World of Warships

User avatar
GBNATO
General
Posts: 5884
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013 12:20
Location: The Republic of Dave
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby GBNATO » Tue 5 May 2015 01:07

The New Mexico is even shorter and fatter than Warspite, I foresee it being just as maneuverable if not more so although it is a bit heavier. The guns are apparently slower to load than the British 15inchers as well, the reduced caliber probably accounts for the lower range.

It has got 12 guns though and not insignificant armour, if those turrets can rotate quickly we might have a nice little ship on our hands.
Image

User avatar
Kraxis
Major-General
Posts: 3909
Joined: Wed 10 Jul 2013 11:56
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Kraxis » Tue 5 May 2015 01:53

Don't expect a fast traverse rate itis rated at 2 degrees a second, presumably the older one is about the same. So that is in the Warspite range.

And upgrades generally add 10% range, unless it is turret replace. And that didn't happen. It did get an upgraded gun though. Incidentally the old gun suffered from a bad dispersion problem, which the new one didn't to the same degree.
[EUG]MadMat wrote:MadMat says so many things ... :twisted:

User avatar
Chawp
Sergeant Major
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 00:02
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Chawp » Tue 5 May 2015 04:49

Link to the twitch VOD for those interested.

http://www.twitch.tv/wargaming/v/4693920

Show starts around 4:30
Image

User avatar
Kraxis
Major-General
Posts: 3909
Joined: Wed 10 Jul 2013 11:56
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Kraxis » Tue 5 May 2015 05:56

In case you don't want to watch a stream, someone on the NA forums caught all the BBs.

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/27112-full-sneek-peak-of-us-battleships-pictures-heavy/

Going by the maneuverability stats, the UNS BBs aren't going to be terribly maneuverable (New Mexico sitting at a whopping 19). Or in other words, not as impressive as Warspite. They better be sailing bricks.

Good news is that both Iowa and Montana tops 20km, but not by a lot. None of the ships appear to have gun upgrades, so no significant upgrades to range from that. But they all appear to not have the director upgrades, so add 10% to max range.

Just as a comparison. Kawachi, with 22kn, 700m turning curcle and 17.5 second rudder shift, sits at 21 maneuverability. Yeah it won't be pretty with the New Mexico.
[EUG]MadMat wrote:MadMat says so many things ... :twisted:

User avatar
Bullfrog
General
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Bullfrog » Tue 5 May 2015 06:51

They start talking about US BB at about 29 mins, the guy they bring is seems really awkward and for gets historical info and gets corrected a couple of times, poor guy.
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Mike » Tue 5 May 2015 06:58

Gib Iowa class 1980's era upgrades :lol:
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
Kraxis
Major-General
Posts: 3909
Joined: Wed 10 Jul 2013 11:56
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Kraxis » Tue 5 May 2015 14:52

As I expected, New Mexico has 72 seconds of turret traverse. Ohhh boy... And she even has a paltry 1.8 rounds per minute. But she does have an absurd 8570 damage to her HE shell. But a somewhat weak AP shell at 10500. She is going to rip cruisers to shreds, but she will suffer badly against other battleships, because she is slow, has slow turrets, isn't too manueverable, has a weak AP shell and her massive HE won't help much against well armoured targets in 0.3.1. She does have a nice dispersion at 199 meters, but at the range she has, I'm not sure that is much better than her competitors, if at all. But then again, the Warspite has pretty much shown that dispersion isn't necessarily the 'average' dispersion, but probably more like max.

Based on these stats, she is going to be a monster of armour. No other way she can be good enough. Even her AA is pretty weak. She does have her 12 guns to Warspite's 8, so her alpha is better.

The UNS BBs do become beasts at Colorado though. 23km range, an absolutely insane amount of AA, good speed, superb turret traverse (45 seconds), finally good speed and really awesome armour. From then on they appear to be blissful ships. Even if the dispersion is a little wide.
I'm a little surprised that Iowa beats Montana in the AA department.

Also, I think WG laxed their rangefinders position stance from the Colorado on, as none of these three ships have their rangefinders placed significantly higher than the previous ships. Apparently it wouldn't do well to have the Montana sit at 17km. :lol:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:MadMat says so many things ... :twisted:

User avatar
Gronank
Colonel
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue 8 Nov 2011 23:40
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Gronank » Tue 5 May 2015 15:31

Kraxis wrote:I'm a little surprised that Iowa beats Montana in the AA department.

The real question is: will Iowa get her 1982 refit?... probably not.
Image

User avatar
Bullfrog
General
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Bullfrog » Tue 5 May 2015 15:40

Gronank wrote:
Kraxis wrote:I'm a little surprised that Iowa beats Montana in the AA department.

The real question is: will Iowa get her 1982 refit?... probably not.


What about the Midway :twisted:
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Killertomato » Tue 5 May 2015 16:34

I'm a little surprised that Iowa beats Montana in the AA department.


Kinda odd. I guess Iowas got a heavier AA fit before they actually commissioned, while Montana's stuck with the April 1942 AA fit.

What about the Midway :twisted:


Image

Overpowered? Naaaaah.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests