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

Machinery of War Discussion Navy
1648

They are closest to the North Carolina class as both were restricted by the escalator clause being in effect though in reality KGV class is even more restricted as it also abides by the London Naval Treaty.

No, why do you think that, because frankly, its wrong, they are not of the same level.

KGV is limited by a 38,000 tonne limit like the North Carolina Class and less than the SoDak 1939 which was limited via the escalator clause to 45,000 tonnes, Iowa displaces nearly 60,000 on full load, furthermore, KGV is limited by the London Naval Treaty which means it is limited to 14" guns, the Iowa class is not.

Vanguard is a by-product of the KGV class and reflect many the same limitations to reduce complexities in drawing up a new design during wartime, furthermore Vanguard is impacted by the availability of lack-thereof of gun production factories as those were bombed out during the war. Vanguard is limited in many ways the Iowa class was not, the fact that we are describing them in the same sentence is more of a testament to Vanguard’s very well put together design, but they are not the same, Vanguards advantages irl are not reflected in war thunder.

I think you misunderstand Vanguard as a ship, below is my rundown on her purpose addressed to someone else but once you understand her purpose as a vessel you start to realise why she and the Iowa class are not comparable.

Vanguard did have supercharges made and fitted for her, she just never embarked them as she was a post-war ship, the supercharges and Vanguards improved 15" mountings were deliberately designed for her.

I had expected Colorado before Nelson as its a worse ship, so it was a bad decision by Gaijin IMO, I think we would have been better served with Warspite, Valiant or Ramillies. Unfortunately Rodney was added entirely incorrectly and heavily gimped in ways she shouldn’t be.

I also hope for the Colorado’s and KGV’s soon enough.

Worse penetration, higher bursting charge (so more damage upon pen) marginally worse range but much higher accuracy at literally every single range. The tradeoff here is that the Iowa has relatively average armour, and high pen, whereas Vanguard has high armour and average pen.

The 16"/50 is probably the best or second best naval gun ever produced, certainly the best overall, second best if you count factors such as when it was introduced and accuracy etc.

No, the ones I have are from 1918, I haven’t found any mention of them yet afaik, but I will check the Monitors section, that would be the one most likely to include supercharges.

True to life yes she has a slower reload but thats mostly due to dispersion and the loading cycles, the loading cycles are factored ingame, dispersion shouldn’t be, current one doesn’t reflect a theoretical peak that most ships have, the maximum theorised reloading time would be 35 seconds, and given Rodney’s high armour and layout over armament hopefully minimal hits could be achieved to these mechanisms keeping it a consistent 35 seconds.

They did have very good and fast autoloaders, I’ve heard something about issues with reliability but overall a good autoloader.

2 Likes
1649

are the 15in really more accurate than the 16/50? mk7 gun considered the best on a battleship iirc

1650

Yes by a relatively large amount the 15"/42 is a much more accurate gun , the US has overall somewhat accurate to somewhat inaccurate guns, not disastrously inaccurate like the French and Italian 15" due to shell issues, but still not enough to be described as highly accurate.

The reason people see the 16"/50 as accurate is because they confuse the guns accuracy with the accuracy of the FCS, in the year they were built the Iowa class had the most accurate FCS, only overtaken by the improved FCS fitted on the KGV’s and then Vanguards AFCT MK.10, which Iowa would have them once more overtaken by the time of Korea.

But the British 15" is the most accurate naval gun in history thats accepted as a fact by literally every naval historian, I have the range tables that show it. Based on the information HK found on the 16"/50 and what I have on the 15"/42 at 2500 metres, the 16"/50 has 42 metres dispersion, the 15"/42 has 18 metres. at 10km US 16" has 190 metres dispersion UK 15" has 70 metres, at 15km US 16" has 285 metres dispersion UK 15" has 96 metres.

From there the peak dispersion for the 15" is 185 metres at 30km if not less due to Vanguards improved rifling not detailed in what I have. For the US 16" its 570 metres, which is more than 3 times higher.

The thing about the 16"/50 is the good reload, high calibre, high reliability, very high penetrative performance. Its a good gun and not too far off the Japanese 18" in raw penetration and weights <3/4 as much, that’s why its considered the best

4 Likes
1651

Here is HK reporters summary of the values, I’ve used my own values from the range tables ‘I was able to find’ (flame got for me) from the British national archives for the 15"/42 but I believe they line up more or less exactly with what HK found.

1652

Dispersion in large part depends on mounting. Triple turrets allow you to save weight and space for slightly more guns over four doubles, but produce more blast effect which worsens dispersion. Delay coils mitigate this to a degree, but in the 40s the dual mounted 15” on British ships I believe had better dispersion characteristics. In the 80s the gap would’ve closed considerably, as more advanced tech allowing monitoring of velocity per gun and changes to the delay coil timing gave tighter patterns iirc, which is where most of the great accuracy figures are taken from.

1 Like
1653

so the numbers from the Crete firings in 1987 were so good because of the better coils and better tech?

navweaps says 200m pattern from 31900m from those tests

1 Like
1654

Yes, exactly that, its important to note that the 15"/42 was only ever mounted in twins which were good at the time but inefficient by WW2, but also they are a gun from 1913 which was more accurate by WW2 due to relining on the barrels and more consistent shells and charges, whereas the 16"/50 is from 1942 and required some accuracy improvement to achieve broadly comparable results specifically in the field of accuracy.

Through the use of further development, relining, delaying coils and also muzzle velocity measurement they were able to significantly improve the dispersion characteristics.

The Crete firings still did not match the 15"/42 but they got relatively close particularly with such an increase in penetrative performance (though angle of fall is not considered here).

1655

i wonder if they had at least some of these advancemtns in place for Korea? bc a 80’s iowa would be not great considering they would make missiles unfunctional currently, and it would lose all of its AA and a lot of secondarys

1656

Most of the accuracy improvements would be in the 1980s, I don’t believe the Iowas were a high refit priority in the 1950s as they for example never carried the 3”/50 aa mounts despite early preliminary work being done for it. Effectively you will want to see Missouri or Wisconsin as the WWII representative of the class as they have the thicker bulkhead armor for better angling. New Jersey we would want in the 1960s fit provided they allow the 35 knot speed she hit on a sprint. For the 80s refit it doesn’t really matter, I expect they will be a bit of a balance nightmare since no equivalent shop exists and the current short range maps probably play to their favor.

2 Likes
1657

The radars measuring velocity were a Vietnam modification afaik, maybe even a Gulf one, certainly not in place by Korea. But also missiles would be mostly useless against other battleships and an unfair advantage given others would all be WW2 era which is the point of it.

Iowa will almost certainly come in a WW2 refit, also afaik the Korean war Iowa class also loses AA.

1 Like
1658

ik, but not completey removed AA

maybe nam NJ with 35knot like Tallguy said and better radar (if thats when it was done) after the ww2 Missouri

1659

IIRC the 35knot speed with displacement would only be possible on light load, and also wholly impossible in anything resembling poor weather (not a concern when carriers would have also had to slow down but worth noting).

But if you reduced to light load you’d draw less draft, making your magazines more vulnerable, afaik you’d want the 32-33 knots on a deep load for maximum survivability.

1660

yeah, the method for the iowas would be to sit back and nuke (metaphorically) from like 30km anyways

570m is bad, but you have 9 guns firing at once, at least one shell is hitting and itll hurt when it does
btw what are burst charge on the 15in? apparently its 40lb for the 16/50 mk8

1661

I’d want it more for the novelty since I don’t rate speed outside EC very highly and the Korea/Vietnam fits are just generally worse for game purposes than the WWII and 80s reactivation. It’s just unique so it would be interesting to have, I’m mostly excited for a Missouri 1945 since it would be the best mix of iconic and capable for game purposes. I would say however regarding your other post I wouldn’t expect the missiles to be useless against battleships so long as the breach mechanic exists. The warheads are far from insignificant and unlike guns they don’t have to worry about dispersion, so I expect this to complicate their balance and placement.

1 Like
1662

@Morvran British 16’’ and Japanese 16.1’''s loading time is both based on ‘tested’ version, not real combat version.

image
image

For Nelson class, 35 seconds per gun and 40 seconds per mounting. For Japan, 24.5 seconds per mounting before modernization, 21.5 seconds per mounting after modernization(for best situations for two classes)

What people ignore, or didn’t want to see when they talk about reloading, is that triple turret is not just one more gun plus from twin turret. It means reloading system needs extensive redesign, and most nations with ‘14+ inch’ triple turret have undergo trial and error at first time they design it.

Even Japan face extensive slower reload at Yamato class, only 30 seconds at loading angle and 45 seconds at practical combat angle. It is when US Navy could achieve 24 seconds at loading angle and 29 seconds at any combat range with their 16’’ triple, and similar reload time for British with their quadruple 14’'.

Nelson is such trial and error for Royal Navy. It applied so many ‘new’ technologies for Royal Navy including triple turret, AoN(which actually used in 1860 and 1870s but disappeared after), efficient turbine. etc.

So for the reload, I accept that their are massive difference of reload time between Mutsu/Amagi and Rodney. My only dissatisfaction is, while so many guns getting ‘per design’ reload rate and ‘per gun’ reload time, why in-game Royal Navy capital ships stick to ‘per mounting’ reload rate. We should get 35 seconds for Rodney’s 16’’ and 25 seconds for 15’'.

6 Likes
1663

35 seconds plus IRL Dispersion would be all the offensive buff that Rodney needed.

3 Likes
1664

and gyro-adjustment possible for torpedo too, like in World of Warships.

1 Like
1665

That would be an interesting mechanic.

1666

I would like to see every pre 1930s design get the fastest reload it can be showed they ever reasonably achieved, trial or otherwise. I think it is the only way they have a chance to stay reasonably competitive against the much more powerful ships the developers said they will add in 2025. Especially given that decompression is not a guarantee, and even if it comes could very well only be to 7.3. An Arizona sharing the 7.0 br with North Carolina or South Dakota would be ridiculous, but we already have examples of a similar power gap with say Kongo and Mutsu sharing a br, among many others.

1 Like
1667

Has anyone bug reported this?