Jump to content
OnboardG1

DE Battleships

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, OnboardG1 said:

It's basically "whatever the navy decided were battlecruisers". It's kind of like how the Allies classed the Panther as a heavy tank. Traditional battlecruisers were armored like cruisers and gunned like Battleships. The idea was that they'd outshoot what they couldn't outrun and outrun what they couldn't outshoot. That fell apart with the development of the fast battleship. Iowa could make 31 knots which is as fast as a cruiser, so is it a Battlecruiser? Scharnhorst was also armored like a battleship but armed somewhere between a cruiser and a battleship. Just being heavily armed doesn't make it a battleship either because Renown had 15 inch guns, Amagi was slated for 16" guns and some of the weird G series designs had 18" guns. So yeah, basically anything called a battlecruiser after Jutland falls into a mess of differing nomenclature and navy board fuckery.

Pretty much this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm looking forwards to the Scharnhorst, It seems to be a mix between BB and CA, which is basically what I play. So long as it doesn't have absolutely terrible dispersion, it should be a lot of fun.

Share this post


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

Is it gun size length speed armor or a combination thereof? OR whcich source is used as a reference?

 

1 hour ago, OnboardG1 said:

It's basically "whatever the navy decided were battlecruisers". It's kind of like how the Allies classed the Panther as a heavy tank. Traditional battlecruisers were armored like cruisers and gunned like Battleships. The idea was that they'd outshoot what they couldn't outrun and outrun what they couldn't outshoot. They also liked to blow up when shot by anything with any punch.

That fell apart with the development of the fast battleship. Iowa could make 31 knots which is as fast as a cruiser, so is it a Battlecruiser? Scharnhorst was also armored like a battleship but armed somewhere between a cruiser and a battleship. Just being heavily armed doesn't make it a battleship either because Renown had 15 inch guns, Amagi was slated for 16" guns and some of the weird G series designs had 18" guns. So yeah, basically anything called a battlecruiser after Jutland falls into a mess of differing nomenclature and navy board fuckery.

Basically, what Onboard said.

"Battlecruiser" is a First World War distinction that doesn't make much sense after Amagi and Lexington classes were halted and turned into carriers.  The term should have fallen into disuse (we can compare "fast battleship" similarly to "main battle tank"), but continued to get used in some reference books and argued about on internet forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the consensus comes down to human desire to classify or "overclassify" at it were, ships that was built/designed differently in different places for different reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Psycodiver said:

Graff Spree would be hard to balance due to its cruiser armor but 11" guns which mind you uses only 6 guns in 2 turrets. Its a unique idea, able to outrun what it can't fight and able to chase down anything it can kill. 

The idea is at least as old as the first 6 US Navy 44-gun Frigates ;), of which the USS Constitution is still in commission. 

I think Graff Spee is probably going to be lumped into the USS Alaska problem of how to deal with cruisers with battleships size guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yurra said:

 

>WG said KM BBs get best survivability

>T10 gets lowest HP and belt armor out of all T10 BBs

But remember the Tirpitz, with the way the armor is set up, realistically the only way for it to take citadels is at max ranges, thanks to oddly sloped armor. Due to the fact that range in this game is capped to barely longer than what it was designed to be fighting at, it's reasonable to say it is the best protected tier 8, but still has weak armor on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, HP is a balancing number and has no relation to real life ships. If it's armor is not working out like WG thinks it will they can always increase the HP to balance the ships survivability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe what WG had in mind was, since the bow/stern is 45mm at the thinnest point, it can't be frontally lolpen-citadelled by Yamatos, therefore less HP. It won't help against 'pedos tho, since it's gonna be the longest BB in the game.

And that terrible turn radius, y tho :cri:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing a pair of Schornhorsts in a game last night, I am no longer hyped for it. It seems to be the picture of an ideal BC, but then it's guns are abysmal. German HE is meh at best, and the AP looks to pen just as well as a cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MntRunner said:

Remember, HP is a balancing number and has no relation to real life ships. If it's armor is not working out like WG thinks it will they can always increase the HP to balance the ships survivability.

I think Kilpanic is referring to Neonazis associating 88 with certain moustache man.

Share this post


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

After seeing a pair of Schornhorsts in a game last night, I am no longer hyped for it. It seems to be the picture of an ideal BC, but then it's guns are abysmal. German HE is meh at best, and the AP looks to pen just as well as a cruiser.

Considering the amount of damage a cruiser can do with little 6in AP, I hardly see how that's going to be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CompanionCav said:

I think Kilpanic is referring to Neonazis associating 88 with certain moustache man.

I admit I didn't get the reference. However I was mainly replying to the posts higher up that quoted WG about German BB's having great survivability, but then the stats shiw that the tier ten has the smallest HP and also weakest belt armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to invest to much in "proposed" ships stats, for the simple reason that Wargaming has historically been capricious with the final stats for any object in their games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BiggieD61 said:

I try not to invest to much in "proposed" ships stats, for the simple reason that Wargaming has historically been capricious with the final stats for any object in their games.

Good point, but as a whole I really have to say the development team on WOWS has done a much better job with balance, MM, and to a good extent with keeping too much power creep out of the game vs WOT.  Hopefully they'll get it worked out, but at over 50m longer and 20k tons heaver than the Yamato, it's got to turn and respond slower. 

The Dunkerque is a pretty unique design with only 2 fore quad main turrets ... be interesting to see how it plays.

Share this post


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

Good point, but as a whole I really have to say the development team on WOWS has done a much better job with balance, MM, and to a good extent with keeping too much power creep out of the game vs WOT.  Hopefully they'll get it worked out, but at over 50m longer and 20k tons heaver than the Yamato, it's got to turn and respond slower. 

The Dunkerque is a pretty unique design with only 2 fore quad main turrets ... be interesting to see how it plays.

That's the nice thing about WoWs, you can actually have different design priorities without going to "paper tanks" like the Waffentrager E-100 .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, xWulffx said:

The Dunkerque is a pretty unique design with only 2 fore quad main turrets ... be interesting to see how it plays.

But two fore quad 13" guns, seems a bit underpowered for a BB at that tier. I'm actually really curious as to what will line the French tree given that the only other more advance BB they had built was the Richelieu. Seems like T8-10 will all be paper ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ncc81701 said:

But two fore quad 13" guns, seems a bit underpowered for a BB at that tier. I'm actually really curious as to what will line the French tree given that the only other more advance BB they had built was the Richelieu. Seems like T8-10 will all be paper ships. 

It might be interesting. The 330mm Model 1931 fired an AP round weighing 560 kg (1235#) and had a muzzle velocity of 870 m/s (2854 ft/s). For comparison, the 14"/50 on the New Mexico in the game fires a 637 kg (1400#) AP round at 853 m/s (2799 ft/s).

Therefore, it fires a round that weighs 88% as much and at 102% the velocity of the New Mexico AP round. The battlebaguette does have a faster ROF (28s vs. 34.2s), greater range (~18km vs. ~13km stock NM), more HP, and HE seems about par between the two discounting velocity.

Armor is much thinner than the Fuso, New Mexico or Arizona, which makes sense since it's intended opponents were Italian cruisers and German panzershiffe. Should make an excellent cruiser bully but really ought to keep out of close range scraps with BBs.

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...