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

Alternate IJN Battleship line V2 (thread moved)

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

I'm not sure I follow, how would a dual barrel make it harder to hit targets? It still has 3 turrets with 4 guns each.

 

But there's also other designs with 4 turrets with 3 guns each,

wppp-no-jp001b.pngwppp-no-jp001y.png

 

4 turrets with 4 guns each

wppp-no-jp001ij.png

 

It's a ship that WG could really mix and match to make it unique. Hell, they could make the tier 10 have 4 or 5 turrets, each with 2x 460mm guns. As I said at the start, it's a bit of theory crafting and because the Japanese destroyed a lot of the documentation at the end of the war there's not much concrete evidence so they're more like educated illustrations on what it could have looked like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
534 posts

Yes Dual barrels hits target harder than triple turrets,tried that in Gneisenau and Bismarck before already

and I mistook the blueprints of the ships,I thought it's the same turrets placement as Amagi,didn't notice it has triple turrets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

ahh true.

Yer, I'm suggesting the tier 9 have 2 triple barrels to supliment its 3 double barrels

while the tier 10 would have a single double turret and 3 quad turrets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[UNRYU]
Member
26 posts
4,311 battles

isn't that due to the bad sigma of both Gneisenau and Bismarck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

There's only so many ships that were ever built. Gotta go the way of WoT sooner or later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,526 posts
7,978 battles
13 minutes ago, DeadArashi said:

There's only so many ships that were ever built. Gotta go the way of WoT sooner or later

It's already wows way too. Look at VMF, UK, KM or MN lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

But there's less built ships then tanks. And rather then building new ships it was just easier to refit old ships with more modern components for the time.

Tanks being much smaller are just cheaper, easier and faster to manufacture.

But this is just my opinion; paper ships or tanks are fine, WG make arcade style games that center around a "what if" principle. As long as it sticks towards what was historically designed (not nessesarily built) then I'm fine with it.

 

Yes, this opinion wont sit well with everyone. There's really no right or wrong answer on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,526 posts
7,978 battles
36 minutes ago, DeadArashi said:

Yes, this opinion wont sit well with everyone. There's really no right or wrong answer on the matter.

I don't mind either. More ships for me to collect. At 190 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
213 posts
4,131 battles

Well i don't think Kure and Yokosuka will be a fit name for those ship at least not the case for IJN's BB.

IJN BB is named after the old name of Japan province , while both of Yokosuka and Kure is port town name, not province name, so as your ideal, their name will turn into Yokosuka>Kanagawa and Kure>Hiroshima would be more logic. Also, i read somewhere that those province their named after all of them have important temple or large shrine, it seem logic after i check those province history, so you may consider it when named the ship .

For the line, IMO it would better if you divine them into BC and BB brand, IJN BB trait is something like big caliber for it tier, hit harder, little better survivability (comapre to BC line) but less speed .  So my suggest for BB line is: 

>Kawachi (t3) > [something here t4] > Fusou >  Ise > Nagato > Tosa > BB no13 ( 8 457mm gun version)

>After tier 9 it split in to 2 top tier, 1 is Yamato (more gun version) and other is A-150 with 2x3 510mm gun (even bigger gun and more survivability) 

Also they could do something with seaplane to make it as special consumables , like increse it spotting range or increase sigma while activating 

Edited by K135Blitzkrieg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

changed the names as per the province names

 

There's probably a number of ways to go about incorporating more BBs into the line. Unfortunately I can only suggest what I know and that's, admittedly, rather limited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[151ST]
Member
1,010 posts
4,497 battles

Yeah totally agree with the BC/BB split...

Should shift Myogi, Kongo and Amagi to BC line and replace them with dreadnaught types...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

Well if you were to split them between Dreadnought/heavy BB and BattleCruiser/Fast BB then it starts to look a bit like this

EsVPQBB.png

This trying to remain as historically accurate as to what ship precedes and succeeds the other. There are a few exceptions like the Tosa. Technically was to be succeeded by the Kii-class (Owari) but the former is a dreadnought while the latter is a fast battleship. And the Kii-class had its design based off the Amagi so it's exception within reason.

Personally I would rather not have the Number-13 class be at tier 9. But it is possible. One of the designs was for the Number 13 was 4 turrets with two 460mm guns each. So 8 guns, one less then the Musashi and has less armor which is traded for higher top speed and torpedoes. This would mean that the Amagi and Owari would just drop down a tier leaving a spot open for a ship at tier 6 after the Kongo.

0AeQMzn.png

Thoughts?

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

No, a ship would still go in those middle tiers, it's just that I'm not aware of what ships could fit in the gap, hence i left them empty. I'm limited in what I can find only being on a computer, but I'm sure WG has access to various historians that could far more easily assist in finding necessary designs to fill slots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
307 posts
4,060 battles
2 hours ago, DeadArashi said:

it's just that I'm not aware of what ships could fit in the gap

Maybe, you could find Nagato's sister ship that supposed to be battlecruiser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles
11 hours ago, mr_glitchy_R said:

Maybe, you could find Nagato's sister ship that supposed to be battlecruiser?

If it'll fit the battlecruiser theme of the line then sure

Ok so completely forgot that the sister ship of the Nagato was the Mutsu (which we already have in-game). One possibility could be to move the Kongo up to tier 6 then put the Haruna at tier 5

Now, the Haruna is a Kongo-class battlecruiser but if the original 1915 build is used it should have enough difference to make it viable

Haruna (1915) Kongo (1944)
  • 8 × 356 mm (14 in) guns (4×2)
  • 16 × 152 mm (6 in) guns (16×1)
  • 8 × 76 mm (3 in) guns (8×1)
  • 8 × 530 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes (submerged)
  • 8 × 356 mm (14 in) naval gun (4×2)
  • 8 × 152 mm (6 in) naval gun (8×1)
  • 8 × 127 mm (5.0 in) guns (4×2)
  • 122 × 25 mm Type 96 Antiaircraft autocannon

So the Kongo would have far superior secondary and AA fire.

 

If WG wanted to they could let the Kongo also have torps along with giving the Amagi its 8x 61cm torpedoes. This would give a line of battlecruisers armed with high calibre guns and torps ranging from tier 5 to 9

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
307 posts
4,060 battles
11 hours ago, DeadArashi said:

If WG wanted to they could let the Kongo also have torps along with giving the Amagi its 8x 61cm torpedoes. This would give a line of battlecruisers armed with high calibre guns and torps ranging from tier 5 to 9

Amagi doesn't need torpedoes. Her primary and secondary armament are already potent against any type of warships. And for the Haruna, she should have torpedoes and since it has 8, it should reduced to 4 because Japanese torpedoes does huge amount of damage. Anyway, how about Owari and Kanagawa? I have some issues searching the image/ blueprints of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

Well everything I can find regarding the Amagi says that it was armed with torpedoes, including the "historical info" section of the WoWs Wiki: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Amagi

I mean, it doesn't need to be armed with 8 (and keep in mind that with the Battleships the torps are arranged so there's half on each broadside). But WG can give it 4 (two on each side). The premium Kii only has 6 torps (3 each side) instead of the historical 8. Which brings me to the next point... the Owari is a Kii-class battleship so it would be similar to the tier 8 premium Kii that we already have

The Kanagawa (fake name) is a Number-13 class battleship
1920px-IJN_battleship_design_of_Project-

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
341 posts
4,007 battles

I will 100% riot if you touch my Fusō, especially if it goes T5 with 19mm end plating. I think Ise is worse ergonomically for gameplay than Fusō due to the inability to put 3 turrets forward too.

100. %. GO AWAY.

On the other hand, you could just put one of the 23 knot Fusō prelims like A50 at tier 5. Fusō can stay 6.

From a historical standpoint I largely disagree with your choices right now.

FusoPrelim A50.jpg

Edited by InterconKW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
341 posts
4,007 battles

In other notes, Kawachi is probably too weak at 4 bringing less armor, speed and guns to bear than her counterparts. Satsuma and Kurama would be absolutely lacking at 3. Putting Haruna below Kongo is questionable since Haruna's late war AA refit combined with artificial buffs like 28s reload or maybe better dispersion would make it the more suitable 6 - Don't move Kongo either. Amagi at 7 would be suspicious but I suppose Ashitaka "works" vaguely.

 

Edit, I have to downvote that for the very purpose of protecting my Fusō-kind. It's in my blood! Sorry!

Edited by InterconKW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

Well the Ise is, essentially, just a slightly longer Fuso

Yamashiro1944.pngONI-Ise-classDrawing.jpg

Fuso Ise

Displacement: 34,700 long tons (35,300 t)
Length: 210.3 m (690 ft 0 in)
Beam: 33.1 m (108 ft 7 in)

Installed power:
75,000 shp (56,000 kW)
6 × water-tube boilers

Propulsion:
4 × steam turbines

Speed:
24.5 knots (45.4 km/h; 28.2 mph)

Range:
11,800 nmi (21,900 km; 13,600 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph)

Armament:
6 × 2 - 356 mm guns
14 × 1 - 152 mm guns
4 × 2 - 127 mm (5 in)/40 dual-purpose guns
95 × Type 96 25 mm (0.98 in) AA guns

Armor:Deck: 152–51 mm (6–2 in)
Waterline belt: 305–102 mm (12–4 in)
Deck: 51 mm (2 in)
Gun turrets: 279 mm (11.0 in)
Barbettes: 305 mm (12 in)
Conning tower: 351 mm (13.8 in)
Bulkheads: 305–102 mm (12–4 in)

Displacement:42,001 long tons (42,675 t) (deep load)
Length:216 m (708 ft 8 in)
Beam:31.75 m (104 ft 2 in)
Draught:9.45 m (31 ft 0 in)

Installed power:
80,000 shp (60,000 kW)
8 × water-tube boilers

Propulsion:
4 × steam turbines

Speed:
25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph)

Range:
7,870 nmi (14,580 km; 9,060 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph)

Armament:
6 × twin 35.6 cm (14 in) guns
16 × single 14 cm (5.5 in) guns
4 × twin 12.7 cm (5 in) dual-purpose guns
10 × twin 2.5 cm (1 in) AA guns

Armour:Decks: 152–51 mm (6–2 in)
Waterline belt: 299 mm (11.8 in)
Decks: 85 mm (3.3 in)
Gun turrets: 254 mm (10 in)
Barbettes: 305 mm (12 in)
Conning tower: 305 mm (12 in)
Bulkheads: 199–224 mm (7.8–8.8 in)

3 minutes ago, InterconKW said:

In other notes, Kawachi is probably too weak at 4 bringing less armor, speed and guns to bear than her counterparts. Satsuma and Kurama would be absolutely lacking at 3. Putting Haruna below Kongo is questionable since Haruna's late war AA refit combined with artificial buffs like 28s reload or maybe better dispersion would make it the more suitable 6 - Don't move Kongo either. Amagi at 7 would be suspicious but I suppose Ashitaka "works" vaguely.

As I said right at the start though, this is all just theory crafting. With the Kongo it's a bit all over the shop because it's neither in the original 1913 configuration nor its 1944 config, it's a bit of a mix of both. It would ultimately come down to what gets the original 1913 build and which gets the refit

Kongo (1913) Haruna(1914)
  • 8 × 356 mm guns (4×2)
  • 16 × 152 mm guns (16×1)
  • 8 × 76 mm naval guns (8×1)
  • 4 × 6.5 mm machine gun
  • 8 ×533 mm torpedo tubes
  • 8 × 356 mm guns (4×2)
  • 16 × 152 mm guns (16×1)
  • 8 × 76 mm guns (8×1)
  • 8 × 530 mm) torpedo tubes
Kongo (1944) Haruna (1945)
  • 8 × 356 mm gun (4×2)
  • 8 × 152 mm gun (8×1)
  • 8 × 127 mm guns (4×2)
  • 122 × 25 mm Type 96 AA guns
  • 8 × 356 mm (4×2)
  • 16 × 152 mm guns (16×1)
  • 12 × 127 mm guns (6×2)
  • 108 × 25 mm Type 96 AA guns

Look, you're absolutely right, if we're using the 1945 Haruna it would 100% be after the Kongo, not so much because of AA but because of secondaries

 

As for Satsuma, Kurama and Kawachi, I'm sure WG wouldn't have any issues giving them unhistorical aspects such as "what-if" refits that they have already given to other ships to make them fit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
214 posts
2,638 battles

IIRC Ise and her sister Hyuga were also (at least planned to be) made into aviation battleships. Would they fit here somewhere?

Edited by TD1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×