You just want Armageddon don’t you lmao?
From what I’ve seen the US had a better system of Remote fire control meaning all information was fed to one point and then almost programmed into the turrets, so whilst individual systems on British Ships may have been better in terms of accuracy the systems fusion was overall more advanced in US ships.
One big fallback the UK had with the KGV’s was that the ships were very ‘wet’ as a result of some weight savings linked with the need to also to be able to fire at 0 degrees over the bow, so when the main rangefinders on the turrets got wet it could cause higher degrees of inaccuracy in fire solutions
Later US ships had a range keeper. It was an analogue computer that took radar data and data on the ships movement to generate a constantly updating firing solution. That solution was fed to the guns and updated their aim. If this was implemented in game, you would just select a target and the guns would track automatically. All you would have to do is click the fire button.
1 Like
What? Naaaah.
I mean, they’re only from 5 years after the Tennessees. Couldn’t be that much scarier, could they? 😇
1 Like
How about this, you guys can have the South Dakota’s, us Brits will take the G3’s?
1 Like
I’d honestly be fine with that, but Gaijin wouldn’t let it happen due to the G3s never even being ordered in the first place ;~;
Damn the Washington Naval Treaty.
The G3’s were actually ordered and laid down according to my sources, also parts for them were built and then lightened and used on the Nelsons. The argument always put forward was: Why would the US and Japan cancel ships already under construction from a set of paper designs?
They had to know the UK planned to build them and that starts with laying stuff down.
The idea was always to build them, either the US and Japan got rid of their new fleets, or the UK had 5 new ships that would beat every ship the US and Japanese planned to build as well as their old fleets.
You can see here the UK was gonna build them (I know it doesn’t say laid down but I can’t remember where I saved that source).
But also parts were built and then sheared down to fit on the Nelsons like the secondary battery and autoloaders.
In fact, I have a suggestion on them on this new forum (which I am currently in the process of updating as I got about 3 more book sources and asked some naval historians).
It would be a shame if they didn’t, they’re the best ships the UK could get and the only ones with no treaty influence whatsoever.
Regardless, shell rooms needs to have their ability to detonate removed otherwise its going to be the ahistorical Achilles heels to all US BB
1 Like
I assume this is what happened at Jutland then as I am pretty sure that one of the British Battlecruisers detonated the shell room though perhaps it spread down the barbette and into the magazines.
What would be your suggestion for detonation of shell room explosions, perhaps a longer repair time for that turret than is currently to repair turrets/barbettes?
I imagine even if just the shell room exploded the entire loading mechanism would be completely unviable until a complete refit, I know there are gameplay considerations made but also for the same reason US ships would be just as tanky as ships like Scharnhorst without some form of penalty for shell room storage.
This is physically impossible, as all British capital ships before Nelson had their shell rooms placed below magazine, so anything coming from barbette overhead would have reach magazine first rather than the shell room
4 Likes
Ahh that is a very very elementary mistake on my part I remembered they switched them round but not which way.
Jutland was a failure to follow the most basic safety procedures and be recklessly unsafe. Lack of live fire training had inspired the admiral to have his fleet focus on speed over accuracy. To do this all the safety procedures like fire doors were removed and ammo was brought out of the magazines into the unprotected walkways leading to the turrets. Any impact or explosion activated the exposed munitions and that lead to a chain reaction all the way to the magazines and turrets.
Future battles where these doors were locked and munitions were handled correctly showed the British battlecruisers to be quite surviveable
Sadly people only hear about Jutland.
1 Like
Ekhm… Ho… khm… od… Ekhmmm…
? No idea what your trying to say
Bug report regarding USS Tennessee’s draft! The ship is sitting too high above the waterline, exposing the ammunition above the waterline and diminishing the design of the armor belt.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eaNNa2wu1NYI
EDIT: It was labelled as “not a bug”, since “units can be depicted in full load or not”…
Which begs me the question; why is almost EVERY ship depicted at full load… but Tennessee is not? Is it an intentional way to make her perform worse? Is this really needed?
Why not make a unified load standard for all ships? It would only be fair.
It is unfair for 90% of the ships to be depicted at full combat load and suddenly make a ship be depicted at maintenance run fuel load, which is unrealistic and needs it completely.
3 Likes
Clearly the Standards would be far too overpowered with their correct drafts!
…And reload times. And armor schemes. And working armor.
2 Likes
Napalmratte, for those who don’t watch him, is very analogous to Defyn for Naval - dude knows a lot and plays a lot. And he’s labeling this thing a total piece of shit - very much in line with the general criticisms.
I just don’t understand why - when it’s clear that Gaijin is attempting to breathe life into Naval by adding new vehicle content - that they completely kneecap themselves in this way.
If this were some baller new ship - or even halfway decent - it would generate buzz and have people playing. But instead, it’s dead on arrival. Very disappointing.
I so want to love Naval but it’s almost as though Gaijin willfully sabotages it by adding needless additions to the Japanese line and yet more fantasy botes to the Russians (such a bad look imo) - not to mention the total lack of map improvement, which is sorely needed.
Gaijin please improve this model of the Tennessee so we can begin to get Naval back on track.
5 Likes
To be honest, Tennessee is just a victim of being hilarious vulnerable to every flaw of naval gameplay at once. The gun turrets somehow always get themselves knocked out and the player cant fix them because the repair mechanic goes for all the damaged AA mounts first. The ridiculously long reload that makes Standards borerline impossible to play especially when theyre constantly dealing with fires. And finally, the lack of a conning tower causing constant loss of control of the ship.
2 Likes
Saddest thing is, Tennessee could actually be QUITE good if it had its historical 34 (EDIT: 27, actually!) second aced reload (as oppossed to 40), if shell rooms didn’t unrealistically blow up like nukes and if it had its actual combat load draft (which would further protect the magazines and even A and D turret shell rooms)…
Even just one or two of those factors would help her be a more relevant addition by a lot already.
Big problem in general on Naval, indeed.
2 Likes
Hello there! If anyone comes across this, please, take a look!
I also decided to give it a shot and make a bug report about the rate of fire: support it here by pressing the “I have the same issue” button!
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9DrWx7mRDflG
1 Like