Britain Naval Tree - What’s left to be added for all BRs

Machinery of War Discussion Navy
101

Can we have any drawings? As we saw on Saschen who lost diesel engine because there are no drawing, we need drawings.

1 Like
102

i dont know what your on about, these look very fully featured, even drafted :)

103

He didn’t clarify exactly but when I asked about construction designs he said that 4 main contenders (2 with 8-inch, 2 with 9.2) were given for evaluation that would be included in these books, and they were all finalised designs which could have been sent to a yard for construction.

Gaijin could choose one of each class as long lease items such as guns had already been ordered with new development taking place. Both based on older products and with new rounds.

When I get my hands on them I’ll be sure to mention it in a naval thread and send them over.

104

Just a small correction, the Nelsons nickname was Nelsol, not Nelrod, and Rodney was Rodnol, because their single funnel and large fore deck reminded sailors of a series of WW1 tankers that had all had names ending in -ol’.

2 Likes
105

Looks good. Definitely a lot of ships on here that should already be in the game. One thing I’d suggest changing is removing Rank VIII so that everything is in Rank V, VI, and VII. Because all you’re doing is making the end of line ships cost more for no reason.
Other than that its annoying that so many of these ships are missing. Hopefully we get to see some of them next year before they race to add Yamato and Iowa like what they’re doing with WT Mobile.

106

I’m glad you like it, certainly the Orion was a near worthless addition compared to the alternatives. QE and R class wouldve been much more useful or even a step up for the US and Japan into 16 inch standards are the armour isn’t going to be untouchable like the Nelson would be for now.

I hope to see Bismarck and KGV soon as well as things like Richelieu, Littorio, Stalingrad and New Mexico. I think they might have to split ww1 and ww2 era Dreadnoughts though as there is quite the jump from things like QE, Bayern etc to Nelson, Bismarck, Nagato etc.

107

as a premium we could get a late war KGV class, maybe HMS Duke of York

108

Yes that or perhaps a WW1 BB but modernised. Not Warspite because I want her as a Tech Tree vehicle but one of her sisters. Royal Oak or Royal Sovereign would also work as R class BB’s so long as we got one for the TT.

109

that would work too, i just want a modernized late war KGV fit in the game :P

1 Like
110

I actually have suggestion up for that:

KGV in her 1945 refit so she actually has some decent AA plus late war shells

2 Likes
111

I also have a post on the G3 class but it seems to be in purgatory but considering it was barely laid down and mostly just the keel blocks were beginning to be arranged it does not surprise me.

112

I’d hope it’s Queen Elizabeth if that that case. If they had to premium one.

1 Like
113

we also have the R class floating around

114

I saw mention of making a premium from one of the ships of the class the Warspite is from. I just mentioned who I’d want from the class if made into a premium.

115

Yes as a class leader its good to have her in-game I think however Warspite is more iconic and offers a better AA refit so would do best as the TT ship with QE as a premium/Squadron.

1 Like
116

I need to make posts on the QE and R class ships. I made one on Warspite but it didn’t get passed and because you can’t access posts that get denied I can’t copy it and just add a source in for the AA refit (I forgot). I really cant be bothered typing it all out again but I think its about time.

Either that or I see whats on the old forum and repost it with credit.

Hopefully the current G3 one gets approved and then I’ll start working on others.

Duke of York could make a good KGV class premium ship.

117

this i would do first, since most of the ships were already suggested in one form or another

1 Like
118

Actually I’ve got some official data of accuracy of German and UK naval guns:

Range (m) 15cm SK C/25 20.3cm SK C/34 28cm SK C/28 28cm SK C/34 38cm SK C/34
5000 103 250 236 248 216
10000 144 273 318 284 216
15000 205 296 369 296 228
20000 287 341 410 355 239
25000 472 387 451 414 273
30000 N/A 523 543 485 330
Source: 100/40 g.Kdos Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl. 1940
Range (yd) 12"/45 (yd) 12"/50 (yd) 13.5"/45 (yd) 15"/42 (yd)
3000 84 2 84 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
5000 104 4 104 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
10000 186 12 186 12 83 4 80 5
15000 347 28 347 28 122 7 84 16
18000 472 38 472 38 N/A N/A 85 23
20000 N/A N/A 562 45 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Left column - Dispersion in range
Right column - Disperison in direction
Source: Range Tables for His Majesty’s Fleet, Volume I. 1918

The original data for both country was given as 50% zone, and I have converted it to the actual size of the pattern to give a more intuitive impression. It should be noted the British gun data was results from actual firing trials with relatively small sample size, but having two-digit yds of dispersion at 18,000 yds is a clear sign of an extremely accurate gun.

As comparison, I’ve also got data of American guns:

Range (m) 16"/50 (IA) 16"/45 (NC & SD) 16"/45 (CO) 14"/50 (NM & TN) 14"/45 (OK & PA) 5"/38
2500 47.5 47.5 45 60 73 40
5000 95 95 90 120 145 80
10000 190 190 180 240 290 160
15000 285 285 270 360 435 240
20000 380 380 360 480 580 N/A
30000 570 570 540 720 870 N/A
Source: Bulletin of Ordnance Information, No.3, 1945

Ironically, the German and British 15" guns are the least accurate in game

7 Likes
119

I’m presuming the number under the gun is the dispersion in metres?

Edit: Just realised I apparently can’t read.

120

Metres for German guns and yards for British guns

1 Like