Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
EvyL

the Baltimore cruiser

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Super Tester
1,677 posts

First of all, I want to sucker punch the guy that gave her the name "Baltimoist".

 

Out of all the heavy cruisers the US ever let out the slipway, I find this one of the more good looking cruisers they fielded. A shame they didn't throw more cruisers into the fray and the Des Moines came way late despite having all the practical experience in her hull.

 

I PRESENT TO YOU THE BALTIMORE.

 

2r7caz6.jpg

 

Glorious US heavy cruiser.

 

Well, I think you might already notice the Baltimore's silhouette being strangely similar to the light cruiser Cleveland (which if I remember, were one of the best light cruisers during the war) because there was a design grabbing from that ship which was also coincidentally still being keeled after the amendments for the Washington Naval Treaty started loosening the tight collar on the cruiser restrictions although battleships were still hard capped so there was a need on a new cruiser design as the treaty cruisers were... well... not that gritty enough to survive gauntlets of brawls. A funny thing regarding US cruiser design was that when they found out about Mogami, then still a light cruiser with the new ABC-XY layout of 6 inch guns, they did a similar output with the Brooklyns and St. Louis cruisers with some of them going under because of funny instances like the muzzle flash giving them away in the night or something like that. The Baltimore was quite different as she was the first shift of the heavy cruiser that wasn't that much restrained and there were 14 of them with some going full missile cruiser, two being the first lead ships of their type being Boston and Albany

 

Ship, you went full re- missile cruiser. Never go full missile cruiser.

 

fdrp5x.jpg

 

What can you do? The AA suites and the guns which reached 42km with each 8"/55 being improved than the last with the ultimate iteration being on Des Moines which could unload a whole mess of rounds under a minute due to the awesome autoloader she packs.

 

The Baltimore was protected with a belt of 6 inches, a deck of 3 inches, 6 inches of turret and 8 inches of conning tower and had an impressive offensive set of nine 203's in triple mounts, some dual purpose 127's for secondary which can also help with the AA suite, several twin mount 40mm Bofors for mid-range automatic fire and the 20mm Oerlikons for the close-in defense. The main guns she has are improved 8"/55's which were on Pensacola, Wichita and other heavy cruisers with the Mark 12 as her iteration mounted which could enable the ship to unload 4 rounds per minute but there was a crazy feat where Long Range Bombardment Ammunition or LRBA was used, basically a very supercharged and unique round to make the shell fly further, was unloaded by one of her sisters St. Paul (CA-73) at about 56km during the '70's against VietCong targets. At some point some of her sisters were regunned with the mark 15 which was a bit smaller but had an improved barrel life but with a compacted chamber. If I remember correctly, the earliest Baltimores (the lead ship came out at 1942 and she was, at the time, the most modern heavy cruiser the US had and no, the Des Moines came out at 1948 so she's postwar) were one of the few ships that were first issued with VT proximity fuzes because glorious AA suite during 1943.

 

USS_Pittsburgh_%28CA-72%29_loss_of_bow.j

 

One does not simply YOLO into a storm, Pittsburgh. You are not Mikhail Kutuzov.

 

For their combat run, some served as AA screens due to their bustling AA suite, shore bombardment ships and convoy escorts with some of the weirdest stuff that happened like Pittsburgh rolling into the storm, Canberra whacked by a torpedo, and glorious participation of the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. Afterwards, all were decommissioned with some getting recommissioned in order to become missile cruisers or more retrofits and they lasted till '72 after serving as gun platforms in Korea and Vietnam and there was a funny incident where Boston and a fellow ship Hobart nearly got TK'd by jets firing Sparrow missiles at them with the one on Boston failing to go boom. Not a bad run for a cruiser.

 

Funny thing: the Norks claim to have sunk Baltimore when it was alleged to operate in NorK waters with a glorious PT boat torpedoing it and was celebrated with this PT boat in the museum when in fact, the Baltimore was being retrofitted at that time and she was scrapped during 1972. I like my propaganda spicy.

 

USS_Boston_Cruiser.jpg

 

This is Boston before she went missile...

 

USS_Chicago_%28CG-11%29.jpg

 

... and this is Chicago when she became an Albany missile cruiser. I am disappoint. Both missile cruisers that were converted from the Baltimore did not do anything to the hull.

 

uss-ca-122-oregon-city-1946-heavy-cruise

Right and THIS thing, the USS Oregon City, which is also derived from the Baltimore, had an improved structural layout, a single large funnel and more or less a bit more AA guns for her AA suite, most being 3 inch guns lugging VT fuzes.

 

In-game wise, I actually like the appearance of the Baltimore and if I remember right, she has practically an unrivaled AA suite in terms of point defense alone. Sure the Des Moines can literally extend her AA bubble to 8.2km but if we speak of close-in systems, Baltimore might be a sound choice. Please let Hull C be the Oregon City, she's a modded Baltimore for lulz sake!

 

Derp.exe has stopped working.

Edited by EvyL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
40 posts

Despite being a so-called "one of best cruisers in the war", Baltimore turns out to be "useless" in the game because the horrible orbital trajectory on the guns and players tend to have no patience with, even the down-graded Ibuki is flat out better than her. So pity, the day WG added plunging fire mechanics (which turn out to be mythical) the day US cruisers shadowed by their former glory.

 

Anyway, great write up Evyl +1 for you :)

 

EDIT: Is there are any sources mentioned about their TDS belt look like? i have no idea why WG make Baltimore and DM torpedo belt so weak compare to Ibuki and paper ship Zao?

Balti has 3,9%, DM has 6.9% if i recall. Zao has 18.9% and Ibuki has 15.9% (balance? or confirmation bias?) :unsure:

Edited by AlexPlayWOWS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

Not that I remember since the only vague reference to the Baltimore's TDS was of the bulkheads. I couldn't even find a cross-section but its likely an internal system similar to the North Carolina style layout.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,922 battles

In terms of historical accuracy, the Devs got it right for US gunfire arcs, apparently the US fired shells with smaller charges and shorter barrels (thus the sub orbital gunfire arcs) so that they wouldn't have to replace barrels so often from all the wear and tear of firing so many shells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

In terms of historical accuracy, the Devs got it right for US gunfire arcs, apparently the US fired shells with smaller charges and shorter barrels (thus the sub orbital gunfire arcs) so that they wouldn't have to replace barrels so often from all the wear and tear of firing so many shells

 

The Mark 15's used had about 700 rounds of life while most guns had about 300 or 400 depending, although 55 calibers length is actually reasonable for a 203 whereas the Japanese 203's were meant to slug enemy ships first and all else second hence that weird length. Also added to the notion was the Americans chucked in a good bursting charge for their HEHC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
40 posts

Thanks to those low-velocity, high-trajectory guns making Baltimore and DM somewhat "inferior" than Zao and fake Hindenburg, because the whole "knife-fighting" is so risky at higher tiers and cruisers are strictly played as support ship rather than YOLO or try hard like below and mid tiers.

 

Plunging fire mechanics is mythical from what i heard, considered WG chopped the guns range down by half it negate all deck penetration power, "super-heavy" shells doesn't exist in-game either and they also tend to auto-bounce a lot against barely angle ships (sometimes bounce when broadside). Mk.8 AP using by NC, Iowa and Montana has the same auto-bounce issue, WG could had giving the AP penetration angles buff like they did on US cruisers.

 

The low-velocity guns is because US politicians want to, lowering velocity will increases barrel wear and shell dispersion. The disadvantages is USN cruisers long-range fight would be difficult against moving ships, but superior FCS and radar will act as "auto aim-bot" :teethhappy: to tracking down target. (in-game since radar isn't non-existent, you have make bigger lead, timing and predicting enemy ships movements )

 

EDIT: USN HE/HC shells should have more damage thanks to the large bursting charge, but you know... balance, IJN get their magical HE shells because the so-called "Tsushima meta" :P while USN have a mediocre HE (at least better than German magical inferior HE). The whole make-up meta like "Ze German Sniper", "IJN Master of All" and "USN inferior" causing the whole imbalance issue.

Edited by AlexPlayWOWS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,859 posts
5,797 battles

the AP can actually pen pretty well at 18km, easily snipes Zaos (stationary lol) cit and I do consistant damage against Yamato at 18km with Des Moines AP (3-4k per salvo) bur seriously give USN CA more range or better accuracy plz we are forced to take range module at tier 9-10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×