Lt_Cdr_Lowe

Royal Navy Tech Tree - The Wishlist

248 posts in this topic

As with Coyob's thread in the RAF Aviation forum, this is a place to list what you hope for in the Royal Navy tech tree, whether it's a particular ship or class of ships (for example HMS Belfast or Town-class Cruisers). So have a think Ratings & Wrens, what would you like to see included in the Royal Navy Tech tree?

 

Just follow the post guidelines below in order to maintain some unified form of posting;

  • Please include a picture of the vessel or an example of its class.
  • Include name, service date and, if you wish to, pennant number where relevant
  • Short description of the vessel or class & how you see it being used in War Thunder.
  • Give a link to the relevant article on Wikipedia to allow people to get a rough idea of the history behind the vessel or class.
  • If you wish to please include Youtube videos of the vessel/class as well as additional pictures or any other items of relevant interest.

NOTE: This is not the place to discuss the various merits or faults of the various vessels of the Royal Navy, nor is it a place to list the vessels of other nations (unless they served under or with the Royal Navy). Also please avoid 'paper' designs, as in prototypes or designs that failed to leave the drawing board. Many thanks!

 

For a list of Royal Navy vessel classes in use between 1919-1953, check Eruantien697's document here (it requires software that can open a .docx - such as Excel):

https://www.dropbox.... classes.docx?m

Edited by Wg_Cdr_Lowe
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King-George-V-class

 

320px-King_George_V_class_battleship_194

 

served from 1940 to 1957.

 

Featuring 10x356mm Guns as main Artillery (carried in two quad turrets forward and aft and one double turret forward, BL 14 inch Mk VII naval guns), 16x133mm as secondary Artillery (twin mounts) (QF 5.25 inch Mark I dual purpose gun), multiple "PomPoms", with a speed of 28kn and up to 373mm armour at the belt (only the Yamato was better armoured).

 

Out of the five ships, only the Prince of Wales don't survived the war, beeing attacked by japanese bombers.

 

I personally see it somewhere between Tier 14 and 17. Well, how it's will be used? As battleship, killing enemy ships and hopefully survive^^ Although the main calibre is smaller then on other contemporary ship designs, the good FCS and protection will maybe save your day.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George_V-class_battleship_%281939%29

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From a Australian point of view, and considering almost all our ships are ex-royal navy, apart from but a handful made and designed here, these are what I'd like to see.

Exerts from wiki 

1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_class_aircraft_carrier#Australia V and W-class destroyerVampire (Admiralty V class leader) Vendetta (Admiralty V class)  Voyager (Admiralty W class)  Waterhen (Admiralty W class) S-class destroyer (1916) Stalwart  Success  Swordsman Tasmania  Tattoo

Admiralty type flotilla leader Stuart; built by Hawthorn Leslie, laid down 18 October 1917, launched 22 August 1918 and completed 21

December 1918. Transferred to the Royal Australian Navy 11 October 1933, sold for breaking up 3 February 1947.

 

Pelorus-class cruiserPioneer   Psyche

 

Leander-class cruiser (1931) Modified Leander group  Perth (ex-AmphionHobart (ex-ApolloSydney (ex-Phaeton)

 

Grimsby-class sloop Yarra — built by Cockatoo Island DockyardSydney, laid down 24 May 1934, launched 28 March 1935, completed 19 December 1935,[6] sunk by Japanese cruisers Atago andTakao off Java 4 March 1942.[15]   Swan — built by Cockatoo, laid down 1 May 1935, launched 28 March 1936, completed 10 December 1936,[6] sold for scrapping 1965.[16]  Parramatta — built by Cockatoo, laid down 9 November 1938, launched 18 June 1939, completed 8 April 1940,[6] torpedoed by German U-boat U559 off Tobruk 27 November 1941.[16] Warrego — built by Cockatoo, laid down 10 May 1939, launched 10 February 1940, completed 21 August 1940,[6] sold for scrapping 1966.[17] N-class destroyer Napier, Nestor, Nizam, Norman, Nepal 

Acacia-class sloop HMAS Mallow — built by Barclay Curle, launched 13 July 1915. Transferred to Royal Australian Navy in July 1919, dismantled July 1932, sunk as target off Sydney 1 August 1935.

 

Arabis-class sloop HMAS Geranium, built by Greenock & Grangemouth, launched 8 November 1915. Transferred to the Royal Australian Navy in 1919; dismantled June 1932; sunk as a target 24 April 1935 off Sydney. HMAS Marguerite, built by Dunlop Bremner & CompanyPort Glasgow, launched 23 November 1915. Transferred to Royal Australian Navy in 1919; dismantled September 1932; sunk as a target 1 August 1935.

 

 

Challenger-class cruiser HMAS Encounter was a second-class protected cruiser of the Challenger class operated by the Royal Navy (RN) andRoyal Australian Navy (RAN). She was built by HM Dockyard Devonport and completed at the end of 1905. Hunt-class minesweeper (1916) HMAS Doomba,

Snake-class junk  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_class_junk   yeah this is just for the lols..

 

Tribal-class destroyer (1936) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_class_destroyer_(1936)  River-class frigate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_frigate  Bathurst-class corvette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathurst_class_corvette   County-class cruiser  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County-class_cruiser Australia and Canberra

 

Indefatigable-class battlecruiser  Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefatigable-class_battlecruiser Battle-class destroyer  "1944" or "Australian Battle" class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle-class_destroyer#.221944.22_or_.22Australian_Battle.22_class Parker-class flotilla leader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker-class_flotilla_leader Anzac, built by William Denny and BrothersDumbarton, laid down 31 January 1916, launched 11 January 1917 and completed 24 April 1917. Transferred to the Royal Australian Navyin March 1919, and sold for breaking up 8 August 1935.

 

Town-class cruiser (1910) Chatham class HMAS Sydney, built by London & Glasgow, laid down 11 February 1911, launched 29 August 1912, and completed June 1913. Broken up at Cockatoo Dockyard in April 1929. HMAS Melbourne, built by Cammell Laird, laid down 14 April 1911, launched 30 May 1912, and completed January 1913. Sold for breaking up 8 December 1928. HMAS Brisbane, built by Cockatoo Dockyard, laid down 25 January 1913, launched 30 September 1915, and completed November 1916. Sold for breaking up 13 June 1936.

 

Birmingham class HMAS Adelaide, built by Cockatoo Dockyard, laid down January 1915, launched 27 July 1918, and completed August 1922. Sold for breaking up in Australia in January 1949.  
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one thing that i have noticed when looking at the respective nations ships of the time is that although Britain has the strongest navy for the most of the early part of the game, they would struggle towards the end especially when it comes to the heavier units such as Yamato, Montana/Iowa or any of the H class if it is left at Vanguard... unless we look past RN's treaty restrictions and go for some of those ships ordered by never constructed.

 

So i suggest we at least consider the 1921 fleet design Battlecruiser and Battleship proposals. With a variety of armament between the 4 proposals for each, balance can be tailored to suit, while keeping directly to blueprint designs and testing.

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2548&f=30

For the Battlecruisers

K2 885 feet, 53,100 tons, 144,000 shp, 8 x 18" 16 x 6"
K3 885 feet, 52,000 tons 144,000 shp, 9 x 18" 12 x 6"
J3 860 feet, 43,100 tons 151,000 shp 9 x 15" 12 x 6"
I3 925 feet, 51,750 tons 180,000 shp 9 x 18" 16 x 6"
H3c 860 feet, 46,500 tons 180,000 shp 6 x 18" 16 x 6"

 

The chosen one for the RN with 4 ordered:
G3 860 feet 46,500 tons 180,000 shp 33 knots 9 x 16.5" 16 x 6" 6 x 4.7" 4 x 10 barreled 2 pounders 2 x 24.5" torpedo tubes

Belt 12"-14" Deck 3"-8" Barbettes 11"-14" Turrets 13"-17" Conning tower 8" Bulkheads 10"-12"

[SPOILER]

BattlecruisersK2K3andJ3.jpg

BattlecruisersI3H3aandH3b.jpg

BattlecruisersH3cG3earlyandG3final.jpg

[/SPOILER]

 

And the Battleship designs

L2 860 feet, 52,100 tons, 70,000 shp, 8 x 18" 16 x 6"
L3 860 feet, 51,100 tons, 70,000 shp, 9 x 18" 16 x 6"
M3 775 feet, 46,000 tons, not availabe, 8 x 18" 16 x 6"
M2 815 feet, 48,750 tons, not avaible, 8 x 18" 16 x 6"

[SPOILER]

BattleshipsLLL2.jpg

BattleshipsL3M2andM3.jpg

 

 

[/SPOILER]

The chosen design been the N3 with 4 planned

N3 815 feet, 48,000 tons, 56,000 shp, 23 knots, 9 x 18", 16 x 6", 6 x 4.7", 4 x 10 barreled 2 ponder, 2 x 24.5" torpedo tubes

Belt 13.5"-15" Deck 6"-8" Barbettes 15" Turrets 10"-18" Conning tower 15" Bulkheads 9"-14"

[SPOILER]

BattleshipN3.jpg

[/SPOILER]

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how far gaijin have got in developing a RN tech tree, and If they would want us to help?  it would be kinda nice if the Devs where to say,

 

" hey guys.. your all very interested in this stuff, help us help you.. put together a list of things you like, from this date to this date with these parameters, and we'll look at it."

 

 

Wouldn't that would be nice?   yeah i must be dreaming...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A present for you all. It's a table of RN ship classes that were in service (or planned to be in service) from 1919 to 1953. It's sorted by type and commission period (where I could find those dates, if I was missing one or both I've used the date of the completion of the first of the class to the date the last one was sold/broken up).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nyikttwa2vkqpeu/RN%20ship%20classes.docx?m

 

Technically HMS Queen Mary is outside of the time period I've chosen, but that's only because it was sunk.

Edited by Eruantien697
6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A present for you all. It's a table of RN ship classes that were in service (or planned to be in service) from 1919 to 1953. It's sorted by type and commission period (where I could find those dates, if I was missing one or both I've used the date of the completion of the first of the class to the date the last one was sold/broken up).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nyikttwa2vkqpeu/RN%20ship%20classes.docx?m

 

Technically HMS Queen Mary is outside of the time period I've chosen, but that's only because it was sunk.

I love you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got this little ditty for everyone. Saw it on another forum on the tinternet, cant remember who wrote it but it is very good.

 

HMS Nelson

 

In my previous discussion of warship aesthetics, I used terms like "graceful" and "elegant" a great deal to describe the South Dakota-class battleships. You will not see those terms here.

 

The Nelson and Rodney were not elegant by any stretch of the imagination. They were the thugs of battleships. The bruisers. Other warships were formed into battleship squadrons; the Nelson and Rodney, together, formed the Royal Navy's First Brute Squad.

 

Look at the layout. Three triple turrets of 16" guns, all up front. The message they send? "We're looking for trouble. And when we find it, we won't be running from it. There's only three ways the battle will end -- we're sunk, you're sunk, or you're running away."

 

The Nelsons did not retreat. They did not make tactical withdrawals. They did not advance in another direction. If you were anywhere in their forward field of fire, you were going to get the crap pounded out of you.

 

The Nelsons also had secondary guns. Three twin 6" turrets on each stern quarter. The message they sent? Adding insult to injury. If you weren't a worthy enough target for their main guns, you're so unworthy of respect that they'd not only blow your ass away, but do so while mooning you.

 

The presence of all three main turrets forward meant the bridge and superstructure were also pushed back quite a ways -- past the midpoint of the ship, in fact. That, too, also sent a message: "If you get too close, we shan't be able to see you and we'll run you down. And not only will we not care a whit, we might not even notice."

 

The superstructure itself was also monumentally ugly. Again, it conveys the attitude that the Nelsons don't care one whit about others or their opinions.

 

About the only thing I'd change about the Nelsons would be the funnel. I'd put an angled cap on it, to give it a bit of a raked appearance; as built, it looks like a stovepipe someone stuck on there after the fact.

 

Others can argue about which ships are the most elegant, the most graceful, and the most beautiful. When such arguments erupt, one name that will never arise is that of the Nelson class. But they weren't just casually ugly; their gracelessness and clumsiness and blunt edges conveyed an unmistakable message of their own: this is a warship, ready to make war, and war is an ugly business. And when it comes down to it, pretty doesn't win fights.

25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Rodney & Nelson, they look great in my opinion, but then I have a history of loving beautifugly things (.303 SMLE Mk.III* for example).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King-George-V-class

 

320px-King_George_V_class_battleship_194

 

served from 1940 to 1957.

 

Featuring 10x356mm Guns as main Artillery (carried in two quad turrets forward and aft and one double turret forward, BL 14 inch Mk VII naval guns), 16x133mm as secondary Artillery (twin mounts) (QF 5.25 inch Mark I dual purpose gun), multiple "PomPoms", with a speed of 28kn and up to 373mm armour at the belt (only the Yamato was better armoured).

 

Out of the five ships, only the Prince of Wales don't survived the war, beeing attacked by japanese bombers.

 

I personally see it somewhere between Tier 14 and 17. Well, how it's will be used? As battleship, killing enemy ships and hopefully survive^^ Although the main calibre is smaller then on other contemporary ship designs, the good FCS and protection will maybe save your day.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George_V-class_battleship_%281939%29

Yeah, and the quadruple turrets can rack up an impressive amount of damage as well in a short amount of time if you aim carefully enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and the quadruple turrets can rack up an impressive amount of damage as well in a short amount of time if you aim carefully enough.

 

Also due their centralization principle, the bulk of the ships firepower is prone to be knocked out in a short amount of time as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got this little ditty for everyone. Saw it on another forum on the tinternet, cant remember who wrote it but it is very good.

 

HMS Nelson

 

In my previous discussion of warship aesthetics, I used terms like "graceful" and "elegant" a great deal to describe the South Dakota-class battleships. You will not see those terms here.

 

The Nelson and Rodney were not elegant by any stretch of the imagination. They were the thugs of battleships. The bruisers. Other warships were formed into battleship squadrons; the Nelson and Rodney, together, formed the Royal Navy's First Brute Squad.

 

Look at the layout. Three triple turrets of 16" guns, all up front. The message they send? "We're looking for trouble. And when we find it, we won't be running from it. There's only three ways the battle will end -- we're sunk, you're sunk, or you're running away."

 

The Nelsons did not retreat. They did not make tactical withdrawals. They did not advance in another direction. If you were anywhere in their forward field of fire, you were going to get the crap pounded out of you.

 

The Nelsons also had secondary guns. Three twin 6" turrets on each stern quarter. The message they sent? Adding insult to injury. If you weren't a worthy enough target for their main guns, you're so unworthy of respect that they'd not only blow your xxx away, but do so while mooning you.

 

The presence of all three main turrets forward meant the bridge and superstructure were also pushed back quite a ways -- past the midpoint of the ship, in fact. That, too, also sent a message: "If you get too close, we shan't be able to see you and we'll run you down. And not only will we not care a whit, we might not even notice."

 

The superstructure itself was also monumentally ugly. Again, it conveys the attitude that the Nelsons don't care one whit about others or their opinions.

 

About the only thing I'd change about the Nelsons would be the funnel. I'd put an angled cap on it, to give it a bit of a raked appearance; as built, it looks like a stovepipe someone stuck on there after the fact.

 

Others can argue about which ships are the most elegant, the most graceful, and the most beautiful. When such arguments erupt, one name that will never arise is that of the Nelson class. But they weren't just casually ugly; their gracelessness and clumsiness and blunt edges conveyed an unmistakable message of their own: this is a warship, ready to make war, and war is an ugly business. And when it comes down to it, pretty doesn't win fights.

this needs to be part of these ships class descriptions when in game... I suggest every one up votes this one post so it gets noticed, if ye can find the author and i suggest we do, we should put his name to it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is probably one most won't have heard of.
The Saint Laurent class destroyer escort.
Lead ship launched in 1951.

Given only one launches before cutoff, it could be prem. and it's Canadian! Yay lol.
It would be a powerful ship for it's size in late tiers, though not a big ship hunter.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Laurent-class_destroyer Edited by PanzerAce
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably one most won't have heard of.
The Saint Laurent class destroyer escort.
Lead ship launched in 1951.

Given only one launches before cutoff, it could be prem. and it's Canadian! Yay lol.
It would be a powerful ship for it's size in late tiers, though not a big ship hunter.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Laurent-class_destroyer

It's worth remembering that launched is not necessarily the same as finished. The Mighty Hood, for example, was launched on the 22nd of August 1918, but not completed until the 15th of May 1920.

Edited by Eruantien697
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and then take into account the time required to work a ship up. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would we get the Lion class BB? Need summat to counter German H44 class and IJN Yamato class

 

I don't think that the Germans will get the H-44, the H-42 or 41 should suffice against the Yamato

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose there will be barrel upgrades etc. Similar to the planes. Just an upgrading system from old components to new ones.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.