British Battleship line for 2017?

[triumphgt6]

Clearly the obvious RN BB unique feature will be once it is destroyed, it re-spawns! Would accurately reflect the numerical superiority!

 

[Nightdare]

Clearly the obvious RN BB unique feature will be once it is destroyed, it re-spawns! Would accurately reflect the numerical superiority!

 

That should actually be a trait of the USN carriers

They didn't call CV-6 Enterprise the "Grey Ghost" for nothing

[damo74]

It is known that more RN lines are coming in 2017. And yes I expect it will be the BBs and DDs. Once the Devs are happy with CVs we will see a RN CV line too in future. Personally I would love to see some heavy cruisers, in particular the County Class.

 

I really want a county class cruiser. Beautiful ships.

[damo74]

 

Yea like Battlecruisers in general and it is a truely British thingy.

 

I am not hyped about Renown though. The only thing remarkable about Repulse is that she proved that Battleships were obsolete in WW2. 

 

I am not hyped about Hood either but I am kind of looking forward to the impressive money grab weekend she appears in the shop. This will make the Scharnhorst sale look like nothing.

 

@VC: yes, BCs would be a unique BB line and a perfect fit for the RN BB debut. But I agree with you that WG will probably go the "normal" way with battleships. However, what would be uniqu about them other than they would please the RN fanboys? Probably nothing :-)

 

No to the Battlecruisers from me.

 

Battlecruisers were a flawed concept, and shown to fail horribly when up against proper battleships. The last thing the RN needs is another line of fragile ships.

[The_Calling_Dark]

HMS Rodney, HMS Duke of York, HMS Hood! And seeing as how you're mentioning carriers where is Ark Royal? Damn it we invented the things!

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

I want to play the Nelson/Rodney and KGV to be honest. But I really want a Dido class cruiser as well!

 

I would go with that. Dido as well.

[Gnomus]

 

No to the Battlecruisers from me.

 

Battlecruisers were a flawed concept, and shown to fail horribly when up against proper battleships. The last thing the RN needs is another line of fragile ships.

 

Were they flawed? Yes they failed horribly (partly because of ships themselves but partly because dangerous practice on turrets that ended in ammo explosions when hit) when against proper battleships.

 

Were they intended to slug it out with proper battleships? No, not really. You can't blame concept when pushed to task not meant for. Look how those "flawed concepts" worked at Battle of Falkland when doing what they were meant to do. They were meant to work as cruiser killers, not as battleship bashers. Of course being fast wing of battlefleet was part of job, but even there they were not meant to go toe to toe against proper battleships.

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

 

Were they flawed? Yes they failed horribly (partly because of ships themselves but partly because dangerous practice on turrets that ended in ammo explosions when hit) when against proper battleships.

 

Were they intended to slug it out with proper battleships? No, not really. You can't blame concept when pushed to task not meant for. Look how those "flawed concepts" worked at Battle of Falkland when doing what they were meant to do. They were meant to work as cruiser killers, not as battleship bashers. Of course being fast wing of battlefleet was part of job, but even there they were not meant to go toe to toe against proper battleships.

 

Thats all well and good in real life, but in wows it just wont cut it. It doesnt matter how quick they go, the first time they get spotted (which they will) some BB player who knows how to aim will have a pop.

 

Look at the AGS. Every BB has a go. If you connect at distance, bang. In the confines of a wows map, true BC's could be a nightmare. Big guns without armour wont work.

 

HMS Hood did not have an armoured deck. How do you think it will fair? Not well. So give it a fictitious upgrade with a better deck and better armour. You could, but would it still be a BC? No it wouldnt.

 

I like BC's, we all do. SMS Derfflinger anyone? But true BC's could become a liability that nobody wants to play.

[mr3awsome]

If you connect at distance, bang. In the confines of a wows map, true BC's could be a nightmare. Big guns without armour wont work.

Kongou seems to work well enough. 

 

HMS Hood did not have an armoured deck. How do you think it will fair? Not well. So give it a fictitious upgrade with a better deck and better armour. You could, but would it still be a BC? No it wouldnt.

Hood had several armoured decks. It'll do fine. 

 

 

 

 

[GhostRiderMax123]

 

No to the Battlecruisers from me.

 

Battlecruisers were a flawed concept, and shown to fail horribly when up against proper battleships. The last thing the RN needs is another line of fragile ships.

 

You need a history lesson.......

 

Battlecruiser's were not built to fight Battleships.......

 

The role of the Battlecruiser in the RN is to hunt down and destroy hostile cruisers and AMC's (Armed Merchant Cruisers) hence why they were built to be fast and were given 15 inch gun's ect because of this the battlecruiser can catch and out gun any cruiser and anything it can't out gun it can run away from.

 

In short the Battlecruiser was not built to fight in the line of battle like the Battleships was, The Battlecruiser was built for trade defense/offense.

 

So does the Battlecruiser have a place in WoWS..........yup it sure does. 

 

 

 

 

[Rabid_Turnip]

Thing is, the whole idea of the battlecruiser began with (First Sea Lord) Jackie Fisher's obsession with speed and firepower at the expense of armour; Dreadnought was very much his baby, and even though she was obsolete within 5 years she was such an influential design that the idea stuck around for quite a while.

 

[VC381]

Fisher's ideal was for BCs to completely replace BBs. Actually, the very light armour on the Invincible class was designed to withstand 12" BB shells, based on the RNs own experiments that shell penetration would be useless if the fight was at long range. And it was true, RN 12" guns as fitted to Dreadnought, Invincible etc. could not go through even 6" of armoured belt at ranges about 15km and greater. Basically if you take that as fact, and build your ships around fighting at long range only (the entire point of the "all big gun" idea) then it makes no sense to sacrifice speed for overkill armour. Instead you can dictate the parameters of the engagement (range, positioning etc.) which is more crucial to winning. The idea that battlecruisers were just cruiser hunters is something history has stuck on. Nobody would have built ships so big and expensive for that job, a ship half the size with 10" guns would have been done fine. The BB size guns were there so they could hurt BBs, they were intended as "fast battleships" from day 1 and would have worked in theory, assuming RN armour penetration caclulations were correct.

 

The problem was technology was moving so fast ships were revolutionary when designed and obsolete when launched. Other nations actually had slightly better shells (bit of RN arrogance there, our shells are crap so surely nobody can do better) and the rest is history. To be honest, the battlecruisers have been judged incredibly harshly on the back on ONE SINGLE battle, where the events had multiple complex causes that have been over-simplified. There were safety concerns, cordite quality, issues with aiming. The whole "oh the armour was too thin" thing was basically a giant cover-up by the admirals at the time so the blame didn't fall on them for everything from inadequate training to poor ship handling on the day.

 

The concept of the fast battleship, born out of the battlecruiser, and fighting at very long range was embraced by everyone after WWI. The Iowa class would probably have been classified battlecruisers if they served in the RN. The idea of having only just as much armour as you need while maximising speed and firepower makes perfect sense, operational tempo, initiative and offense are the most important factors in any military victory. In short, BCs make perfect sense in principle.

[Rabid_Turnip]

Seems to me the sheer size of the RN would be a perfect reason/excuse to give it a BC line as a spinoff from the core BB line - doesn't have to be all the way from 3 to 10, but there are several important BC classes that should be in-game and if other nations get to bring a line and a half of DDs, then let's have the RN bring a line and a half of heavy iron

 

[1MajorKoenig]

 

No to the Battlecruisers from me.

 

Battlecruisers were a flawed concept, and shown to fail horribly when up against proper battleships. The last thing the RN needs is another line of fragile ships.

 

At least it would be a consistent "flavour" ... ;-)

[Martin_D_Roberts]

I think in General seeing as the Royal Navy is the oldest continuous navy in the world then WoW shows a lack of respect to the Senior Service by not having a larger number of ships.

 

don't for get they have led the field in warship development since the 1300's.

 

carriers invented, catapults invented. Landing lighting systems another British invention. could go on and on.

 

Its about time this was put right WoW Please.

 

there were so many great British ships, I agree it could be hard to chose but how about. Dreadnought, glow worm, ramilles, courageous, Ark royal, prince of wales, Sheffield, king George, hood, and im sure many more. not as premium ships which cosy 20-70 uk pounds. they should be on par with the Kreigsmarine which lets face it was their main 20th centaury rivals.

 

 

[Ixal]

I really hope they will add RN BBs this year even though I am only really interested in the Nelson for its 3 turret front setup. Imo RN should have been one of the starting nations or at least the first addition after US and IJN.

[SeaMonsterUK]

I just hope WG use their brains. If they are smart, they'll start with a slow BB line first with Revenge, Nelson, L2, M3 and N3 from tier 6 to 10. Tier's 3-5 are pretty obvious, with Bellerophon making more sense as a standard ship and Dreadnought as a premium, Orion or KGV at Tier 4 and Iron Duke at tier 5.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

Wonder how they'll balance KGV and Vanguard. As they're possibly be T7 and T8. Lion likely as T9 with a paper design at T10. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

Wonder how they'll balance KGV and Vanguard. As they're possibly be T7 and T8. Lion likely as T9 with a paper design at T10. 

 

There are 4 designs of the Lion-class that can fit between Tier 8 and 10:

Lion 1938 - Tier 8 (3x3 16" Mark II)

Lion 1942 - Tier 9 (3x3 16" Mark II)

Lion 1944 - Tier 10 (3x3 16" Mark IV)

Lion 16E-38 - Tier 10 (4x3 16" Mark II)

 

And also a possible tier 9 and 10, one design existed, one* didn't:

Battleship X - Tier 9 (2x3 16" Mark IV)

Battleship X* - Tier 10 (3x3 16" Mark IV)

 

This is on top of other Battleships from Tier 8 to 10:

Fast Battleships:

• J3 (3x3 15")
• G3 (3x3 16")
• K3 (3x3 18")

Slow Battleship

• L2 (4x2 18")
• M3 (3x3 18")
• N3 (3x3 18")

Main Battleship Line (2 Tier 10 Battleships)

• Lion 1938 (3x3 16")
• Lion 1942 (3x3 16")
• Lion 1944 (3x3 16")
• Lion 16E-38 (4x3 16")

[Hans_the_Hawk]

 

7:    Nelson belongs at tier 7 , very much of the time of Nagato and Colorado (well actually a later design so superior)

8:    I've said before and I'll say again, KGV belongs at tier 8:

Yes it only has 14" guns , but they were very good. And before everyone says "oh , they broke down a lot"  so did other guns, Rodney also had some stopages vs Bismark, some US BBs had stopages as well, the 14" KGV gun problems were worked out and got better after a shaky start.

KGV clearly superior to Nelson , no question RN didn't step backwards after a 15 years of design

KGV was planned to have 3x3 15" guns , so upgrade possible

KGV had far better power plant and more modern power plant than current tier 7s, even Scharnhorst (3 year older design) with its 11" guns at tier 7

KGV had far superior armour than current tier 7s and superior to some tier 8s e.g. North Carolina, Amagi and maybe even Bismark.

KGV had far better compartilization,

the list goes on.....

9:   Don't think Vanguard can cut it at tier 9 TBH

It'll be Lion 1 for sure

10:    As for 10 here are some ideas thanks to Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century

 

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

8:    I've said before and I'll say again, KGV belongs at tier 8:

 

You can continue saying it, doesn't make you right.

 

Besides that, I got a fully functional idea on the tiers and branches of the BB lines as there are plenty of designs to choose from:

[Hans_the_Hawk]

 

You can continue saying it, doesn't make you right.

 

Explain clearly how I am wrong then please?

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Explain clearly how I am wrong then please?

 

 

• 14" Mk VII isn't capable of working at tier 8
• The only way the KGV will be at tier 8 realistically is with either the 15" or 16" guns it was also planned on being equipped with
• All the ships it faces have more firepower than the KGV with exception to the Bismarck class
• Bismarck and North Carolina classes are for the most part immune to the 14" shells at medium range, and long range for the NC
• The only other battleship at that tier it can do any real damage to is the Amagi, but Battlecruisers usually aren't well armoured
• Other tier 8 candidates, such as Litterio and Richelieu, are both superior to the KGV class

Clear enough for you or do I need to dumb it down to Kindergarten levels for you?

[VC381]

Sorry to burst your bubble Tano (and others) but the 1920s designs are extremely unlikely to fill the T10 slot. The BBs would be painfully slow at that tier, and the return to old designs would be jarring. Every other T10 BB is either a WWII ship, an almost WWII ship or a WWII era project. We'll see a mostly fictional sort-of-based-on-Lion... "thing", to suit whatever flavour WG cook up for the line, I can almost guarantee it.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

WG have done and will likely be willing to play fast and loose with tiers and where ships actually stood IRL.

 

Nelson/Rodney would be either OP or nasty as hell at T6 so I'd agree there. T7 along with Colorado and Nagato.

 

KGV at T8, not too sure as Vanguard would probably be bad at T9. Plus where would Hood fit in (likely as a Prem ship 1 off). 

 

If you look at how the German BB line went, T8 was their best ship that actually sailed. T9 was a proposal and T10 was total fantasy, feels like it would make sense for RN to follow a similar pattern unless they buffed something up to T9.