was used against ships no bigger than a light cruisers, at medium-to-long ranges, which might help explain that. Also, the British ships had the tendency of not wishing to stay much under said fire, I cannot guess why...

They got some pretty nice near-misses, though. Some claim that HMS Kingston was crippled by a 381 mm shell, while others credit a heavy cruiser's 203 mm with that hit.

 

Not everyone had the luck of meeting an enemy battleship with an unserviceable rudder, with overwhelming support.

Otherwise to this date we would ask ourselves how many hits the 16-inch Mark I had landed.

[Hauptbahnhof]

It's not really 9 forward though, except maybe at max range, since the third turret can't fire through the second. Depending on the turret angles, Nelson might have to show just the same broadside to fire all 9 guns as the other ships do to fire their rear turrets. I know the BB meta is "bow in" but I really doubt it will be overly strong. Absolutely nothing else about the ship justfies a higher tier, her shells individually are already weaker than the 16" guns on the other T7 ships and no match for NCs shells, even if the size is the same.

 

From the Izumo ( where the B and C turrets are even closer ) they only block like 5-10% of the forward angles, and with all 3 guns pointing forward it's very easy to switch from one side to the other ( unlike Izumo which needs turret C to turn 270 degrees to do so ).

 

The obscured angle is no where near how much you need to angle to get a rear gun firing.

 

And to the people saying the shell was too light and can't compete, well you have been gravely misinformed!

 

The Nelsons guns fired a 929kg shell @ 788m/s

 

This can be compared with the 15 inchers on Bismarck (Tier 8) and Stock Friedrich der Große (Tier 9) which both fires a 800kg shell @ 820m/s...

 

It's also way way heavier then the 721kg shells the British 15 inch guns fired @757m/s on the King George V:th class ( suggested Tier 8)

 

Even the Vanguard ( which was according to the suggestion classifies as a Tier 9 ship ) fired a lighter 879kg shell @ 749m/s ( so both lighter and slower ).

[VC381]

I wouldn't suggest Vanguard as a T9, her armament makes her too much of an oddball to be a regular tree ship. T8 premium treatment for her I would say.

 

Tirpitz comparison is apples and oranges because she is a much faster ship that is balanced differently around a faster RoF and better gun handling.

 

Comparing against ships of similar style, Nagato and Colorado at the same tier both fire 1,000kg. NC a tier higher fires 1,225kg. So the shells are about 10% weaker than equivalent T7 and if you put her at T8 I don't think the turret arrangement compensates for that much difference to NC (30%), especially considering NC is also faster and literally better at everything else.

 

Also while physically the turret doesn't block that much, IRL the ships had issues with firing close to other parts of the ship (especially blast damage to the deck if the muzzles were not clear over the side of the ship). So WG could very easily make this angle as good or bad as they need to for the ship to be balanced.

[byronicasian]

The Nelsons guns fired a 929kg shell @ 788m/s

 

 

 

"Light" compared to other 16" guns of the Big 7, not compared to 15" guns. 

 

Colorado - 16"/45 Mk 1 (AP Mk3, Mod 2-5), 959kg shell (stock gun); 16" Mk 5/8 (AP Mk.5 , Mod 1-6) - 1016 kg

Nagato - 41 cm/45 3rd Yr (stock AP Type 88) 1000kg ;  (upgraded AP Type 91, 1020 kg)

 

[Historynerd]

And to the people saying the shell was too light and can't compete, well you have been gravely misinformed!

 

The Nelsons guns fired a 929kg shell @ 788m/s

 

This can be compared with the 15 inchers on Bismarck (Tier 8) and Stock Friedrich der Große (Tier 9) which both fires a 800kg shell @ 820m/s...

 

It's also way way heavier then the 721kg shells the British 15 inch guns fired @757m/s on the King George V:th class ( suggested Tier 8)

 

Even the Vanguard ( which was according to the suggestion classifies as a Tier 9 ship ) fired a lighter 879kg shell @ 749m/s ( so both lighter and slower ).

 

Can we mention that the 15-inchers she will meet at Tier 8 will have much better armour performance that its own 16-inch?

Maybe it's relevant for the competition...

 

Also, a higher muzzle velocity isn't necessarily a good thing.

It wasn't for the Nelson, and it wasn't for the Littorio (coupled with the shell weight issues, true, but still...).

[Combat_Hamster]

Well  always  think  the  proof of the pudding  is in the eating...examination  of Bismark  showed the 16" shells  perforated  the conning  tower  and  barbette armour  fine..even at oblique angles ( although some claim her belt wasn't penetrated,  which is  a  bit  illogical..when  it  would be  more to the 'normal'  than a curved plate ).  Likewise  the 14"  worked fine in terms of penetration.

 

I think someone  put  Repulse  at tier 6,  would  not agree with that,  tier 5,  she did not get  the extra  elevation  for her guns,  or new machinery  so at  the time of loss she was a 28.5 kt  ship.

 

It  is very difficult  to  compare  how  different  guns performed in action,   as  the  number of times  capital ships  of any  nationality actually got  to shoot at their opposite  numbers  was  in reality  very few........  perhaps  not  the  most  cost effective class of ship  but  providing an income for naval historians for many decades.

[Trainspite]

 

I think someone  put  Repulse  at tier 6,  would  not agree with that,  tier 5,  she did not get  the extra  elevation  for her guns,  or new machinery  so at  the time of loss she was a 28.5 kt  ship.

 

WG uses the standard load displacement speed, or sometimes a trials speed for the top speed, so even a wear and tear ship that has it's machinery worn out will still see it's top speed. Unless they purposely use it as a balance feature.

[carvillan]

 

Can we mention that the 15-inchers she will meet at Tier 8 will have much better armour performance that its own 16-inch?

Maybe it's relevant for the competition...

 

Also, a higher muzzle velocity isn't necessarily a good thing.

It wasn't for the Nelson, and it wasn't for the Littorio (coupled with the shell weight issues, true, but still...).

 

For all of your undoubted knowledge that you've gained from books...I'll take my knowledge from someone who was on Rodney and served in the Marines's 16" turret ;)

[Webley_Mark]

T3: Bellerophon Class

T4: Neptune Class

T5: Orion Class

T6: Revenge Class

T7: Nelson Class

T8: King George V

T9: Lion Class

T10: N3-Class

 

Premium:

T3: HMS Dreadnought.
T6: HMS Warspite.
T7: HMS Hood.

 

Old one. What do you think about it?

[Historynerd]

For all of your undoubted knowledge that you've gained from books...I'll take my knowledge from someone who was on Rodney and served in the Marines's 16" turret ;)

 

Was the 16-inch Mark I and the Model 1934 ever compared in firing trials together? Were these guns ever pitted against each other?

 

To be completely honest, I am wary of these claims of people who "were there"; while their input is precious and appreciated (for telling procedures, duration of firing cycles, etc.), maybe they weren't that much in the knows, about how much these guns could and couldn't do, especially since the guys in the turrets just did their thing and fired, but didn't actually see what the shell did or didn't. I would be wary all the same if we could find someone who worked in the Littorio's turrets, in regard to their shells' performance, simply because his presence there wouldn't guarantee a competence in gunnery and shell performance.

Besides, even if what we find in NavWeaps must be taken with a grain of salt (since the figures given by the USN empirical formula aren't that precise when coming to non-USN guns), they can't be that much off. And the difference between the Nelson's guns and those of the Littorio is rather huge.

 

So, sorry, but I am not quite prepared to unconditionally trust these sources.

[BuccaneerBill]

 

Apart from all the issues with the Italian tendency towards overcautiousness in deploying their battleships, which led to only one encounter with British battleships (in which the Littorio-class ships were not present), it was used against ships no bigger than a light cruisers, at medium-to-long ranges, which might help explain that. Also, the British ships had the tendency of not wishing to stay much under said fire, I cannot guess why...

They got some pretty nice near-misses, though. Some claim that HMS Kingston was crippled by a 381 mm shell, while others credit a heavy cruiser's 203 mm with that hit.

 

Not everyone had the luck of meeting an enemy battleships with an unserviceable rudder, with overwhelming support.

Otherwise to this date we would ask ourselves how many hits the 16-inch Mark I had landed.

 

The Bismarck was pretty much the only naval combat of the Nelsons iirc, so is it surprising they didn't hit much/anything else? Whilst the Littorios were involved in quite a few battles. 

 

[Historynerd]

The Bismarck was pretty much the only naval combat of the Nelsons iirc, so is it surprising they didn't hit much/anything else? Whilst the Littorios were involved in quite a few battles. 

 

These are the engagements in which they fired their guns at enemy ships:

 

• Cape Teulada
• Cape Matapan
• First Sirte
• Second Sirte

 

In the first engagement, the Vittorio Veneto fired only 19 shots, all with the aft turret, at a slow rate and at extreme range; only ten minutes between opening and ceasing fire. 

In the second, the same ship fired from 1055 to 1115 a total of 92 shells (plus 11 misfires), against cruisers who immediately turned away to get out of range and in visibility that began to deteriorate; no hits were scored, but British reports do talk of "remarkable accuracy" and "uncomfortable close salvoes" (check O'Hara for that).

In the third, the Littorio fired from 1753 to 1804 at extreme range (some 32'000 m), in failing daylight.

In the fourth, the same ship engaged for a long time, at medium ranges but in bad weather that gradually got worse. Apart from what happened to HMS Kingston, two destroyers, HMS Lively and HMS Havock, received sensible damage from near misses.

 

Considering the issues the Italians had with their fire control auxiliaries (the concept and the calculators themselves were good, not so transmission devices, lenses and other things), the sizes and behaviors of their targets, the conditions in which the longest and most significant engagement (the Second Sirte) was fought, and the headaches they had with their uneven shell and propellant bag weights, I don't think this can be qualified as bad gunnery.

 

I am just taking exception to the fact that the results obtained by shooting at a big, helpless enemy ship should be automatically taken as proof of better accuracy, than those obtained by shooting at rather long ranges at smaller enemies trying their best to get out of your fire, or in any case well capable of maneuvering at the best of their abilities to avoid your shells. 

 

But we are drifting OT.

[mr3awsome]

not to mention that my eyebrow rise a bit at seeing a belt so short (it seems also a bit narrow to me, but it might be just an impression).

The belt is quite narrow. 

When they were considering rebuilding her (this is before the war), they considered making the belt larger, but external like that of the KGVs. 

The rebuilds of the Nelsons offer potential for a tier VIII premium. 

[Historynerd]

The belt is quite narrow. 

When they were considering rebuilding her (this is before the war), they considered making the belt larger, but external like that of the KGVs. 

The rebuilds of the Nelsons offer potential for a tier VIII premium. 

 

I did not know that it was thought to rebuild them. Could you point me to some sources for this? I am intrigued to see how they wanted to modify them.

 

If I am not mistaken, at one point it was considered that the internal belt was a potential disadvantage in case of flooding, but I don't recall exactly what it could have done...

[carvillan]

 

Was the 16-inch Mark I and the Model 1934 ever compared in firing trials together? Were these guns ever pitted against each other?

 

To be completely honest, I am wary of these claims of people who "were there"; while their input is precious and appreciated (for telling procedures, duration of firing cycles, etc.), maybe they weren't that much in the knows, about how much these guns could and couldn't do, especially since the guys in the turrets just did their thing and fired, but didn't actually see what the shell did or didn't. I would be wary all the same if we could find someone who worked in the Littorio's turrets, in regard to their shells' performance, simply because his presence there wouldn't guarantee a competence in gunnery and shell performance.

Besides, even if what we find in NavWeaps must be taken with a grain of salt (since the figures given by the USN empirical formula aren't that precise when coming to non-USN guns), they can't be that much off. And the difference between the Nelson's guns and those of the Littorio is rather huge.

 

So, sorry, but I am not quite prepared to unconditionally trust these sources.

 

Don't you think that part of their training was to tell what their guns could and couldn't do?  I find your claims somewhat ignorant.  Also don't you think that people who write history books have at some point spoken to those who were there in order to write their books?

[Historynerd]

Don't you think that part of their training was to tell what their guns could and couldn't do?  I find your claims somewhat ignorant.  Also don't you think that people who write history books have at some point spoken to those who were there in order to write their books?

 

Ignorant?

Do you have ANY idea how complicated is the theory and the technology behind large caliber guns and shell design and construction? Do you have any idea how many factors can influence their behavior? Do you have any idea by how close a shell can shatter and deal superficial damage, or penetrate and cause devastating damage?

The people working the gun themselves were trained to perform mechanical duties: work the hoists, work the rammers, etc. Does that entail knowing the detailed performance of the APC shells against armor at ranges from 0 to 25'000 m? Does that entail knowing the angle of fall of a shell at a given distance?

If you want to know things like the detailed operation of each gun, the kinds of jams and failures these guns may have experienced from time to time, then fine, they can answer these questions. But if you want to ask about how the shells worked in practice against armor, you go ask the gun directors and those working under him. You go ask those who designed the gun, built it, tested it.

 

Just because you had a relative there, it doesn't make him the ultimate authority on what ultimately was these guns' performance. I believe there is a good chance your point of view may be a bit biased, because you feel personally involved over this. It's not a proper way to discuss these matters.

[mr3awsome]

I did not know that it was thought to rebuild them. Could you point me to some sources for this? I am intrigued to see how they wanted to modify them.

 

If I am not mistaken, at one point it was considered that the internal belt was a potential disadvantage in case of flooding, but I don't recall exactly what it could have done...

Norman Friedman's The British Battleship. 

 

afaik, a shell might be deflected down by the belt through the TDS, including the bulkhead, meaning that it wouldn't be (as) effective. 

[Combat_Hamster]

Norman Friedman's The British Battleship. 

 

afaik, a shell might be deflected down by the belt through the TDS, including the bulkhead, meaning that it wouldn't be (as) effective. 

 

I  always  thought the internal  belt  idea  was ditched  because on balance..it was an absolute pig  to repair if  damaged  or displaced.....I think  someone had done  their sums  and  any possible advantage was cancelled out  but the prospect  of having a ship out of commission for a long period of time,  costs..rather  like  the  differences  in armour  between the Rs and QEs..the Rs  had  the  better armour..rather than  the tapered armour of the QEs  because  it was a bit cheaper and easier to  produce......I think after WW2  there was  some  consideration given to  modernising one of the Nelsons..but it was shelved.

[Getzamatic]

 

There's a year between them, but I won't quibble

 

Not between Kongo and Queen Mary, they were both laid down in the first quarter of 1911.  They were completed at virtually the same time too.

 

The point is that there was a proposed design for an improved Lion which could have been used for Queen Mary, but wasn't.  Vickers seems to have based their Kongo design off the same proposal and then the design was used for Tiger a year later.

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

 

From the Izumo ( where the B and C turrets are even closer ) they only block like 5-10% of the forward angles, and with all 3 guns pointing forward it's very easy to switch from one side to the other ( unlike Izumo which needs turret C to turn 270 degrees to do so ).

 

The obscured angle is no where near how much you need to angle to get a rear gun firing.

 

And to the people saying the shell was too light and can't compete, well you have been gravely misinformed!

 

The Nelsons guns fired a 929kg shell @ 788m/s

 

This can be compared with the 15 inchers on Bismarck (Tier 8) and Stock Friedrich der Große (Tier 9) which both fires a 800kg shell @ 820m/s...

 

It's also way way heavier then the 721kg shells the British 15 inch guns fired @757m/s on the King George V:th class ( suggested Tier 8)

 

Even the Vanguard ( which was according to the suggestion classifies as a Tier 9 ship ) fired a lighter 879kg shell @ 749m/s ( so both lighter and slower ).

The Nelsons had a lighter, higher velocity shell than the heavier, slower shell of the MK.1 15". Which is why it did not perform as well as the 15". These are all facts that are well known. As a brawler, no problem. But at range with plunging fire, no. The 15" was better.

[thestaggy]

 

Old one. What do you think about it?

 

Nelson and Orion would be over-tiered at tiers 4 and 5 respectively and Queen Elizabeth will almost certainly be at tier 6. The upgraded hull B and subsequent secondary/AA upgrades will differentiate them from the Warspite, as it differentiated Queen Elizabeth and Valiant from Warspite in real life. 

 

Orion down to 4, Iron Duke in at 5, Queen Elizabeth at 6.

 

Can't argue with the rest. HMS Dreadnought and Hood are almost locks as premiums. WG will be swimming in coin when they release those two.