america is doing well compared to uk. they are missing about a dozen battleships so far before the end of ww1
Not really. Colorado still has a 40 second aced reload, compared to Bayern/Sachsen/Bismarck/Nagato’s 25 second reload…
I am already fearing Colorado will only come when it’s too little and too late, once Germany has got Bismarck and Japan has got a second Nagato. Colorado has been long overdue.
At this point, they could go straight ahead with a North Carolina…
2 Likes
At least U.K has got HMS Hood, which doesn’t have its ammoracks on exposed barbettes and on magazines above the waterline, with 381mm guns with far more pen, explosive filler, mass and, on top of that, an actually manageable 30 second reload compared to America’s 40 second top aced reload as of now.
1 Like
Haven’t seen Mutsu’s dev server reload but my presumption was somewhere around 1.5-2 rounds per minute likely leaning towards 2 rounds.
German ships you might as well not compare yourself to imma be honest like those things are powercrept to hell.
Perhaps they may lean more towards different but equal as IIRC the Colorado’s guns would be better and it would have better armour.
I have no doubt it will come but only after the European nations (bar Germany) actually get their 7.0 BB’s. Then I’d expect Colorado. Germany is for some strange reason the favourite nation.
Might be a partially better matchup as they’d have the same-ish armour but the US ship would have more and better guns but a slower reload. But that says more about the Colorado’s than anything else.
hood yes with nerfed accuracy so it cant hit anything at range, missing its full AA compliment and still a ww1 ship. the reload is accurate, american bb had slkower reloads then their peers. if i recall its because of not having the same magazine elevator systems others had.
As I said, 2.5 rounds per minute. A 24 second reload compared to a potential Colorado’s 40 second reload…
Agreed! I don’t understand why they needed Scharnhorst so early and without conterparts, Bayern and let alone a SECOND Bayern!
Yep, indeed. They probably want to milk Bismarck-worshipping “wehraboos” lol.
2 Likes
That is why America could at least get a Colorado, which, even though still has a sad reload, at least would have good guns and shells, unlike Arizona or Nevada, as well as better armor and potentially survivability.
Right now, playing America is nearly as pointless as playing France or Italy and that’s just sad when it was the largest navy (or “just” one of the largest, if you want to go technical in some specific periods) in the 20th century.
1 Like
I do find it strange that the ammoracks are in such a horrible position and yet somehow the US ships manage to have an exceptionally poor reload.
Yes the UK does have our 1 rather splendid ship at top tier but people were talking of British naval superiority around this period in the same way they talk about US air superiority nowadays so that was to be expected.
The US does not particularly suit the naval meta. Their ships tend to have poor armour and early US ships did simply just have a slower reloading mechanism.
As I said, it’s all about the addition choices.
Colorado would have fit perfectly ingame ever since Hood and Bayern made it to the game, and yet, here we are, still stuck in Arizona.
The issue is NOT that America didn’t have proper ships for the game- the issue is that Gaijin is for some reason holding them back.
Even a Tennessee-class (improved Mississippi) would be better than Arizona and not even that is yet to be seen. The fact that the currently best American BB is a limited time event vehicle is hilarious on its own.
Bloody hell, I know her armour is poor but hot-damn.
They should have gotten one of their earlier HMS Hood level BC’s. And adding not one but two Bayerns before they added anything at 7.0 for France one ship for Italy and neither of the two ships Bayern was designed to counter was ludicrous. (I haven’t dived much into the US ships but I am sure the also needed something before Bayern was added).
Probably, something something needed a whole fleet to kill catch her.
1 Like
yeah for size and variety of capitol ships in ww1 Uk was far ahead of everyone else. wasnt till into ww2 the USA overtook the UK for capitol ships and classes. sure colorado could come but they wont change much. the hull designs are similar still at that point for america vs what they have now and they guns arent bad at asll just slow so colorado will still have the same weaknesses. My point isnt someone else should get stuff instead its just america isnt at this point struggling or behind the curve on content.
Even then the UK and US are evenly matched in terms of laid down and almost laid down ships (Montana and Lion 1944-48)
I mean, Colorado at least would have a decent broadside salvo.
It would still take 40 seconds to reload, yes, but at least it could pack a punch and deal way more severe damage than the early 356mm guns do.
Also, the hull armor was actually thicker, reaching 406mm on the belt
And my point is that, while other nations may lack options to implement ingame, U.S doesn’t. It’s not the same not to add an Italian Battleship because their only option left at this point are the Littorio-Class ships, than not to add an American Battleship when they still got Tennessees and Colorados before North Carolinas, which would be followed up by South Dakotas, Iowas and even potentially Montanas.
Italy, for example; the ONLY option left before the Littorios would be the laid-down Francesco Caracciolo.
1 Like
thats ww2 and the battleships in game so far in game are ww1 designs. i think the newest battleship is 1919 or close to that.
again your listing mostly ww2 era battleships while the battle ships in game have all been designed in ww1 or before. britain is missing something like 12 classes still within the current timeline of around 1919
Colorado and Nagato are from the same era… as well as Hood (even a bit more modern, in fact).
And let’s not talk about Scharnhorst, which is the most modern capital warship ingame along with Alaska (except it’s a light years more powerful) and Kronshtadt, a WW2 project.
I don’t know why you keep talking as if we were WW1-capped when we’ve had prewar and WW2 ships for years by now…
1 Like
I more mean that Britain and the US are evenly matched right up until we got no more battleships left.
Nagato launched 1919 designed during ww1 and isnt yet in the live game. hood launched 1918. scharnhorst not designed as battleships but battle cruisers and is so in game too, it wasnt designed to go toe to to with other battleships. Alaska a supercruiser or commonly referred to as a battel cruiser, again not to face battleships. Kronshdadt another battle cruiser.
thats why i said battleship every time.
1 Like
The “Scharnhorst is a Battlecruiser thing” is an odd technicality.
A Battlecruiser is a ship that is meant to have a Battleship’s firepower in a lighter hull, sacrificing protection, in order to be faster.
Scharnhorst is a 38,000 ton warship with a turtle 105mm-back’d 350mm thick belt; that’s hardly what a Battlecruiser stands for… and before the “280mm guns” argument is brought up- that’s the caliber most WW1 German BBs equipped and that didn’t make them Battlecruisers, did it?
right, it has less armour than its peers of the time, smaller calibre guns then its battleships of the time and was not designed to face battleships but be small and fast enough to avoid battleships. at the time only Britain and Japan were doing 15, everyone else hadn’t escalated yet so was still standard to be 11 to 14 inch for most battleships. Scharnhorst is a ww2 ship and the standard was now 15 for the majority of battleships.