World of Warships – Das Boot

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3,282 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)

The Public Test is up with new ships including the USS Charleston, West Virginia and Wichita as well as HMS Dreadnought and Vanguard. Also new Submarine game mode for Halloween or something like that. Probably some kind of elaborate hoax.

To go to the Submarine content and skip the premium ship preview, go to 34:26

All music licensed from and



  1. It will become the bloody submarine boat game, as opposed to just being a bloody boat game

  2. Das re-Boot, surely?

  3. A Premium version of the St.Lpuis with Un-nerfed guns jingles, that’s the important bit.
    Also Dreadnought’s speed is wrong, it should be doing 21 Knots

  4. they don’t need to remodel the VW, they should rename it to Maryland and be done with it

    • Jaden Hirst yeah honesty if is just a old A hull Colorado that would also be an insult the the USS Maryland cause it was better then that at pear harbor aswell.

    • Hello i might be wrong so i apologise if im giving wrong information but i think i read somwhere that West Virginia was the only ship in the class that didnt get the torpedo bulges but has i sais i might be wrong.

    • Hi about the speed i think you have made a mistake she could go 24 miles per hour wich is 21 nautical miles per hour (21 kn) since a mile is arount 1.6 km while a nautical mile is 1.8 km.

    • aa i checked yes you are right my info was wrong ( during 1941 refits Colorado and Maryland got the bulges and Virginia didnt but in the 1944 refit she did get the huge bulges that increased the beam from 29m to 35m aa well sorry for the mistake)

    • Anyway i still think she shouls be a tier 7 all they need to do is buff Colorado’s AA and nerf Virginia’s guns i dont thing thes should touch the speed since 21kn is slow enough. She would still be visualy different than the Colorado and al atractive premium at the given tier.

  5. Am I only one who can image Take me home, country road playing on background when playing West Virginia.

  6. West Virginia, mountain mama

  7. I personally believe that World of Warships should stay with surface ships only. At least for PvP, they are just going to be annoyance. It’s not like I’m planning to trust teammates to do simple things, how should I expect my Destroyers to protect my battleship from Submarines? Would be amazing for PvE and Co op, but PvP? Just no

    • Just let those who want Sumarine to be ingame play a couple of Silent Hunter game series round. And they will change their mind. ( I watched my friend play it in the past, and as far as I can remember he avoid surface combat except battleship like a plague) XD

    • Subs should be easier to balance because they when introduced in WW2 did not make every other ship class obsolete.

    • +David you don’t shoot torps at a sub from a dd, you use depth Charges.

    • Especially because when anyone thinks of Submarine warfare, they think Hunt for Red October. But thats at least 40 years ahead of time to the scope of WoWs. By that point in history: Subs can stay submerged indefinitely, at depths of 800 to 1000 meters below the surface. Some can do upwards of 40 knots submerged. They have Sonar *and* radar. And most Torpedoes are damn near idiot-proof, they can be guided by wire, or can use their on board sonar to lock onto and independently track targets. And significant efforts have been made to make the engines quieter.

      A sub from the 1930s or 40s by contrast: has a limited amount of time it can stay below Periscope depth. When it does dive it cant travel anywhere near as deep. Are slow and cumbersome to maneuver. No Radar. On Sonar a WW1-2 Sub sounds like a freight train. And Torpedoes can only be fired at Periscope depth, because to not do so is to fire blindly into the water in front of you. More importantly because all torps are dumb fire the only means to aim them is to turn the entire vessel, this is fine against surface vessels because they cant adjust their depth, because of this Sub on Sub combat is basically impossible unless one or both of them are surfaced. And of course, dumb fired torpedo is easily counted by not sailing in straight lines.

    • If anything, subs may be the answer to the sniper BB’s who hang at the back of the map. By presenting a threat that could sneak in undetected and do a whole host of pain to them, it might encourage battleship players to stick closer to the ships (cruisers and destroyers) that can protect them from the threat.

  8. US shipbuilding logic: 175 Fletcher class destroyers in 3 years
    4 oil tankers

  9. holy jingles … a 47 min video for the weekend ?!! youre spoiling us sir !

  10. Flamu made a good point about the Vanguard’s citadel – It’s like they took a slice from the T8 9 and 10 RN BBs to make their tiny citadels, and then added them to the Vanguard instead.

    • “questionable. Extremely questionable” -Flamu

    • Vanguard was supposed to be a quick attrition replacement ship that would be built faster than a Lion class ship.  It didn’t work out that way but made the ship heavily compromised outside of the amount of 40mm bofors they stuck on it.  By the time it was finished the only reason the RN wanted to keep it was to deal with the new Russian Sverdlov-class cruisers (Mikhail Kutuzov in game)  There where no battleships to fight except US and French who where allies.

    • Correct, the Vanguard was built with economy in mind, using as many pre existing technologies as possible. The Lion class were going to be the Royal Navy’s world class battleships, nearly equally the Yamato class in tonnage displacement in final blueprint configuration.

    • +Joe Average for real damn that a thicc bitch

  11. >who would want to play a tier 6 battleship that only goes 21 knots

    >be me
    >play New Mexico
    >enjoy it because I do well in it

    • Doesn’t the New Mexico only have a speed of 18 knots stock? Even with the Sierra Mike signals, I was only able to squeeze 22.1 knots out of her
      Jingles said that no one wants to play tier VI ships that only go 21 knots

      By that logic, no one should want to play the New Mexico

      But I do

    • I actually did significantly better in the New Mexico than the Colorado. Dropping off 1 gun per turret was pretty significant when dispersion doesn’t like you.

    • NM is a great ship….nothing to complain about until team mates start giving you a hard time for being so far behind the battle – which is still your fault for not going straight to it from the start. at 18kts you cant fuck around.

  12. Strange that wargaming have given Dreadnought a max speed of 19kts, when she was capable of 21kts.

    Oh and jingles, apologies for being a pedant, but *technically* Dreadnought is in her own class, as the design changed subtly between her (17,900 tons) and the three Bellerophon Class ships (18,600 tons)

    • Not to mention a top speed of 21 knots?
      oh and 21 x 76mm(3″) secondary guns

    • Historigraph maybe because that was without prob full fuel, full oil, ammo, ppl and the rest that are put on when sailors drag their things onboard, and that boats back in the days usaly never was run full speed cause it would shake apart and rattle to much and destroy things much quicker at full speed. Even small boats behaved like this up to the 70’s

    • Still did 21.6 knots during trials and survived till 1919 when she was scrapped

    • You really expect Jingles to know what he is talking about?

  13. HMS Vanguard is one of the ships I’ve always wanted to get from the moment I heard the game was announced; right behind the USS Alaska. But not like this. Never like this. They need to buff the guns and the armor. And fix the firing arcs.

    Like you said, Jingles, I think most of us will get HMS Dreadnought because HMS MOTHER FARKING DREADNOUGHT.

    USS Wichita needs repair ability to make her fit in with the other tier VIII premium cruisers like the IJN Atago and USS Prinz Eugen. What’s that? The in-game version is her under the Kreigsmarine? Bah, America looks after her own. Even broken hand-me-downs we only grabbed to keep her out of the hands of the dirty commies. Also Wichita should either trade her radar consumable or concealment for better guns.

    • @Maddog3060: as a german i feel offended that you used the prefix “USS” for the Prinz Eugen. I know the Prinz Eugen was given to the USN as a war prize after the war and was used for testing Nukes, but ingame it is a german ship and when the Prinz Eugen was laid down, it was a german/axis shipyard that build it, not an american.

    • The guns were relatively poor because the Royal Navy did not make new guns or turrets. They used left over “R Class Battleship” turrets I believe.

    • +DAKOTA56777 there is a world of difference between the WWI guns and WWII guns. Charges were more powerful, barrels were stronger (longer caliber was possible), shell design was superior – the 15″/42 Mk.I was an excellent gun with great dispersion characteristics, but by WWII is was very much out-classed by modern 15″ guns, with nowhere near their penetrative ability. Even with upgrades (4crh shells to 6crh in the QE-class with higher elevation, and superchargers for the Revenge-class), they were still far behind modern guns, and keep in mind 16″ guns were also in use at the time.

      With the improved armor of most modern opponents, this left the 15″/42 Mk.I very lacking in hitting power, and put ships using it at considerable disadvantage

    • +Phoenix jz Yes, as my original comment says, “the biggest improvement was the shells, mainly fuses and power of explosives charges” which, at least the latter, does depend on breech strength.

      Though to be fair enough, I should’ve said in my first paragraph that the difference was that they tended to be bigger and operate higher pressure, instead of just saying bigger.

      _However_ my entire point is focussed on accuracy not penetration or range, which results primarily from fire control system, and the gun’s mount, not the gun itself.

      Which is my main gripe with the _Vanguard_ in game, it has horrid accuracy, despite notably accurate gun mounts and superb fire control systems.

    • which vanguard?

  14. The mast from the USS West Virginia is 100 yards away from me in Morgantown, WV, on the campus of WVU.

  15. Wichita … i hear Flamu roll the newspaper up again and shouting “bad wargaming, bad”.

  16. All I know is this if they do introduce submarines into the game. They owe already a lot of players an appregio of blue steel I-401

    • the j10 channel sadly enough they no longer hold the rights for ARP and I doubt another collab could happen, but if they do, it would be like the Azur lane HSF collab, selling stuff and no event than the old ARP collab.

    • Yeah, I want I-401. And Hyuga.

    • manh phuc well now we seem to have a problem. But hey what can we do but hope as you said

    • Silverslicer why the battlecarrier??? Historically speaking the thing was a bust no way to retrieve its planes plus it went into battle without them… it would be weird design concept would its main batteries be non-controllable?? Or would it play a battleship with literally a ridiculous amount of seaplanes?

    • What, you don’t want crazy Hyuga as a captain? And the ship itself, because reasons.

  17. Jingles why are you so afraid of water coming in your submarine didn’t you had enough experience from last time doing a jingles landing at the bottom of the ocean in cold waters
    Yep don’t think we will forget jingles

  18. WG really do have a bug up their arse regarding RN ships…………it’s probably payback for the UK training the Japanese fleet before the russo-japan war in 1905

  19. The Vanguard seems to get bad historical correct data like turret traverse and gun reload, but lacks the positive historical data like good protection, especially deck armor, very good gun accuracy and fire control systems, absolutely on par with the Iowas. At a sigma 1,8, turret traverse that is worse than the Yamato, reload time 30 sees while other 15 inch gun ships have less, armor that’s basically the characteristics of swiss cheese, a citadel that for some reason is the entire middle section of the ship, larger than even cruisers at that tier. This forces the ship to be played at very long ranges and very dependent on concealment and not getting hit. Not good! Looking forward to the tests.

    • WG nerfing the RN line again! 1st it was the Cruisers,then the Battleships and then the destroyers with a speed boost and now the premiums? Although I want to play my nations ships I’m getting seriously peed off with WG’s nerfing to keep the unicorn US and Jap ships at the top of the tree.

    • Paul Kember at the very least I expected the Vanguard to have closer to the best firecontrol and accuracy in the game, above 2.0 sigma. I was surprised that the turret traverse was kept at 72 seconds. How is it possible to play a large ship at tier 8 with basically stationary guns? I’m quite sure it will change during testing, when it proves without a doubt that her performance is abysmal. I hope Vanguard will be a fun and relevant ship in the end.

    • Erik One can only hope? Given that she was the last Battleship ever built and a Royal Navy one at that! I have a Monarch and I’m getting fed up of being cannon fodder in T10 matches!.We’ll just have to wait and see?

    • +Paul Kember yeah, i hope they give Vanguard higher fire chance… like 50%… and also, ivd sold Monarch 3 times (without making it to the Lion) because i hated it so much

  20. That citadel issue on the Vanguard is most likely an error in the internal layout. The part above the waterline that extends over the whole width of the ship is labeled as casemate on all the British BBs starting with the King George V, only the narrower part below the waterline is the citadel.
    I think we had a similar issue (on the test server) when WG decided to lower the citadel of the US BBs, back then it was an issue with a missing armor plate at the position where they split the casemate and the citadel.
    All British BB designs after the King George V were modified KGV designs. So there’s no reason why Vanguard should be different.

    • Because wargaming seems to be looking for every excuse to nerf the ship…?
      I mean the guns are worse than the warspite’s at tier 6!
      The real ship’s AA was on par with the likes of the planned Montana’s (they went without the 20mm’s in exchange for going to town on the bofors)
      It’s also meant to be just about the most accurate battleship ever.
      The torpedo protection was meant to be vastly improved over the kgv, and would be the most advanced system in the world at that point, but has about half as much damage reduction as the French, Japanese or premium American battleships.
      For some reason they have always given the RN battleships much thinner plating so they get absolutely destroyed by Japanese 100mm (and 152mm in general) HE… Even though after jutland, the British made the most heavily armoured battleships (with the exception of the yamato).
      The secondaries are meant to be pretty awesome too, closer to the range of the 6″ guns than the 5″ class ones, and the vanguards ones could shoot over 18 rpm.

      None of the strengths of the real ship’s has made it through wargaming’s bias filter.
      Meanwhile they add fanciful super ships like the stalingrad, that irl grounded its self because the idiots who built the Hull forgot to remove the framework welded to the bottom before trying to float it… But because Russian gets 2.6 sigma laser cannons!

Leave a Reply

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