Viability of AA battleships

[pepe_trueno]

this started as a joke with the wyoming training ship conversion or the   jean bart AA proposal.  basically AA BBs would have their big guns removed and every available inch filled with dual purpose guns and AA mounts.

now i can imagine why this was not very popular in real life but world of warships is far from realistic and most of what made them a bad idea  do not apply here which begs the question can we have them?

We have been getting all kind of ridiculous ship so why not something like an Odin hull but instead of   3x3 305mm and 2x3 150mm it has 5x3 150mm main guns that also dual as AA guns? 

or to go to an extreme a Lyon with an ungodly amount of 4x4 dual purpose 130mm as main guns.

 

the balance will be done in  stats like ROF or removing utility like access to HE.

 

 

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

None.

[Wulf_Ace]

well Yamato could shot AA shells from main guns. historical.

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Such a ship would be brutally OP, unless it also has lowered armored values.

[Admiral_Karasu]

39 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

well Yamato could shot AA shells from main guns. historical.

 

Yeah... a bit too historical for WG, and completely useless. San shiki, beehive shells.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTCWtpzIlIU

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhkgNYkM47Q

 

[Justin_Simpleton]

I think you would not get matched against CVs or hybrids.  That's how my MM works.

[tocqueville8]

For reference, my beloved Colbert has pretty much "every inch filled with dual purpose AA guns" (she was built as a dedicated AA cruiser, iirc), yet her in-game AA is still nothing special.

I guess your proposal would fall between that and the Illinois...

Edited October 12 by tocqueville8

[majmac]

Let's face it: If you queued with this ship, then War Gaming's *patented* MM would always put you in a match without CVs or air strike ships. 🙂

[pepe_trueno]

1 hour ago, Wulf_Ace said:

well Yamato could shot AA shells from main guns. historical.

 

bee hive shells feels more like a captain skill or may be a module than a new type of ship, something that buff AA in exchange of reducing main guns HE effectiveness.

 

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Such a ship would be brutally OP, unless it also has lowered armored values.

illinois is a BB hull with cruiser guns and is not broken.  There is more than just raw DPM, In illinois case DPM is on par with cruisers but does not have cruiser accuracy, mobility or utility like radar.

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Yeah... a bit too historical for WG, and completely useless. San shiki, beehive shells.

 

it's funny how selective historical accuracy can be at times. torpedoes among other things are pure magic with their super speed, easy reload mid battle and never failing😆.

USS Tang getting destroyed by its own torpedo that made an u turn and come back... why isn't that a thing for  subs? 

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

this started as a joke with the wyoming training ship conversion or the   jean bart AA proposal.  basically AA BBs would have their big guns removed and every available inch filled with dual purpose guns and AA mounts.

now i can imagine why this was not very popular in real life but world of warships is far from realistic and most of what made them a bad idea  do not apply here which begs the question can we have them?

We have been getting all kind of ridiculous ship so why not something like an Odin hull but instead of   3x3 305mm and 2x3 150mm it has 5x3 150mm main guns that also dual as AA guns? 

or to go to an extreme a Lyon with an ungodly amount of 4x4 dual purpose 130mm as main guns.

 

the balance will be done in  stats like ROF or removing utility like access to HE.

I think there are good reasons why Battleships were built primarily to fire Battleship-sized main-guns.
The hulls were armored against their own guns (or guns of similar capability), which is a huge investment in material and money (during construction and during the service-life of the ship).
The AA guns on Battleships were intended to protect the ship, and ships she may have escorted, so that the main-guns could be preserved for action against ships or land-based targets.

For a mostly Anti-Aircraft role, I feel that a Cruiser hull makes more sense.
The Cruiser hull costs less (to procure and operate) and can maneuver better (than a Battleship) to evade aerial attacks.
The Cruiser can mount effective AA guns (according to the time period and nation in question) and sufficient ammunition.
Cruisers may be expected to fight airplanes, destroyers and submarines and other cruisers.
That said, it is my understanding that naval doctrines did not normally expect cruisers to fight battleships.  

An "AA only Battleship" could also be considered an over-armored Cruiser, eh?
I think the Navies and governments which control the design and financial processes might consider the idea to be impractical.
Such a ship could be derived from a partially completed Battleship hull if the nation needed ships quickly and could not produce battleship-sized guns soon enough?
(Similar to the Illinois, as @tocqueville8 pointed out.)

But, if the nation had the luxury of time and sufficient production capability, then I feel they would either build a CV or would build a Battleship.
Even the Japanese hybrid-ships, which were created in reality, were wartime expedients instead of the ideal and preferred solution.

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 minutes ago, pepe_trueno said:

 

it's funny how selective historical accuracy can be at times. torpedoes among other things are pure magic with their super speed, easy reload mid battle and never failing😆.

USS Tang getting destroyed by its own torpedo that made an u turn and come back... why isn't that a thing for  subs? 

Yes.  Battleship repair-party consumable wasn't a reality.  But we have it in-game.
Merely one example (among many) of why World of Warships is an arcade game and not a simulation.  🙂 
 

[pepe_trueno]

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Yes.  Battleship repair-party consumable wasn't a reality.  But we have it in-game.
Merely one example (among many) of why World of Warships is an arcade game and not a simulation.  🙂 
 

they may not be able to print a new bow on demand like certain BBs but they could do some repairs. The real bargain is the cost, buying and running a BB cost as much as a destroyer... how do you think modern navy would have looked like if that was remotely true? 😅 

[Estaca_de_Bares]

11 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

[...]

USS Tang getting destroyed by its own torpedo that made an u turn and come back... why isn't that a thing for  subs? 

For extreme realism, torpedoes would also need to randomly jump out of the water. There's at least one case of a surfaced submarine surviving being torpedoed by an enemy one in WW1 because of that: a U-boat was chilling when the crew noticed the periscope and trail of bubbles coming from their foe with no time to evade, but the torp pranced and passed above the hull between the gun and the conning tower.

Salute.

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 hours ago, Estaca_de_Bares said:

For extreme realism, torpedoes would also need to randomly jump out of the water. There's at least one case of a surfaced submarine surviving being torpedoed by an enemy one in WW1 because of that: a U-boat was chilling when the crew noticed the periscope and trail of bubbles coming from their foe with no time to evade, but the torp pranced and passed above the hull between the gun and the conning tower.

Salute.

Well, at least WG's RNG is historically accurate.

[pepe_trueno]

discussing historical accuracy seems pointless so let's go back to battleship AA conversion.

 

 

 

 

[SoshiSone]

21 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

the balance will be done in  stats like ROF or removing utility like access to HE.

Here's the problem.  If you make a ship with OP AA, then CVs can just ignore it and hit other ships.  While the ship will be mostly protected from aircraft attacks, it is not neutered in ship to ship combat.  And this is when CVs are in the game.

Without CVs in the game, the neuter in ship-to-ship necessary to make up for the OP AA will put your ship and your team at a disadvantage before the game begins

Keep in mind there are some very good AA cruisers out there.  When I run my AA buffed cruisers, I'm more than happy for CVs to give me a go.  And I also try to project over friendlies that need the added AA protection.  And some decent AA BBs as well, even in the current meta.  The ability to deal with the AA threat has a lot do do with positioning and overlapping AA coverage.  See video at end.

Also, don't underestimate those extra benefits of AA WG has added over the years.  Some of the AA buffs don't just buff AA but also reduce the heal time for effects that repair ships and stop/end fires.

Lastly, there are many maneuver options ships have to limit/reduce the impact of AA strikes.

 

I air spec my Sejong.  This positioning and related movement was designed to protect Yamato from getting killed by the enemy CV.  

 

Edited October 13 by SoshiSone