VERY disappointing Vanguard || World of Warships

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (125 votes, average: 4.48 out of 5)

🚩 Play World of Warships:
🚩 Play World of Tanks :
🚩 Play Total War Arena:

🚩Want to Support me ? :

Danke !


  1. I think you can get an idea of this ship in the current state! i am 99% sure Wargaming will buff this thing soon….. today its just a big ship like Bismarck BUT without secondary or turtle back. insteat 1 massive citadel and thats it. only good thing is the 11,1 concealment but even that doesnt help…

    • Considered that the ship was built as a better KGV and to withstand the Bismarck shells. Because of the massive size of the citadel, im pretty sure it’s more in the style of the Lion/Monarch?
      Turrets seems also to be a issue, but for being over 20 years old they were heavily modernized, and im pretty sure that traverse speed is close to the one of Bismarck.

  2. you can check all stats and the citadel at the end of this video

  3. They will very likely fix the citadel. Enough people will say it’s too easy to hit that devs will take notice.

    • How? it’s already modeled. very very unlikely they will make it smaller or change its position. I suppose they could change the armor values on it, but that’s about it really. I noticed you taking citadels frequently from directly behind even.

      angling means nothing on this ship, apparently.

    • because montana players whined. it can happen

    • +Thomas Neal they can but it will delay it for a few months, if they want it that way they can improve the rudder shift, change some of the plating values, give better gun dispersion or improved pen angles (like the CLs or USN CAs) and a tweaked heal tht lets you heal more citadel dmg so that at least you can offset the damage taken by sending dmg back. I would be happy with something like that because dumb play should be punishable and good aiming rewarded, specially on this ship since you have to give a lot of broadside to shoot all your guns and they can’t really do much about the firing arcs…

    • +Daniel Delgado

      “they can but it will delay it for a few months”

      which is why I don’t think they will.

      things like rudder shift, armor values, speed values, any statistical value can be changed in an instant.

      but redoing the model costs time, which costs money, which makes it much more likely they will leave the cit as is, and change something statistically instead.

    • +Thomas Neal indeed

  4. Give the Vanguard the strongest T8 secondaries, think Tirpitz, Gascogne and Massachusetts, and I’ll buy it. Would make for a very interesting 10km combat, one where’d you have to play defensive while duking it out. Now that’s some challenging gameplay I’d be up for!

    • no , she has weak armor against low caliber and she suffer both HE and AP like all British BB

    • That’s why the secondaries need to be the strongest in the game to offset her weaknesses. Lets mix up the ship characteristics a bit or the new ships just pretty much just look like another ship with a bit of power creep sprinkled on.

    • A brawler with weak armour and huge citadel. Sounds a bit of a contradiction. You certainly seem to be up for challenges.

      I just suspect the challenge will get annoying after a few matches.

    • I shouldn’t of used the term brawler, and edited my original post to 10km combat instead of brawler. Would you call the Gascogne and Mass. armored beast brawlers? No, the Gascogne is more a speedy battlecruiser while the Mass. has to keep angled ( I have both). So we should stop thinking powerful secondaries always means brawler.

    • I’d like to mix up T8 gameplay also. Too often it devolves into a stalemate with BBs and CRs sitting back and sniping. I use the Monarch and its low concealment as a flanker for exactly those type of situations and would like a bit more pew pew when coming across destroyers who are also flanking.

  5. A worse Hood, at possibly the worst matched tier in the game!:( I cant think of one reason why I’d play this ship!:(

    • Sir Raint, Knight of Silverwing

      At least Hood can easily swat the sky cancer from Kaga & Saipan with her Def AA gimmick. Graf Zeppelin & Lexington’s AP bombs can one-hit Vanguard easily.

  6. Outmatched by a T6 battleship with bad aim slinging HE. Way to respect Britain’s last Battleship, Wargaming.

  7. Could make a nice T7

  8. It’s like Hood. But with worse guns due lack of improved overmatch angles. Significantly worse armor due to extreme citadel and an all or nothing scheme that makes it very vulnerable to HE spam as well. Much worse gun angles. AA is better unless Hood can use her DFAA. Better concealment. Slower max speed. Oh, and it’s one tier higher, lol. Whoever designed this is surely trolling the community.

  9. A ship that can be biten but can’t bite back is always a bad idea, a non starter…

  10. always love hits directly on the torpedo belt that magically disable the engines.

  11. Beautiful ship…massive flaws= zero sales, great way to run a business WG lol

  12. Crap or not, I bet it’s still better than the Seattle! lol

  13. When a “modern” battleship has a bigger citadel than the Musashi
    *epic facepalm*

  14. New rule? Last battleship ever built in a nation gets Big citadel? Like Yamato roma, iowa and now vanguard..

  15. Well that’s BS. After Hood blew up & the sinking of PoW, the Royal Navy slapped MORE armor on the Vanguard than any BB the Royal Navy every put into the water. Compared to King George V she had greater magazine protection to prevent her from becoming another Hood. Her deck armor in particular made her nearly impossible to citadel via high-angle AP shells & AP bombs, reflecting on war-time experience. She also has an increased Torpedo defense system after studying how PoW went down against Japanese torpedo bombers.

    Vanguard’s weakness is mainly her unarmored superstructure (a common theme for all late-war British BB, reflected on Lion & Conqueror as being HE sponges), the use of the old BL 15″ Mk I guns (slightly offset by a larger propellant charge to gain some extra range) and slightly thinner main belt than the KGV to offset the stronger horizontal protection scheme. Lastly, unlike most BB of the time, Vanguard’s conning tower is VERY thinly armored, the RN believed it served little purpose & used less protection to save weight.

    • The armour is historical. This large of a citadel is what All-or-nothing gives you. This, in hindsight, turned out to be a mistake, as well as heavy deck armour, as long range combat never manifested, not even in modern times.

    • +BlondePrince it was a design element to prevent AP dive bombers sinking a BB. The RN had frequently saw their capital ships being attacked throughout the war by Stukas.

    • Ah yes, that is correct. I heard before that due to the deck armour, most dive bomb attacks did superstructural damage rather than fatal one

    • BlondePrince, do not assume that WG’s mechanics relate to the real world – they don’t. AoN, was the most advance system for armoring a battleship if a tonnage restriction is enforced. Oddly, even when no restriction is enforced, designers are forced by physics to resort to AoN. Long range combat certainly did manifest, perhaps you missed some of the major engagements of WW II. Well, long range varied by navies, for the RN, long range was 16,000 to 20,000. Germans too. The Japanese were in the 18,000 to 24,000. The USN expected to start shooting around 34,000 and begin landing devastating hits around 26,000. West Virginia did just that at Surigao.

      Whereas belt armor was AoN, deck armor worked best if it was NOT AoN, but rather was layered. The USN used a three deck system. A bomb deck usually around 2-3 inches, a main armor deck of 3.5-5.0 and a splinter deck of 1.5 to 2.5 inches. The principle was that an AP bomb would be fused by the bomb deck and spend itself on the MAD, if there were any splinters the lowest deck – the splinter deck would keep the protected spaces free harm. It worked the same against AP shells.

  16. See panzer how we ordinary players play game we have not any luck

  17. So the Russians are still pissed at being called out about the nerve agent attack, huh?

    This must be the “Salisbury Citadel” design feature.

  18. I don’t even understand the reasoning behind this ship, they literally acknowledge that the guns will be garbage in the ship description then, they give it sluggish maneuverability and squishy armor plus the biggest citadel in the entire game….simply WTF! No sense… I’m not asking for turtleback + 50 mm plating everywhere but Damn, DAMN WG!…it feels like some kind of troll…

  19. skeletaur skull night

    The he is good ?it’s good brithish bb so maybe à arsonist ship

  20. Pretty much the only Pay-To-Lose ship is the game.

Leave a Reply

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