Lion and Temeraire were started building according to the 1938 design, so that’s your only option to be added, really.
1 Like
those ‘options’ doesn’t have form of blueprint or plans. They were just left as textual requirement, which means nothing when making in game 3D modelling.
As he saids, 1938 design is only option.
1 Like
In terms of magazine protection G3 is by no doubt better than Nelson - same belt thickness whilst G3 had a much wider belt and additional underwater extension. G3 had a slightly thinner belt abreast machinery but again a much wider belt gives more advantage particularly in the diving shell meta in this game.
G3 (upper) vs Nelson (lower)
In addition, I hold a very pessimistic prospect on Nelson’s survivability in this game. The extremely narrow belt would barely offer the ship any meaningful protection from the outrageous diving shells, and I would not be surprised at all if she turns out to be as vulnerable as Renown at this moment.
1 Like
Didn’t Nelson got its underwater protection lenghtened in 1936? Though it is not as solid as main belt, I think it is better than never
It never happened.
Nelson’s armour plan drawn in 1944:
The only improvement of armouring on Nelson throughout her service was additional deck and bulkhead armour added in front of the citadel.
1944 (upper) vs 1928 (lower):
1 Like
Huh
But still Nelson class would be one of last hope as Lion class would suffer severely slow turret reverse, bad firing angle and bad AA. Also her firepower is actually not so much better than Nelson in close range.
So British players just have to wish battle range would not go further than now, making close brawl as possible to prevent diving shell.
Of course, much easier choice would be go to Germany or Italy XD.
The difference in turret traverse is just one degree per second 2 instead of 3. And the Lion has 2 rds/min instead 1.5 rds/min.
Really the Lion is just better the only disadvantage is the AA.
But yeah UK is kinda screwed since their guns are kinda bad compared to others (excluding Italy and France)
The guns aren’t necessarily bad, 6CRH 15”ers will be potent, and 14” has good quantity and rate of fire.
As Gaijin currently follow ‘fastest reload regardless of real life problem’, Nelson’s RPM would be 2 round per minute. So no advantage there
Tell that to USN BBs…
E:I really doubt that when US BB s have slow reload because of “just 2 elevators instead of 3” then the Nelson will get 2 rds/min when they have documents that ramming took 50 sec
They are the such cases. In real life Texas, Nevada, Arizona nor of them achieved 40 seconds. What they could achieve is 50 seconds at its fastest after modification on 1930s. Some guys saying ‘34 second is possible!’ based on document made on 1920s, but what they forgot, or didn’t want to see is that in those ages USN battleships have ready rack in back of turret, which makes such reload possible.
Why everytime moderators saids ‘40 seconds is actually never achieved on standard battleships’ then people forgot or ignore.
The thing is that based on the reasoning from Gaijin two guns on the US standards should have quicker reload and then the third should have had the slow reload it doesn’t make much sense that all three guns can reload at the same speed when on must wait for hoists.
At best Gaijin should give basically 3 round ready rack with 30s reload and then 50 second. Really when we have source clearly stating that handling rooms took 50 seconds then the sustained reload should be 50.
For Neavada’s second and third turret Gaijin prioritize unification of all guns reload over different fast reload time. Which is not discrimination for US battleships as there is Imperatritsta Mariya, which historically have different reload between first/fourth and second/third turret has different reload time(second/third turret had faster reload then first/fourth). This is also not baseless as even in real life fire control was done in the standard of slowest reloading turret for uniformity.
Also while there are such cases, it still can’t stop Nelson class from getting 2 round per minute as it has same three triple turrets.
Realty probably will tho’ - there’s ample evidence for Rodney and Nelson having 40 second reloads at the very best - United Kingdom / Britain 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark I - NavWeaps
Besides that NavWeaps is not a primary source, isn’t that on page ‘The designed loading-cycle for these mounts was 30 seconds’?
Then on War Thunder standard it is 30 seconds. We already have Soviet Project 26 cruisers, and American standard battleships that have ‘designed’ or ‘impractical’ reload speed.
Why do I have to repeat what I’ve said earlier? Reload speed doesn’t matter what that ship and gun really achieved, but what that ship and gun was designed for. If real life reload is significantly slow to disturb the play(like when USS Arizona was first implemented with historical reload speed of 50 seconds), Gaijin will choose designed speed.
Navweapons give the links to their sources, and in the case of the British 16" they include a couple of direct quotes about the performance of the guns from sources that are cited.
so they are automatically betting information than your unsupported assertions.
I don’t recall Arizona ever having 50 second reload - as far as I can recall it has always been 40 seconds when fully upgraded. Which happens to agree with what NavWeapons says about them.
Your ideas require supporting citations.
(time line 0:37)
It has 50 seconds reload when first implemented. I clearly remember it because I help dubbing other youtuber’s video.
Speaking of sources, there are the source where ‘designed’ reload is 30 seconds, in those pages
Stop boasting your short sightness.
Fair enough for 50 seconds - you must be delighted that they went with verifiable published rates then.
However you spoil it all by posting the design cycle, in a quote that notes that the design cycle couldn’t actually be met, apparently ignoring even longer actual real life reload times from that same page, and then complain that I am short sighted??
Your stupid is too much for me - you win.
…
Did you know that Arizona’s reload speed has changed by reports made by moderators? And they are also the one confirm that 34 seconds reload cannot be done in real ship with even by design?
Gaijin already knows design cycle is what cannot be actually met. They know since when they implement Kirov in this game. They don’t care whether it is actually achievable or not. They care whether is is possible by design or not.
So, what’s my responsibility on this sequences? You just want to blame me?
Back to the topic, we can also mention that G3 has better turret armor and barbette armor than Nelson. Mahcinery armor is little bit thin than Nelson but still can be effective when angling. Without angling neither G3 nor Nelson could protect themselves in War Thunder, so yes I would say wider belt is better than thick belt.
1 Like