Jump to content


World of Battleships Tech Tree Speculation KM, IJN, USN, RN

Battleships World of World of World of Battleships Ships

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
100 replies to this topic

Poll: World of Battleships Tech Tree Speculation KM, IJN, USN, RN (118 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battle in order to participate this poll.

What are you looking forward to in WOB?

  1. Battleships (49 votes [12.37%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.37%

  2. Ultra Heavy Battleships (47 votes [11.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.87%

  3. Carriers (24 votes [6.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.06%

  4. Destroyers (34 votes [8.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.59%

  5. Cruisers (39 votes [9.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.85%

  6. Subs... lol (32 votes [8.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.08%

  7. Japanese Navy (33 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

  8. American Navy (26 votes [6.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.57%

  9. German Navy (47 votes [11.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.87%

  10. British Navy (51 votes [12.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.88%

  11. Russian Navy (14 votes [3.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.54%

Vote Hide poll

Xindox #41 Posted 04 July 2012 - 10:59 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10528 battles
  • 256
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011
What differences were there between Myoko, Mogami and Takao then? The main guns are the same, so is the armour... Ah, I see, Mogami had 8 DPs, Myoko 6 and Takao 4. Takao had the newest guns? Remember that in this game reliability doesn't matter at all.

CritticalError #42 Posted 04 July 2012 - 10:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 235
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012
Well, I found something pretty interessting in the wowp forum. I think nobody has brought this up here yet, so I will do. By the way: Who else thinks that WGs policy of announcing stuff is kind of strage? I think many more people would have found this if the interviews would have been brought up or linked on the WOT-portal and not been hidden somewhere deep in the net. do they want us to do a paper chase or is this some sort of elite thing like people who are so interested that they search hard will know first?
Anyway:
Interview
Short warning: First link is fine SECOND LINK BRINGS ME TO A GAMING SITE WHERE MY ANTIVIRUS PROGRAMM BLOCKS ME FROM GOING TO THE INTERVIEW. THEREFORE ONLY FOR THOSE WHO TRULY WANT TO RISK:
Interview
Ps: If somebody has the guts to open could he post the interview here?

Xindox #43 Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:34 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10528 battles
  • 256
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011
So we've got Battlestations Multiplayer :Smile_confused:  And no PT boats! :arta:

Grand_Moff_Tano #44 Posted 05 July 2012 - 12:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1776 battles
  • 10,857
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
Hope we can name the ships, would love to get a Battleship and call it the "Arahabaki"

Catarraz #45 Posted 05 July 2012 - 01:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13332 battles
  • 928
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011

View PostDemons_Bain, on 05 July 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Hope we can name the ships, would love to get a Battleship and call it the "Arahabaki"

^^THIS!

I'm also eager to see what these Super-Heavy Battleships look like. Must be a flippin' citadel of some sort.

Raketensegler #46 Posted 05 July 2012 - 02:33 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 3232 battles
  • 425
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 03 July 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Surface fleet wise...The kriegsmarine was miles behind the japanese and hundreds of miles behind the US navy

Even the regia marina was in some ways better then the kriegsmarine

the Littorio class for example(the famous Vittorio Veneto)had simular main gun armament then the Bismarck class, but backed up by much more effective 152mm secondary battery(12 guns), supplanted by 4 very accurate 120mm guns. the 12 90mm Dual purpose guns, where much much more accurate and effective then the 10.5CM of the Bismarck. The 37mm AA guns where greater in number, and fully automatic unlike the Semi-automatic 3.7CM C/30.

Haven't posted for a long time, but I am bored at work. :)

I won't flame you, but some of your information is plainly wrong.

While it is true, that BS' AAA was inadequate due to multiple reasons semi automatic 3,7cm gun, with single shot!, different mountings for the forward and aft 10,5cm resulting in faulty synchronisation with the AA-directors, which caused half of the guns to miss even if the fire control solution was perfect and last but not least no training to speak of for the AA crews. All this information can be found in the AVKS700 report (Artillerieversuchskommando Schiffe). Finally do not compare Bismarck's AA suite with late war ones, the SoDaks also had initially a very weak AA-Suite which was greatly increased through a large number of Bofors Quads paired with the Mk 37 Fire Control Director.

The Littorio's AA suite was pathetic in comparison as well. While they had the only effective automatic AA-Gun with the 3,7cm at the beginning of the war, they lacked a (dedicated) AA fire control radar and the 9cm guns were pathetic in contrast to what you claim. The quadaxial mounting was prone to water damage and they just produced a pathetic throw weight compared to the heavy AA guns of other Navies while being to small for being DP guns, they were not, what you say is wrong.

Besides, BS had 12 15,2 cm guns as well, so I am wondering why you dismiss them.

Owning books like Garzke and Dulin's Axis and Neutral Battleships of WW2 may be a good starting point for increasing your basic knowledge, but so many primary sources have surfaced which makes the book rather oudated today.

I make a brief comparison for you of both ships:

Firepower: About equal, L's guns have more (belt penetration) power, BS can fire faster, secondaries are equal and heavy AA is much better for BS (once the problem with the turrets wer solved, which was not the case for BS). Tirpitz had a much better AA suite of lighter guns once she was equipped with the 2cm Vierlings.
The German ships also had the Seetakt which was an effective search and fire control radar despite its 50 (or 60?) cm wavelength. Normally the centrimetric radars like the American Mk8 and Mk13 were considered much more acccurate due to their much smaller wavelength but that was not the case if lobe switching was used, a method which was not introduced for BS prior to her loss although she could use (and did) the radar for range measurement but not for deflection. With true blind fire abilities the German ship would have a clear advantage in bad weather agains the Ls.

Armour: Very complicated due to the fact, that both employed an incremental scheme which is often (wrongly) desribed as outdated. Both hade extremely strong belt protection due to decapping effects, although it seems, that L's belt system might have trouble to actually decap the German Type 1 cap which was much more difficult to decap than the Type 2 used by other navies. Even with decapping the German system is stronger.
Deck Armour: Much has been said about how weak it is for BS expecially by Nathan Okun, the interspace between BS' Ober- and Panzerdeck causes shells to explode before reaching her vitals until very long ranges (for the flat trajectories of L's gun this puts her beyond reasonable range). Even the American super heavy 16 inch shells will have problems to defeat BS deck armour with rangers smaller than 28km.
In general BS' arrangement is better.
Turrets: Both have arather weak faceplates, but the roofs are better on L.
TDS: BS was hard to sink, the Pugliese system was never defeated but the ships suffered from flooding beyond the citadel and poor damage control.
Speed/Range: Speed is about equal, BS had a much larger range, especially at high cruising speeds of about 19kn.

All in all BS was imo the better ship.

CritticalError #47 Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:18 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 235
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012
I know that this is offically the "Tech.Tree Discussion Section" but since it's the most serious WoB Thread, I will post the third Interview I found here. Not so much new there...but anyway.

I'm interessted how multiple units run by one player are going to work (as stated in one of the interview: A player can controll multiple smaler units at the same time, says something of 4 destroyers but only controlls one directly and gives advice to the AI controlled others). Would be glad if you could really command them seperately as seen in Battlestations and not just say take formation X concentrate fire at unit Y while all your AI controlled ships stay within about 100m of you. Would be really happy if those ships would act somewhat smart!

theta0123 #48 Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:27 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 8223 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View PostRaketensegler, on 05 July 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Haven't posted for a long time, but I am bored at work. :)

I won't flame you, but some of your information is plainly wrong.

While it is true, that BS' AAA was inadequate due to multiple reasons semi automatic 3,7cm gun, with single shot!, different mountings for the forward and aft 10,5cm resulting in faulty synchronisation with the AA-directors, which caused half of the guns to miss even if the fire control solution was perfect and last but not least no training to speak of for the AA crews. All this information can be found in the AVKS700 report (Artillerieversuchskommando Schiffe). Finally do not compare Bismarck's AA suite with late war ones, the SoDaks also had initially a very weak AA-Suite which was greatly increased through a large number of Bofors Quads paired with the Mk 37 Fire Control Director.

The Littorio's AA suite was pathetic in comparison as well. While they had the only effective automatic AA-Gun with the 3,7cm at the beginning of the war, they lacked a (dedicated) AA fire control radar and the 9cm guns were pathetic in contrast to what you claim. The quadaxial mounting was prone to water damage and they just produced a pathetic throw weight compared to the heavy AA guns of other Navies while being to small for being DP guns, they were not, what you say is wrong.

Besides, BS had 12 15,2 cm guns as well, so I am wondering why you dismiss them.

Owning books like Garzke and Dulin's Axis and Neutral Battleships of WW2 may be a good starting point for increasing your basic knowledge, but so many primary sources have surfaced which makes the book rather oudated today.

I make a brief comparison for you of both ships:

Firepower: About equal, L's guns have more (belt penetration) power, BS can fire faster, secondaries are equal and heavy AA is much better for BS (once the problem with the turrets wer solved, which was not the case for BS). Tirpitz had a much better AA suite of lighter guns once she was equipped with the 2cm Vierlings.
The German ships also had the Seetakt which was an effective search and fire control radar despite its 50 (or 60?) cm wavelength. Normally the centrimetric radars like the American Mk8 and Mk13 were considered much more acccurate due to their much smaller wavelength but that was not the case if lobe switching was used, a method which was not introduced for BS prior to her loss although she could use (and did) the radar for range measurement but not for deflection. With true blind fire abilities the German ship would have a clear advantage in bad weather agains the Ls.

Armour: Very complicated due to the fact, that both employed an incremental scheme which is often (wrongly) desribed as outdated. Both hade extremely strong belt protection due to decapping effects, although it seems, that L's belt system might have trouble to actually decap the German Type 1 cap which was much more difficult to decap than the Type 2 used by other navies. Even with decapping the German system is stronger.
Deck Armour: Much has been said about how weak it is for BS expecially by Nathan Okun, the interspace between BS' Ober- and Panzerdeck causes shells to explode before reaching her vitals until very long ranges (for the flat trajectories of L's gun this puts her beyond reasonable range). Even the American super heavy 16 inch shells will have problems to defeat BS deck armour with rangers smaller than 28km.
In general BS' arrangement is better.
Turrets: Both have arather weak faceplates, but the roofs are better on L.
TDS: BS was hard to sink, the Pugliese system was never defeated but the ships suffered from flooding beyond the citadel and poor damage control.
Speed/Range: Speed is about equal, BS had a much larger range, especially at high cruising speeds of about 19kn.

All in all BS was imo the better ship.
I think the Bismarck had potential...But seeing how the Littorio classes of the Regia marina came under heavier air attack then the Biscmarck class and was able to survive these actions.

Bismarck also had flawed AAA directories. When Swordfish torpedo bombers of the Ark royal engaged the bismarck, they reported that the AAA fire from the Bismarcks 15 CM and 10.5CM AAA guns exploded far to ahead of the Torpedo bombers. Wich was later to be reported to be a flaw in the AAA Fuze setters of these AAA guns. While the Italian 90mm has been confirmed by many to be the best AA gun of the war.


Sorry but the so many documentaries i saw about the bismarck.......Many where so biased by historians wich claimed the bismarck was the best, so superior to anything of WW2. AKA the same Bias i hear on every militaria fair about everything that is german. Trust me i am experienced in this ;)

Raketensegler #49 Posted 06 July 2012 - 11:06 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 3232 battles
  • 425
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010
I do not base my knowledge on documentations and usually ignore them, only on primary sources and well researched secondary ones (in this Garzke&Dulin Axis and Neutral Battleships and The Littorio Class from Erminio Bagnasco and Augusto de Toro). Botch conclude, that the 9cm gun was just too advanced for its time and failed as an effective AA gun. Btw, look at the size and low number of the 9cm guns. Paired with a low firing rate of 12 RPM and severe problems with the mounts made this gun inefficient. It would have needed a much more sophisticated fire control system, a functioning mount and proximity fuzes, nothing of this was available. I have never read anything positive about it, although the gun itself was good as far as ballistics are concerned. The American 12,7cm DP guns were much more effective and had a far greater rate of fire (per gun, not mount!) without faulty turrets and RPC (remote power controlm neanig the guns were automatically cotrolled through the AA-directors) along proximity fuzes (later in the war) and radar fire control. The German 10,5cm guns were also better once the director/mount synchronization was addressed and radar fire control became available although its mountings also suffered from its complex triaxially stabilisation.

Besides, BS never fired its 15cm guns on Swordfishs, this was not possible, since they lacked sufficient train rates and had no time fuzed shells aboard, although Tirpitz used them afair inefficiently for barrage fire later in the war.

Well, as far as bias for BS is concerned, yes thats quits correct, no other battleships gets as much hyped (and also degraded!) by people.

If you want to read the AVKS 700 I mentioned, here is the English translation: http://www.kbismarck.com/AVKS-700.zip

Both were good ships but I consider Littorio's AA suite as her biggest problem due to her failure of her heavy 9cm AA guns. BS suffered greatly from AA inadequaties as well as you can read in the AVKS in detail but no Battleship had an adequate AA suite in 1941.

Here you have a good overview about naval guns which is mainly based on Campells Naval Weapons: http://www.navweaps....dex_weapons.htm

CrazedGunman #50 Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:17 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 15891 battles
  • 276
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    01-18-2011

View Posttheta0123, on 03 July 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Surface fleet wise...The kriegsmarine was miles behind the japanese and hundreds of miles behind the US navy

IMO, but i will be flamed and shot death for this, They should add the Italian navy BEFORE the kriegsmarine, because surface wise, they saw more action then the Kriegsmarine...


In order=

1.US navy/imperial japanese navy
2. Royal navy/regia marina
3.Kriegsmarine/la royale
4. Soviet navy, Dutch navy(The dutch and soviets had there own cruisers, destroyers and such. Both had battleship and battlecruisers in design even postwar)
5. Norwegian navy, Swedish navy, finnish navy, Danish navy, Peruvian navy, Brazilian navy, Chilean navy (The latter had there own battleships! While the scandinavian fleets where equipped with powerfull coastal defense ships)
Good point.
KM wasn't supposed to be full of ships, as Germans knew they can't outcome the Royal Navy, so they focused on cutting their suplies off instead, making submarines for US-British merchant raids instead of going against the RN. The KM didn't even have a carrier, maybe because they didn't need to, they weren't fighting much on the open seas/oceans.
And we have no idea about will we get submarines (some say no, some say yes), so KM drops back a bit.
US and IJN are almost equal and the 2 strongest, they should be the first 2 trees released.
But again, WG wants to have a tree for each server at release, so they might stick to the USA-Ger-USSR sample again, something we don't want.

Xindox #51 Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:45 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10528 battles
  • 256
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

View PostRaketensegler, on 06 July 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

Here you have a good overview about naval guns which is mainly based on Campells Naval Weapons: http://www.navweaps....dex_weapons.htm
A fantastic site! Thanks!

sheep21 #52 Posted 09 July 2012 - 03:23 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
No HMS Iron Duke class? :( Apart from that i do approve of the UK tech tree. Also, maybe squeeze in the Lion Class bc in there aswell, anyhow, nice job!

Gigaton #53 Posted 10 July 2012 - 03:16 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 4675 battles
  • 860
  • Member since:
    11-11-2010

View PostXindox, on 04 July 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

What differences were there between Myoko, Mogami and Takao then? The main guns are the same, so is the armour... Ah, I see, Mogami had 8 DPs, Myoko 6 and Takao 4. Takao had the newest guns? Remember that in this game reliability doesn't matter at all.

The protection isn't exactly same, even if it is similar. Mogami and Tone had more sloped belt, for one. And as I said before, they had more efficient and advanced engines. Myoko and Takao actually toned down a bit on engine tech as they didn't have superheating in their boiler system due to problems with corrosion that Japanese had with it. I don't recall Japanese Cruisers of The Pacific War (my main source for IJN cruiser arm) having any data on acceleration or turning radius, but perhaps those were bit better on Mogami and Tone than on earlier ships, even if the top speed was not much higher in practise (Mogami was eventually reduced to about 35 due to the reconstructions to keep the ships seaworthy).

But those AAA armaments are as completed, if we go with those they don't have the same main guns either as Myoko had 7.9" Takao had 8" and Mogami had 15x 6.1" initially. Entire Myoko class (which was also refitted with proper 8" guns, as debuted on Takao) and Takao and Atago had 4x2 5" DP guns and 4x4 24" torpedo tubes with 8 reloads for the latter by early 1942. Maya and Chokai had to do with their original 4x1 4.7" guns (though Maya was fitted with total of 6x2 5" DP later on, and landed one 8" turret) and four twin tubes (also altered on Maya, to 4x4 with no reloads).

Stability might not be an issue with WoT on all those front heavy tanks, but who knows if it will have effects in WoBS. Bismarck sinking slow on even keel due (partly, at least) to outright excessive stability is pretty famous example. Perhaps ships like Mogami will suffer more from list and are more likely to roll over? They already did tell us that there will be different modes of sinking in WoBS, as based on real life.

Structural weakness can be a very real consideration in combat as well, again refer Bismarck for one example (or to be exact, the collapse of her stern structure). And heck, Mogami, during her initial trials in 1935, took serious damage from... steaming at high speed.

CritticalError #54 Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:07 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 235
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

View PostCrazedGunman, on 07 July 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Good point.
KM wasn't supposed to be full of ships, as Germans knew they can't outcome the Royal Navy, so they focused on cutting their suplies off instead, making submarines for US-British merchant raids instead of going against the RN. The KM didn't even have a carrier, maybe because they didn't need to, they weren't fighting much on the open seas/oceans.
And we have no idea about will we get submarines (some say no, some say yes), so KM drops back a bit.
US and IJN are almost equal and the 2 strongest, they should be the first 2 trees released.
But again, WG wants to have a tree for each server at release, so they might stick to the USA-Ger-USSR sample again, something we don't want.

From as far as what I've learned in history class germany wanted to become an attractive alliance partner for Great Britain by having a strong navy? Didn't work out too well actually, because of Englands policy of allways having the best navy of europe germanys efforts were seen as agressions. Even have searched for an old german newspaper caricatur. The "english" sailor should say: "Und wie sollen wir uns so die Hände schütteln?" translated: "And how are we supposed to shake hands?"
Beside I have heared that GB found Germanys submarine based fleet sort of unathletic, or not gentleman like.

Anyhow I would like to see a German fleet among the last to be implemented into the game, since I'm not very interessted. There havent been to many german capital battleships and only one carrier. Therefore too many fantasy ships. Italy would really fit in better. Beside I want to see "Aditional Hair Oil" as premium consumable on Italian ships :D.

theta0123 #55 Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:38 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 8223 battles
  • 4,481
  • [FHA] FHA
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010
Well the germans twice broke rules and started unrestricted submarine warfare. This always left a bitterness for the Brits who made rules regarding the engaging of non-combatment surface vessels

CritticalError #56 Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:11 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8125 battles
  • 235
  • Member since:
    02-20-2012

View Posttheta0123, on 10 July 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Well the germans twice broke rules and started unrestricted submarine warfare. This always left a bitterness for the Brits who made rules regarding the engaging of non-combatment surface vessels

Yes, your right. From what I know, and I'm not a historian, (Last two years of history at school were far to dry, so I decided to become a scientist and not a history/biology teacher) Germany tried to get Great Britain into an alliance till the end of WW2. Actualy the bombing of Britain served the purpose to bring it to a capitulation and to make way for negoitations.
What I find funny is that you can restrict a certain kind of warfare because you eather aren't good at it our find it unathletic. Of course I'm glad that things like poisonos gas, A and B weapons are restricted, but still I find it odd, that Britain simply told: Hey everyone: It's not okay to sink supporting ships or liners using subs, while it's perfectly fine, to bomb them to smithereens using a cruiser. Okay, from a humanic standpoint I can totaly understand, cause you can capitulate when you see a cruiser and subs are well known for not caring much for survivers, cause doing so makes you vulnerable, but still........

XxXSpottedYouXxX #57 Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:28 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 23824 battles
  • 8,336
  • [4077] 4077
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
Royal Navy should be in with the rest we had the biggest navy in the world for so many years its absurd to question this however being a brit respectful gentlemen i understand that other nations come first :).

Looks like world of battleships could be my new addiction depending on what the Royal Navy gets i will probably end up collecting them all :S.


I voted.

American Navy they are close allies i see them as brothers these days.

British Navy being a brit i will have to go for my nation in respectful manners.

And carries which look awesome!.

Xindox #58 Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:06 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10528 battles
  • 256
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

View PostDerRizerPin, on 11 July 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

American Navy they are close allies i see them as brothers these days.
Hahaha! haha! ha... you are joking, aren't you? :Smile_amazed:

Sturmtiger_304 #59 Posted 11 July 2012 - 07:03 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 19603 battles
  • 4,081
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010

View PostFrenzier, on 25 June 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

give us some photos -.- and more details, like GUNS, weight and engines.
Like these?


https://fbcdn-sphoto...795845164_o.jpg


https://fbcdn-sphoto...1_2703991_o.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphoto...0_7207644_o.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphoto...6_4696063_o.jpg

Grand_Moff_Tano #60 Posted 11 July 2012 - 09:28 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1776 battles
  • 10,857
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
Destroyers are good vessels and can deliver a powerful punch and it's partiality down to there Torpedoes, so you'll probably end up with battles like the one at Leyte;
3 Destroyers, 4 Destroyer escorts and 6 Escort carriers VS 4 Battleships, 6 Heavy Cruisers, 2 Light Cruisers and 11 Destroyers





Also tagged with Battleships, World, of, World of, World of Battleships, Ships

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users