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

Alternate IJN Battleship line

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles

So after a bit of back and forth discussion with @InterconKW and @TD1. For reading convenience and ease on the eyes I'm going to be breaking this post down into different parts with copious amounts of spoiler tags to keep everything nice and contained. Hopefully this will be final and the only reason I will edit this post is to either clarify things or if there's something that absolutely needs to be changed. What this suggestion is aimed to do is split the dreadnoughts and battlecruisers/fast BBs.

I'll also be putting beside each ships stats the same tier BB in the other line based on in-game (top configuration) stats for a comparison. Do note that some ships in the higher tiers (namely Ushiro, Hakone and possibly Tosa) would probably receive a fake "modernisation" to make them perform adequately at those tiers.

If you would prefer to respond on Reddit, this post has been linked there: 

 

So without further ado, let's get into it.

 fAUMzCg.png

 


Universal to Both Lines

Spoiler

 

Tier II - Asahi

A pre-dreadnought built between 1897 and 1900 and was in commission until 1942

Installed power:

  • 15,000 ihp (11,000 kW)

Speed:

  • 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)

Armament:

  • 2 × 2 – 12 in (305 mm) guns
  • 14 × 1 – 6 in (152 mm) QF guns
  • 20 × 1 – 12-pounder guns
  • 6 × 1 – 3-pounder guns
  • 6 × 1 – 2.5-pounder Hotchkiss guns
  • 4 × 18-inch torpedo tubes

Armour:

  • Belt: 4–9 in (102–229 mm)
  • Deck: 2.5–4 in (64–102 mm)
  • Gun turrets: 6 in (152 mm)
  • Barbettes: 10–14 in (254–356 mm)
  • Conning tower: 14 in (356 mm)
  • Casemates: 2–6 in (51–152 mm)

Japanese_battleship_Asahi.jpg

 

 


Dreadnoughts

Spoiler

 

Tier IV - Aki

Based on the A-49, a preliminary design for the A-64 "Fuso". Due to the turret arrangement, only 4 of the 5 guns can fire either to port or starboard at anytime.

Aki Myogi

Installed Power:

  • 43,500 shp

Speed:

  • 23 kn

Installed Power:

  • 77,000 shp

Speed:

  • 28 kn

Armament:

  • 10 x 356 mm (5x2)
  • 12 x 152 mm
  • 10 x 120 mm
  • 2 x 76 mm

Armament:

  • 6 x 356 mm (3x2)
  • 16 x 152 mm (16x1)
  • 6 x 120 mm (6x1)
  • 16 x 25 mm (8x2)

Armor:

  • Turrets: ???
  • Belt: 229 mm               
  • Deck: 29 mm

Armor:

  • Turrets: 305 mm
  • Belt: 76 mm to 203 mm
  • Deck: 10 mm to 25 mm

Tier V - Bingo

Based on the A-50, another preliminary design for the A-64 "Fuso". All 5 turrets are arranged in the same manner as the Fuso allowing for all guns to fire either to port or starboard.

Bingo Kongo

Installed Power:

  • 43,300 shp

Speed:

  • 23 kn

Installed Power: 

  • 136,000 shp

Speed:

  • 30 kn

Armament:

  • 10 x 356 mm (5x2)         
  • 12 x 152 mm
  • 10 x 120 mm
  • 2 x 76 mm

Armament:

  • 8 x 356 mm (4x2)
  • 14 x 152 mm (14x1)
  • 8 x 127 mm (4x2)
  • 12 x 25 mm (6x2)
  • 16 x 13 mm (2x4 and 4x2)

Armor:

  • Turrets: ???
  • Belt: 229 mm
  • Deck: 29 mm

Armor:

  • Turrets: 254 mm
  • Belt: 76 mm to 203 mm
  • Deck: 19 mm to 38 mm

YDC4pbJ.jpg&key=1a9016990b1f45baab3de089

 

Tier VIII - Tosa

Series of two dreadnoughts ordered as part of the Eight-Eight fleet for the IJN in the early 1920's. It was designed as a larger version of the Nagato it was to succeed consisting of an extra turret. It would later serve as the basis for the Amagi-class Battlcruiser.

Tosa Amagi

Installed Power:

  • 91,000 shp

Speed:

  • 26.5 kn

Installed Power:

  • 150,000

Speed:

  • 30 kn

Armament:

  • 10 x 410 mm (5x2)
  • 20 x 140 mm (20x1)
  • 4 x 76 mm (4x1)                                       

Armament:

  • 10 x 410 mm (5x2)
  • 16 x 140 mm (16x1)
  • 16 x 127 mm (8x2)
  • 102 x 25 mm (12x3, 24x2 and 18x1)

Armor:

  • Turrets: 305 mm
  • Belt: 280 mm
  • Deck: 102 mm

Armor:

  • Turrets: 458 mm
  • Belt: 254 mm
  • Deck: 70 mm

fHTByUI.png

 

 

 


Battlecruisers / Fast Battleships

 

Spoiler

 

Tier VI - Ishikari

The Ishikari was a design for the 1942 B-65 Super Type A Battlecruiser. While it would lose a turret over the Kongo, it would gain far superior AA and secondary armament. Speed is also very frighting and would allow it to chase down cruisers and some DDs, but the thin armor would put it at a disadvantage against the more well armored dreadnought style battleships if it were to get into a close range brawl.

Ishikari Fuso

Installed Power: 

  • 167,674 shp

Speed:

  • 33kn

Installed power:

  • 70,000 shp

Speed:

  • 24.5 kn

Armament

  • 6 x 356 mm (3x2)              
  • 16 x 100 mm (8x2)
  • 24 x 40 mm (12x2)
  • 30 x 25 mm (10x3)
  • 4 x 13 mm (2x2)

Armament:

  • 12 x 356 mm (6x2)
  • 14 x 152 mm (14x1)
  • 8 x 127 mm (4x2)
  • 37 x 25 mm (17x1 and 10x2)

Armor:

  • Turret: ???
  • Belt: 190mm
  • Deck: 156 mm

Armor:

  • Turret: 230 mm
  • Belt: 102 mm - 305 mm
  • Deck 25 mm - 51 mm

wj1Gm0A.png

 


Tier VII - Tekari

The Tekari is based on the B-62, a preliminary design that would later evolve into the Amagi. 

Tekari Nagato

Installed Power:

  • 156,000 shp

Speed:

  • 32 kn

Installed Power: 

  • 84,000 shp

Speed:

  • 25 kn

Armament:

  • 8 x 410 mm (4x2)                                 
  • 18 x 140 mm (18x1)
  • 4 x 127 mm 

Armament:

  • 8 x 410 mm (4x2)
  • 18 x 140 mm (18x1)
  • 8 x 127 mm (4x2)
  • 90 X 25 mm (14x3, 12x2 and 24x1)

Armor:

  • Turrets: 458
  • Belt: 230
  • Deck: 25 mm to 45 mm

Armor:

  • Turrets: 457 mm
  • Belt: 230 mm to 305 MM
  • Deck: 24 mm to 44 mm

xjOrZ2z.png&key=d01fbbd4b110828788847642

 

Tier IX - Ushiro

The Ushiro is based on the first preliminary design for the Number 13 class battleship ordered for the IJN Eight-Eight fleet

Ushiro Izumo

Installed Power:

  • 152,000 shp

Speed:

  • 30 kn

Installed Power:

  • 135,000

Speed:

  • 28 kn

Armament:

  • 10 x 410 mm (5x2)
  • 16 x 140 mm (16x1)                     
  • 4 x 127 mm (4x1)

Armament

  • 9 x 410 mm (3x3)
  • 3 x 155 mm (1x3)
  • 24 x 127 mm (12x2)
  • 108 x 25 mm (28x3 and 24x1)

Armor:

  • Turrets: ???
  • Belt: 305 mm
  • Deck: 114 mm

Armor:

  • Turrets: 508 mm
  • Belt: 356 mm
  • Deck: 32 mm to 152mm

wppp-no-jp001a.png&key=c7444c573159a681f

 

Tier X - Hakone

Hakone Yamato

Installed Power:

  • 165,000 shp

Speed:

  • 30 kn

Installed Power: 

  • 150,000 shp

Speed:

  •  27 kn

Armament:

  • 8 x 460 mm (4x2)
  • 16 x 140 mm (16x1)                     
  • 4 x 127 mm (4x1)

Armament:

  • 9 x 460 mm (3x3)
  • 6 x 155 mm (2x3)
  • 24 x 127mm (6x2)
  • 198 x 25mm (66x3)       

Armor:

  • Turrets: ???
  • Belt: 305 mm
  • Deck: 114 mm

Armor:

  • Turrets: 650 mm
  • Belt: 410 mm
  • Deck: 52 mm to 200 mm

wppp-no-jp001k.png&key=8ea77424406d789cf

 

 


Naming of the Ships

A lot of the ships being based on paper designs that were planned but never made it into construction or preliminary designs were never officially named past their project designation. Thanks to @TD1 for not only naming these ships but even giving very solid and logical reasoning behind the names:

Quote

-Asahi was, like Mikasa, built in the 1890s in Britain, surviving all the way to the 1940s (by then a repair ship) before a US sub torpedoed her in 1942. Obviously, she should be in her 1890s-1910s loadout when she was still a pre-dreadnought battleship.

-Tekari is a mountain in Shizuoka Prefecture, which is also where Mount Amagi is. Considering B-62 is a preliminary design of Amagi (and apparently neither I nor DeadArashi knew which prefecture was to lay down this ship, so I have no idea from which prefecture it came from, and the mountain name appropriate for it), I only thought it made sense.

- Ushiro is a mountain in Hyogo Prefecture (DeadArashi had initially given the choice of 4 prefectures to pick a mountain from; Kanagawa, Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Honshu, but I pointed out that Honshu encompasses the whole main island of Japan (the mainland) and he reverted the choices to Hyogo, Kanagawa, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. I picked a mountain name from Hyogo Prefecture; based on personal RNG, Ushiro was chosen.

-Hakone is a mountain in Kanagawa prefecture, and a childhood memory of mine given my experience in playing Tokyo Xtreme Racer 2 (however bad I was at that game since I was still 7yo or sth). Given that World of Warships has quite a few references to Initial D (Myogi, the "torpedobeats" meme courtesy of Yuro-senpai, and Haruna [even if its only as an ARP ship, Haruna is the real-life equivalent of Initial D's Mt. Akina], to name a few), another one can't possibly hurt.

-Aki and Bingo (A-49 and A-50 respectively) were chosen because Hiroshima prefecture, in which Kure and its IJN Naval Arsenal is located, was where Fuso originated from. Given that the two were premelinary designs of the Fuso, and that Japanese battleships (true battleships, not battlecruisers) took their names from old provinces, I did research and found out that Kanagawa prefecture used to be split between these two provinces. My choice became obvious after that.

 


Japanese Nomenclature

Once again, thanks to @TD1 for this clarification on how Japanese ships are named

Quote

I see some of you are still confused about naming nomenclature:

  • Japanese destroyers: Tends towards poetic names e.g Kamikaze (Divine Wind), Asashio (Morning Tide), Akizuki (Autumn Moon)
  • Japanese Light Cruisers: Rivers e.g  Yūbari, Agano, Mogami*, Kuma.

(*Mogami was intended to be light cruisers with 155mm guns, hence why it is here)

  • Japanese heavy cruisers/battlecruisers: Mountains. Amagi, Furutaka, Kongo, Atago.
  • Japanese battleships, dreadnought-era onward: Ancient provinces of Japan. Kii, Mutsu, Nagato, Yamato, Yamashiro.

 An exception is Fuso, which is a classical (possibly traditional Chinese) name for Japan (I assume because Fuso, for all its faults, was the first fully-domestic-built battleship, with all-Japanese components).

 


Torpedoes in the Water!

One of the main reason this has taken me so long to transfer this suggestion over to the "suggestion" subforum is because a lot, if not all, IJN battleships were originally designed to have torpedoes. So the biggest issue faced is; do we follow the rest of the the IJN BBs and remove torps all together? Or do we try to accommodate them into the line somehow. Personally I wanted torpedoes in the battlecruiser/ fast battleship line but good arguments against it have been raised, namely how it would affect the Kongo and Amagi. This is because people like these ships as they are, and I agree. The Kongo and Amagi are two of my favourite tech tree ships in the IJN BB line. But is there a way to keep everyone happy? Allow the purists that like those ships as they are to keep them as such, while also allowing torpedoes onto the line?

I believe there is and this is because of the tier 8 Amagi and Kii. The Kii-class fast battleship was based around the Amagi design. When you look at the two ships you can clearly see the similarities; main armament, armor and speed. But there are noticeable differences. The Amagi has torps and far superior AA, but the Amagi has better torpedo protection and secondaries. And that's the drawback of having torps, they take the place of secondaries as your means of self defence against other ships..

Where am I getting with this? Glad you asked.

Alternate hulls. It's as simple as that... well, in theory anyway. Basically an optional hull could be added that drops secondary and torpedo protection to gain torpedoes. The upgrade wouldn't be required to get to the next tier. This means that the choice is purely player preference, so people that don't want torps on their BB but rather have stronger secondaries and protection against torps can have just that.

Feedback on this particular topic regarding this line is probably the most sought after by my as I feel it's a discussion that can become very opinionated so I do ask that we keep it civil and reasonable.

One final point to make is that there are a number of balance factors at play with torps; generally limited to a max range of 6km, the number of torpedoes per broadside is limited based on ship tier and torpedo size and finally, available firing arc of the torpedoes. 

Please take these limitations into account when considering if this line of BBs should get the option of torpedoes or not as well as clear justification as to why you hold such opinion.


Change Log

Spoiler
  • Added the tier 5 ARP Haruna to the comparison between Haruna (1945) and Fuso to better show the differences between the higher tiered Haruna and Kongo
  • Fixed type
  • Added section "Japanese Nomenclature" 
  • Fixed a type; "Tier VII - Tose" changed to "Tier VIII - Tose"
  • Changed Haruna at tier 6 for the Ishikari

 

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles

Urgh, curse me and my impulsiveness. I will have to make a clarification on a name:

Fuso originates from Kure Naval Arsenal, which is not located in Kanagawa Prefecture but in Hiroshima Prefecture, though what I said about the latter being split up to Aki and Bingo provinces in the past is still true (otherwise, I would have to live with, as Dota 2's Faceless Void put it, "an eternity of embarassment!").

 

I also assume that Preliminary Design A and K (aka the T9 and T10 battlecruisers in this tech tree) are battlecruisers, as they were preliminary designs to the Number 13-class of IJN battleships. Kii-class battleships and #13-class battleships are historically true battleships, not battlecruisers, but for all intents and purposes their armor would prove insufficiently powerful at the tiers they reside in, against the guns their adversaries possess (srsly, the Amagi at tier 8 right now is not a well armored ship, and the supposedly "up-armored Amagi" Kii isn't much better) therefore I'd like to assume they are battlecruisers. Of course, if anyone wants me to change the names of the ships to fit Japanese ship-naming nomenclature, tell me and I'll do research again.

 

Sorry if I come off as super persistent, but as someone who played a major part in naming the ships, I'm taking responsibility for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles
8 minutes ago, TD1 said:

Sorry if I come off as super persistent, but as someone who played a major part in naming the ships, I'm taking responsibility for it.

Nar, you're right mate. Just made that small correction for you regarding the prefecture as well.

There is a bit of a difference between Battlecruiser and Fast Battleship which you can see in the description Wiki gives them

Quote

The battlecruiser, or battle cruiser, was a type of capital ship of the first half of the 20th century. They were similar in size, cost, and armament to battleships, but they generally carried less armour in order to attain faster speeds. 

Quote

A fast battleship was a battleship which emphasised speed without – in concept – undue compromise of either armor or armament. Most of the early World War I-era dreadnought battleships were typically built with low design speeds, so the term "fast battleship" is applied to a design which is considerably faster.

So while all the ships from Myoki to Amagi are classed as "battlecruisers" the Design A and K at tier 9 and 10 were actually classed as "fast battleships". There's not that much difference between the two classifications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles
19 minutes ago, DeadArashi said:

 

There is a bit of a difference between Battlecruiser and Fast Battleship which you can see in the description Wiki gives them

So while all the ships from Myoki to Amagi are classed as "battlecruisers" the Design A and K at tier 9 and 10 were actually classed as "fast battleships". There's not that much difference between the two classifications

And given that "fast battleship" was never an formally used term (no navy has ever called them such, unlike Battlecruisers) , I think classifying the T9 and T10 ships in the battlecruiser line as battlecruisers is fair game. Okay, I am chill with it.

 

 

Edited by TD1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
330 posts
4,094 battles

Never thought naming a ship would be that complicated. But i think it only applies in Japan since most Japanese people were mostly you know. Perfectionist.

Share this post


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

There were a number of exceptions to this rule. The Yamato-class being one of them. Yamato and Musashi are ancient provinces and not mountains. Likewise, cruises tended to be named after rivers but the Takao and Ibuki class were named after mountains.

The Americans were much more relaxed about naming ships: BBs being named after states, cruisers after cities and destroyers after people. I say simple in that it didn't particularly matter if it had any actual relation to the ships construction or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles

I see some of you are still confused about naming nomenclature:

 

 

Japanese destroyers: Tends towards poetic names e.g Kamikaze (Divine Wind)Asashio (Morning Tide), Akizuki (Autumn Moon)

 

 

Japanese Light Cruisers: Rivers e.g  Yūbari, Agano, Mogami*, Kuma.

(*Mogami was intended to be light cruisers with 155mm guns, hence why it is here)

 

 

Japanese heavy cruisers/battlecruisers: Mountains. Amagi, Furutaka, Kongo, Atago.

 

Japanese battleships, dreadnought-era onward: Ancient provinces of Japan. Kii, Mutsu, Nagato, Yamato, Yamashiro.

 An exception is Fuso, which is a classical (possibly traditional Chinese) name for Japan (I assume because Fuso, for all its faults, was the first fully-domestic-built battleship, with all-Japanese components).

 

US Destroyers: Famed USN Personnel. William D. Porter, Fletcher, Kidd

US cruisers (calibre irrelevant): Cities. Des Moines, Baltimore, Cleveland,  Omaha, Atlanta.

US battleships: States of the US. Arizona, Missouri, Texas, Montana, North Carolina.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

@TD1 at it with the quality nomenclature clarification :cap_like: Do you mind if I put that into the OP for future readers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles
8 minutes ago, DeadArashi said:

@TD1 at it with the quality nomenclature clarification :cap_like: Do you mind if I put that into the OP for future readers?

No worries, go ahead.

 

I wonder how everyone outside of me, DeadArashi, and InterconKW think of this idea though. We need to know their opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles
3 hours ago, DeadArashi said:

I feel like at this point it would gain more attention via the reddit then the forums

For some reason, Reddit's connection to my country is messed up, so sometimes I cannot see it. Besides, I have only now known the existence of the Reddit thread. Mind linking it here?

 

EDIT: There is another ship named Aki (and it's actually built to boot), but it's a semi-dreadnought (by all intents and purposes, it's something in between a pre-dreadnought and a typical dreadnought, or an "all-big-gun, mixed-calibre ship"), and sister ship of the Satsuma (i.e it's a Satsuma-class). With that in mind, I think we could even go overboard and add premiums to go along with these proposed battleships:

 

(WARNING, MIGHT GET BORING)

 

TIER 3: Satsuma (Satsuma-class)-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsuma-class_battleship;

Semi-dreadnoughts like Satsuma and Aki here are unique enough for me to consider their inclusion as premiums; my intent here was to mix in Aki's steam turbine engine (Satsuma still used pre-dreadnought era triple expansion steam engine) with Satsuma, giving her 20kt instead of 18kt. It's kinda hard to say further though, what with both ships possessing mixed calibres for turrets (they had 4 305mm guns in two twin-gun turrets placed fore and aft, as well as 254mm guns mounted in six twin-gun turrets, 3 on each side of the superstructure) and all. Given the aformentioned naming conflict, I insist on using the name Satsuma even though it uses Aki's engines.

 

I'm betting that the Satsuma could be a shop-sold premium and/or given away at events.

 

 

 

TIER 6: ISE (Ise-class)

"Why is Ise not a tier higher?!? Isn't it an improved version of the Fuso?!?"

Glad you asked. Sadly, Ise is a bit lacking in some categories compared to Fuso:

-AA. (Ise, post construction, only had 20 AA gun barrels in 10 twin-gun mounts post-modernisation in the 1930s, while Fuso during her last year of service carried 95 barrels of the same type of AA guns (i.e the Type 96 25mm gun), and even that is still not enough to make Fuso well-defended against aircraft. If 95 gun barrels couldn't do the job, what are the odds of roughly 1/5th of that amount?)

-Secondary batteries. (Ise had more secondaries compared to Fuso at 16 (8 each broadside) compared to 14 (7 on each broadside) respectively, but they are lighter at 140mm compared to 152mm, and IMO the increased rate of fire in-game is not really able to justify the lighter damage these 140mm rounds cause, and that's not even getting into Fuso not being well known for having good secondaries)

-Speed. (Post-modernisation Ise can reach 25kts, and Fuso in 1944 can do 24.5kts. Given the shortcomings of Ise, is a 0.5kt faster speed really enough to justify that?)

-Armor.(Historically, Fuso has a thicker armor belt (305mm vs 299mm),  thicker barbettes (305mm vs 299mm), and thicker turret faces (279.4mm vs 254mm), only tying Ise in deck armor (51-152mm, on her last year of service for Fuso, and after reconstruction in 1930s for Ise).

 

Don't get me wrong, Ise-class battleships were improvements over Fuso-class dreadnoughts in real life, but they were in areas that didn't matter much in-game (I'll quote the Wikipedia page on this:

Quote

The progress of Fusō's construction, while the IJN waited for the funding to be released and foreign developments, caused the IJN to reassess the Fusō-class design. The distribution of the midships gun turrets was the most obvious flaw as they complicated the protection of the midships magazine and exposed more of the ship to the blast effects of the guns when they fired. Another issue was that Japanese sailors had problems maintaining a high rate of fire with the 45.36-kilogram (100.0 lb) shells used in the manually loaded 152-millimetre (6 in) secondary guns used in the Fusō class and earlier designs. To resolve this issue, the IJN designed a smaller 140-millimetre (5.5 in) gun that offset its lighter shell weight with a higher rate of fire. It also decided that the barbette armour of the earlier ships was too thin and wanted a modest increase in speed to partially counter the higher speeds of the latest foreign ships like the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships and Russian Borodino-class battlecruisers. For financial reasons more powerful engines could not be ordered so the new design was lengthened slightly and the boiler rooms enlarged to increase speed by 0.5 knots (0.93 km/h; 0.58 mph) to 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph). To save weight the forecastle deck was shortened so that the lower midships gun turret was lower than in the Fusō class. This reduced the crew's accommodations despite a significant increase in the crew's numbers and naval historian Fukui Shizuo believed that these ships had the worst habitability of any Japanese capital ship. The final design was designated A-92 by the IJN.

My idea to differentiate this ship from her tech-tree half-sister is a commonly-known consumable rarely used on battleships: DFAA. Historically, there were type 3 "beehive" shells (Sanshikidan) for AA use, available in 356mm (Kongo-class, Fuso-class, Ise-class), 410mm (Nagato-class) and most famously 460mm (Yamato-class)

DFAA allows the 356mm guns on the Ise to act as dual-purpose guns (kinda like the 127mm/Mk38 guns of the USN), as well as boosting the fire rate of all of it's AA guns (it's only fair, because Ise has such a pitiful amount of AA guns) for a good 30-45sec duration or so. While I dunno if this could work and get Ise's AA defense to be acceptable or not, the scatter effect should give it extra survivability against CVs. 

 

Ise for me should stick to being store-sold. 

 

 

 

TIER 6: HYUGA (Ise-class)-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Hyūga

Here is my mad idea for a premium ship: a battleship/CV hybrid! Yes, I know that WG does not intend to make any CV-type premiums until the CV rework, but hopefully my idea will gain traction when it's done and out.

I intend for Hyuga to be in her 1944-1945 hybrid battleship/carrier configuration, obviously, and my very basic idea of her uniqueness is here:

SHE CARRIES BOTH SPOTTER AIRCRAFT AND DIVE BOMBERS!

I propose to allow the Ise access to dive bombers like its historical counterpart (which carried dive bombers)- Yokosuka D4Ys, the same ones you get on the in-game Shokaku. They will be consumables (like the hydro and the DFAA we all know), and here's how it works:


     -Using the consumable launches a 5-aircraft squadron of D4Y dive bombers (1 squadron in reserve) armed with HE bombs, that you can control just like a normal aircraft carrier (i.e by pressing 3). They have an active time of 5 minutes, after which they expire regardless of how many aircraft remain in the squad, and "return" to ship (i.e like a normal floatplane fighter/spotter), having a cooldown of 3min/180sec.

      -The premium version of the consumable renders these aircraft active for longer (6 instead of 5) and reduces the cooldown to 2min/120sec. No change to hangar capacity/aircraft per squad.

-In both cases, the Hyuga can carry 11 spotter planes (w/o premium aircraft) and 12 spotter planes (w/ premium aircraft). They stay active for 2 minutes each.

 

Also, her hybrid BB/CV configuration's AA complement included some AA rocket launchers; ideally, she gets access to DFAA like her sister ship, and this DFAA, like HMS Hood's, affects her AA rocket mounts.

 

Hyuga for me should be store-sold, although an in-game campaign to earn her (in the vein of Varyag, Indianapolis, Duke of York and Admiral Graf Spee) could also work given her uniqueness.

 

 

TIER 10: DESIGN A-150 AKA SUPER YAMATO

(Following Japanese ship naming nomenclature, I christen this one the Sagami, given that Yokosuka's Naval Arsenal (which was to build one of them), in modern-day Kanagawa prefecture, used to belong to two provinces: Sagami and Musashi. Musashi was already taken, so the choice was obvious)

 

 

WELCOME TO THE MOTHER OF ALL BATTLESHIPS.

 No, me hamming that one up was no joke. This is a ship designed to be the biggest, baddest ship ever built, with 510mm guns in three twin turrets, and a "large amount" of 100mm/65 Type 98 dual-purpose secondary guns (the ones on the Akizuki). Armor belt was 460mm, so thick that Japanese steel mills can't build it in one piece; it had to be split to two layers even though that would reduce the effectiveness of the armor belt (To me it kinda seems like they were trying spaced armor belts lol).

 

Sadly, the Japanese destroyed most of the data of this ship class near the end of the war, and what specifications are known is debated to some extent by historians. 

 

Given that WG won't "sell" any premium ship over T8, I'd safely bet this one is going to be Arsenal-exclusive, with either a large amount of coal (I'm talking 300 000 or more) or steel (more than Stalingrad) consumed to unlock and buy it. Or worse, both. Sorry guys, but there seems to be no other way.

 

 

 

Edited by TD1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles

@DeadArashi: Thanks alot, that really helped.

 

Most of the redditors that responded had been skeptical about putting Haruna at T6, calling Haruna compared to Kongo like Texas compared to New York- different enough to warrant distinction but not up-tiering. As sad as it would be for me if we were to replace her, I do have a solution:

Design B-65 of the IJN:

wppp-no-jp301asterix.png

The details of the ship are in the picture and linked thread. 

 

There's only two problems I had with this ship:

-It's a bit too modern for its tier, designed before/during WWII instead of the Washington Naval Treaty of the later B-62 (it has 100mm/65 Type 98 secondaries instead of the 127mm/40 Type 89 common to ships of that era including Amagi, for a start, and was even designed to carry AA rockets much like Hood did), so it could feel like Cleveland back when it was tier 6. 

-The lack of firepower is something too. It loses one 356mm turret from the Kongo, only having 6 guns to Kongo's 8.

 

 

Sadly, I was not able to find anymore data from searching the web for 1920s-1930s era of IJN battlecruiser design, so this is my take with whatever data I have.

 

As for Haruna, I think we can make her like WG made Texas: give it strong AA or some other stat tweaks to make her different enough to Kongo (like Texas is to New York), slap on a camo based on the modern Japanese flag (or hell, invite Makoto Kobayashi and let him design the camo, what he did with Roma was impressive), and sell her on the premium store as a T5 battleship, which will partially remedy some of the complaints I see in other regions about the Japanese lacking premiums.

Share this post


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

I believe that it should be fine for two main reasons;

  • The same tiered Fuso is missing it's original 1915 build configuration and is in her 1944 configuration. While the Nagato at a tier higher is missing her 1944 refit and is somewhere between the original and refit
  • WG doesn't particularly care much for armament dates; the Amagi in it's 1939 refit in-game has 25mm AA guns despite those guns not entering service until 1941.

The AA rockets might be pushing it a bit but in terms of armament, armor and mobility it would fit very well into the midtier BC line

Yes it loses a gun over the Kongo but that secondary and AA looks a hell of a lot stronger, not to mention it also becomes faster

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles
14 minutes ago, DeadArashi said:

I believe that it should be fine for two main reasons;

  • The same tiered Fuso is missing it's original 1915 build configuration and is in her 1944 configuration. While the Nagato at a tier higher is missing her 1944 refit and is somewhere between the original and refit
  • WG doesn't particularly care much for armament dates; the Amagi in it's 1939 refit in-game has 25mm AA guns despite those guns not entering service until 1941.

The AA rockets might be pushing it a bit but in terms of armament, armor and mobility it would fit very well into the midtier BC line

Yes it loses a gun over the Kongo but that secondary and AA looks a hell of a lot stronger, not to mention it also becomes faster

Well, if you think it's fine, I recommend replacing Haruna with B-65 and informing the Reddit page of this development. That means finding a new name though, and I do not know for sure where this ship was to be laid down.

Edited by TD1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
68 posts
707 battles
3 minutes ago, TD1 said:

That means finding a new name though, and I do not know for sure where this ship was to be laid down.

The only name I can find is it being called the Ishikari-class. This is actually fine as a name because there is a Mount Ishikari located in Hokkaido. So it could be that the lead ship in the class was to be built somewhere in Hokkaido. 

Should this be the case it would follow Japanese nomenclature 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles

I'd stick with Ishikari then, as Hokkaido has over 100 mountains and Ishikari is just one of them. The tallest in Hokkaido is actually Asahi, but given that it's a name that's already taken by the proposed tier 2 battleship above, it's off limits.

If you have to ask me though, my favorite names would be Raiden and Hakodate. They are both mountains in Hokkaido too.

Share this post


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

I feel that Ishikari would work best though.  The name is a bit ironic in that it would work be it a light cruiser or a heavy cruiser since the Ishikari River runs from the Ishikari sub-Provence all the way to the Ishikari Mountains (which is actually a group of multiple mountains).

But if it was named the Ishikari-class then it could easily have the sister ships named after the other mountains;

  • Ishikari
  • Otofuke
  • Mikuni
  • Yuniishikari
  • Numanohara

all of these mountains are part of the "Ishikari Mountains"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles
4 minutes ago, DeadArashi said:

I feel that Ishikari would work best though.  The name is a bit ironic in that it would work be it a light cruiser or a heavy cruiser since the Ishikari River runs from the Ishikari sub-Provence all the way to the Ishikari Mountains (which is actually a group of multiple mountains).

But if it was named the Ishikari-class then it could easily have the sister ships named after the other mountains;

  • Ishikari
  • Otofuke
  • Mikuni
  • Yuniishikari
  • Numanohara

all of these mountains are part of the "Ishikari Mountains"

That works too. Ishikari it is then.

 

I suggest that the tech tree be updated:

BATTLESHIP LINE

Asahi->Kawachi->Aki->Bingo->Fuso->Nagato->Tosa->Izumo->Yamato

 

BATTLECRUISER LINE

Asahi->Kawachi->Myogi->Kongo->Ishikari->Tekari->Amagi->Ushiro->Hakone

 

PREMIUMS (OPTIONAL)*

(*see one of my previous posts for details)

Tier 3: Satsuma

Tier 6: Ise (battleship), Hyuga (hybrid)

Tier 10: Sagami (Design A-150)

 

The premiums include radical concepts, so they can be left out for now.

As for a redditor's concern about other nations not receiving T2 battleships, I intended for Asahi to be a "test run" to see how pre-dreadnoughts fare in T2, including against the supposedly superior first generation of dreadnoughts like Nassau and Kawachi. If all goes according to plan, we might see more pre dreadnoughts in the game (like for Imperial Russia/USSR, Germany, USA, UK, or Italy, for instance) as premiums (for nations with no battleship lines yet) or tech tree battleships (for those that already have at least 1 battleship line).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles

@DeadArashi: Is this an idea we are ready to take to WG? (Insofar that I can do it, that is, because I have absolutely no idea on how this whole suggestions thread works, so if anyone is willing to help me post here)

 

One of the redditor's replies says that he's just fine with the current tech tree proposal, so there's that, though we would have to wait for further replies to see the reception.

Edited by TD1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles

Someone on Reddit said that the progress from B-65 to B-62 is illogical in his opinion, calling the B-65 a T9-T10 cruiser just like Kronsthadt or Alaska. While I disagree with his reasoning (IMO if we were to treat the Kongo as a cruiser it would also be rather high in tier, and we won't be able to balance Amagi enough for her to fit into the 10 tiers of the game if it were a cruiser) I have also found backup plans in case he is vindicated.

Although these designs are from a DeviantArt user named Tzoli (so full credit to him) and so may not be fully realistic.

 

One of the replacements I propose is what Tzoli proposed was a hypothetical modernisation made by Tzoli himself to Design III of the Japanese 1916 battlecruiser study conducted by Yuzuru Hiraga:

Modernised Design III Battlecruiser by Tzoli


Data on the design:
Dimensions: 295m x 29,56m x 9m
Displacement: 44.500tons standard
Engines: 215.000shp, 6 shafts
Maximum Speed: 65km/h (35knots)
Range: Unknown
Armour: 305mm Belt, 76mm Deck
Armaments:
4x2 41cm Type 3 Cannons
20x1 14cm Type 3 Casemated Guns
4x1 8cm Type 3 AA Guns
4x1 533mm Above Water Torpedo Tubes
4x1 533mm Submerged Torpedo Tubes

Data on the modernised design:
Armaments:
4x2 41cm Type 3 Cannons
20x1 14cm Type 3 Casemated Guns
12x2 12,7cm Type 89 DP-AA Guns
24x3,40x2 20mm Type 96 AA Guns
4x2 610mm Torpedo Tubes
3x Mitsubishi F1M Paul Floatplanes

These could be considered a battlecruiser variant of the in-game Mutsu, except with AA that actually works and a significantly improved speed (it's a big ship that can go fricking 35 knots!). To balance out the massive gun calibre, we can give it terrible dispersion and/or clumsy penetration (like

 

 

Another design I propose to change it is a prospected replacement for the Kongo-class, that would have been built had the London Naval Treaty not happened and all its signatories didn't have to modernise their existing warships in change.

Kongo Replacement Design 30K Variant E by Tzoli


The design had the following characteristics:
Dimensions: unknown (I've used these: 225 (wl) 227,5 (oa) x 31,5 m )
Displacement: 30.000tons (standard)
Armour: unknown (probably 213mm Deck, 343mm Belt)
Engines: 70-80.000shp, 3 shafts
Speed: 48km/h (26knots)


Armaments: 
3x3 356mm/50 Type 90 Cannons
4x2,8x1 152mm/50 43rd Year Type Guns
4x2 12cm/45 10th Year Type DP-AA Guns
4x1 40mm Type HI AA guns (I've added it to the design)
2x1 61cm Underwater Torpedo Tubes

2-3x Seaplanes (Nakajima E4N)

 

This is closer to a true battleship than a batteship due to the reduced speed and increased armor, so it's a bit of a stretch. Still, could be considered, as it was faster than the

 

As for the names:

-Sadly, Design III of the 1916 battlecruiser design is kinda hard to find data for, which infuriates me. Considering they were (by Tzoli's own words) related to the Nagato-class by virtue of being basically battlecruiser versions of the Nagato, I assigned it the name Jakuchi, a mountain in Yamaguchi Prefecture, whose territory was a merger of Suo and Nagato.

-The proposed Kongo-class replacement, I shall name it Ikoma, a mountain that lies in the border between Osaka and Nara prefectures in modern-day Japan (since Osaka prefecture is where Mount Kongo, the namesake for the vessel (and by extension vessel class) this ship class was intended to replace, is located.)

So the choices are:

-B-65 (Ishikari)

-Design III, 1916 Japanese battlecruiser study conducted by Yuzuru Hiraga (here christened Jakuchi)

-Hypothetical Design of 1930, intended to replace the Kongo-class (here christened Ikoma).

 

 

Here are the links to the DeviantArt posts I used for them:

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Modernised-Design-III-Battlecruiser-588837194

https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Kongo-Replacement-Design-30K-Variant-E-734482584

 

And just for a heads up @DeadArashi: you forgot to edit the tech tree to reflect the change from Haruna to B-65:Smile_teethhappy:.

Edited by TD1

Share this post


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

I feel the Modernised Design III would be way too strong for tier 6. That's armor comparable to the Mutsu, the main armament of the Mutsu, better AA and secondaries then the Mutsu, the same torpedoes as the Mutsu... while going nearly 10kn faster then it. That's getting more into tier 8 territory.

The Kongo replacement design looks interesting but armor and speed would make it a bit off from the rest of the battlecruiser line and be more like a dreadnought line. That's not to say that it couldn't fit at tier 6, it could even be used as a ship to cross from the Kongo into the dreadnought style line.


I still think the B-65 would be the best because, while it wouldn't make sense logically, it would still fit the line without needing any hypothetical what-if modernisation.

 

19 minutes ago, TD1 said:

And just for a heads up @DeadArashi: you forgot to edit the tech tree to reflect the change from Haruna to B-65:Smile_teethhappy:.

Just fixed that, thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles

Yeah, my reaction at the hypothetically modernised Design III (Jakuchi) was "whoa whoa whoa, that's bristling with armament!". T8 premium battleship (accompanying Kii already ingame) perhaps?

 

Ah, I get what you said with Kongo replacement. It would be like Churchill I -> Churchill GC-> AT-15 in World of Tanks.

I'm not sure on the prospect of doing it, but we can also propose a transition:

Kongo-> Ikoma -> Nagato.

 

Well, if you want to stick to B-65 (or here called Isikari), we may need to confirm this on Reddit and tell the redditors why. I would do it myself but Reddit in my country loads at a glacial pace or altogether won't load, and I do not have an account on Reddit.

Edited by TD1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,707 battles

I wrote up my take on the tech tree DeadArashi has posted kindly here, putting in several of my ship offerings. It's in the image:

15322757121841166714240.jpg

Share this post


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

Food for thought, if the Design III modernisation gave it similar secondaries and AA to the Mutsu then it should be fine 

What I was then thinking for the Ishikari was to put it up at tier 8 as a branch from the tier 7 Myoko into the tier 9 Ushiro. Give it both the 9 x 310mm as stock and a hull upgrade that lets the 6 x 356mm guns be mounted.

This would create the most logical design flow since the Design 3 was later used for the B-62, which in turn was used for the B-64 Amagi. The B-65 would no longer be before the Amagi and instead be a route for players to get from the cruiser line to the battlecruisers. 

bHfVXKK.png

Edited by DeadArashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×