British Battleship line for 2017?

[SeaMonsterUK]

Not only have I proved you wrong on many points, but you have shown yourself to be rude and arrogant. Calling me Dumb and stating I belong in Kindergarden. You make the point extremely well as to which of us belongs there with further comments such as:

 

"I have no need nor any desire to apologise."

 

I really feel that getting all your facts and figures from Wikipedia does you no credit and I suggest you go and do some real research rather than sprouting opinions based on quick and easy WEB findings.

 

I have not questioned your figures on Gun penetration at any point , but just proved all you facts about armour are incorrect.

 

You need to learn to read. I offered that I could dumb it down to Kindergarten levels, not that you belonged in one.

 

And my data comes from Navweaps and all my facts are cross referenced and not at all opinions.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Once again pure vertical penetration is not everything. Littorios guns rapidly died (life of 80-100 rounds?) and were very inaccurate. Richelieu was also inaccurate iirc.  I wonder how that'll work out in game...

KGVs guns were accurate and could fire hundreds before needed to be replaced. Therefore high sigma and accuracy should be expected.

 

No good being accurate if you're dead.

[BuccaneerBill]

 

Warspites 15" guns have better penetration.

 

Very similar. It'll be fine, just learn were to aim. High accuracy should let you hit weakapots with multiple shells per salvo. E.g. German upper belt armour.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Very similar. It'll be fine, just learn were to aim. High accuracy should let you hit weakapots with multiple shells per salvo. E.g. German upper belt armour.

 

Again, no good if you're dead. And from figures they are not similar.

[Hans_the_Hawk]

 

You need to learn to read. I offered that I could dumb it down to Kindergarten levels, not that you belonged in one.

 

And my data comes from Navweaps and all my facts are cross referenced.

 

Suggesting that I need to learn to read or that by dumbing it down to Kindergarden levels will help me is much the same insult.

I thought forums were a place for discussing points of view, not trying to make the person with a different point of view appear less than you, who clearly think they are Lord God Almighty on this topic.

I await an apology , Sir

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Suggesting that I need to learn to read or that by dumbing it down to Kindergarden levels will help me is much the same insult.

I thought forums were a place for discussing points of view, not trying to make the person with a different point of view appear less than you, who clearly think they are Lord God Almighty on this topic.

I await an apology , Sir

 

I'm atheist, so I take that as an insult out of spite, just like you are doing now.

[Hans_the_Hawk]

TANO,

 

I also am an atheist , and as you well know , it is a figure of speech not an insult unlike your comments directed at me.

 

It is a great shame that people such as you exist on a forums such as this, as I believe that you, and others like you, that insult people and then cannot bring themselves to apologise , keep people away from making valid and worthwhile points about the topics and game we love.

 

Your continuing arrogance does you no credit, and I assume there will be some smart but ungentlemanly reply coming my way.

 

I forgive you in advance, and hope that time will make you a better human being.

[SeaMonsterUK]

TANO,

 

I also am an atheist , and as you well know , it is a figure of speech not an insult unlike your comments directed at me.

 

It is a great shame that people such as you exist on a forums such as this, as I believe that you, and others like you, that insult people and then cannot bring themselves to apologise , keep people away from making valid and worthwhile points about the topics and game we love.

 

Your continuing arrogance does you no credit, and I assume there will be some smart but ungentlemanly reply coming my way.

 

I forgive you in advance, and hope that time will make you a better human being.

 

My original comment was also a figure of speech, which you took offence too so I'll take offence to your comment.

[Hans_the_Hawk]

Gun performance (penetration, weight of the shell) and armour levels (both deck and belt).

 

In your above comment you state that Richieu and Littorio have better armour than the KGVs,  

 

And below.....

 

 

I have no need nor any desire to apologise.

 

But, let's look at the gun performance shall we? You'll find that despite the less armour, the French and Italian Battleships are superior at medium range to long ranges:

 

KGV:

0 yards (0 m)	26.9" (668 mm)	---
10,000 yards (9,144 m)	15.6" (396 mm)	1.15" (29 mm)
15,000 yards (13,716 m)	13.2" (335 mm)	1.95" (50 mm)
20,000 yards (18,288 m)	11.2" (285 mm)	2.85" (73 mm)
25,000 yards (22,860 m)	9.5" (241 mm)	4.00" (102 mm)
28,000 yards (25,603 m)	---	4.75" (121 mm)

 

Littorio:

0 yards (0 m)	32.07" (814 mm)	---
19,685 yards (18,000 m)	20.06" (510 mm)	2.86" (73 mm)
30,621 yards (28,000 m)	14.93" (380 mm)	5.11" (130 mm)

 

and

20,780 yards (19,000 m)	16.4" (416 mm)	2.6" (67 mm)
21,870 yards (20,000 m)	15.8" (402 mm)	2.9" (74 mm)
26,250 yards (24,000 m)	13.7" (348 mm)	4.1" (105 mm)
28,430 yards (26,000 m)	12.8" (325 mm)	4.9" (124 mm)

 

Richelieu:

0 yards (0 m)	29.43" (748 mm)	---	---
24,060 yards (22,000 m)	15.49" (393 mm)	4.15" (105 mm)	19.3
29,528 yards (27,000 m)	13.12" (331 mm)	5.44" (138 mm)	26.8
38,280 yards (35,000 m)	11.02" (280 mm)	8.31" (211 mm)	40.4
41,560 yards (38,000 m)	9.8" (249 mm)	10.62" (270 mm)	43.8

 

 

Weight of the shell/salvo:

KGV: 1590lbs/15900lbs

Littorio: 1951lbs/17559lbs

Richelieu: 1949lbs/15592lbs

 

you finally admit you are wrong, and that the KGV did have superior armour to both the French and Italian BBs.

 After many posts and even stating that not all your facts and figures come from Wikipedia, but you have cross referenced them, which clearly you did not (if you did, could you tell me which reference books, as I would like to check) 

 

Therefore I must assume that not a single thing you have said regarding any "facts or figures" of Guns, armour or anything else in this topic is relevent, as you are clearly willing to make up whatever you believe and post it here as a FACT.

 

As a result any further discussion with you is pointless TANO, as I don't waste my time arguing with people who just make stuff up as you do.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

In your above comment you state that Richieu and Littorio have better armour than the KGVs,  

 

And below.....

 

 

you finally admit you are wrong, and that the KGV did have superior armour to both the French and Italian BBs.

 After many posts and even stating that not all your facts and figures come from Wikipedia, but you have cross referenced them, which clearly you did not (if you did, could you tell me which reference books, as I would like to check) 

 

Therefore I must assume that not a single thing you have said regarding any "facts or figures" of Guns, armour or anything else in this topic is relevent, as you are clearly willing to make up whatever you believe and post it here as a FACT.

 

As a result any further discussion with you is pointless TANO, as I don't waste my time arguing with people who just make stuff up as you do.

 

I said I looked at both areas. I never stated that Richelieu and Littorio was better in both areas. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

And another thing to point out to you Hans is a lot of your figures aren't 100% accurate, such as the fact you maintain the 15" belt of KGV which is not correct. In terms of Belt armour, the KGV wins, however, taking into account the armoured Lower (1.6") and Upper deck (5.9") of the Richelieu, both the Italian Littorio (6.4") and French Richelieu have better deck armour. This is in comparison to the Belt armour, were KGV has a max of 14.7", to the 14" of Littorio and 13" of Richelieu.

 

And my data on the penetration and weight of the shells are accurate, they come from Navweaps.com which others on the forum uses.

 

And here is a cutaway of the aft 15" gun turret on Littorio.

[VC381]

Also the KGVs armour belt is not the same thickness over the length it covers. The (admittedly impressive) 14.7" thickness covers only the magazines. This is pretty good in itself, but the majority of the belt length over the machinery is only 13.75" thick. In addition, it's vertical and external, making no effort to take advantage of angles or de-capping mechanics in the same way the schemes of basically every other BB designed after 1930 do. So the majority of the citadel of a KGV would have protection roughly equivalent to a New Mexico or Colorado (both 13.5" vertical belts) while being a bigger target. The same story for the deck, only 4.88" thick over the machinery (the majority of its area) and 5.88" over the magazines.

 

So if you take the general performance of the guns and the armor layout, what KGV is, is basically a New Mexico that does 28 knots.

[Hans_the_Hawk]

Also the KGVs armour belt is not the same thickness over the length it covers. The (admittedly impressive) 14.7" thickness covers only the magazines. This is pretty good in itself, but the majority of the belt length over the machinery is only 13.75" thick. In addition, it's vertical and external, making no effort to take advantage of angles or de-capping mechanics in the same way the schemes of basically every other BB designed after 1930 do. So the majority of the citadel of a KGV would have protection roughly equivalent to a New Mexico or Colorado (both 13.5" vertical belts) while being a bigger target. The same story for the deck, only 4.88" thick over the machinery (the majority of its area) and 5.88" over the magazines.

 

So if you take the general performance of the guns and the armor layout, what KGV is, is basically a New Mexico that does 28 knots.

 

Some interesting points here, although I think you have chosen to highlight some high points of the old american BBs and lessen some of the KGVs.

I'll take a quotation from Wikipedia here only because it is concise and much less boring than a long winded argument by me, of exactly where and how thick Belt and Deck armour was on these classes mentioned,

 

       "The armour provision was designed to offer protection from guns of a greater calibre than the class mounted themselves, and was on a scale second to none at the time the ships were designed. Indeed, the armour protection of these vessels was to be subsequently exceeded only by the Japanese battleships of the Yamato class."

 

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

At the thickest points yes, it's 14.7", which is thicker than on any other battleship of that time, but this was around the Magazine.

[Hans_the_Hawk]

Clearly all of us are not going to fully agree an any or many points here are we?

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how WG works it out.

Either way I'm sure all of us will be glad to have the ships in game, hopefully sooner rather than later

[SeaMonsterUK]

Clearly all of us are not going to fully agree an any or many points here are we?

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how WG works it out.

Either way I'm sure all of us will be glad to have the ships in game, hopefully sooner rather than later

 

I'd rather later than sooner so they can actually get it right and don't [edited]it up. From my point of view, this ship with reduced AA should work at Tier 7. The ship itself though is Tier 7.5 so likely it will also face nerfs in other areas.

 

Also, size difference between 3 of the Lion-class BB's that should be at Tier 8, 9 and 10 with KGV.

 

King George V:

• Length: 227.1m
• Beam: 31.5m
• Draught: 10.2m
• Displacement: 42,923t

Lion 1938-39

• Length: 239.3m
• Beam: 32m
• Draught: 10.2m
• Displacement: 47,100t

Lion 1942-43

• Length: 241.7m
• Beam: 32.9m
• Draught: 10.4m
• Displacement: 49,670t

Lion 1944-45

• Length: 283.5m
• Beam: 35.4m
• Draught: 10.7m
• Displacement: 66,330t

[VC381]

 

Some interesting points here, although I think you have chosen to highlight some high points of the old american BBs and lessen some of the KGVs.

I'll take a quotation from Wikipedia here only because it is concise and much less boring than a long winded argument by me, of exactly where and how thick Belt and Deck armour was on these classes mentioned,

 

       "The armour provision was designed to offer protection from guns of a greater calibre than the class mounted themselves, and was on a scale second to none at the time the ships were designed. Indeed, the armour protection of these vessels was to be subsequently exceeded only by the Japanese battleships of the Yamato class."

 

 

 

The armour was on a big scale in numbers, which is fine, but doesn't take into account the complexities of the arrangement of others. In my mind, simply throwing thickness at the problem is bad engineering, it's fundamentally inefficient. It is very likely that other ships achieved the same degree of protection with thinner belts by using more clever arrangements. Also, while I don't instinctively distrust wikipedia, that quote is a subjective assessment. I would rather look at the numbers and draw my own conclusions.

 

But you are right, I'm happy to agree to disagree and in fairness I am a bit on the fence on this one. I think the KGVs were good ships IRL given the limitations they were designed under. I think they could have been better, but IRL a BB is a BB and minor "stats" differences between classes matter less than how you handle it. However, my argument here stems from the fact that RL strengths are at best distorted, polarised and at worst flipped by the game mechanics. The citadel for example is high out of the water (good thing IRL, bad thing in game), and most combat in game takes place at ranges well below the inner bound of the immunity zone of ANY battleship armor scheme. If we take the North Carolina's 16" guns as benchmark for T8 weapons, they penetrate something like 20" of armor at 15km range, and that's already considered "camping" or "sniping" range by some. The KGVs armour scheme, like most others, was designed according to the immunity zone concept to protect against a given set of guns in a given range band. IRL these immunity zones were generally between ~20km for the closest you could get without taking belt penetrations and ~30km for the furthest you could be before plunging fire and deck penetrations became a real problem. Basically the way the game is designed around unrealistically close range combat completely invalidates every BB armor scheme, no matter the thickness, with only things like turtleback having an advantage (despite that being a horribly out-dated concept IRL). Also it shows deck armor should be basically irrelevant in game except for a few edge cases. With that in mind, angle is the only thing that matters (hence the bow in tactic) and here the overmatch mechanic dominates. So whatever advantages the armour scheme of KGV had IRL would either turn out to be irrelevant in game, or even actively work against it!

[Historynerd]

Once again pure vertical penetration is not everything. Littorios guns rapidly died (life of 80-100 rounds?) and were very inaccurate. Richelieu was also inaccurate iirc.  I wonder how that'll work out in game...

KGVs guns were accurate and could fire hundreds before needed to be replaced. Therefore high sigma and accuracy should be expected.

 

In-game, the high barrel wear is not going to be a factor. IRL, overall it was not a major inconvenience as well, as these ships were not meant to operate far from their home ports in any case, and the barrels could be replaced without major infrastructures and in a day's work.

Also, allow me to correct you. The Littorio's and the Richelieu's guns were not inaccurate; they suffered from high dispersion, which is not the same thing. 

 

Also, the issue about protection is tricky, because, rightly so, somebody said that the Littorio's protection scheme was "one of the most complex seen on contemporary battleships".

The age of the design and the inexperience of Italian designers clearly showed in the deck armor scheme, which was clearly based on old principles. Even though the overall thickness was not bad, it was clearly not effective as newer schemes, therefore putting these ships at a disadvantage, if facing opponents with guns apt at plunging fire.

On the other hand, the belt concept was one of the most original and, unfortunately, one that we can't pass a definite judgement about, in the end. The Italians' decision to adopt the "decapping plate" to such an extreme, and the fact that, for one reason or another, this concept was never battle-tested, meant that we simply don't have the data to say if this scheme would have worked as the tests suggested, or not.

If it wouldn't have worked, then the net result would have been a loss. If it would have worked, then the mere thickness of the scheme wouldn't have been the lone factor for judging the overall effectiveness. This without even considering several factors (quality of the armor, design of the respective APC shells, etc.).

 

in-game, though, such a scheme won't appear, so we'll have a uniform slab of 350 mm at 11° from vertical. While still decent, I think this is not on the same level of the King George V.

 

Sorry for the OT.

[Hans_the_Hawk]

 

In-game, the high barrel wear is not going to be a factor. IRL, overall it was not a major inconvenience as well, as these ships were not meant to operate far from their home ports in any case, and the barrels could be replaced without major infrastructures and in a day's work.

Also, allow me to correct you. The Littorio's and the Richelieu's guns were not inaccurate; they suffered from high dispersion, which is not the same thing. 

 

Also, the issue about protection is tricky, because, rightly so, somebody said that the Littorio's protection scheme was "one of the most complex seen on contemporary battleships".

The age of the design and the inexperience of Italian designers clearly showed in the deck armor scheme, which was clearly based on old principles. Even though the overall thickness was not bad, it was clearly not effective as newer schemes, therefore putting these ships at a disadvantage, if facing opponents with guns apt at plunging fire.

On the other hand, the belt concept was one of the most original and, unfortunately, one that we can't pass a definite judgement about, in the end. The Italians' decision to adopt the "decapping plate" to such an extreme, and the fact that, for one reason or another, this concept was never battle-tested, meant that we simply don't have the data to say if this scheme would have worked as the tests suggested, or not.

If it wouldn't have worked, then the net result would have been a loss. If it would have worked, then the mere thickness of the scheme wouldn't have been the lone factor for judging the overall effectiveness. This without even considering several factors (quality of the armor, design of the respective APC shells, etc.).

 

in-game, though, such a scheme won't appear, so we'll have a uniform slab of 350 mm at 11° from vertical. While still decent, I think this is not on the same level of the King George V.

 

Sorry for the OT.

 

I'm confused here,

Dispersion equals lack of precision, and in a gun lack of precision equals inaccuracy, doesn't it?

 

Please correct me if i'm wrong here as i would genuinely like to know how high dispersion doesn't mean inaccuracy, thanks

 

 

[Todger_Fairmile]

 

Let me guess, you are hoping for HMS Invincible, HMS Indefatigable, HMS Queen Mary and HMS Hood?

 

On a serious note, I expect that HMS Hood will be added as a premium ship in WOWS and that HMS Renown will be added as a standard line/tree British "battleship".

 

 

I suspect (based on their choice of German Battleships), that Battlecruisers will be a sub-branch of Battleships.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

I'm confused here,

Dispersion equals lack of precision, and in a gun lack of precision equals inaccuracy, doesn't it?

 

Please correct me if i'm wrong here as i would genuinely like to know how high dispersion doesn't mean inaccuracy, thanks

 

 

 

Accuracy and dispersion aren't exactly the same thing.

[Historynerd]

I'm confused here,

Dispersion equals lack of precision, and in a gun lack of precision equals inaccuracy, doesn't it?

 

Please correct me if i'm wrong here as i would genuinely like to know how high dispersion doesn't mean inaccuracy, thanks

 

I'll put my answer under spoiler, so as not to take too much space with this slight OT.

This official pic shows what I'm talking about:

 

 

To keep this simple, a ship's fire is inaccurate if she's merely missing the target, i.e. the "point of aim" does not coincide with where your target will be when your shells land (because you have trouble estimating the distance of the target, because your crew has insufficient training, or other reasons). Conversely, a ship's fire suffers from high dispersion if, relatively to comparable ships, the oval area where the shells will land is larger, therefore decreasing the chance that any shell fired will actually hit the target.

 

Therefore, a ship may fire accurately (i.e. calculating with good results where the enemy will be, and therefore obtaining a good firing solution), but she may suffer from high dispersion, therefore not scoring many hits, or scoring none at all. It's pretty much what happened to Italian ships throughout World War II; in British reports you'll tend to find comments about their fire being accurate, but routinely suffering from high dispersion (namely, horizontal dispersion, therefore their broadsides always looked "too wide").

 

While in the end you may end up scoring few hits both because of inaccurate fire and because of high dispersion, they are not the same thing.

 

I hope I have explained myself properly, to make it easy for you to understand this concept, which I acknowledge may not be that immediate to get.

 

 

[Hans_the_Hawk]

Thanks for the well diagrammed and detailed explanation, much appreciated. It's always good to learn something new.

So to put it another way they accurately missed , I'm joking here btw

 

P.S.  I love your work on the Italian tech tree

 

[VC381]

The disctinction makes sense but then inaccuracy isn't a property of the gun itself, it's a property of the fire control.

[Historynerd]

Thanks for the well diagrammed and detailed explanation, much appreciated. It's always good to learn something new.

So to put it another way they accurately missed , I'm joking here btw

 

P.S.  I love your work on the Italian tech tree

 

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help.

And, joking aside, your phrase is not very off the mark, to what went down back then. Even if we do have to remember that quite a few hits were scored, and they weren't pleasant to receive. 

What work? Deamon93 did it all; I merely threw (and keep throwing, if I find new info) a few suggestions. 

 

The disctinction makes sense but then inaccuracy isn't a property of the gun itself, it's a property of the fire control.

 

You're right, I should have specified that. 

As a mitigating circumstance, I did put some examples that kind of hinted that accuracy wasn't about issues with the gun itself, but behind it...