I saw a similar claim for the British 15" something like 2.2RPM, I’d have to look into it as I’m not 100% sure but would be a nice little buff.
A 35 second reload on Nelson/Rodney i would be more than happy with and 2.2rpm for the 15" would be incredible for them.
well the main thing i am wanting for the british tech tree is a BB/BC with better AA than hood as it is some what lack luster somthing like a later war refit of Valient or any of the late war KGV’s fits that
AA and also just a shorter ship to help mitigate the issues with dispersion. Battleships after Hood would also have better handling than her with much less listing.
this is the rough AA for each of the ships in the KGV revenge and QE class the numbers are the barrel counts of each calliber
I have a visual representation of DoY’s AA
If I could pick two KGVs it would be KGV and DoY.
KGV for encounter with Bismarck, DoY for sinking Schanhorst (so then if her shells don’t pen theres no excuse also would make me happier to sink Scharnhorst’s with).
For the QE’s I’m torn. Valiant has incredible AA, Warspite is non-negotiable and also gets a floatplane, but QE is class leader. But i also wouldnt want a better QE as like an event or something which is what Valiant would be.
So maybe Valiant and Warspite.
As for the R’s I’m not too fussed whichever has the best AA is what i want. So probably Ramillies?
WWI/post-WWI Queen Elizabeth and WWII Warspite in the tree, late-WWII Valiant as a premium is what I’d bet on. Could see the latter two swapped as well.
We’ll definitely see Royal Sovereign / Arkhangelsk in the Russian tree as well.
unfortunately yeah
I’ll be happy to see her there, she’s one of the most “needed” foreign/loaned/captured type ships, given Russia has easily the smallest/“weakest” set of post-WWI battleship options. Even more so than Germany. :P
I think Barham can be the WW1 representation, we don’t need another ship without AA, hell they could even make it an AA modification for all i care so those who want Jutland esque can have it and i can have a ship that doesnt die when a plane (or hell even something with torpedoes) looks at it as its only the 30s refits that added AA and the torpedo bulges.
It would probably be their best battleship though paris kommuna is pretty damn good as it refuses to die.
So long as the UK gets an R class first or at the same time, and we get a better one (as we have better ones) I have no complaints.
It would, unless we indulged them by starting to add actual paper ships, or Sovetsky Soyuz which… well, was she laid down? I can remember that they found they couldn’t make armour to the build specification but I can’t remember if she was laid down at all.
After that it is pretty much nothingness forevermore, unless we consider missile ships.
Four were laid down: Sovetsky Soyuz, Sovetskaya Ukraina, Sovetskaya Rossiya, Sovetskaya Belorussiya
On a similar note, Kronshtadt also had one sister ship laid down, Sevastopol.
The Russians didn’t even have many paper ships to be honest. Particularly after Stalin had many naval engineers killed. France is the main nation to benefit from this with the Lyon class and the Alsace class, as well as Italy with Littorio UP.41.
But yes Sovetsky was laid down which is the issue. She was laid down though completely unfeasible and the designers knew and admitted this, but Stalin got what he wanted. So they went through design revisions to try and make it possible, Swiss-British engines, 2-piece face-hardened armour plates of poor quality rather than 1 piece cemented armour.
But Gaijin wouldn’t care about this, the rule is laid down, she was laid down, and in her laid down configuration she had 1 piece belt. Even if a bug report could be made and acknowledged, Gaijin would not change it.
I expect it to dominate when it arrives. Britain would need to struggle for ships which just had parts built, like late Lions with their improved 16" gun prototypes, and G 3 in her pre-Washington configuration.
Oh christ I must admit I didn’t think much of Sovetsky Soyuz, I thought of her as just some average run of the mill 15 inch 9 gun battleship of something like 40,000 tonnes, not a 60,000 tonne monstrosity. No wonder they couldn’t build her. Moreover they wanted 15? The hell? Even the US only wanted 6 Iowas.
I would hope the other 15" ships could receive this as a stock shell and get a later 6 crh projectile as a researchable mod. Also 15" HE would be greatly appreciated on the ships that could fire it.
No its a Soviet Yamato with post-war technology. Hence my hatred of its existence because the UK has nothing to truly match it and though it literally could not have been finished, that won’t matter in-game.
Remember the US wanted 6 Iowa’s and at least 5 Montana’s so that brings things to 11 which is close enough considering the Battleship was soon to be considered irrelevant.
The engines were planned from the start though. And soviets even aquired license to build them + ordered 3 for use in one of the ships. This was planned from the start and wasn´t some kind of halfassed measure to make the ships viable as you are making it to be. (To be precise original British engines weren´t ordered because they were too expensive)
I find it funny that you and others have soo many problems with Kronshtadt or Sovetsky Soyuz but then you bring up the fantasy of UP.41…
While feasible there is precisely 0 data on the suposed 406 but somehow it isn´t problem?!
HaHAha post-war technology from 1930s
I worded myself carefully.
The engines they wanted were British, but cost too much, so they then switched them to Swiss engines. One such revision though minor I fully admit, the main issue was the armour revision. It was a cost-saving measure, nothing the engineers did was half-assed, it was just unfeasible, it was them making adjustments as they went along to try and get a workable ship, which they were never going to be.
Secondly, I have no issue with Kronshtadt being added.
The only issue i have is the configuration and what is imo a dubious combination of 6" AA and 12" main guns which in my opinion is heavily cherry-picking dates (like at best its a week gap at worst, you can argue they’re part of the same revision). But we have already discussed this, I would rather not re-discuss it, you have educated me, I have educated you.
And yes I have a major issue, with Sovetsky Soyuz, which is a ship Soviet engineers admitted was not viable but on paper would stomp basically any other ship we can get. With a historical 2-piece belt, I’d have no issue, but what are the odds Gaijin does that do you think?
As for Littorio UP.41, if you read what I said, I actually gave grace to the Soviets compared to what Firestarter said, by mentioning that France and Italy also benefit from completely paper ships and that Russia does not really have many. They also have many fewer options than the soviets do until the modern era and France we are well past relevancy for aside from the Richelieu’s which could go either way.
I didn’t say this though. The lack of data is indeed an issue, I just said and I quote ’ France is the main nation to benefit from this with the Lyon class and the Alsace class, as well as Italy with Littorio UP.41.’
They go from the late 1930’s until their cancellation in 47-48 and if you consider the actual viability of the design there is not a chance the Soviets could have built them in the 1930’s, so yes there are definitely some benefits. Also I don’t see why this is a sticking point for you.
I have also seen mentions of radar fire-control for these, which was something the Soviets were only capable of producing post-war.
But I’m happy to hold my hands up and admit they are a mid-30’s design, they are also completely unlimited by the Treaties.
If you read what I actually say, my issue with Sovetsky is that the ship could not be finished regardless, and even more so in the laid down configuration, and yet in-game, based on what Gaijin have done with other such cases. It will get whichever variant is best. That obviously being the one with a uniform 16.5" belt the Soviets literally could not build in thickness or armour type, rather than the belt made of 2 plates no thicker than 9.1" which obviously, will crack very easily, and the laws pf physics state that 2 plates stuck to eachother will always have a lower effective thickness than one uniform plate.
On a different note, in my never ending search for viable British cruisers, I (re)discovered that HMS Kent received an armour refit in 1937-38 which added 4.5"(114mm) more of armour over the machinery (essentially belt armour.
The downside? Kent is in her 1934 configuration and AFAIK she is the only one who received this.
So yeah, we remain with no armour, slow reloads, and guns with inconsistent armour penetration.
Totally not malding right now.
