Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
BIGCOREMKP0I

Proposed British BBs

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
1,835 posts
8,065 battles

Suggested a Proposed Battleships for the Teapot BBs

Tier III - HMS Dreadnought 

63vf5k.png

 

Tier IV - HMS Revenge

a4bsc8.png

Tier V - HMS Royal Oak

zkoj5s.pngTier VI - HMS Queen Elizabeth

hs0181.pngTier VII Premium - HMS Vanguard

30t28hg.png

Tier VII - HMS Nelson

25ths1s.gif

Tier VIII Premium - HMS Repulse

1et1u9.png

 

 

Tier VIII - HMS Hood

fuvtc9.png

Tier IX - HMS Lion Class Blueprint

2wqr482.gif

Tier X - Prince of Wales

25gqfyw.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SGC]
Super Tester
1,459 posts
6,806 battles

What.

No.

 

Renown Class Battlecruisers at Tier 8? Really? They are Tier 5 material at best. No armor and only 6 guns.

 

Admiral Class Battlecruiser is a Tier 7. Hood being the Tier 7 Premium.

 

KGV at tier 10. 14" guns at tier 10. Really? KGV is tier 8. Vanguard being Tier 8 Premium.

 

Tier 10 is probably G3 and N3.

 

 

Please do more research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,835 posts
8,065 battles

What.

No.

 

Renown Class Battlecruisers at Tier 8? Really? They are Tier 5 material at best. No armor and only 6 guns.

 

Admiral Class Battlecruiser is a Tier 7. Hood being the Tier 7 Premium.

 

KGV at tier 10. 14" guns at tier 10. Really? KGV is tier 8. Vanguard being Tier 8 Premium.

 

Tier 10 is probably G3 and N3.

 

 

Please do more research.

Will do.,well i don't know about them, some of them are good Premiums :)

Hood is good for Tier VIII Regular, at least we can Fun and Engaging Mechanics change history against Bismarck :trollface:

Edited by BIGCOREMKP0I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KGHSF]
Member
3,207 posts
6,043 battles

Prince of Wales is King George V class isn't it?

Vanguard must be tier 9 because it coeval with Iowa class

Edited by THAI_THIEF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
679 posts
3,522 battles

You guys need to check out the iEarlGray interview basing tier on gun characteristics, its an amazing overview.


 

Keep an eye out for Kelorn's Gun calibre pen vs dmg chart

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/108185-speculation-how-gun-performance-will-affect-royal-navy-battleships/

Edited by Dantes_Inferno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
2,579 posts
6,713 battles

i dont care what ship they will put on what tier...just gave us RN BB as fast as possible pleasaaeeeeeeeee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
73 posts
284 battles

23kts at T9 for Nelson. Can anyone say XP pinata? The "on paper" mediocrity of the Royal Navy vessels compared to the opposition I suspect is a large part of why it's taken so long to see them in game. Expect more gimmicks like smoke and AP only to make them competitive. Might the RN BB's get to have their torpedo tubes?

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,888 posts
9,936 battles

Did anyone know about N3 ship projects?

 

Here

 

Tier 10 is probably G3 and N3.

 

and here

 

n3_type_nelson_batteship_by_tzoli-d4m3sb

 

Armament:    
3 × triple 18-inch (457 mm) guns
16 × twin 6-inch (152 mm) guns
6 × single 4.7-inch (120 mm) AA guns
10 × quadruple-barrel 2-pdr pom-pom mountings
6 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes

 

Armour:    
Belt: 13.5–15 in (343–381 mm)
Deck: 6–8 in (152–203 mm)
Barbettes: 15 in (381 mm)
Turrets: 10–18 in (254–457 mm)
Conning tower: 15 in (381 mm)
Bulkheads: 9–14 in (229–356 mm)

 

(https://en.wikipedia...lass_battleship)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
11 posts
1,253 battles

I think

Tier V - HMS Repulse

Tier VI - HMS Reown

Tier VII - HMS Vanguard

Tier VIII - HMS King George V

Tier IX - HMS Nelson

Tier X - HMS Lion

 

'The Repulse and Reknown are sister ships - BCs with 3x2 15-inch.

 

My choice would be:

T3 Dreadnaught - 6x2 12-inch

T4 Iron Duke - 5x2 13.5-inch

T5 Revenge - 4x2 15-inch

T6 Queen Elizabeth - 4x2 15-inch

T6 Premium - Warspite (QE class)

T7 KGV - 10x 14-inch

T7 Premium - Hood - 4x2 15-inch, fast.

T8 Nelson - 3x3 16-inch. Contemporary to Nagato & Colorado and did sink the Bismarck.

T9 Vanguard - 4x2 15-inch, hull from Lion class, turrets from 1918 but modernized. Only British BB with RPC (remote power control) so had fast turret traverse and excellent long range accuracy. AA also had RPC.

T10 Lion - 3x3 16-inch but newer gun design. 

 

'The RN preferred the 15-inch to the Nelson's 16-inch which fired high velocity light shells that in practice didn't penetrate as much as they assumed. The 14-inch was a Washington treaty compromise and the quad turret design was mechanically unreliable till late in the war. In fact the weight of broadside of the 10 gun KGV is just a few hundred kilos more than the broadside of the 8 gun QE.

 

 Lion would have gotten new 16-inch barrels firing a heavier shell than the Nelsons, but designing and building the triple turrets was going to be a big bottleneck, so the RN took out four 30 year old turrets they had in storage from the weird Courageous Light BC and created Vanguard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
109 posts
5,101 battles

Tier IV - HMS Revenge

Tier IV will probably be the Orion class, it has 10x 12 inch guns which matches up with most foreign BBs at that tier

 

Hood will be probably at tier VII with ~65k HP like Nagato since it has inadequate AA and bad deck armor

 

KGV suits tier VIII, but given WG policy of not having ships with gun caliber lower than previous tier ( except Mogami) (2x4 1x2 14 inch guns), I think they will give it a hypothetical 15 inch gun layout (3x3)

 

Armament:    
3 × triple 18-inch (457 mm) guns
16 × twin 6-inch (152 mm) guns
6 × single 4.7-inch (120 mm) AA guns
10 × quadruple-barrel 2-pdr pom-pom mountings
6 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes

 

Armour:    
Belt: 13.5–15 in (343–381 mm)
Deck: 6–8 in (152–203 mm)
Barbettes: 15 in (381 mm)
Turrets: 10–18 in (254–457 mm)
Conning tower: 15 in (381 mm)
Bulkheads: 9–14 in (229–356 mm)

 

(https://en.wikipedia...lass_battleship)

 

I don't think WG will approve a tier X ship with gun caliber equal or larger than Yamato so tier X will probably be a non-existing paper ship like the Grosser Kurfurst, or an enlarged Lion with something like 3x4 16-17 inch guns.

 

Looking forward to OP Sovietsky Soyuz with 20 inch guns however :trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

You know, literally every single WoWS discussion group I've gone to, there's at least one person who puts HMS Nelson at t9.

 

Nevermind the fact that Nelson was a contemporary of the Nagato-class and Colorado-class, both at t7

Nevermind that Nelson shares the same speed and armour characteristics as a t7 ship

Nevermind that Nelson's main guns had a load of technical issues because, mainly, the shells suck, and thus lagged a bit behind Nagato and Colorado, despite having one more gun.

 

But no, everyone sees the gun arrangement (which was a weight-saving measure), and goes "IT FITS AT T9!" without looking at how Nelson was kitted out and how it performed in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
492 posts
7,661 battles

 

'The Repulse and Reknown are sister ships - BCs with 3x2 15-inch.

 

My choice would be:

T3 Dreadnaught - 6x2 12-inch

T4 Iron Duke - 5x2 13.5-inch

T5 Revenge - 4x2 15-inch

T6 Queen Elizabeth - 4x2 15-inch

T6 Premium - Warspite (QE class)

T7 KGV - 10x 14-inch

T7 Premium - Hood - 4x2 15-inch, fast.

T8 Nelson - 3x3 16-inch. Contemporary to Nagato & Colorado and did sink the Bismarck.

T9 Vanguard - 4x2 15-inch, hull from Lion class, turrets from 1918 but modernized. Only British BB with RPC (remote power control) so had fast turret traverse and excellent long range accuracy. AA also had RPC.

T10 Lion - 3x3 16-inch but newer gun design.

 

'The RN preferred the 15-inch to the Nelson's 16-inch which fired high velocity light shells that in practice didn't penetrate as much as they assumed. The 14-inch was a Washington treaty compromise and the quad turret design was mechanically unreliable till late in the war. In fact the weight of broadside of the 10 gun KGV is just a few hundred kilos more than the broadside of the 8 gun QE.

 

 Lion would have gotten new 16-inch barrels firing a heavier shell than the Nelsons, but designing and building the triple turrets was going to be a big bottleneck, so the RN took out four 30 year old turrets they had in storage from the weird Courageous Light BC and created Vanguard.

 

A Nelson sank the Bismark ??? :unsure: Well that certainly comes as news to me and the recollection of history! Might want to check your facts there mate :D

 

 

"During the battle, Rodney also fired twelve 24.5-inch (622 mm) torpedoes at Bismarck whilst zig-zagging across her bow; most of the torpedoes missed but one hit Bismarck and exploded amidships on the starboard side, making Rodney the only battleship in history to have torpedoed another battleship, although Bismarck survived the hit by Rodney's torpedo. Rodney and King George V finally broke off the action; Dorsetshire was then ordered to finish Bismarck off with torpedoes." Wikipedia HMS Rodney

 

Edited by HobartAWD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KGHSF]
Member
3,207 posts
6,043 battles

Honestly Neslon is member of Big Seven which were use standard armaments due the Washington Treaty DO you think that Nagato is only the one?

You should call it The Big One of Nagato wouldn't you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
492 posts
7,661 battles

You know, literally every single WoWS discussion group I've gone to, there's at least one person who puts HMS Nelson at t9.

 

Nevermind the fact that Nelson was a contemporary of the Nagato-class and Colorado-class, both at t7

Nevermind that Nelson shares the same speed and armour characteristics as a t7 ship

Nevermind that Nelson's main guns had a load of technical issues because, mainly, the shells suck, and thus lagged a bit behind Nagato and Colorado, despite having one more gun.

 

But no, everyone sees the gun arrangement (which was a weight-saving measure), and goes "IT FITS AT T9!" without looking at how Nelson was kitted out and how it performed in real life.

 

I completely agree, Nelson or Rodney are no way a tier 9. Any design that was compromised to satisfy the Washington treaty limits cannot be a high tier ship. They are far too slow and were plagued by gun problems. As you mention one deficiency was the shells which were light by 16" standards. Some bright spark in the RN conducting gunnery penetration tests decided from incomplete data through flawed testing that a smaller and lighter shell travelling at a faster velocity will penetrate far better. No one called him out on it and therefore the Nelson's were given a shorter and lighter 16" shell. Also two different rates of rifling were tried and as a result there were different barrels across the ship and even in the same turret on occasion, as barrels were removed and replaced. To add to this, the increased charge to propel the shell at higher velocities tended to wear out the rifling at an accelerated rate. As a result they had very bad dispersion. A longer and heavier (more in line with a regular 16" shell) projectile was trialled but the cost to modify shell handling equipment and shell storage areas was deemed too expensive at a time the RN had greatly reduced funding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
73 posts
284 battles

 

I completely agree, Nelson or Rodney are no way a tier 9. Any design that was compromised to satisfy the Washington treaty limits cannot be a high tier ship. They are far too slow and were plagued by gun problems. As you mention one deficiency was the shells which were light by 16" standards. Some bright spark in the RN conducting gunnery penetration tests decided from incomplete data through flawed testing that a smaller and lighter shell travelling at a faster velocity will penetrate far better. No one called him out on it and therefore the Nelson's were given a shorter and lighter 16" shell. Also two different rates of rifling were tried and as a result there were different barrels across the ship and even in the same turret on occasion, as barrels were removed and replaced. To add to this, the increased charge to propel the shell at higher velocities tended to wear out the rifling at an accelerated rate. As a result they had very bad dispersion. A longer and heavier (more in line with a regular 16" shell) projectile was trialled but the cost to modify shell handling equipment and shell storage areas was deemed too expensive at a time the RN had greatly reduced funding. 

Of course there is no reason we couldn't have that as an upgrade in the game. Still not T9 material though.

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
492 posts
7,661 battles

Honestly Neslon is member of Big Seven which were use standard armaments due the Washington Treaty DO you think that Nagato is only the one?

You should call it The Big One of Nagato wouldn't you?

 

The Big Seven is a term that simply refers to the seven battleships that were able to mount 16-inch guns under the Washington Naval Treaty. These seven included: Nagato, Mutsu, USS Colorado, USS West Virginia, USS Maryland, HMS Nelson, and HMS Rodney. Only Nelson and Rodney were constructed after the Washington treaty. All the others were already constructed but I don't think all were commissioned yet (please correct me as I'm going from memory here). It does not mean they were the seven best battleships ever built, just at that moment the only 7 that had 16" guns. As Rodney and Nelson were laid down after the treaty their design was compromised to satisfy these requirements. The others seeing as they were already built were simply allowed to be kept with the 16" main guns. Many believe Nagato to be the strongest of the big 7, but her limited wartime record does not give much in the way of practical experience to back this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
492 posts
7,661 battles

Of course there is no reason we couldn't have that as an upgrade in the game. Still not T9 material though.

 

Dan

 

Yeah that would be a neat feature to try to improve the shell penetration performance on these guns. It does nothing to help the large shell dispersion that these guns had however. Just depends how much into the realistic performance of a ship WG want to go and what we actually get as an in game ship in regards to liberties that need to be taken in historical accuracy in order to get best fit in the tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
18 posts
188 battles

 

The Big Seven is a term that simply refers to the seven battleships that were able to mount 16-inch guns under the Washington Naval Treaty. These seven included: Nagato, Mutsu, USS Colorado, USS West Virginia, USS Maryland, HMS Nelson, and HMS Rodney. Only Nelson and Rodney were constructed after the Washington treaty. All the others were already constructed but I don't think all were commissioned yet (please correct me as I'm going from memory here). It does not mean they were the seven best battleships ever built, just at that moment the only 7 that had 16" guns. As Rodney and Nelson were laid down after the treaty their design was compromised to satisfy these requirements. The others seeing as they were already built were simply allowed to be kept with the 16" main guns. Many believe Nagato to be the strongest of the big 7, but her limited wartime record does not give much in the way of practical experience to back this up.

 

The specifics are rather interesting, if I remember them right; originally, under the terms of the treaty, all capital ships that were on the slips at that time were supposed to be cancelled and scrapped (some were allowed to be converted to be aircraft carriers though); the problem for Japan was that Mutsu had been in part paid for by donations from school-children.

 

There was a lot of arguing over it, but eventually a compromise was made, where Japan had to pay the USA and the UK an amount that would allow the USN and RN to purchase a given number (two if I remember) of 16-in armed battleships each, and in turn would be allowed to finish constructing Mutsu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[LANCR]
Member
18 posts
2,954 battles

The Rodney and Nelson as designed would be tier9. 48,000 ton Battlecruisers vs 36,000 ton slow battleships. There is no reason why both designs can not be used in the tech tree. One at tier 7 and one at tier 9. after all we have the Amagi in the game.

 

Edited by Wombat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
492 posts
7,661 battles

 

The specifics are rather interesting, if I remember them right; originally, under the terms of the treaty, all capital ships that were on the slips at that time were supposed to be cancelled and scrapped (some were allowed to be converted to be aircraft carriers though); the problem for Japan was that Mutsu had been in part paid for by donations from school-children.

 

There was a lot of arguing over it, but eventually a compromise was made, where Japan had to pay the USA and the UK an amount that would allow the USN and RN to purchase a given number (two if I remember) of 16-in armed battleships each, and in turn would be allowed to finish constructing Mutsu.

 

Interesting. I have never heard that account of events before in anything I have on the Washington treaty. Everything I have from several different books is that the Americans were pushing very heavily for Mutsu to be scrapped. The Japanese who had really, and very understandably, had enough of being told very condescendingly exactly how many tons in ratio they were allowed compared to the US navy and the RN (5:5:3). They point out that Mutsu has already been commissioned and sailed around 2500 miles so should not be subject to the terms of the treaty and threatened to pull out of the treaty all together if Mutsu is forced to be scrapped, despite America being allowed to keep the Colorado's. Allowing them to keep the Mutsu (which was only months old) was more of an appeasement to keep them somewhat happy and still signatories to the treaty.

 

 

A mostly unknown, yet historically pivotal point is one of the unofficial terms of the treaty, that was the ending of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance by Britain. This was not something that was written as part of the Washington Treaty in any way, but the American delegation had made it abundantly clear to the British that they would not sign the treaty unless Britain ended its alliance with the Japanese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
492 posts
7,661 battles

The Rodney and Nelson as designed would be tier9. 48,000 ton Battlecruisers vs 36,000 ton slow battleships. There is no reason why both designs can not be used in the tech tree. One at tier 7 and one at tier 9. after all we have the Amagi in the game.

 

 

Sorry but Nagato and the Colorado are already in game as a tier 7. Nelson and Rodney do not add anything to justify being promoted 2 tiers. As has been already mentioned more than once, guns with the worst penetration of any 16" and terrible shell dispersion. Add to this a slow speed and an overall compromised design due to Washington and it does not add up to a tier 9.

 

 

What 48000 ton battlecruiser are you refering to? G3? You don't specify what ship you mean. If it's the G3, I completely agree, both the Nelson and the G3 should be in the tech tree, just definitely not the Nelson's at tier 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×