It is in Arcade? in Realistic it is one of worst, even worse than Cavour and HMS Hood become extinct in battles.
Now it is gone for most circumstances.
Just to be curious, how many games have you played in hood?
Those are damm good stats. Guns wise I would still put Mississippi after Scharnhorst before Hood with the Japanese 14 inch gun tied with hood or even above it. Armour wise, I would agree with it being the second best ship although Malbrough would also be a strong contender
1 Like
Thank you:) I would say Hood’s AP is comparable to american and japanese rounds, but SAP with 60kg of TNT really sells it. Malboro is strong contender indeed but hood has bit thicker internal slope iirc.
1 Like
Nelson’s reload is very concerning as the future top of the tech tree. 1.5 fire per minute, and this is on a row, with rather weak shells.
I don’t have particularly high hopes for Nelson. Even angled with the thick belt and barbettes you will still have near zero game prescence.
Gaijin could buff it to 35 seconds which is about the intended figure (30 seconds for G-3), but considering there are other ships with 40 second reloads already in-game I doubt they will.
Standard battleships irl usually have 45~50 seconds reload. Standard battleships with 40 seconds reload is one of reason HMS Nelson and Rodney could get 30 seconds reload.
1 Like
This is true, very strange how standards have such poor reloads yet iirc they have essentially a ready rack autoloader in the barbette.
But if the Nelsons could get a 35 second reload I’d be quite happy as that was their historical peak (though designed for 2RPM reductions post G-3 reduced that), also would make them workable yet historical.
when you have three gun at place where two guns should be placed :)
1 Like
well they would be nice just for the diffrent as mainly the nelson’s but also the KGV’s as they depart from the 2 turrets forward and 2 back
1 Like
That isn’t true. Most of the standards had 1.5 to 1.75 rounds per minute as their maximum rate of fire. Only New Yorks have quoted maximum ROF of less then the 1.5. Which means that Gaijin is actually very conservative with their 40 seconds.
If standards can’t get their 35 seconds I don’t see a reason why Nelsons should get 30 when as far as I know they never managed to get less then 40 seconds.
Nelson was able to achieve 35 seconds. Gaijin gives German ships 26 seconds with the speed for if you sent a charge up for the following salvo immediately after loading the first projectile, the naval equivalent of laploading in an MBT. Nelson could achieve 35 seconds in a similar method though in practise it was 40-50 seconds.
30 seconds was intended for the G-3 which she is derived from however complexities were cut from the loading mechanism to save weight and also the shells didn’t fit as tightly as they should’ve due to the loader originally being designed for 16.5" shells.
I don’t know enough about US standards to comment on them other than they are famous for their poor reload rates.
1 Like
They’re unique and quite meta due to good ability to angle and decent enough shells.
Unfortunate on the reload for the main battery but the 6 inch guns will be good enough vs destroyers and AI bots.
well if and that is a big if the shells have good pen and post pen the reload should not matter to much
Can I please get a quote for the 35 seconds. I know the actual in turret reload was 35 seconds but that is redundant since the handling room cycle was 50 second at first and later was likely improved to sustained 45 seconds or so.
In case of US standards it is basically same reason the loading cycle was also around 30-35 seconds it was just the case of elevators not keeping up with the demand.
In 1924 the typical firing cycle was 31 seconds for a 15 degree elevation. The firing cycle consisted of lowering the gun to the loading position in 5 seconds, loading in 12 seconds, elevating the gun back up in 5 seconds and then waiting 9 seconds for the director to align and fire the guns. Once the correct range and bearing was achieved, waiting time could be reduced by not spotting shell splashes
USA 14"/50 (35.6 cm) Mark 4 and Mark 6 - NavWeaps
It is essentially same issue as is in the Nelsons so I don’t see reason why Nelsons would get 35 seconds when US standards can’t get them.
Gaijin keeps the ‘record’ if there is no manual, and follow the manual if there is manual accessible for them. If we have official naval manual that Nelson class has 45 seconds reload, then would be it. But if not, then reload will be 30~35 seconds if it is their historical fastest reload.
Blame the US Navy who wrote standard battleships’ reload as 40~50 seconds
Heavy deck protection above citadel and super low shell room and magazine seperated by 37 mm armor would make Lion class super survivable while we will have to suffer 374 mm vertical turret armor with only two degree/s turn rate.
Another problem would be taht we can get two of these or not. Not sure 1942 design is considered for Lion and Temeraire that already laid down.
That also isn’t quite true the Short Range Battle Practice existed and was practiced and it also quotes the 1.9 or so ROF.
Firing Cycle or Manual is different from ‘real practice’.
1 Like