The only right answer
1 Like
China has bigger potential just because is an actual blue-water power, you’re pointing the goods but ignoring that only bringing coastal vessels won’t add up for blue-water vessels, every tech tree has and it seems to be a requirement to have blue-water branch, initially, if I’m not wrong, France had only coastal branch (or blue-water branch) however it was added in the few post updates of the first french vessels.
We need more diesel-powered submarines not just in the Baltic Sea but in other waters like the Mediterranean. What NATO needs from Sweden is some blue-water capability.
1 Like
as far as i know they dont have any battle ships during WW2 so unless you get modern day sweden has the edge for bluw water
Composed of little amount of “battleships”, cruisers and destroyers, far enough for a proper branch for blue-water. The Sverige-class Drottning Victoria is the closest of a battleship, yet, it was made for coastal defense purposes.
But if we’d really want/need or could be idealized, this is a pack of vessels that could, kickstart the Swedish’s “blue-water” branch: Swedish Navy in WW2
Does china have any Inter-war to WW2 bluewater options?
From what I can find, they have a few very lightly armed “cruisers” most of which originate before WW1
Whilst sweden would lack top tier options, they would at least have a well flushed out destroyer line-up, with some cruisers and coastal defence ships
2 Likes
Actually Pakistan, which supposed to be sub-tree, would have better bluewater for WW2 than China for now.
While Svergie is too big to be in a coastal line as she is more of pocket battleship even compared to other nation’s coast defence ship, yeah Sweden currently have better option than China. China’s only strong point in bluewater would be that on late cold war to current destroyers anti ship missile and anti air missile, but Gaijin continuously showing that they are not interested in those kinds of ships.
Yeah. Id place it at about 5.7/6.0 in the bluewater tree
I think it’s going to be Sweden. Although I’m more interested in filling as well as fixing already represented nations TTs.
Oranges I’d say.
LMFAO
The only option that is heavier than a light cruiser is No-68.
Most of the none missile ships would be protected cruisers and destroyers iirc.
Main issue is that China is the prime choice for the next candidate for an era of naval that’s probably a long time away.
If gajin can implement more missile armed boats and ships (and actually ashms, not sams or atgms)then I would say china is a stronger bluewater candidate. Iirc only one Italian boat has dedicated ashms and those are relatively light. Also the UK and Japan don’t have any missile armed ships in game iirc.
Current missile ships can camp boat spawn point from 10km away. Cant imagine how proper AShM would look like.
Haven’t reached that point in naval, that sounds horrific
Actually current missile ships would have better potential, as SAMs are much faster than AShM, and can pinpoint weak point by pointing mouse(which AShM won’t)
I believe they do have ships capable of missiles tho. Lile PG-02 for japan just the missiles are missing tho yes your also correct technically they dont have missile armed ships.
1 Like
The models of the missiles were hidden on the PG-02 last I remember. Idk if GJ’s removed them after all these years though.
If anybody is intrested in what sweden and finland has to offer.
2 Likes
yes and no.
back in firebirds? They added code for air launched ASMs and FnF AGMs to hit a few specific points along the hull instead of trying to go only for centre mass. Wont be as good as manual aiming, but it would mean that at 2-3 points along the hull could be hit, including near the front and rear ammo racks.
If they were seriously planning to add more ASMs, this could be refined further and give every ship specific target points
Ah yeah that unrealistic gimmic. I forgot about that. Though still SAM would be better imo due to fast speed.