Vanguard I think would also be one of the fatest BBs in game, or at least the fastest in the British TT.
2 Likes
Certainly fastest British BB’s - unless you class Hood as a fast BB as some argue.
Iowa’s are nominally 3 kt faster, Bismark 30.8 kts, Richilieu 32 kts, Littorio 30 kts
also depends how many “proposals” get added - H class were going to supposedly do 30 kts (same),
As the Vanguard was to a certain degree the direct succesor to the Hood, that kinda makes sense.
Yeah I think vanguards top speed was somewhere between 30-31kts
Yeah. Penetration will be the biggest problem of British battleships in the future. About 500 mm plus/minus 20 in 10 km even with Lion/Nelson, right?
Yep although diving shells will help offset that substantially (if we get bigger maps). Also given Kronshtadt’s 11-inch guns the Lions would get supercharges, extended length projectiles too.
Diving shell problem is well known that it is three to four times than historical and will be fixed when Gaijin think bigger map needed. Actually, RN ships need closer map to overcome their low penetration.
And for Kronshtadt, its gun was designed to use bigger charge than Sevastopol at start. I don’t heard any of such thing for RN’s 16-inch guns.
You might be right but my understanding was the the RN uses diving shells and prefers to fight at long distances as they had a better FCS as well as solutions that were calculated based on the roll of a ship over a wave which increased accuracy in rough sea states. By using diving shells across long distances you can bypass belt armour and achieve a higher critical angle.
Guns like that of the KGV class, Scharnhorst or Kronshtadt use a higher velocity shell with less arc but higher raw penetration, but across long distances this means they hit the belt armour after losing velocity and therefore penetration.
On paper the penetration of British 16-inch guns isn’t so good but you then need to realise that on 13+ km shots the shell will have an arc of over 30 degrees I think and may even bypass the belt entirely. The UK experimented with high velocity guns on the KGV’s and whilst it was effective against Bismarck, they decided that diving shells were better for their doctrine of long-range engagements.
Also for the Lion’s they had their guns continually modernised until 1948, the Royal Navy was trying to lay them down until 1950 but the treasury didn’t let construction be re-instated, so the Admiralty financed the gun development to stay ahead of the curve and also to try and blackmail the treasury.
Part of these developments reduced the reload rate from the initial 30 seconds although by how much I do not know, it also facilitated rounds longer by a few cm (don’t remember the exact number) and also added supercharged rounds.
What would be the speed of Sovyetsky Soyuz? And ideas?
29 knots maximum
1 Like
This is roughly what I imagine a tree would look like.
The ships are BR’d based on SMS Helgoland at 6.3 and Scharnhorst being at 7.0 from there they are based on each other’s BR.
Omitted some ships too:
- Ships of the same class with minor differences.
- HMS Furious - Difficult to place.
- Bellerophon, St Vincent and Neptune classes - they don’t offer much more than Dreadnought .
- Agincourt and Canada- Large calibre, poor protection.
- Indefatigable class - I don’t think it would offer much over HMS Invincible and not 6.3 worthy.
- HMS Tiger (BC) - Didn’t offer much over HMS Queen Mary but they could be interchangeable.
1 Like
Im surprised Vanguard not after Hood
1 Like
She shared a design with King George V.
Basically she is a sheared down Lion, which in itself was a further development from the King George V class. So I placed her there.
Technically she could fit there but I think G3 means the line doesn’t end prematurely, without clogging it either.
But you might say ‘well why are the Lion’s in the same line as Nelson and not after Vanguard and KGV?’
After the Lion Class (1911), the ship chosen to replace both the Iron Duke Class and the Orion Class, was the Queen Elizabeth class (although R-Class is before as they were smaller for cost but near identical in-game). However Orion was the first larger calibre armed Dreadnought in the world, from which KGV 1911 followed, so I decided that all large-calibre armed ships should follow her. Nelson with her 16’s and later the Lions with their 16’s.
G-3 is a notable exception as she obviously was designed as a Battlecruiser (although she was a fast battleship and a bloody powerful one at that), so I had her follow Hood to complete that line.
1 Like
I think diving shells should aide in solving this issue, they have notably higher arcs than other shells seen on guns with higher velocities like the KGV, Scharnhorst etcetera in order to ‘bypass’ belt armour. However that can only be capitalised on with bigger maps as the current ones favour the raw penetration style high velocity guns.
The RN liked long range engagements as they had some of the best FCS which was synchronised on the roll of a wave and diving shells which meant as distance increased, the advantage grew for the RN. (Although some of the British ships used high-velocity shells due to a misinterpreted idea that they were more effective).
Also I am operating under the presumption that one Lion receive’s the BL 16-inch MK.2, and the other receives the MK.4 with the built supercharges and larger projectiles. at 12,000 metres this would yield an approximate 100mm penetration difference and the angle of arc would be mostly similar.
On this topic, I’d kinda like Glorious foldered or just moved and replaced with HMS Queen Mary/Lion/Princess Royal or something that is a little less glass cannon, what with the accuracy of the 15 inch guns at the moment.
Oh and HMS York, removed or downtiered, she’s even worse than the already questionable British Treaty Cruisers, but if she goes down she might be too good, the simple solution is to folder her rather than fill the British tree with copy pastes of bad ships.
1 Like
I’ve been thinking more and more about the British ‘Heavy’ Cruisers and I’ve come to several conclusions
-
Firstly they should be foldered further into their sub-classes, having the London, Kent and Norfolk foldered. Arethusa and Leander foldered, Hawkins and Enterprise, essentially eliminating the really useless filler options of the tree.
-
Secondly, they seem in my opinion and on paper, to be more in-line with other treaty cruisers such as the USS Portland, Northampton and Pensacola as opposed to things at 5.7 like the RN Pola, New Orleans, even Dupleix. Whilst they have better ammo rack protection, they have lower firerates sustained and from first stage stowage, less guns, less protected guns and machinery, no anti-fragmentation armour, etcetera, but a significantly superior round (that doesn’t fuse properly on destroyers). Due to their significantly inferior DPM I think they could possibly at least send at least HMS York, down to 5.3 in line with these other ships.
-
Treaty Cruisers should be renamed to either ‘Treaty Cruisers’ or ‘medium cruisers’ to use Winston Churchill’s distasteful reference toward them. This would reflect that they have significant limitations compared to others (and should not be at the same br).
-
There are a number of ‘almost-laid’ cruiser proposals which may be applicable when Gaijin inevitably decided to add blueprint ships which they formerly said they would consider but in the update introducing I think Kronshtadt this was amended to laid for the time being. These would be the 1938 design heavy cruisers, one with 9.2 inch guns, the other with 8 inch vickers mk 10 guns. Both classes were ready to be laid and were actually ordered to have gun construction started, but postponed due to the need for other ships. The 8-inch armed ships should definitely be added as they were given names by King George the 5th himself.
I’m sure some people will disagree but from my limited experience of having the Prinz Eugen and playing Russian and British Heavy Cruisers, I don’t think I’ve ever used worse ships.
I didn’t think this deserved its own post.
Proposals are unrealistic that they would be considered or added to the game. The best you could hope for is if the Royal Navy had finished designs with all their technical details, but for some reason they didn’t build them e.g. Montana-class, but I don’t believe there is any such ship that would fit that criteria.
1 Like
Yes it is ships that fit these criteria, when I say proposal, I mean completed ship designs which were bumped in the queue until they were cancelled (5 of these ships would be almost as much as 2 vanguard with the 16-inch guns).
These were ordered for design by Winston Churchill when he was head of the Admiralty after he realised just how over the Admiral-Hipper Class was, they were named the Admiral Class to reflect that they were designed as competitors to the ships with the express purpose of killing them. In addition Chile wanted them up until 1938 when they rescinded their interest because Britain wouldn’t break the Treaty to sell them, then 1939 rolled around and Chile was again interested as the Treaty was now voided, so design work progressed until 1943.
Technical specifications for them exist, there are some others too. One would be armed with the ww1 era 9.2 inch gun but with a larger charge and new shell, the other with vickers mk.X 8-inch guns which had completed designs but never constructed as the ships would then be cancelled in an effort to pool resources for Vanguard and the Lions.
Vague sketch by Len Crockford.
Nothing about this looks finished. They are just design sketches and proposals. You would need contract plans to be considered once in the future.
I believe there’s a book on it I’ll have a look, but thanks for setting the line clearly, now I know exactly what I might need.
I confirmed with Dr Alexander Clarke. There are some books coming out in the early portion of next year which will elaborate further on these ships including at least 4 construction designs given to the Admiralty for end-stage evaluation.
2 Likes