That’s very disappointing, I was really looking forward to a decent US battleship. And the addition of the Amagi just adds insult to injury. Why Gaijin, why?
I’m no numbers and historical records guy on anything naval related but it is pretty obvious how bad this thing is in battle. You can put a lot of hurt on someone and may I dare say, destroy a ship, but this is under the assumption no one is firing at you for half the battle. Its just that the dispersion of the cannons, terrible angles, 40+ second reload and the forever repairing when targeted make it hard to love anything about this ship. If I’m not using the Alaska , I’ll just use the Arizona here and there.
I wouldn’t invest any time to get to Tennessee unless it is your last ship to research.
1 Like
On a related topic, there’s a passage in Friedman’s “US Battleships” on a “we never did this before, let’s see what happens” test on one of the Idaho-class BB’s (comparable to Tennessee) sometime within a year after the Pearl Harbor attack. The test was to see how fast and sustained rate of broadside firing could be maintained, with the intent to empty the magazines if I remember correctly. The results were interesting. At present I don’t have my copy of this book handy.
You’ll have to wait for at least North Carolina class, but trajectory is problem for 16’’ 45 Mark 6
Well, another implementatiion of 16’’ capital ship to Japan is problematic to other nations, but even Japan who got it is unsatisfactory now. Currently Amagi is just worse Fuso.
You would recommend Fuso over Amagi? Napalmratte said Amagi was the most OP. What about Ise, better or worse than Fuso?
Well Napalmratte… who always J3 with reserve torpedo boat if he didn’t think he could be the best one?
Saying Amagi as the second OP shows how dumb he think of ‘OP’ is.
For Ise, better than Fuso. better shell room layout on No.1 and No.2 turret(though they are dangerous too), and presence of hydroplane makes her essential for lineup, prior to another 16’’ capital ship. She would be only changed with modernized IJN Nagato, who would have hydroplane.
2 Likes
He says so, doesn’t mean he’s right at all. This content creators are like CNN or FOX news, you get only one part of a story.
+1
40 second reload (ace crew) is a bad way to nerf USA.
To be fair the standards are a ‘Pre-WNT’ design and Colorado doesn’t really change this it just swaps the triples for twins. Whereas NoCal is a post-WNT design and includes escalator clause measures and therefore could be expected to compete with WNT designs (though you can’t use that as a rule because the difference between the worst WNT design Lexington and the best G3 is absolutely massive).
But I agree that decompression and rebalance is needed, and also just some balanced additions like thats the hardest task xD…
apparently the hardest thing for naval is keeping it balanced and having parity
1 Like
I find it ironic, as ships are almost always designed to offer a domestic alternative to somebody elses class with minor improvements, of course there are some big outliers, like Yamato, or the German lines of commerce raiders, but even those have planned counters or rough equivalents.
All that and yet somehow it manages to have the worst balance possibly ever seen. `
2 Likes
That’s true. There were gun trials conducted after the refit however it doesn’t test the best possible reload rate but the rate of fire in a combat environment.
During the trials, they concluded that the rate of fire was much longer than expected.
Factors that effected it’s rate of fire was:
- crew training
- test condition
- observer presence
- officer training
- ammunition supply
- mechanical issues
- salvo composition
- range of shots(19km to 25km)
– some salvos were air spotted
But most of what affected it the most is the sustained rate of fire.
Majority of these factors don’t directly impact the reload rate itself but I’m curious what WT did to calculate the reload rate of the tennesse. What factors did the include/exclude. And do they apply the same rules to other BBs?
I’m still trying to find actual documentation of the gun trials however, I can’t seem to find any.
That’s actually fair for the Japanese 41cm guns, as the actual reload at low elevations for them was found to have been 21.5 seconds. Still, the rate of fire I usually see cited for American 14 inch 45 and 50 caliber guns on every class other than the New York class is 1.5-1.75 rounds per minute, so they are definitely on the slower end in game.
In terms of main armament it is definitely the best in the game. As far as everything else goes, not so much. It has mediocre armor, decent speed but a horrible turn radius, massive ammunition storage that will explode very often, and absolutely no anti-air armament since the 120mm guns don’t even have time fuse. Despite all that though, it can definitely be a fun vehicle to play, and I personally would recommend it to experienced naval players.
Sorry which ship are you referring to?
I meant Amagi
I was afraid you’d say that. Disappointing. I kinda don’t like playing fake “project” vehicles. Too illusion-breaking.
That’s fair, although the Amagi class battlecruisers and Tosa class battleships would probably be the two classes of “project” ships that were the most plausible to have been completed. After all, the finished the hulls and turrets enough to make good use both of them, and Japan kinda has a history of not following naval treaties and ignoring the League of Nations.
Actually those 21.5 seconds could be archived from ‘modernized’ turrets of 1930s on Nagato class. On pre-modernized turrets, 24.5 seconds is fastest speed they can get.
Also for standard battleships the reload speed is ‘fastest’ according to the manual Gaijin looked at. When USS Arizona first implemented it was 50 seconds at ace.
But again, the “modernized” turrets for the Nagato class were actually the ones that had been built for the canceled Amagi and Tosa classes, the only differences being an increase in elevation and an increase in armor. So with the turrets that Amagi has modeled in game, it would be possible to achieve the 21.5 second load time.