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

Some US ship design shenanigans - In-game and possible future ships

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,747
Member
3,675 posts
7,459 battles

This thread includes possible memes and new ships for the game. I think.

 

"Subclasses" of Atlanta-class

Spoiler

Atlanta.thumb.jpg.f5c5e23da6f89881ef579a3cdd0c171e.jpg

 

"OMG you guys did an AMAZING job making new classes"

Spoiler

1798621487_cutofffunnels.thumb.jpg.048034eb3bef3fb7386c9c1c17272ba2.jpg

 

Gearing preliminary designs

 

 

Alaska preliminary designs

 

 

 

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[-CAT-]
Member
907 posts
8,287 battles

I want to see 127 mm (5 in)/54 cal version of Worcester and Gearing. Guns are already mounted on Montana and Ohio. Chop, chop, glue, glue. Another T9 or T10 Spammer.

Blame the Bayard for this idea.

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
Member
3,675 posts
7,459 battles
57 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

I want to see 127 mm (5 in)/54 cal version of Worcester and Gearing. Guns are already mounted on Montana and Ohio. Chop, chop, glue, glue. Another T9 or T10 Spammer.

At first I thought "what is the difference" but then I remember the ones on Gearing are 127/38 cal not 127/54 cal. I think the 127/54 cal might be too big for Gearing hull (?)

Worc with 5 inch turrets is like Juneau-class with better hull... 

 

57 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

Blame the Bayard for this idea.

Bayard is more like "La Gal/De Grasse with 1 more main turret"

This is somewhat funny because De Grasse was completed post-war with the same armament as Colbert. One may say Colbert is an improved De Grasse.

WG revealed 'Marceau', which may be a T-47/Surcouf-class preliminary with 4 turrets instead of 3. Naval Legend: Maille-Breze is a T-47-class

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
889 posts
3,793 battles

I would rather believe that Bayard represented a post-war large CL project with 4 triple 152-mm turrents, briefly planned by the French in the last year of the war but scrapped in 1948, as described by John Jordan and Jean Moulin in "French Cruisers: 1922~1956", a useful book concerning about the design and service of modern French cruisers from the interwar period to the final days of gun cruisers, kindly provided by a friend in my home country who was working for promoting WOWS then.

According to the same source, before finally making the decision to convert De Grasse into the AA cruiser, it had been discussed to complete her as a conventional CL roughly like a revised Pre-war original design with much improved AA suite comparable to the ones of similiar contemporary Allied warships in late WW2. The plan however was repeatly delayed by a chronic shortage of funds and severe disruption to French shipbuilding industry caused by the War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
453
[SALT]
Member
1,705 posts
9,981 battles
7 hours ago, Paladinum said:

At first I thought "what is the difference" but then I remember the ones on Gearing are 127/38 cal not 127/54 cal. I think the 127/54 cal might be too big for Gearing hull (?)

127/54 mount is around 30 percent heavier. Thats why irl its canceled (the twin version). They see it no point if the increased gun performance be traded with ship carry less gun. Its marginal trade at best. 

The single gun version is ok though, its the one mounted on harekaze (and midway) btw. So if you want 3x1 settup for gearring its possible. But 3x2 need to be traded with like less torps launcher or something else prob - like speed. Or maybe same performance but layout is 2x2

There dd with 3x1 layout though. Jsmdf 1950 Akizuki and murasame class. Might be good premium candidate too

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
Member
3,675 posts
7,459 battles

No one is going to comment on Oakland, Juneau, Fargo and Oregon City-classes?

Imma gonna cri  :Smile_unsure: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
889 posts
3,793 battles
2 hours ago, Paladinum said:

No one is going to comment on Oakland, Juneau, Fargo and Oregon City-classes?

Imma gonna cri  :Smile_unsure: 

I have read about someone in the NA Forum joking that the T9 USN CL should be Fargo as many people have been complaining that Seattle is disappointing, underperforming, even worse than Cleveland, not to say a slightly tweaked one according to some of her worst critics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
Member
3,675 posts
7,459 battles
1 hour ago, Project45_Opytny said:

I have read about someone in the NA Forum joking that the T9 USN CL should be Fargo as many people have been complaining that Seattle is disappointing, underperforming, even worse than Cleveland, not to say a slightly tweaked one according to some of her worst critics.

As an owner of the ship, I do think that Seattle is disappointing in many aspects. Gun reload time should be no more than 6s, but Seattle has 6,5s. Turrets rotate at the same speed. Agility is probably worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
453
[SALT]
Member
1,705 posts
9,981 battles

That because seattle is a turd.

the turret angle is one of the worst you have ever play, and the AA is laughable

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[-CAT-]
Member
907 posts
8,287 battles
14 hours ago, Paladinum said:

At first I thought "what is the difference" but then I remember the ones on Gearing are 127/38 cal not 127/54 cal. I think the 127/54 cal might be too big for Gearing hull (?)

Worc with 5 inch turrets is like Juneau-class with better hull...

5 turrets looks and feels like a Dido / Minotour. The British can have the 5 turret 133mm (5.25 in). The US must have 6. They usually dont carry torps as a take away.

There is the Mitscher-hull. Think of it as a preliminary like " T-47/Surcouf-class preliminary with 4 turrets instead of 3". So 3 turrets, single mount or dual mount. :Smile_hiding:

7 hours ago, humusz said:

127/54 mount is around 30 percent heavier. Thats why irl its canceled (the twin version). They see it no point if the increased gun performance be traded with ship carry less gun. Its marginal trade at best. 

The single gun version is ok though, its the one mounted on harekaze (and midway) btw. So if you want 3x1 settup for gearring its possible. But 3x2 need to be traded with like less torps launcher or something else prob - like speed. Or maybe same performance but layout is 2x2

There dd with 3x1 layout though. Jsmdf 1950 Akizuki and murasame class. Might be good premium candidate too

There were single mounts, in the Midway. Though I have to agree on the heavier shell, its a compromise for a slower reaload but increase penetration (especially if IFHE is added). I won't mind increasing the relod time between 4.5 to 5.5 sec (BFT can still lower that as it is only 127mm). 

 

6 hours ago, Paladinum said:

No one is going to comment on Oakland, Juneau, Fargo and Oregon City-classes?

Imma gonna cri  :Smile_unsure: 

N. Carolina and S.Dakota classes are on T8, so Fargo and Oregon City at T8.

Oakland / Juneau can take the T8 slot.

1 hour ago, Paladinum said:

As an owner of the ship, I do think that Seattle is disappointing in many aspects. Gun reload time should be no more than 6s, but Seattle has 6,5s. Turrets rotate at the same speed. Agility is probably worse.

I still dont have Seattle, but looking at the specs, Agree with both of you. Seattle reload should be in par with Woooster. They have the same guns "152 mm (6 in)/47 cal DP guns". The only difference is gins in the turret. Slower turret traverse is the penalty for the triple mount (Thouhg could still add some more grease to make it a bit faster, but not as fast as Woooster).

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
Member
3,675 posts
7,459 battles
13 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

Fargo and Oregon City at T8.

Oakland / Juneau can take the T8 slot.

I would not be surprised if Fargo and Oregon City-classes are released as T9 freemiums either :Smile_teethhappy:

 

13 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

Oakland / Juneau can take the T8 slot.

They are kinda worse than Atlanta, one has less turrets, the other has less turrets AND no torpedoes, other specs are similar... Juneau may be a T6, even.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
889 posts
3,793 battles

About bumping Fargo to T9 with a heal and some other tweaks (better rudder shift and turning circle for example), there already exist examples like Furutaka C-hull and Aoba, or 203-mm Mogami and Ibuki.

Or maybe we can try to search in the related USN archives about planned early cold war modernization of Cleveland-class cruisers that are minor and limited enough to be included in this game, like adapting new 76-mm AA guns like the Baltimore-class.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
Member
3,675 posts
7,459 battles
7 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

 

Or maybe we can try to search in the related USN archives about planned early cold war modernization of Cleveland-class cruisers that are minor and limited enough to be included in this game, like adapting new 76-mm AA guns like the Baltimore-class.

Three-turreted Cleveland preliminary? The RN has Ceylon group (3 main turrets) within Crown Colony-class (4 main turrets) :Smile_hiding: Also Minotaur/Swiftsure-class

 

WG can bring back their initial design for Buffalo, T10 with torp tubes :Smile-_tongue:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,477
[MRI]
Member
2,711 posts
12,994 battles
10 hours ago, humusz said:

127/54 mount is around 30 percent heavier. Thats why irl its canceled (the twin version). They see it no point if the increased gun performance be traded with ship carry less gun. Its marginal trade at best. 

The single gun version is ok though, its the one mounted on harekaze (and midway) btw. So if you want 3x1 settup for gearring its possible. But 3x2 need to be traded with like less torps launcher or something else prob - like speed. Or maybe same performance but layout is 2x2

There dd with 3x1 layout though. Jsmdf 1950 Akizuki and murasame class. Might be good premium candidate too

 

3 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

There were single mounts, in the Midway. Though I have to agree on the heavier shell, its a compromise for a slower reaload but increase penetration (especially if IFHE is added). I won't mind increasing the relod time between 4.5 to 5.5 sec (BFT can still lower that as it is only 127mm). 

Just want to point out that the 3x1 setup on the Harekaze is actually pretty uncompetitive, especially after the IJN 100mm pen buff and the IJN 127mm HE damage buff. It actually has one of the lowest HE DPM at that tier. Imo a 3x1 setup will only work if the RoF or alpha was greatly increased. This is especially true for the JSDF Akizuki and Murasame class since the only torps they had were ASW ones.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
Member
3,675 posts
7,459 battles
15 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

Imo a 3x1 setup will only work if the RoF or alpha was greatly increased

Harekaze at least has torpedoes.

But three guns? Need less than 2s reload or something. Alpha? People will cri 'but they are only 127 mm' or something like that.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
453
[SALT]
Member
1,705 posts
9,981 battles
26 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

 

Just want to point out that the 3x1 setup on the Harekaze is actually pretty uncompetitive, especially after the IJN 100mm pen buff and the IJN 127mm HE damage buff. It actually has one of the lowest HE DPM at that tier. Imo a 3x1 setup will only work if the RoF or alpha was greatly increased. This is especially true for the JSDF Akizuki and Murasame class since the only torps they had were ASW ones.

Thats why I said trading gun performance with less gun is marginal at best

and We have sub soon aint it ? :fish_haloween:

 

3 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

There were single mounts, in the Midway. Though I have to agree on the heavier shell, its a compromise for a slower reaload but increase penetration (especially if IFHE is added). I won't mind increasing the relod time between 4.5 to 5.5 sec (BFT can still lower that as it is only 127mm). 

You can play harekaze with the setup, and consider if Gearing with same setup is worth losing 3 gun over

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
Member
3,675 posts
7,459 battles

On the topic of different armament:

Dido-class, afaik, has 2 gun sizes, 104 and 133. Why not 120?

And some people say that Dido-class is a result of a development of destroyer flotilla leader designs (which created Tribal-class). So I really want to see the designs within that process.
*four-turreted Lightning intensifies*

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[-CAT-]
Member
907 posts
8,287 battles
5 hours ago, Paladinum said:

I would not be surprised if Fargo and Oregon City-classes are released as T9 freemiums either :Smile_teethhappy:

 

They are kinda worse than Atlanta, one has less turrets, the other has less turrets AND no torpedoes, other specs are similar... Juneau may be a T6, even.

Usually, US cruisers don't have torpedoes, but gives a lot for conumable. I guess its the gimmik in the US side?

On the other hand, I dont mind seeing US CLAA carry torpedoes. :Smile_teethhappy:

5 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

About bumping Fargo to T9 with a heal and some other tweaks (better rudder shift and turning circle for example), there already exist examples like Furutaka C-hull and Aoba, or 203-mm Mogami and Ibuki.

Or maybe we can try to search in the related USN archives about planned early cold war modernization of Cleveland-class cruisers that are minor and limited enough to be included in this game, like adapting new 76-mm AA guns like the Baltimore-class.

76 mm (3 in) AA guns on T9 or T10, I'm game

 

2 hours ago, Thyaliad said:

 

Just want to point out that the 3x1 setup on the Harekaze is actually pretty uncompetitive, especially after the IJN 100mm pen buff and the IJN 127mm HE damage buff. It actually has one of the lowest HE DPM at that tier. Imo a 3x1 setup will only work if the RoF or alpha was greatly increased. This is especially true for the JSDF Akizuki and Murasame class since the only torps they had were ASW ones.

 

1 hour ago, Paladinum said:

Harekaze at least has torpedoes.

But three guns? Need less than 2s reload or something. Alpha? People will cri 'but they are only 127 mm' or something like that.

I don't have Harekaze, but I think WG needs to tweak her a bit. 3 guns in current Japan gimmick does not sound fun. :Smile_sad:

Maybe im just limiting my self, but increased caliber/calibre may have increased penetration, but still have the same damage output? Lesser gun should increase reload time "make use of the spare crew"?

My head hurts crunching in the numbers

1 hour ago, humusz said:

Thats why I said trading gun performance with less gun is marginal at best

and We have sub soon aint it ? :fish_haloween:

 

You can play harekaze with the setup, and consider if Gearing with same setup is worth losing 3 gun over

3 gun for 127 mm / 38 cal with 3.3 second, hmmmm (Looking at Monaghan). It's playing both Japan and US playstyle. I admit this is hard in Random.

Japan ships usually ninja play style, rely on stealth and torp. US ships are gunslingers, their rate of fire will be their talking point.

127 mm / 48 cal 54 cal with auto-loader / self loading guns, her rate of fire "may be" increased (1.5 s per shot?) even if it is 1 gun turret. And they have torps.

127 mm / 48 cal 54 cal without auto-loader / self lowading guns, 4.5 to 5.5 s. But must be dual mount. Otherwise its unplayable at high tier as a DD.

US T10 ships will mostly have this hidden tech (auto-loader / self loading guns) in their ships. Except for their BB (they already have good slot 3 and slot 6 upgrade as compensation).

5_inch_Mark_42.jpg

According to wiki: "As built/designed: 40 rounds per minute automatic" Thats around 1.5 s reload? Correct me if I am wrong.

 

We may be limiting ourselves to what WG gimmick is giving to us. WG can break their own gimmick if they want to. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
453
[SALT]
Member
1,705 posts
9,981 battles
33 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

Usually, US cruisers don't have torpedoes, but gives a lot for conumable. I guess its the gimmik in the US side?

On the other hand, I dont mind seeing US CLAA carry torpedoes. :Smile_teethhappy:

76 mm (3 in) AA guns on T9 or T10, I'm game

 

 

I don't have Harekaze, but I think WG needs to tweak her a bit. 3 guns in current Japan gimmick does not sound fun. :Smile_sad:

Maybe im just limiting my self, but increased caliber/calibre may have increased penetration, but still have the same damage output? Lesser gun should increase reload time "make use of the spare crew"?

My head hurts crunching in the numbers

3 gun for 127 mm / 38 cal with 3.3 second, hmmmm (Looking at Monaghan). It's playing both Japan and US playstyle. I admit this is hard in Random.

Japan ships usually ninja play style, rely on stealth and torp. US ships are gunslingers, their rate of fire will be their talking point.

127 mm / 48 cal with auto-loader / self loading guns, her rate of fire "may be" increased (1.5 s per shot?) even if it is 1 gun turret. And they have torps.

127 mm / 48 cal without auto-loader / self lowading guns, 4.5 to 5.5 s. But must be dual mount. Otherwise its unplayable at high tier as a DD.

US T10 ships will mostly have this hidden tech (auto-loader / self loading guns) in their ships. Except for their BB (they already have good slot 3 and slot 6 upgrade as compensation).

5_inch_Mark_42.jpg

According to wiki: "As built/designed: 40 rounds per minute automatic" Thats around 1.5 s reload? Correct me if I am wrong.

127/48 is design in 1940. It dont have autoloader. 

Your pic is 127/54 that like 1960 standard. It and actualy can fire 48 shell a min. Its mod still used by today navies lol.

Its different gun, its mod 4 is like still used in Arleigh Burke class

Edited by humusz
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[-CAT-]
Member
907 posts
8,287 battles
16 minutes ago, humusz said:

127/48 is design in 1940. It dont have autoloader. 

Your pic is 127/54 that like 1960 standard. It and actualy can fire 48 shell a min. Its mod still used by today navies lol.

Oops, my bad, 54 cal is the correct one. There is no 48 cal. Thanks for correcting me. :Smile_honoring:

1953 model in the Mitscher class. Earliest adoption is the Mk. 42 with auto loader. I believe. Current navy adoption is Mk. 45?

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
Member
3,675 posts
7,459 battles
42 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

US T10 ships will mostly have this hidden tech (auto-loader / self loading guns) in their ships. Except for their BB (they already have good slot 3 and slot 6 upgrade as compensation).

If they want, they can make triple 406 mm guns with reload time of 10 seconds :Smile_trollface: They just don't see the point though.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
453
[SALT]
Member
1,705 posts
9,981 battles
20 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

Oops, my bad, 54 cal is the correct one. There is no 48 cal. Thanks for correcting me. :Smile_honoring:

also The Midway one is 127/54 Mk 16 (midway-harekaze) is diffrent from cold war 127/54 Mk 42.

Mk 42 is freshly developed in 1950. it diffrent in Mk16 in everyway aside from same caliber. but they both can share same ammo

Edited by humusz
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[-CAT-]
Member
907 posts
8,287 battles
2 minutes ago, humusz said:

also The Midway one is 127/54 Mk 16 (midway-harekaze) is diffrent from cold war 127/54 Mk 42.

Mk 42 is freshly developed in 1950. it diffrent in Mk16 in everyway aside from same caliber. but they both can share same ammo

:Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[-CAT-]
Member
907 posts
8,287 battles
19 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

If they want, they can make triple 406 mm guns with reload time of 10 seconds :Smile_trollface: They just don't see the point though.

Just for funzies

305 mm, 10 :Smile_trollface:
406 mm, 15 :Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface:
457 mm, 18 :Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface:

All those + slot 6 reload upgrade :Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface:

:Smile_playing:

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
Member
3,675 posts
7,459 battles
12 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

Just for funzies

305 mm, 10 :Smile_trollface:
406 mm, 15 :Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface:
457 mm, 18 :Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface:

All those + slot 6 reload upgrade :Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface::Smile_trollface:

:Smile_playing:

Tier 13, by the way

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×