A 14″ gunned NC just could be the ideal T7 premium USN BB that we’ve all been looking for. Here’s how she’d work out. Part 2 of the West Virginia proposal video.
World of Warships – T7 Premium USN Battleship Proposal
8,900 views
(406 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
Tennessee?
ahh gotcha, thanks for the explanation! So the reason they didnt get the refit i listed is bc they were re-built in effect,thanks!
New Mexico with better AA ?
Was she faster than 21 kn after her refit ?
turboelectric to turbine was only a knot or two. The designs either were fine with low-20 knots, or went for 30ish but had way less armor. Much of it was based on the speed (incorrectly known for a long time bc the US intel was out of date after IJN modifications) of the Kongo-class, and whether you needed to be faster than them or not.
Yep! That’s precisely why. If Wargaming ever does follow through makes the model for the USS West Virginia ’44, they’ll also “technically” have the model for the Tennessee and California save for a few minor tweaks. And honestly, I think the TN’44 and CA’44 make more sense (and not the WV ’44) at T7 due to the lower caliber main battery.
heck yes !! +1
colorado sigma got nerfed when they buffed her hp its 1.9
Or was it 1.8?
It’s 1.9
Meanwhile it’s close range accuracy still sucks donkey balls
USN BBs have the best close range accuracy in the game (of BBs) due to their horizontal dispersion being better than others at distances <~9km, and the vertical dispersion compared to the horizontal is already the best at all ranges. I'm not sure what the Colorado's "linearTaperDist" is (basically where the dispersion profile leaves the "natural" one and tapers to zero rather than 60), but there is no reason to think it's any worse than other T7 ships. If you want accuracy, play a cruiser.
You haven’t played Colorado that much then.
I want my Hyuga *pouts and stamps feet*
Carrier rework
Then why the WV it’s just a CO with some minor design differences. But that hasn’t stopped the player base from crying enough tears to float the real WV
Tim Coy probably coz WeeVee was a victim of Pearl, and fought at Suriago Strait, and Leyte, and held the title of best gunnery crews in the USN?
Hyuga is a unique design and not just another nerfed reskin of a ship already in the game I rather have something unique and different and not just the same old same old
I agree, Hyuga and Ise have superior turrets to Fuso, the mid mounted turrets are a real pain on Fuso compared to the rear facing mid turrets on Hyuga and Ise
What about Tennessee in her refit?
he wanted one which is fast
Petition to name this ship the USS IChase.
Actually considering the state name propensity of the us for battleships I was thinking the USS Kansas the plains state. Because we need this ship, plain and simple.
+Wadres_Warships Killjoy…
Excellent suggestion ?
Second turret seems not tall enough for firing
Historically the superfiring turret on that design required 8 degrees of elevation to be able to fire
Wargaming, build it please. Great idea Ichase. Thank you.
enough of the ship designs, we need real historical ships
Then start being constructive, and come up with actual suggestions for a historical T7 US Premium BB
We already have the majority of ship types used in WWII and early post war period. Many of what’s left either belong to other nations that haven’t been introduced, or are very similar to existing ships in game. Like, the WV is basically a CO, and the South Dakotas are basically carbon copies of NC. So good luck with that
+ItsTime2Battle uss California?
USS Nevada BB 36. Only American battleship to withstand a nuke
Lmao
Shots fired against Zoup
Yes, I want that
iChase you should do more ship proposal videos
ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!!!!!!
Interesting idea, but where does this leave Tennessee when she eventually shows up?
I like it, but I have a few suggestions:
Increase the speed by 1-2 kts. This would solidify its position as a flanking BB and make it more competitive with the likes of Scharnhorst, and enable it to keep up with the cruisers it’s meant to support.
Also, based on the current AA system (idk about the CV rework), I think your suggestion is a little too strong. The long range AA you suggested would absolutely shred any equal tier or lower planes. The CO, when AA specced, is already a monster, and an AA specced version of your ship would be the strongest at T7. I would suggest 100 long range DPS, 80 mid range and mediocre short range AA of 50. This would help it support any nearby BBs or cruisers, while still being balanced. A dedicated T7 CV could focus it down effectively, but lose some planes in the process. This keeps it from being a one man show.
This ship is very much a front line support ship, helping out with cruisers on the push, while leaving the big guns of the CO or Nagato behind to deal with other BBs from range.
Overall, an excellent idea though
As a BB player, I would be interested in this ship for sure!
I really want a USS Tennessee…
USS Lexington class Battlecruiser design for T7! Make CC-1 great again! Do a video on her Chase!
Lexington would be more fitting at T8, frankly. Amagi-style with a fictional AA refit (it also is the American equivalent to the Amagi). The issue is, if you put a 4×2 16 inch gun 33 knot CC at T7, what is the point of Colorado? Tight turning circle? Yeah, lol…Colorado wouldn’t even win in tankiness, as it basically has less hp and already an armour scheme that isn’t all that great (compared to the real bricks of T7 in form of Gneisenau, Scharnhorst and Hood). Only issue is, do we need another T8 American BB? At least it wouldn’t be like another variant of NC.
And Hood was built in response to the Mackensen-class, but its German equivalent is not the Mackensen-class, it’s the Ersatz-York. The Lexingtons were orginally ordered to counter the Kongous, but the design was improved continually to respond to new developments, which makes her comparable to newer battlecruisers like the Amagi-class. And bow armour wouldn’t be 19 mm, but 32 mm at T8. Bow armour in WoWS is never historical and always dictated by tier. It’s why Ashitaka gets 25 mm common plating, Amagi gets 32 mm common plating. and yes, the belt thickness is crap, but angled it works and it isn’t the first BB with terrible belt. Kongo, Fuso and Amagi already have bad belt armour, yet people don’t care too much, because angled it still bounces shells. If you put this ship at T7, tell me, what is the point of the Hood that is slower, smaller, has less guns, lacks torpedo tubes, etc. ? at T8, you can basically make it a fast American Amagi, give it better gun handling (it has better guns at 16”/50) and it works quite well. at T7 you’d have to Ashitaka it.
Everywhere you go on the forums people fit her at T7 and frankly thats her place she awfully light on the armour side to be at T8.
Am i the only one, who has absolutely no problem with the USN standards slow speed?
senpai
+m33p0 hai, kouhai-kun?
I just scrolled through the comment section and this is gold. Thanks for the laugh.
That being said, I hated the NewMex and was content with my CE and range module Colorado. That 21km range and good concealment was actually playable while the short range on NewMex really felt lackluster for me.
well, i am doing really well in the Colorado, the first USN BB i kept after grinding, and the only keeper i play regularly. I really like the Colorado.
yes. IMO, WG should make their current upgraded speeds into their stock speeds, and give the standards fictional engine upgrades, same as was done for the French and German BBs in that same tier range (tier 5-7).
Lexington Class Battlecruiser, would be better than Scheme 17 due to that they already have the hull design in the Lexington class Aircraft Carrier. They could look at this at their play due to that the Nagato has 16 in guns, in this it would be 33 knots and you’d have to have the 1943 upgrade as an experience of what you will get at the North Carolina and Iowa of good AA when they remove the 14 6in guns and replace them with the newer 5/51 dual mount 127mm, more protection and HP. The only problem is that the Lexington would be longer than most ships at T7 therefore the disadvantages. They probably should call this the Constellation or Constitution class so not to be confused with the Lexington class CV. And give this one it’s torpedoes as well which is 2*4 and give it the same speed as the Mahan class destroyers beginning torpedoes as well.
I like this proposal, but I also like the idea of including the early 20’s Lexington battlecruiser as well, given that it is a eight 16″ gunned BC.
If she is adopted and implemented, I petition for the ship to be named either USS Virginia or USS Georgia. Both were previously-built battleships of the Virginia-class and as such wouldn’t conflict with the names that were either already members of classes that were subsequently built or planned.
iChase should have his image taken to be assigned to her as a premium commander.
You know what else has 12 14-inch guns and would fit comfortably at tier 7?
The Tennessee-class.
USS California or Tennessee class won’t be fast – BUT they had higher elevation (and thus longer range) than the previous classes. A modernized Tennessee class could be made to be more accurate and longer range (gun elevation combined with modernized fire control). Rate of fire and accuracy could counterpoint the brute force of the Colorado. Plus, they ACTUALLY existed and fought in major WW2 naval battles. The “paper ship” proposal is interesting, but it seems unnecessary. Good idea, Thomas Scaife!