No… Not at all. She is just Hood, but without the angled bits.
If colorado and nagato have the same close-or-above-waterline ammorack placement as preceding vessels then I think QE might be better than them in wt reality.
British battleships are generally sturdy with hood being able to both withstand good amount of barrage and at the same time able to easily ammorack any BB that isnt a scharnhorst.
QE would be a bit fatter hood with renown’s amazing secondaries, can’t wait to see it.
1 Like
I should have used the ‘incremental’ armour-scheme definition but compared to prior British dreadnoughts they do a much better job of compartmentalising and focusing armour almost entirely around critical areas.
No worries, that was a good picture to luck out on, shows kinda some ideas behind still being distributed but much less so than the ships before.
This as you can see by the secondaries is a WW1 era refit, would go on to receive twin 4.5" DP’s
I’ll refrain from commenting on the colorado’s as I haven’t been able to find a picture with a clear view of where the magazines are.
If Mutsu is anything to go by the Nagato class will always have relatively easy to detenota ammo racks, though its worth noting they received a large armour refit later on.
British Battleships have really good ammunition placement and protection. QE is no exception particularly with the refits and the same is true of the R Class.
As you said Hood is really good vs anything that’s not a Scharnhorst and will continue to be until interwar ships are added (that aren’t the Washington cherries).
1 Like
*When the doors to the magazine are closed / when extra ammo isnt removed to allow for increased fire rate
:P
5 Likes
Seeing of Bishima, Bison and Skink, all of those whom license-produced and modified by Commonwealth nation though design is done by other country, I suddenly noticed that South African Warrior class strike crafts can be a candidate for Great Britain coastal line as they are designed by Israeli but built by South African shipyard.
3 Likes
Hello I’m back real quick. Got a question for you guys.
Thoughts? If you guys think one shell should be supercharged I can edit the post. I was thinking supercharge not for the increased range, but because it would improve the pen of one of the shells.
1 Like
I think I also wrote on the suggestion itself, but for now penetration won’t the only problem for British 15’’ battleships. More problem would be dispersion and low RPM(only 16 round per minute at best) is more of a problem. I would rather not getting super charge and remains at lower BR.
1 Like
@Rileyy3437 Do you think British 15’'s would be better if get accuracy near to historical? I’m not quite sure about it so want to hear other’s.
1 Like
I mean 15 inch SAP is going crazy right now, on close range it is easily the best shell, so idk if there is a need of a buff…
Well 15 inch SAP at close range was always better than AP becasue of longer fuze. But close range is not always the option, esepcially in NRB. I know that you were NAB player, so please pass away.
both modes exist together and share same ballistics data so there won’t be any separate change, especially since AP isnt any bad either. there is really no need to be hostile lol.
The dispersion would certainly be very much appreciated, right now you straddle basically everything and you don’t have the 26 second reload of the Bayerns or the 25 on the Mutsu so your shots have to count against peer targets.
Particularly as the dispersion at in-game ranges is supposed to be very low something like 80 yds iirc. Plus its historical, if Germany can have ships achieving their absolute peak reload rates surely we can have ours achieving historical dispersion, its not like these figures are unknown.
I think right now they’re rather fantastic guns, particularly against targets the SAP can pen without fusing early like early Dreadnoughts. But i worry for the future, Hood already struggles vs scharnhorst even when your shells hit where they should. It would be even worse vs Bismarck which Hood will definitely fight and you won’t be able to hit any vital component consistently.
I mostly worry for the British 14" though.
3 Likes
yeah 14’‘, 16’'s. The gun without SAP…
1 Like
Yeah but particularly the 14". Not just because it has no SAP but also the reloads, the penetration etc.
All that on the KGV hull which won’t be as potent and well protected as I believe it should be.
The 16" has a decent-ish bursting charge compared to the US 16" APC particularly with superheavy shells but they get HC which i think might penetrate more than our APC.
But the real issue will be the fuse timers… which there isn’t really any tradeoff for they will just be a handicap.
Perhaps the G-3’s 16.5"/45 could save us.
I’d suggest it needs a buff for futureproofing.
Firstly its historical accuracy is entirely wrong, this is genuinely the single most accurate large caliber naval gun until post-WW2. Yet it has the second worst (not sure about Mutsu’s 16.1") accuracy in-game.
But also later on when more powerful ships like Colorado, SoDak, late Nagato, Bismarck, Gneisenau 15", Richelieu etc are added, we retain this same gun on Hood who will fight them, as well as QE, R and Vanguard (supposedly our penultimate BC/BB) with the same exact reload which is relatively slow if you ignore the US.
So really we need this buff so precise aim can be used to remove turrets/barbettes on these powerful ships to even the reload, or to aim for precise areas.
2 Likes
Im aware of that, and it is definietely a balance choice. Hood is already above most nations top tiers and I would like to see QE soon. In non nerfed form I dont think it would be yet possible to balance those ships.
So maybe lets go back to the discussion when those ships will be added? I don’t see much point right now.
The RoF and armour still balance her out.
Lots of nations either have comparable or better ships (Scharnhorst, Paris Kommuna, Bayerns, Conte, Mutsu) the only ones lacking are France who would be on par with Strasbourg and the US who would be about on par with Colorado.
Hood getting proper accuracy is not objectionable and would not make her broken in my view.
3 Likes
Both armour and underwater ammo rack placement make Hood one of top ships in terms of survival.
Combined with damage of the shells, compared to ships you mention, only scharnhorst stands as really a worthy competition, with others being much weaker. If we make those guns the most accurate in game I don’t see any those battleships surviving 2-3 salvos, so yeah it would be broken like hell.