USN Battleship Line Split (World of Warships Development Blog #45)

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (44 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Close Ad ×

WG has announced a planned split in the USN battleship line that is, well, probably not exactly what folks would have expected. Iolair shares his thoughts.

Full article on the WoWs Development Blog:

#WorldOfWarships #DevelopmentBlog #Iolair


  1. Ignacio Esteban Meneses Flores

    I am not a regular USN bb player, but this tech line doesn’t look promising for me tbh. The ships look tanky, why make them squishy?

    • Ranari's Brawling Channel

      Probably because of the way they were armored using the all-or-nothing design. Ships like the Colorado are super easy to pen cause they’re entirely covered in 25mm armor, so 32mm for these guys. Think Republique, but without a turtleback, and raised citadels like the Kremlin, but without the heavy outer plating for HE resistance.

  2. Marcos Sandoval

    The best change in the history of wows

  3. Great, thin super dreadnaughts based off of post pearl harbor dreadnaughts. Just what we wanted yaaaaaay. Why couldn’t they have made the brawling line. Not many people are gonna want to play it it’s slow. T8 could have been Washington, South Dakota, etc. T9 could have been Wisconsin, New Jersey, or USS Kentucky which was almost finished. T 10 could have also been Kentucky, or an in between of Ohio/Montana

  4. Steven Wiederholt

    USS Minnesota ans Kansas were decommissioned 1921
    USS Vermont decommissioned 1920
    They were Connecticut-class battleships

    Paper ships once again.

  5. Seems WG is trending towards paper thin BBs that hang in the back and shoot, like Thunderer and Champagne, now the 2nd tree for the US…ugh, no thanks.

  6. Ranari's Brawling Channel

    T8 is a variant of the original South Dakota (1920) class design where 6 were ordered and laid down, but never finished due to the Washington Naval Treaty. The gun details on it match the Colorado guns though, whereas the actual South Dakota 1920’s were to use the extremely powerful 16/50 Mark 2 guns.

    The T9 is some Tillman or even another South Dakota 1920 design variant using what appears to be the 16/50 Mark 7s found on the Iowa’s and Montana’s. Again, not the original guns. Heck, the only reason the Mark 7s exist is because of a design mixup in building the Iowa’s turrets. The original guns were to be the Mark 2’s, but they were too big for the Iowa turrets.

    T10 is definitely a Tillman design using the guns found on the Georgia/Ohio. Tillman battleship designs were a result of Senator Tillman being angry at the navy for asking for a bigger and more expensive battleship every year, so he said to heck with it. Just cut to the chase and design the biggest battleship American industry can actually build and be done with it. They were enormous.

    The USS Florida is one of the early North Carolina designs, as the ship originally called for 14″ guns. Due to the escalator clause it was armed with the 16″/45 Mark 6 guns.

  7. William Taylor Payne

    USN BBs tend to have floaty shells. These ships are slow with poor AA and a horrible reload… Not to mention rather squishy. Seems like a completely useless class.

  8. So… basically we want a line of glass cannon battleships. They can’t survive under constant fire, are easy to citadel, can not maneuver to safety, and with the longer reload times probably don’t even have higher DPS… Why? What’s the point?

    • You missed the point that because they are so slow and huge, they will be easy HE spam targets, or maybe this is what you mean by “under constant fire”. Yeah, I’m not sure what the thought process was here.

    • @An Iolair Ghorm That is partly what I meant by constant fire, but I didn’t want to just limit it to that.

  9. The in-game USS Kansas is most likely based on the South Dakota-class battleships of 1920, supposed as a successor to the Colorado class but was never built. Not to be confused with the South Dakota-class battleships of 1939 design which we are familiar with today.

    USS Minnesota, meanwhile, is likely based on the Tillman Maximum Battleship designs of the 1910s. Senator Tillman got fustrated by the Senate’s demand for increasingly larger and more powerful battleships, hence he just right away order the study of the largest battleship that can be possibly built for the US Navy that can fit through the locks of the Panama Canal. This ship’s design basis is likely based on the Tillman I or the Tillman III designs.

    USS Vermont, however, has no clear origin as per my findings. It is possibly an imaginary ship designed by Wargaming that were supposed to be the successors to the South Dakota-class (1920) and the Tillman-class designs, with twelve 18-inch guns housed inside 4 three-gun turrets. The guns and turrets are possibly also derived from Tillman Design IV-2’s gun turrets, mounted on a WW1/post-WW1 era battleship hull with 4 main armament turret mountings.

    Last but not least, USS Florida is what is supposed to be the North Carolina class, if the Escalator Clause of the 2nd London Naval Treaty has not been initiated. Initially, the North Carolina-class battleships are indeed supposedly be armed with 3 four-gun turrets housing a total of twelve 14-inch guns. But with the Japanese and Italian government representatives refusing to sign the 2nd London Naval Treaty in 1936, President Roosevelt ordered that the Escalator Clause be initiated to increase the mazimum gun caliber on battleships from 14 inches to 16 inches, and the North Carolina-class battleships be rearmed with 16-inch guns in 3 three-gun turrets instead of the original 14-inch guns in 3 four-gun turrets.

    • mark brandenburg

      Awesome info! I’m glad that most of these at least came from legit design studies. Thanks for posting!

  10. These are Tillman Battleships
    Kansas is Tillman I
    Minnesota is Tillman II
    Vermont is Tillman IV

    From what I recall, these should have some thick ass armour going up to 18in, but I forget which design. Go see Drachinifels vid on the Tillmans.

    Oh and Florida is the Quad 14in guns North Carolina BB plan

  11. Amadeo komnenus

    🤷‍♂️ Asasshio’s need to eat too

  12. Florida with 356mm guns doesn’t look appealing at all…

  13. Daniel Petráško

    Ehmm, WHY ?
    Thats looks extremly weak
    Imagine, slow speed, 40 seconds reload, bad Armor, that will be ,,great to play ”
    Its just more food for smolensk family

    • An Iolair Ghorm

      We cruiser mains are indeed very happy. Huge, largely stationary, lightly armored targets? Yeah, we’ll take more of that, thank you.

  14. I think they will make it better in the near future for now it’s nonsense to me

  15. Brian Alexander

    I normally don’t like dev-blog reading by YouTubers but I missed this blog post. Thanks for pointing it out!

  16. A HUGE shout-out to everyone who has commented with feedback about the origins of the ship designs. Glad I owned up to not being a USN history expert and was able to elicit folks to post way more useful information than I had or knew, LOL. Thanks again for the support!
    07:50 CORRECTION! The 80-second cooldown on Repair Party is the standard for battleships, and is NOT the “buffed” cooldown that the Massachusetts and a few other battleships receive.

  17. From a purely aesthetic point of view, with the the exception of the Florida, they are looking a little homely..

  18. Sci fi logical 23

    I really just want the Vermont and the Missouri, and the Ohio. Florida maybe).

  19. Hello, new to your channel. Finally the USN Battleship Line Split. Thanks for the video. 🤝

  20. Richard pietrzyk

    i luv playing bbs but i think i will be staying away from these

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *