World of warships – OMG OMG we’re ALL gonna DIEEE in SEATTLE WiP

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (327 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5)

This is not the kinda match I was expecting to have in a new ship.
This is a work in progress brand new tier 9 USN Seattle.


  1. Kind of funny seeing myself dying after 5 and a half minutes from a different perspective xD

  2. As i said i like the looks of the seattle

  3. Is it long for taking 9 seconds for the shells land to 12km spot?

  4. Risheen Mukherjee

    Isnt the shell speed even slower than the Cleveland’s? It sorta feels that way for some reason.

    • Risheen Mukherjee I think it just has a longer range than the Cleveland so his engagements are farther away —> perception of slower shells

  5. Was that a Pi-day camo or something?

  6. Jonas Drøjdahl

    Yeah, Seattle is pretty ugly, but it is a sort of cool-ugly. Like the A-10 Warthog.

  7. This was the ORIGINAL design of the Worcester that used the same overcomplex “automatic” loading system.
    The guns just couldn’t be put closer together because each guns had two mechanical shell hoist.
    One for the AP and another for the AA shells.
    And these shell hoists were placed inbetween the guns (ala German gun turret) and not behind the guns like the Cleveland gun turret.
    The powder charge packed in brass casings could be made to load automatic but they haven’t at the time figured out how to mechanically connect the AP and AA shell hoist to a single gun and make it swap shell loading at a moment’s notice.
    So they posted 2 sailors there to load the guns MANUALLY.
    And they had to pick shells between the AA and AP shell hoists located between the guns and drop them in a shell shute located at the side of the gun.
    The guns were equipped with mechanical shell rammers attached to them so they could be loaded at any angle (to better function as an AA gun).
    The Worcester gun system started out in the 1930s that’s why Seattle looks closer to a New Orleans than a more modern Cleveland since it was the Worcester’s first prototype design.
    Seeing that the triple turrets were too wide and therefore too heavy for fast traverse required to shoot down aircraft they reduced the amount of guns to 2 per turret.
    (This is the same reason German naval designers avoided excessively wide and heavy triple turrets as much as possible, which renders Wargaming’s Grosser Kurfurst’s triple turret complete bullshit.
    In German gun turrets the shell hoists and powder hoists were located in between the guns which caused the guns in a turret to be set wide apart from each other.)
    At one point the Worcester guns were even considered to arm the Montana and Midway.
    Being stuck in development hell is what defined the Worcester gun system.

    What ultimately led to the Worcester gun system being deemed a failure is that one step of the loading process still required man power.
    These shells weigh 59 kg (heavier than a Cement Bag) which result in Crew Fatigue which resulted in deterioration of Rate of Fire with prolonged shooting.
    The longer the Worcester shoots the slower the Rate of Fire.
    That’s why Worcester rate of fire per gun was only marginally better compared to Cleveland And that’s despite all the additional weight of the “automatic” loading turret.

    The Minotaur’s turret was a TRUE Autoloading system and that’s why it kept its rate of fire sustained with prolonged firing.

    • The 6” QF MK N5 The Minotaurs guns came from managed a high sustained rate of fire during testing then the mino has in game… It could have *more* dakka.

    • Very interesting – all the human factors behind the changes to these designs which so often lead to their ultimate failure to function when they actually make it off the drawing board are so rarely appreciated and modeled when things are put into games – hard numbers are clearly easier to put in practice. A real shame the Minotaur didn’t actually get built in time to show its stuff in Korea, but given how broke the country was paying back the US probably a good thing.

  8. Now that’s grabbing a team by the scruff of their kneck and dragging them to a wp to entire div 🙂

  9. Boring as fk until the last few minutes, isn’t it? All those blobs hiding behind islands while BB’s move back and forth at a few knots.

    • This seems like the (extremely common, 15 posts/day on the forums) argument of someone who should play a FPS. This is a tactical game. If it’s not time to push, it’s not time to push. You know in every war movie, there’s that guy that says something like, “I’LL KILL EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU MOTHERF…” *BAM* and dies because he ran out of cover? Don’t be that guy.

  10. Does this thing really have only 43k hp? That seems low given the last tier 9 cruiser you featured had 71k.

  11. 1ctrlaltdelete1

    Looks like IFHE is a must, for the light USN cruiser line. Whenever the line split occurs, many will be playing/testing the new USN cruisers… It will be a island hugging, radar & HE spamming hell for a few weeks 🙂

  12. Nice history, always enjoyable to see things like that. The only comments I have are with respect to the Minotaur. The rate of fire would decrease in her as well due to crew fatigue because as ammo was used, the crew would have bring rounds from further away in the magazines. She did not have automatic systems to load the hoists. Also, since she was never built, we can only guess what she would have been like in action.

  13. I Like the way the Seattle looks, But her stats NEED Help. For one. She Moves Very sluggish, not like a Light Cruiser(CL). She takes forever to stop and Go, and eh on turning. He Shells in the air take 17 second to reach 18Km. And shes extremely squishy, I know a CL is light armored but holy crap, I wouldn’t be surprised if you got citadeled while bow on in this thing.

  14. That can’t be Seattle. It’s not covered by a permanent rain cloud, and the deck isn’t full of trendy coffee shops and homeless heroin addicts. WG, we’re going to need a new skin.

  15. Nice division team play. Well played.

  16. What a brain-dead Atlanta player lol. At that range and angle, he could have wrecked you hard with AP. But no, 90% of them just fire HE religiously, not knowing how devastating ATL AP can be mid to close range.

    It’s like all the BB’s in game right now that fire HE at braodside targets. Who gives a shit that you can set fires and do decent HE alpha, when you can just send them back to port with one AP salvo.

  17. What music is being played throughout this video?

  18. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this _seems_ to be how the US light cruisers will go

    Dallas is your transition ship from the Omaha, and is kind of like a slower Omaha with a buff to AA and a modest buff to armor, and all tis guns in turrets (no videos yet)
    Helena is the standout gunboat and is the direct counter to the 152mm Mogami (no videos yet)
    Cleveland trades a turret for better rate of fire and a shift towards more AA focus
    Seattle is like Cleveland, but a little bit better
    Worchester is the anti-surface/anti-air flamethrower

    And overall the line is focused on AA firepower, locking down lanes, and hunting destroyers. In a cruiser v cruiser fight, you’re reliant on the other guy sitting broadside on to you. German cruisers and high-tier Russian cruisers may be a problem, but for the most part you can outdamage enemy ships at close range, so long as you don’t get torpedoed.

    Question: do the light cruisers get AMERICAN PIERCING as well, or are the superheavy AP shells particular to the heavy cruisers?

  19. whats the camo?

  20. Hahahahah that was awesome! 😀

Leave a Reply

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