Jump to content
Jarkorsis

USS Texas

Recommended Posts

This is a better New York. Even though it is a bit pricey without the bundle. The monthly missions for exp kind of make up for the cost. The bundle is a good value. ($5 for flags and 30 days premium is cheap as a normal month of premium purchased on sale is $8.50 or so) 

The AA is much better than you would think. Just remember to CNTL click the torp bombers. Two of these babies sailing together will just about eat anything that a CV will throw at them. I expect that CV captains will start leaving you alone if they want any of their planes left for later in the match. Kongo is still a bit better overall, but this is a good US trainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still can't win with WG sales. The individual ship/port option should be $5-$10 cheaper. The bundles actually seen pretty good, but I really need a gold bundle not a premium time bundle. My biggest limiting factor in the game is lack of port slots and lack of space for my commanders. Both of these need gold to remedy.

With that being said the Texas is still tempting. I enjoyed then New York, and this looks better. Also looks like a good trainer for my other BB captain's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MntRunner said:

My biggest limiting factor in the game is lack of port slots and lack of space for my commanders.

There's an upcoming discount on port slots for Memorial Day weekend FYI.

http://worldofwarships.com/en/content/docs/event-preview/

I'm enjoying the hell out of my Texas.  I didn't particularly enjoy my New York back when I played it, but I was still learning a few things and was under the spell of the old "range mods decrease your accuracy at all ranges" myth.  The Texas with range mod and better turret angles is actually pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually thought the ship would be $30 alone, so when I saw the fully loaded bundle I snatched it right up. I loved my new york and I absolutely love this thing. It is a complete monster in the right hands. I'm tempted to spec it for AA as I have my main line us BBs, but the AA is good for its tier I might spec into something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a 155k damage Battle in the Texas the other day with 15 planes wrecked and 4 kills .... bad news was we still lost because the lemming train of 6 ca's/dd's got smashed in the 1st 5 minutes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, TheMarine0341 said:

I picked it up on sale, no regrets thus far. 

The same, being able to buy it 50% off of the normal gold price price made it a no brainer.  I had been using the Arkansas beta as my American prem. trainer, but the flood of low tier aircraft carriers plus ZERO AA made it a session of "dodge mah torps" most times I took it out.  I first ran the AA buff module on it, but quickly found that increasing the range of the main guns was a better use for the slot.  My enhanced AA range was not enough to deter Tier 7 planes from attacking and I was being kited badly by same tier and higher BB's and CA's  who strongly out ranged me.  My damage done and survivability went up quickly after that - low tier carriers are only going after you if they are clueless or out of easier targets to focus.

The best part is being able to buy that America Camo when it gets released!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the extra gun range is a waste, 15.6km works fine for me, and the AA on the Texas is good enough to kill entire squadrons of t7 planes, with only 1-2 planes surviving long enough to drop their weapons most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TouchFluffyTail said:

I think the extra gun range is a waste, 15.6km works fine for me, and the AA on the Texas is good enough to kill entire squadrons of t7 planes, with only 1-2 planes surviving long enough to drop their weapons most of the time.

I respect that, but I have not had the good fortune of being attacked by carrier squadrons regularly yet, and being engaged  by tier 6 & 7 Cruisers and BB's has happened every match for me ( not a tier 5 match yet).  If I get a different vibe after 40-50 matches I will reconsider, but my game experience has not been the same as yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run into a lot of Kongo class BBs, and find the extra range a necessity because of the lack of speed in the Texas.  With the 18 km range, and better armor it evens up the odds in favor of the Texas.  Otherwise they can totally kite you because they outgun and run you by such a wide margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the layout or quality was better, but the Texas had more which is why the Kongo was so fast.

Quote

 

from wiki

Kongo -

 
Displacement: 36,600 long tons
Length: 222 m (728 ft 4 in)
Beam: 31 m (101 ft 8 in)
Draught

9.7 m (31 ft 10 in)

 

 

Decks: 2.3–1.5 in (58–38 mm) (later strengthened +101 mm on ammo storage, +76 mm on engine room)

Turrets: 9 in (230 mm)

Barbettes: 10 in (250 mm)

Belt: 8–11 in (200–280 mm)

Texas -

Displacement:
Length:

573 ft (175 m) (overall)

Beam: 95 ft 2.5 in (29.020 m)
Draft:

28 ft 6 in (8.69 m) (mean)

29 ft 7 in (9.02 m) (max))

 

Belt:

  • 10–12 in (254–305 mm) (midships)6 in (152 mm) (aft)
  • 9 in (229 mm) (lower belt aft)
  • Bulkheads:
  • 10 in (254 mm) and 11 in (279 mm)Barbettes:
  • 5–12 in (127–305 mm)
  • Turrets:
  • 14 in (356 mm) (face)
  • 4 in (102 mm) (top)
  • 8–9 in (203–229 mm) (sides)
  • 8 in (rear)
  • Decks:
  • 1.5–3 in (38–76 mm)
  • Conning tower:
  • 12 in
  • 4 in (top)
    •  

 

 

 

 

      •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xWulffx said:

Maybe the layout or quality was better, but the Texas had more which is why the Kongo was so fast.

      •  

Not only the mass of the ship, but the shape. The Kongo is much sleeker, and has more depth, meaning it has to push more water, but it also has a much lower drag coefficient. In addition, the power difference, at 136,000shp to the Texas' 28,100, you can see why the Kongo is so much faster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TouchFluffyTail said:

Unfortunately, the armor isn't significantly better than that of the Kongo, and in some cases it's actually worse. Not to mention it's very easy to corner ships to keep them from running.

Texas (and New York) armor is a good bit more derp-proof than Kongo, having an extra 2-4" belt in some areas.  It doesn't have the all-or-nothing like higher US battleships, but it can still protect players that aren't paying attention and have bad angles, until the distance closes to probably 12km or lower.  I don't find that it takes many citadels past that, at least not compared to Kongo.  The only real deficiency that Texas has is its difficulty in handling close-range destroyers due to the lack of secondaries, slow speed, and longer main battery reload.

But yes, I think Kongo's armor is more than good enough when properly angled by a good player.  I've been enjoying my Texas and think it's a great ship, but I've still kept my Kongo with good commander for any future competitive tier 5 stuff that may or may not pop up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SoliDeo for the speed/power/drag explanation it was very good, but I referenced the dimensions to illustrate the size mass difference in respect to weight and armor.

The Texas was built with a narrow beam to facilitate travelling through the Panama canal. However, it's been noted that while it's armor was superior to the Wyoming class, it was inferior to the Nevada class all or nothing design. As far as I know, neither the NY nor the Texas ever engaged in any ship to ship combat except some minor U-boat encounters.

I found where the Kongo itself was designed/built under contract in the UK and used Vickers Cemented Armor and the other 3 ships in its class were built in Japan using Krupp Cemented Armor. Not sure which armor was better and found no reference to the steel used on the NY class for comparison.

Whether or not the actual type of armor is a factor in the modeling, I do not know, perhaps someone here does ...

The only references I have for actual ship to ship battle performance are from the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal with the Hiei and Kirishima.  The Kongo was sunk by a submarine, and the Huruna was sunk by naval aircraft.

The Hiei got pretty beat up and was severely damage and disabled by 5 inch gunfire from the CL Atlanta a destroyer and the CA San Franciscos 8 inch guns, even though it was ultimately scuttled air attacks prohibited any chance of repair or escape. This battle shows more how insufficient it's armor was than anything else in my opinion.

A few days later the Kirishima tangled with the USS Washington and North Dakota both sporting 16" guns and got hammered eventually capsizing.  This isn't a "fair" match for comparison as the ship was totally outclassed and outgunned, outnumbered 2 to one in BBs.

How this all translate to actual in game armor depends on how well they modeled them, which for the most part and a few tweeks seem pretty good IMHO

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiei was actually fine from all the 5 inch gunfire she sustained: it was all entirely superstructure damage.  It was the 8 inch hit from San Francisco that crippled her, as it pierced her armor at close range and damaged her steering, making her unable to leave the battlefield before the bombers arrived at daybreak.

 

To compare, USS South Dakota the following night also took excessive superstructure damage from 14, 8, and 5 inch guns, with one of the 5 inch hits being the initial cause for her subsequent power failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mesrith said:

The only real deficiency that Texas has is its difficulty in handling close-range destroyers due to the lack of secondaries, slow speed, and longer main battery reload.

I find that none of this has any effect on the ability to engage destroyers. Even the heaviest of secondary batteries can't compare to the damage output of a BB's main batteries, and holding fire until a destroyer closes within 4km or turns to drop torps tends to leave you with a very dead target due to how easy they are to hit.

The real issue I find with the US dreadnought ships is their height above the waterline. There's simply so much weakly armored space available that they're incredibly vulnerable to penetrations from just about any gun in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Seraphil said:

Hiei was actually fine from all the 5 inch gunfire she sustained: it was all entirely superstructure damage.  It was the 8 inch hit from San Francisco that crippled her, as it pierced her armor at close range and damaged her steering, making her unable to leave the battlefield before the bombers arrived at daybreak.

To compare, USS South Dakota the following night also took excessive superstructure damage from 14, 8, and 5 inch guns, with one of the 5 inch hits being the initial cause for her subsequent power failure.

 

From wiki -

Quote

In turn, Hiei became the target of the majority of the American firepower, with the American 5-inch guns inflicting severe damage on Hiei's superstructure at close range; Admiral Abe himself was later injured after USS Laffey shelled the bridge with her own guns, killing his chief of staff, Captain Suzuki Masakane.

The first night they encountered only CAs/CLs and DDs and lost the Hiei and the second night the US BBs showed up and smashed the Kirishima.

Quote

At 23:40, South Dakota suffered a series of electrical failures, crippling her radar, radios and gun batteries.[32]Kirishima and the heavy cruiser Atago illuminated the battleship with searchlights, and almost all of Kondō's force opened fire.[32]Kirishima achieved hits on South Dakota with at least three 14-inch salvos and several salvos from her secondary battery, which knocked out the battleship's fire control systems and communications but failed to penetrate her armor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, xWulffx said:

 

From wiki -

The first night they encountered only CAs/CLs and DDs and lost the Hiei and the second night the US BBs showed up and smashed the Kirishima.

 

What @Seraphil, is refering to is the fact that while the 5" hits trashed her superstructure they had little real impact on Hiei's ability to keep fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While sustaining 26 hits the South Dakota was not pierced.  The electrical damage was due to an engineering mistake and caused her systems to fail initially.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Dakota_(BB-57

I wanted to give a complete picture and included a lot of extra stuff, but the fact remains that the Kongo class ships at this engagement namely the Hiei was severely damage by direct fire from the 8" guns of the San Francisco. 

Originally designed as Battlecruisers they were upgraded in armor and called fast battleships sacrificing speed for armor.  IRL I believe the Texas and NY class had better armor than the Kongo class and mostly likely have better armor in game.  That being said a higher silhouette and slower speed make them easier targets compared to the faster sleeker Kongo class, but only a real idiot would sail too long in a straight line giving a perpendicular broadside shot to an opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...