British Battleship line for 2017?

[Blitzkrieguk]

Just now, Chipmunk_of_Vengeance said:

It better be, in anycase I still think it is a mistake putting the Conqueror were the 1944/45 B3 Lion-class should have been put, not putting the pinnacle of British Battleship designs at tier 10 is despicable.

 

More miffed about the lack of the Vanguard and replaced by magical made up ships. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

Just now, Blitzkrieguk said:

 

More miffed about the lack of the Vanguard and replaced by magical made up ships. 

Vanguard is most likely a Premium, this is Wargaming we are talking about here.

[BillydSquid]

Just now, Blitzkrieguk said:

 

More miffed about the lack of the Vanguard and replaced by magical made up ships. 

 

Vanguard is likely going to be a premium knowing WG. 

[SmartassNoob]

I just saw a Nelson in a battle. Strangely both sides only had 1 BB. There's no interesting data to report, just that I saw one.

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

There is a possibility that Vanguard could be used in a Sub branch followed by Design X and B3 designs.

 

Vanguard has the possibility of 2 Hulls, Hull A having 72 2-Pounder Pom Poms and 24 20mm Oerlikons and Hull B having her famous 73 Bofors AA guns, don't know much about Design X, only that it is a less armoured Battleship study with 6 16" guns in 2 Triple turrets, rate of fire is 3 rounds per minute per gun, meaning she has an ROF on par with Iowa, and the pinnacle of British Battleship designs, Lion 1945 B3, with 9 16" guns in 3 Triple turrets, again with 3 rounds per minute, meaning she can fire 3 more rounds than Montana due to her 20 second reload.

[LastButterfly]

4 minutes ago, Chipmunk_of_Vengeance said:

 There is a possibility that Vanguard could be used in a Sub branch followed by Design X and B3 designs.

 

Wait, X at which tier ? 9 ? That seems a lil high for her doesn't it ?

[SeaMonsterUK]

9 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

 

Wait, X at which tier ? 9 ? That seems a lil high for her doesn't it ?

Design X at Tier 9 isn't too high, she has 6 16" guns and 9" Armour belt if memory serves, but I can't find much about her.

[LastButterfly]

1 minute ago, Chipmunk_of_Vengeance said:

Design X at Tier 9 isn't too high, she has 6 16" guns and 9" Armour belt if memory serves, but I can't find much about her.

 

37,200 tons normal, 44,500 tons full load (deep); 680 ft (720 wl) x 106 ftx ? ft; 2x3 16in, 6x2 4.5in Mk VI (although plan shows 8x2), 9x6 40mm; 125,000shp, 29kts; belt 9in, deck 6in.

 

I'm no expert in BB but I figured she was a sort of mini-Lion in a sense. In any case I pictured her TVIII...

[SeaMonsterUK]

5 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

 

37,200 tons normal, 44,500 tons full load (deep); 680 ft (720 wl) x 106 ftx ? ft; 2x3 16in, 6x2 4.5in Mk VI (although plan shows 8x2), 9x6 40mm; 125,000shp, 29kts; belt 9in, deck 6in.

 

I'm no expert in BB but I figured she was a sort of mini-Lion in a sense. In any case I pictured her TVIII...

Personally I think Tier 9, she'd be a glass cannon of sorts, but she makes up for it in speed and armament, but do remember those 6x2 4.5" Mk VI guns are the same ones as those on Neptune.

[LastButterfly]

13 minutes ago, Chipmunk_of_Vengeance said:

Personally I think Tier 9, she'd be a glass cannon of sorts, but she makes up for it in speed and armament, but do remember those 6x2 4.5" Mk VI guns are the same ones as those on Neptune.

 

Well that's fait ; I guess it could fit at both with minor balance. And after all it's a design so there's even more leeway.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Just now, LastButterfly said:

 

Well that's fait ; I guess it could fit at both with minor balance. And after all it's a design so there's even more leeway.

True, and yeah, she could fit at both tiers, 1 as a prem and the other with an upgraded belt if needed.

[Capra76]

3 hours ago, Chipmunk_of_Vengeance said:

There is a possibility that Vanguard could be used in a Sub branch followed by Design X and B3 designs.

 

It's not obvious to me why WG would leave Vanguard out of the main line just to reserve her for a possible later sub-branch.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Just now, Capra76 said:

 

It's not obvious to me why WG would leave Vanguard out of the main line just to reserve her for a possible later sub-branch.

It is however logical to assume that there is a chance that we will see a sub branch, there is an equal chance of it being a Premium.

[Listy]

18 hours ago, Blitzkrieguk said:

 

No, why would they have 2x different configs of 457's. The only setups they've shown is 4x3  419's and 4x2 457's. I think it's a typo there that's all :)

 

Am I the only one horrified that you're using MM here... I mean this is a British thread and we need it in inches! Every time someone uses MM I have to rush off to google to see what calibre of guns everyone is talking about.

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

2 hours ago, Listy said:

 

I mean this is a British thread and we need it in inches!

That's what she said :P

[Blitzkrieguk]

3 hours ago, Listy said:

 

Am I the only one horrified that you're using MM here... I mean this is a British thread and we need it in inches! Every time someone uses MM I have to rush off to google to see what calibre of guns everyone is talking about.

 

 

You should be more horrified by the mess of the actual line. 

[Listy]

21 hours ago, Blitzkrieguk said:

 

You should be more horrified by the mess of the actual line. 

 

As A land forces type, I can't tell that its horrifically boned. Heck I can hardly tell what nation a ship is from in game when I'm shooting at it. It does give a new insight to all the horrible players who just roll in tank games. Sort of the whole  "Walk a mile in their shoes" thing.

 

On a serious note, I just assumed WG was going to be unable to poke reality with a long barge pole, just as a standard, and that Gimmicks would rule the day. Just like the larger of the two competing games is bound to favour the Russians. Interestingly the smaller of the two competing ones is possibly the least bias and most accurate, and that's got to deal with tanks and AFV's that are still top secret.

[Brutoni]

So, is anyone else really concerned having looked at the armour viewer in game?

 

The British BBs are now available to look at and you can also access the ingame armour. The reason I say concerned is because while looking at KGV I noticed her armour layout appears incorrect.

 

1) The weather deck over the citadel is way too thin.

2) The splinter deck above machinery and ammunition compartments is also way too thin.

3) She appears to have no main deck (I'm sure that is just a limitation of armour viewer and her main deck of over 6inches is present)?

4) She has no overhang of the main deck past the fwd and aft bulkeads. In the real ship this extended almost all the way forward and was 2.5inch (62mm) thick

5) She has no stearing gear armoured box that was present in real life

6) Her turret armour is not quite correct from what I can see, although that is mostly a few mm here and there.

7) Her 5-6inch extension to the main belt is present deep below the waterline but not shallow below the waterline. The whole point of the extension was the protect the water line.

 

Due to these mistakes the Monarch and Lion suffer from the same issues.

 

Anyone shed any light on this?

 

[El2aZeR]

56 minutes ago, Brutoni said:

Anyone shed any light on this?

 

My guess is one of these:

- missing armor made out of STS = not armor according to WG (USN ships also suffer from this, e.g. making Monty's turret face missing a hilarious 114mm of turret face armor)

- missing armor is there but simply can't be seen in the armor viewer

[Brutoni]

1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

 

My guess is one of these:

- missing armor made out of STS = not armor according to WG (USN ships also suffer from this, e.g. making Monty's turret face missing a hilarious 114mm of turret face armor)

- missing armor is there but simply can't be seen in the armor viewer

 

Not STS. Cemented armour.

 

Need to improve the armour viewer. Can see the main deck on the T3 - T6 RN BBs.

 

I suspect real reason is the "flavour" of Stealth and backstabbing at high tiers.