New ship preview: Heart of Oak

[T0byJug]

 

One of the original sketches for what would later become the KGV class was designed around 3x3 381mm/45 Mk II guns.

 

 

Ok, 3x3 381 mm, but that leak still maintains the 2x4 plus the double turret. That's what intrigues me

 

In order to Modify the Turrets to 3x3 the turret ring of turret B would have to be changed (increased) this would mean a FULL rebuild of the for-would section.. AS in Remove the hull just aft or B Turret and build a new one..

[philjd]

 

 

In order to Modify the Turrets to 3x3 the turret ring of turret B would have to be changed (increased) this would mean a FULL rebuild of the for-would section.. AS in Remove the hull just aft or B Turret and build a new one..

 

That shouldn't be an issue as WG does not appear to have modeled the rebuilt/extended bow on Gneis' for her 15" turrrets? 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

 

In order to Modify the Turrets to 3x3 the turret ring of turret B would have to be changed (increased) this would mean a FULL rebuild of the for-would section.. AS in Remove the hull just aft or B Turret and build a new one..

As someone has already stated with Gneisenau it shouldn't be a problem, in terms of the rebuilt of turret ring on Turret B it'll just come down to Poetic Licensing.

[Sovereign11]

 

That shouldn't be an issue as WG does not appear to have modeled the rebuilt/extended bow on Gneis' for her 15" turrrets? 

Gneisenau does have the lengthened bow. As for the other matter, shouldn't the 381mm guns require more space, so putting 4 of them into the space of 4 356mm guns wouldn't work right?

[SeaMonsterUK]

Gneisenau does have the lengthened bow. As for the other matter, shouldn't the 381mm guns require more space, so putting 4 of them into the space of 4 356mm guns wouldn't work right?

It is a question of the mounting and whether the gun would fit in the first place, now the gun would fit, but it would require a completely new mounting, which would likely mean not leaving a lot of space for the turret crew.

[Sovereign11]

It is a question of the mounting and whether the gun would fit in the first place, now the gun would fit, but it would require a completely new mounting, which would likely mean not leaving a lot of space for the turret crew.

 

 Thanks

[SeaMonsterUK]

Also if we are to get the more realistic 3x3 lay out it would require a Hull C if we want to make things as realistic or near enough as possible which does present an opportunity, Hull C would provide the necessary size increase of the hull if one is necessary, it would also make the Mk II turret a Mk III as well as providing a big enough turret ring for the 15" gun turrets which would likely be the same size as those found on the Nelson or Lion-class Battleships, this means you would with the Hull C option get the choice between 3x4 14"/45 Mk VII or 3x3 15"/45 Mk II guns

 

[Todger_Fairmile]

That tier 10 doesn't exactly look like what the L2 supposedly was.

 

Looks close to me.

 

 

 

 

[mr3awsome]

Looks close to me.

The devil is in the detail.

[VC381]

 

Looks close to me.

 

 

It's easy to say it looks close, there are a lot of ships that had 4x2 turret layout. But the internals don't make sense with the two-funnel layout, the distance between the front and rear turrets probably isn't the same, the hull is only vaguely the same shape. You may as well say Hood "looks close".

 

I can agree that WG's idea for a 4x2 18" BB was inspired by L2 and similar designs, but to say Conqueror is directly based on L2, or that it IS L2 is plain wrong.

[csatahajos]

"In the final stage she may probably include few solutions from the K2 battlecruiser design as well, and yeah, the funnels tended to get changed in reconstructions (though usually reduced to get superstructure more compact - OTOH that meant more complicated intakes so this may be a logical step). And yes, for example the hypothetical refit would land the originally designed 6" secondaries and replace them with the 5.25" dual purpose - I mean there are plenty of examples of UK refits / redesigns to go with for the hypothetical upgrades of hypothetical design and very radical refits are nothing new either - just compare West Virginia as sunk in Pearl with West Virginia roaming the Pacific in 1944"

 

Tuccy et all,

 

the Tier 10 has nothing to do with L2 or K2. It is the Lion preliminary design 16E/38 from the first Lion design series, which originally mounted 4X3 16" guns. These were swapped by the design team to 18" guns. K2 and L2 had internal belt armor vs external (which is clearly to be seen on COnqueror), plus the funnels give things away as L2 and K2 were non-alternating machinery arrangament, whereas the 16E38 was. ALso from the 1942 redesign the raked sheer line was implemented on this design as well that is why the bow resembles Vanguard (plus the funnel caps and modern lattice masts). 

 

Sorry for the bad quality pic but I don'T have a scanner at hand. Source is John Roberts: The Lion class Battleship Designs 1939-1946 Part 2 in Warship Volume No V

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_0LRABluTmILXl0aFdwUFpqQmM/view?usp=sharing

 

Please if possible correct the original description in Post No 2.

 

Thanks

 

Akos

[SeaMonsterUK]

"In the final stage she may probably include few solutions from the K2 battlecruiser design as well, and yeah, the funnels tended to get changed in reconstructions (though usually reduced to get superstructure more compact - OTOH that meant more complicated intakes so this may be a logical step). And yes, for example the hypothetical refit would land the originally designed 6" secondaries and replace them with the 5.25" dual purpose - I mean there are plenty of examples of UK refits / redesigns to go with for the hypothetical upgrades of hypothetical design and very radical refits are nothing new either - just compare West Virginia as sunk in Pearl with West Virginia roaming the Pacific in 1944"

 

Tuccy et all,

 

the Tier 10 has nothing to do with L2 or K2. It is the Lion preliminary design 16E/38 from the first Lion design series, which originally mounted 4X3 16" guns. These were swapped by the design team to 18" guns. K2 and L2 had internal belt armor vs external (which is clearly to be seen on COnqueror), plus the funnels give things away as L2 and K2 were non-alternating machinery arrangament, whereas the 16E38 was. ALso from the 1942 redesign the raked sheer line was implemented on this design as well that is why the bow resembles Vanguard (plus the funnel caps and modern lattice masts). 

 

Sorry for the bad quality pic but I don'T have a scanner at hand. Source is John Roberts: The Lion class Battleship Designs 1939-1946 Part 2 in Warship Volume No V

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_0LRABluTmILXl0aFdwUFpqQmM/view?usp=sharing

 

Please if possible correct the original description in Post No 2.

 

Thanks

 

Akos

 

That still doesn't make sense. Why take the 16E-38 design, then make it worse? Really doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

[csatahajos]

 

That still doesn't make sense. Why take the 16E-38 design, then make it worse? Really doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

 

Ask the dev team, not me . I'm just setting the facts correct. BTW in what respect did it come worse? It can be argued at length that the 8 X 2  18" armament is worse compared to the 12 -16" guns but in the end there are IMHO pros and cons for both. Otherwise the design was as is minus the bow, the funnel caps and the light AA, which in my book count as all huge improvements over the baseline variant.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Wouldn't be so bad if it were 8x2 18" guns hahaha! But I'd consider it worse based on number of guns per turret, spread of each salvo (which is affected by point 1) and max damage output per turret (which is again affected by point 1).

[VC381]

 

That still doesn't make sense. Why take the 16E-38 design, then make it worse? Really doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

 

Because we already have two T10 ships with 12 guns so it would be boring, and the RN thematically deserves to have 18" guns.

[SeaMonsterUK]

VC381, on 12 June 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

 

Because we already have two T10 ships with 12 guns so it would be boring, and the RN thematically deserves to have 18" guns.

There are plenty of other British battleships with 18" guns that would have been better options without resorting to using the 16E-38 design in the main branch. 

 

In fact the tier 10 in the main branch should be the B3 design of the Lion class with 3x3 16"/45 Mk IV guns in Mk III turrets, 12x2 4.5" RP 10 Mk VII and 10x6 and 2x2 40mm Bofors

 

 

To add: The Royal Navy has 4 ships that can fit into the tech tree between tier 8 and 10, that have 18" guns. These are as follows:

M2 - Battleship that would follow on from the Nelson-class at tier 8, armed with 4x2 18" guns.

 

N3 - Tier 9 Battleship following on from the M2, armed with 3x3 18" guns in similar configuration

 

L3 - A more standard configuration of the 18" guns, but arranged in 3 triple turrets and following on from the N3

 

K3 - Last but not the least, the K3 Battlecruiser armed with 3x3 18" guns, following on from the G3 Battlecruiser.

 

As a bonus, there are also the I3 and H3 Battlecruisers that have 18" guns also, the former have 3x3 and the latter 2x3 turrets.

 

[VC381]

The hullforms and wackier turret layouts of some of those designs really date them to the 1920s, and the speed of a few of them is wholly inappropriate to a T8+ in this game. 3x3 was a possibility but even with 18" guns it's a fairly boring layout shared by a few high tier ships.

 

Basically WG wanted something modern, fast, with big guns and a unique layout. They couldn't really achieve that without cutting and pasting bits of different designs together. I don't think they've done a bad job in this case. Yes, there were other options more solidly grounded in actual project drawings, but this is WGs fantasy, who are we to say what they should be doing? Most people who grind to T10 and play it a lot probably don't care much for the history anyway, given how little of it there is at that tier.

[SeaMonsterUK]

The hullforms and wackier turret layouts of some of those designs really date them to the 1920s, and the speed of a few of them is wholly inappropriate to a T8+ in this game. 3x3 was a possibility but even with 18" guns it's a fairly boring layout shared by a few high tier ships.

 

Basically WG wanted something modern, fast, with big guns and a unique layout. They couldn't really achieve that without cutting and pasting bits of different designs together. I don't think they've done a bad job in this case. Yes, there were other options more solidly grounded in actual project drawings, but this is WGs fantasy, who are we to say what they should be doing? Most people who grind to T10 and play it a lot probably don't care much for the history anyway, given how little of it there is at that tier.

 

That is were historical licensing comes in, the wacky turret layouts is what would make them unique compared to other lines and harder to play, the designs being 1920s isn't a problem though, as is the speed, when you apply the necessary modernisations that they would require to work at those tiers, such as AA, new Boilers etc. So it really isn't a problem and they should be appropriate for Tier 8+.

 

Essentially there wasn't, and still isn't, a need for the 16E-38 with 18" guns, just another example of WG screwing the British Tech Tree up like they did in WoT then fart-arsing around with its release which should have well before the Russians.

 

Also, the Layout is about as Unique as every other 4 turreted, twin gun battleship out there.

 

Oh, and another thing: "who are we to say what they should be doing?" - As the players we have every right to be able to point out and suggest changes when ever Wargaming.net screws up a tech tree, and seriously, they haven't screwed a tech tree up this badly since they gave the British the FV215b after the Conqueror despite there being actual tanks that were built that would fit exactly were the FV215b was put.

[csatahajos]

Chipmunk,

 

I'm with you on that they should have put in at least the B3 avariant, or even better yet, any of the recently discovered late 1944 redesigns (the biggest variant was 76,200 tons deep with 930 X 128 X 37 feet with 320.000 SHP (probably 6 screws) making 33 knots. This is something along the lines of a Montana with 9 guns (faster firing though) and better heavy AA. There was a bit smaller (and probbaly more realistic) version at 70,200 tons deep load with a 895X124X34.5 ft hull and 235k SHP at 31.5 knots. These came to light too recently, after the design of the tree had been finalized (I was working on it with the guys in St. Pete, ot better said, helping them out).

 

Unfortunately a later decision was made to use the 16E/38 which was formerly thrown away as not protected well enough for a T10 (actually it has KGV's exact armour layout). The above mentioned designs though have all 16" gun armament, and nine barrles at that, so it seems they did not want to make a T10 Scharnhorst (which is IMHO a shame as Scharnhorst is probably one of the most fun BB to play with it's uniqque heavy armour but less heavy but very fast firing main guns). Actually KGV is shaping up to be the same but at T8 only.

 

As for the rest of the line (even not taking my work going into it into account) I think the right choices were made ship wise. The in game stats are not down to the tech tree designers so I can not comment on that.

 

I'd say let's give it some time in supertest then we will see how it turns out. Personally I wonder what the actual 18" gun used for uparming the 16E38 isstats - the Mark 2 gun (18"/45 that is) was designed before the WT and did not get built so a new design would have been better (also it seems the T9 Lion will also have the 16.5" option from the early 1920s as well...) Also by the same token Montana could have gotten an 18" option with the USN's Mark A 18"/47. 

[RUSSIANBlAS]

T8 shouldn't be paper as all other nations save IJN with their lol earthquake Amagi have and will have (French and Italian) representatives.

 

I just see Conqueror as a gigantic Warspite. WG like their upscaled BB designs. Just look at the FdG which is basically a bigger Bismarck, although plenty will argue that the KM H class had at least been laid down.

 

WG are known for top tier fantasy, I don't see the surprise.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Chipmunk,

 

I'm with you on that they should have put in at least the B3 avariant, or even better yet, any of the recently discovered late 1944 redesigns (the biggest variant was 76,200 tons deep with 930 X 128 X 37 feet with 320.000 SHP (probably 6 screws) making 33 knots. This is something along the lines of a Montana with 9 guns (faster firing though) and better heavy AA. There was a bit smaller (and probbaly more realistic) version at 70,200 tons deep load with a 895X124X34.5 ft hull and 235k SHP at 31.5 knots. These came to light too recently, after the design of the tree had been finalized (I was working on it with the guys in St. Pete, ot better said, helping them out).

 

Unfortunately a later decision was made to use the 16E/38 which was formerly thrown away as not protected well enough for a T10 (actually it has KGV's exact armour layout). The above mentioned designs though have all 16" gun armament, and nine barrles at that, so it seems they did not want to make a T10 Scharnhorst (which is IMHO a shame as Scharnhorst is probably one of the most fun BB to play with it's uniqque heavy armour but less heavy but very fast firing main guns). Actually KGV is shaping up to be the same but at T8 only.

 

As for the rest of the line (even not taking my work going into it into account) I think the right choices were made ship wise. The in game stats are not down to the tech tree designers so I can not comment on that.

 

I'd say let's give it some time in supertest then we will see how it turns out. Personally I wonder what the actual 18" gun used for uparming the 16E38 isstats - the Mark 2 gun (18"/45 that is) was designed before the WT and did not get built so a new design would have been better (also it seems the T9 Lion will also have the 16.5" option from the early 1920s as well...) Also by the same token Montana could have gotten an 18" option with the USN's Mark A 18"/47. 

 

No excuse in my eyes, I don't care exactly what they, Wargaming, think is a good decision but the way they have gone about the British Battleship line is in my opinion completely FUBAR. I'll open up another thread about it but I really am not happy with what they are doing with the line in terms of what they want in the game and it really is upto us players to speak up and suggest improvements if we believe that something they are doing is wrong all the while keeping it constructive.

[csatahajos]

 

No excuse in my eyes, I don't care exactly what they, Wargaming, think is a good decision but the way they have gone about the British Battleship line is in my opinion completely FUBAR. I'll open up another thread about it but I really am not happy with what they are doing with the line in terms of what they want in the game and it really is upto us players to speak up and suggest improvements if we believe that something they are doing is wrong all the while keeping it constructive.

 

Ok give me the link for the new thread, I'll be interested in what is wrong with the line otherwise.

 

T8 shouldn't be paper as all other nations save IJN with their lol earthquake Amagi have and will have (French and Italian) representatives.

 

 

 

I just see Conqueror as a gigantic Warspite. WG like their upscaled BB designs. Just look at the FdG which is basically a bigger Bismarck, although plenty will argue that the KM H class had at least been laid down.

 

 

 

WG are known for top tier fantasy, I don't see the surprise.

 

Who said anything about the T8? T8 is most likely going to be KGV in it's real form. You can hardly have any more a real ship than KGV....

 

Top tier fantasy has nothing to do with WG. Once they decided to implement Yamato in the game it was clear that they had to resort to planned but never completed ships in order to compensate for Yamato. Honestly with the exception of the German T9 and T10 cruisers there is not much WG fantasy in the game yet, all other ships are based on historically sound designs and concepts, some more advanced than the other. No offense but not knowing these designs does not mean WG pulled them out of their little finger, so before you scream WG fantasy please check the facts behind them more thoroughly.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Ok give me the link for the new thread, I'll be interested in what is wrong with the line otherwise.

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/81643-british-battleship-line-everything-i-believe-is-fubar-suggestions/

 

When I say line I really mean only 2 ships but details.

[StringWitch]

If there's any chance of a British predreadnought I would like to request Agamemnon.

[SeaMonsterUK]

If there's any chance of a British predreadnought I would like to request Agamemnon.

 

Personally I'd prefer HMS Hannibal but yeah, the Lord Nelson-class Battleships like Agamemnon are pretty epic with those 9.2" guns.