Hahahah
Please don’t laugh at Igor like that. Doing a 10 second google search to know if he has the right information is very hard /s
1 Like
It’s not all. Mutsu devblog just show how indifferent developers have about Naval and proving that they never properly playing naval.
‘You’ll not only be able to engage targets more reliably at a greater distance, but the increased shell weight will also result in improved ballistic properties’
Oh yeah fighting in a greater distance while having worse penetration than 14’‘? Great
Improved ballistic properties? Since when did 16’’ APCBC shell slower than 5.5’’ SAP shell in 11 km means ‘Improved ballistic properties’?
‘In addition to this, Mutsu traditionally features decent protection, with its most critical components and modules being shielded with up to 305 mm of steel armor. A high crew count rounds off Mutsu’s good survivability and ensures that this battleship can absorb enemy damage and stay in the fight for longer than other ships.’
305 mm is a ‘traditinally’ decent protection? Scharnhorst, Nevada, Arizona, Mississipi they will all laughing at. And high crew doesn’t matter if armor penetrated like butter and shell room exploded, leading her to death?
Headache when reading devblog…
1 Like
Navweaps also gives APC Type 5 a 10m/s higher muzzle velocity than listed in-game.
They bring her in with her early fit too. Like having team AA will make a difference. They should’ve done what they did with Fuso and bring her in her late war armament while keeping the early fit as a premium if they want to add a premium Nagato class.
1 Like
What is it based on then?
Likely the class evolved from Vickers’ original 16" battleship proposal which looked a lot like Queen Elizabeth with larger guns. Which may have evolved into Design A-102 (Nagato is A-114), which is the earliest design we have that may be part of the lineage, which still has much of the Queen Elizabeth base with a more Japanese flair to it. A-110 is the first design we know came from the ships’ development and has the noticeably unique shape of a Hiraga design, rather than the older British “inspired” designs of Kongo/Fuso/Ise.
Kongo was also designed to be a battlecruiser and Nagato a battleship. Much like the British, the Japanese were very clear that these two ship types have very different roles, and thus extremely unlikely that they’d use Kongo as a basis for the design. Which they didn’t. The Kongo design also would’ve been around 10 years old by the time they were designing Nagato.
Typically battlecruiser designs are modified from battleships, as seen with Kaga and Amagi.
I mostly disagree. They should’ve done Mutsu as she appeared in ~1933. So y’know, she actually has anti-aircraft and doesn’t have to completely rely on the team. And it also gives Gaijin the opportunity to have their early version and late version that they’re so addicted to.
Though I would’ve preferred a post-rebuild ship.
4 Likes
To be fair, I think the Amagi was based off the Tosa. But yes, Gaijin is very wrong in this case.
hopefully we’ll seen them soon
1 Like
Yes, that’s what I was implying. Hiraga modified the Nagato design to create Kaga, and then modified it further to create Amagi.
Both designs were then merged to make Kii, a true fast battleship. Tragic we’ll never see No.13 though.
2 Likes
No they should done to a 1933~1943 refit as it is currently the only level Nagato class can ensure survivability. Dev server testing of IJN Mutsu vs other battleships were nightmare as too many shells penetrate 254 mm bulkhead than passing to 76 mm, detonating the shell room. We need 219~mm armor on that front turtleback area.
Early 16’’ coudl be fulfilled with Tosa and Amagi. We can’t loose precious Japanese 16’’ battleship that actually served WW2 like this. Maybe we need suggestion of breaking ‘one ship only one refit policy’ for IJN Mutsu, but I don’t know where to suggest. Machinery of War discussion is not a good place to hand suggestion to developers, and suggestion/Naval is only for tech tree and vehicles, not a place about Gaijin’s policy about vehicles in game.
2 Likes
Yes, well its far too late for that. At best we can hope that maybe We’ll see mod.33 as a tier 4 module so the ship has some kind of AA.
The good news is, aside from one of the Kongos that actually should be wartime fit, they’re out of ships to do this with.
1 Like
Not necessarily. There are some JDS/JMSDF ships that are still on the block for these refit clown circus that would put them too high or without appropriate/accurate capability
Whoops. I meant to say capital ships. Because there’s even a few cruisers left still than can get f…
Some of the MSDF destroyers might actually benefit though, the ones without missiles that received them later in life.
I’m dreading to see how much larger Gaijins clown shoes can get. I wonder how they’ll screw up Nagato, or God forbid put Yamato in what was supposed to be the battlecruiser line.
1 Like
Who knows. we might see yamato with her 12x 155mm secondary guns in that line because light cruiser caliber guns /s
This has become a great mystery for me. Using a reverse engineered version of the formula used in the book “Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II”, the WW2 era Type 91 APC shell from the 41cm gun has an upper limit of 31.2" at 0km, but a lower limit of 8" at 30km. Reverse engineering because Navweaps doesn’t have the 0km penetration listed (see drop down).
Spoiler
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-109.pdf
(note: graph may not be 100% accurate correct)
I’m not entirely sure what to make of this information, now that I’ve put it on a graph. There are however some things to note;
- Nagato shows an unusually high amount of drop off
- Nelson has roughly the same drop off
- The in-game values are entirely too low, however iirc the Japanese did manage to marginally increase penetration capability of their AP shells inter-war, so this could account for some, not all, of the discrepancy
- Hood, Nelson, and Tennessee very similar at longer ranges
- Penetration at 15km is only ~10mm lower than Gaijins values for the 35cm gun
The PDF linked provides an alternative penetration formula values, which I have listed for Nagato, while still using the 20 and 30km numbers, purely to see if that makes the drop off seem less illogical. However I have some doubt to the credibility of the FACEHARD formula as it lists Colorado and Dunkerque above Iowa, which shouldn’t be the case. Not to mention putting Nelson on top which is just more than a little strange.
I have found the formula the USN actually would’ve used (slightly different than but surprisingly close to the book that navweaps cites), and shall enlist the help of a friend who knows math better than I do to see if we can find out if the 20 and 30km values for Nagato are truly what the book states.
Until then, or more likely until we find a better source, it does seem as if the 41cm gun on Mutsu, and eventually Nagato, is going to be shockingly low at longer ranges.
As for the Kongous, given we have '44 Kongou in the tree and '45 Haruna as an event vehicle, I would bet on something like '40 Hiei with her “Yamato prototype” superstructure as a “slightly different and interesting” version (tree, or good premium candidate) and '15-'26 Kirishima in the tree (right before Kongou) as the “early” sister.
1 Like
Does anyone have a better source than Wikipedia that would confirm the development of 510mm guns for the Super Yamato?
Shounan – single 120 mm turret → double 120 mm turret
And while we’re here, the next one has the shrapnel changes.
4 Likes
Will you add it here when the Thai Navy comes? Or create another topic?