Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts - USS Montana vs Yamato - Legendary Encounters

[@malinus3023]

I wouldn’t worry so much about the displacement of the paper ships, Iowa was supposed to be 45,000tons but ended up at ~57,000tons once completed. I would build them with any and all features desired by the designers and adjust the displacement of the in game ship to meet these features.

[@pilotfg4612]

Iowa was laways gonna be 57,000 tons since they decided to screw the treaty when everyone else did

[@aliabdallah2235]

Treaty design was 45k tons. She actually displaced around 47k tons (turret and forward bulkhead armour was increased), but when fully loaded with supplies (fuel, ammunition etc) displaced 57k tons.

[@DirectorBird]

Montana was not a paper ship.

[@chillylytical9410]

@@DirectorBird montana definately was a paper ship, it never sought completion as once the iowas were made, aircraft carriers were the new norm, so making a larger Iowa wouldn't make sense as the existing ships already provided a good fleet for the carriers. It didn't even get to the phase of construction as once the designs were made, said norms were in place. I mean it would be cool to see this monstrosity made a reality.

[@eriklinkogel3458]

Suggestion: HMS Renown vs. Gneisenau and Scharnhorst like in the Action of Lofoten Scharnhorst Class Displacement: 38900 ts (fully equiped) Length: 234,9 m Width: 30 m Crew: 1670 Armament: 9x 28 cm Guns, 12x 15 cm Guns, 14x 10 cm Guns, 16 37 mm Flak, 6x 53 cm Torpedoes Engines: Steamturbines, 160000 HP (119100 kW) -> 31.5 kn Armour: Belt: -351 mm, Bulkheads: -201 mm, Deck: -51 mm, Turrets: -361 mm, Superstructure: -351 mm (Command deck) (Krupp cemented steel) HMS Renown (after refit) Displacement: 37400 ts (fully equpied) Length: 242 m Width. 27,4 m Crew: 1200 Armament: 6x 38,1 cm (15"), 20x 11,4 cm, 24x 40 mm Engines: Steamturbines, 130000 HP (97000 kW) -> 29 kn Armour: Belt: -229 mm, Bulkheads: -102 mm, Deck: -76 mm, Turrets: -280 mm, Superstructure: -178 mm (Krupp cemented steel) German shells tendet to be lighter for higher muzzle velocity, while British shells usually were heavier. Source: Jane's Battleships of the Twentieth Century

[@matthewyang7893]

I have the Jane's aircraft encyclopedia and I must say it is very detailed.

[@eriklinkogel3458]

@@matthewyang7893 Yes, these books are really informative

[@ProjectAtlasmodling]

Funny thing about the 283 if your firing only he you don't need to pen to ship just repeatedly smack the side of the ship till it falls apart. I managed to sink a kgv with two spee this way. Very little of the damage done was fire

[@MrsGozdzikova]

Also on second thought I think that you shouldn't stick that hard to displacement. I care more about Armor thickness and rate of fire and speed than displacement.

[@seductive_fishstick8961]

Agreed

[@szetor1]

HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse vs IJN Nagato and Kongo. Instead of being destroyed by bombers, the British Far East fleet engage the Imperial Navy. Nice little 2-vs-2

[@Cailus3542]

That's an interesting scenario, you know. It really could go either way.

[@Xenotric]

The devs should definitely add an "uncap displacement" option to custom battles, just remove the upper limits and allow ships to have basically as much or as little as possible

[@captaincumrag42069]

I love this idea, something else that would be really cool is having your towers and funnels scale to the displacement of your ship, keeping their stats and function but so that you can make more accurate designs, smaller designs would be easier to build and real life ships would also be easier, and building batshit insane super battleships with quad 20.9 inch superfiring guns with 50 inches of armor and 40 knots top speed lol

[@westonharby165]

I would add that IJN radar wasnt used for targeting, unlike the USN which had a targeting computer. Should have omitted radar on yamato

[@JtGorski00]

The Battle of the Sisters: Fusō & Yamashiro vs Nelson & Rodney /// 2v2 It's late 1941, the British Admiralty has agreed to send the HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney to the far-east to reinforce their presence instead of sending HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales--the thought being that the two sister ships should compliment each other well with regards to performance and firepower. The Japanese are waiting and have set a trap--while the main strike force sent to Hawaii is commencing the raid on Pearl Harbor, the Fusō and Yamashiro have been dispatched to the Indian Ocean to blockade any reinforcements being sent via the Suez Canal. The pairs of ships both have the same maximum speed of 23 knots while their armament could also be considered a draw. It's a battle of sisters as the aging dreadnought style ships hold their ground against the advancing British treaty-built battleships. Fusō-class battleship Displacement 35,900 long tons (36,500 t) (full load) Length 202.7 m (665 ft) (overall) Beam 28.7 m (94 ft 2 in) Installed power 24 × Miyahara water-tube boilers 40,000 shp (30,000 kW) Propulsion 4 × shafts; 2 × steam turbine sets Speed 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph) Range 8,000 nmi (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph) Complement 1,198 Armament 6 × twin 356 mm (14 in) guns 16 × single 152 mm (6 in) guns 6 × 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes Armor Waterline belt 229-305 mm (9-12 in) Deck: 32-51 mm (1.3-2.0 in) Gun turrets: 229-279 mm (9-11 in) Barbettes: 203-305 mm (8-12 in) Conning tower: 351 mm (13.8 in) Nelson-class battleship Displacement 37,780 long tons (38,390 t) (full load) Length 709 ft 10 in (216.4 m) o/a Beam 106 ft (32.3 m) Installed power 8 × Admiralty 3-drum boilers 45,000 shp (34,000 kW) Propulsion 2 shafts; 2 geared steam turbines Speed 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph) Range 7,000 nmi (13,000 km; 8,100 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph) Complement 1,361 (flagship) Armament 3 × triple 16 in (406 mm) guns 6 × twin 6 in (152 mm) guns 6 × single 4.7 in (120 mm) AA guns 8 × single 2 pdr (40 mm (1.6 in)) AA guns 2 × 24.5 in (622 mm) torpedo tubes Armour Waterline belt: 13-14 in (330-356 mm) Deck: 3.75-6.25 in (95-159 mm) Barbettes: 12-15 in (305-381 mm) Gun turrets: 9-16 in (229-406 mm) Conning tower: 12-14 in (305-356 mm) Bulkheads: 4-12 in (102-305 mm)

[@Cailus3542]

It'd be a one-sided slaughter. The Fusos had smaller guns, thinner armour and less speed. They might have had a vague chance against WW1 designs (New Mexico, Revenge, Queen Elizabeth), but a 16-inch battleship would devastate them.

[@dantreadwell7421]

I also think the biggest issue is the US guns are insufficient in terms of thier mark number. Both the Iowas and the Montanas were using 16'/50 cal Mk7 guns, and with the super heavy Mk 8 shells, had better penetrating performance at long range than the Yamato. Oh, and a reload time of 30 seconds

[@PurpsUK2]

One of the things you're doing is putting full Krupe on Yamato, although Japanese armour technology was almost on par with EU and US, due to resourcing, her actual quality was far below that of other ships at the time. This is why the 16s are just bouncing off, the increased quality percentage and reduced weight are an advantage she didn't have.

[@jeffreynagy7112]

In fact to go even further, battleships of ww2 were starting to have unarmored conning towers. This was because that even if a ship did have an armored conning tower, the bridge crew would get out to have better visibility. And as you mentioned the bridge crew would be alive but incapacitated or even dead.

[@SephirothRyu]

Apparently, officers leaving their armored towers is the "British thing" in the same way that putting guns on every surface you can is the "American thing." And building floating hotels by committee instead of warships in the 1870s-90sish being the French thing.

[@darqen271]

Thank you stealth. I really enjoy your videos and i wait everyday for your next episode. You have a great voice and i really enjoy how you build the ships. I've learned a lot from you.

[@Stealth17Gaming]

That's very kind. Thank you :)

[@F34R_Flo]

Azuma (Project B-65) vs. USS Alaska class Cruisers. It will be a rather interesting battle as Project B-65 was developed to fight the Alaska Class Cruisers. But sadly, the war ended before they got a chance to clash

[@extremedj48]

Bismarck and Prinz Eugen vs HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales

[@welluhwhatdoyouwantm]

The pilots attacking the Yamato noticed colorful smoke of the AA guns, showing that they weren't being coordinated by radar.

[@Cailus3542]

The Japanese did have radar, particularly on Yamato later in the war, but it was search radar only.

[@5647mhjgt]

BBs are good and whatnot, but we never saw a proper CA showdown in WW2 either. How about 3 of the Des Moines-class vs 4 of the Mogami-class? 3v4 because DM was a much more advanced cruiser and had a huge advantage thanks to the auto loaders. UPD: You can adjust teams as you see fit, in case for some reason the showdown will be too one-sided.

[@croskerk]

OOooooo, sounds like a nice idea

[@chillylytical9410]

That actually sounds really good since the Mogami's had torpedos which the Des-Moines lacked cause the US never put torpedo on late war cruisers but the Americans had autoloaders which made their guns fire insanely fast. So if the US cruisers can gun down the Mogamis it would lead to their victory but if the Mogamis got the torps hit on the Des-Moines, that would lead to their victory.

[@Railman1225]

man, with this game, switching from AI to Manual Mode with Stealth is like changing out a rookie captain with a highly-experienced admiral!

[@alloioscc9676]

I would like to see something like Admiral hipper vs Mogami or something like that.

[@glensteinhoff4442]

I have read many places that the japanese didnt have the armor quality that other countries did. If anybody knows for sure, please correct me. In this situation, guess that could be simulated by using krupp 3 instead of krupp 4.

[@xarglethegreat]

Krupp 2 even, the japanese were essentially using the same armor as ww1 ships

[@MrsGozdzikova]

How many Montana's would it take to sink H44?

[@daynebrown1611]

1 b29 should do

[@antaresmc4407]

Actually, not that many. The actual Montana would have been a terrifying beast that these games have been doing very little justice. H44 however was just Bismarck×3, more of a thought experiment than any serious design... In terms of firepower (going with that Bismarck×3 philosophy), they're actually quite even, H44 had big guns, about twice as powerful for a total 33%ish advantage for H44 per salvo. Being manually loaded and weighting 2.5T, X to doubt they can fire them in 40s (33% slower than Montana's) so the US probably gets the advantage. Of course, 50cm would pierce about 25% more than 40cm (shell weights are quite similar, Bismarck's were a bit faster) and have better long range performance. Armor wise, it'd have been pretty hard to pen, tho both would have had trouble with the belt at long range, H44 had the advantage, but the turtleback armor scheme is worse against plunging fire and the firepower advantage hits harder at close range, so it'd not be at its full potential...

[@TEM7007]

Can we get the Sovetsky Soyuz vs the Bismarck? Bismark should be fairly obvious Heres what I could find on Sovetsky Soyuz Displacement: 59-60,000 tons standard load; 65,000 full Propulsion: Single geared steam turbines Fuel: She ran on oil, so whatever you want Boilers: 6, 3 to each funnel Range: 14,000 km, tho doesnt matter too much Armament: 3 triple 16in in an ABX format 6 dual 6in 6 dual 4in Loaders: Her main guns fired about 2-2.6 shots per minute, so probably about 25 second reload time Turret Traverse: Electrically powered Rangefinding: Stereoscopic V Armor: 16.7 main belt 8.7 fore belt 7.1 aft belt 6.1 main deck 2.6 deck extended 19.5 turret face 9.1 turret top 16.7 conning tower Barbettes: 16.7in thick, so probably barb 2-3 Speed: 28 knots Torp belt: based on what I could find, she had a fairly extensive torp belt, so probably 3-4, but since shes not facing any, it shouldn't matter too much Citadel: She actually used an armored citadel scheme rather than a turtleback scheme Radar: She didn't carry radar, as the soviets hadn't put any effort into developing it until later in the war. Hope thats enough, its all I could find without using wikipedia

[@dbush9399]

Uss Indianapolis vs Prinz Eugen

[@draycos645]

Design A-150 battleship vs H44. 20 in vs 20 in

[@jurkoskvarka2154]

The displacment is problem for this battle. Maybe getting two of the a150 or some other support would make it balanced

[@jackisback1048]

Bismarck vs Nagato would be interesting 🤯

[@Klimotine]

it really feels like the monty is being put at a huge disadvantage, just because of "displacement" which in this game isnt terribly accurate

[@billcarter2848]

for the next battle I'd do the Denmark Strait- Hood vs Bismarck. Or the river plate being Graf Spee vs the three British cruisers. Or maybe Sunda Strait- with HMAS perth and USS Houston vs those Japanese Mogami class cruisers

[@AuraKnightTheLucario]

suggestions US New York class bb vs German König class. UK Chatham class light cruiser vs Japanese Tenryū class light cruiser

[@Leicestercity984]

Suggestion USS N.Carolina VS Nagato. Tiriptz VS Yamato(Hitler always wants the 2 ships to battle) USS New York VS KMS Kaiser Hope you use my suggestions :)

[@Captain_Brian78]

Well yeah, Iowa lost... You had the deck set at 1.5". You left out the actual 6" Armored Deck... What did you think was going to happen??? The 1.5" deck was just supposed to DeCap incoming shells before they got to 6" Armored Deck. Then beneath that is the Splinter Deck, which as the name suggests, saves people and equipment from Splinters that might come from the bottom of the 6" Armored Deck when it takes a hit.

[@nightlongvibe9942]

Hey . I'm loving these series so far , you're doing a great job .. I just wish you didn't have to worry about what people think about how accurate you make them ... You continually had to mention it's not 100 percent accurate 😂

[@ISAFMobius18]

I got a fun suggestion. Bismarck vs HMS Vanguard. The Battle of the 15 inchers

[@duben.2duben268]

Duquesne vs. Trento - battle of heavy cruisers.

[@friedwaldderlebendige8494]

H.44 v. Shikashima would be a slightly more even fight

[@leminhquocvinh9486]

The A-150 design?

[@josefhyatt2780]

I don't think this game gives enough credit to American 16" .50 cals.

[@tortenschachtel9498]

You could try to model everything to spec while ignoring displacement (as far as the hulls allow).

[@Anubis78250]

What actual effect does the displacement number have during the round? Wouldn't having the proper armor thickness/firing rate etc. have a greater impact than having the displacement accurate?

[@tortenschachtel9498]

@@Anubis78250 Aside from effects on speed, maneuverability, etc. i think larger ships are easier to hit than smaller ones.

[@Yaivenov]

I do hope they make it possible to build ships without conning towers; CIC buried inside the main armor. Could use that tonnage elsewhere.

[@merafirewing6591]

U.S.S. South Carolina BB-26 and U.S.S. Pennsylvania ACR-4 vs HMS Dreadnought and HMS Minotaur, Dreadnought versus Dreadnought, Armoured Cruiser versus Armoured Cruiser.

[@Ridliman]

I'm thinking about a kind of underdog vs the legend battle: ARA España vs HMS Dreadnought.

[@merafirewing6591]

You mean AE España versus HMS Dreadnought.

[@PomniMW]

Maybe a Roma class vs Richelieu, mediterranean battle!

[@Energetiker]

Here is a scenario for you to let it play out - the alternative channel dash, 11-13 feb 1942 Instead of pulling her capital ships back to Germany (and later Norway) via the English Channel, the Seekriegsleitung opts for a more daring approach: convinced, that the enemy has been informed by now of the intended transit route through the channel and has pulled a number of forces together as well as layed new minefields, there is only one alternative. The breakthrough into the Atlantic and sailing through the Greenland-Island-Scotland gap. Obviously the enemy will guard the passage with all he's got, so the enemy forces need to be dispersed at first. "Scharnhorst", "Gneisenau" and "Prinz Eugen" are to sail at first together strait west-by south west towards the Azores and break formation half the way between Cape Finisterre and Porto Delgado (750 km off Cape Finisterre) in order to draw enemy pursuers deep into the Atlantic. After fanning out each vessel shall act as if it was hunting for oceanic convoys to force the Allies to pull every heavy unit and lots of their escorts away from the search, away from the gap and to the convoys for protection. The german warships will then veer north and make the passage in all secrecy, all by themselves. The problem: the day after the germans escaped Brest, the British sent search patrols in all direction. Not long before sunset of the 11. february the german capital ships were spotted. Force H from Gibraltar was already on the way and ready to cross the germans course. But the battlecruiser HMS Renown, the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle and three light cruisers were all they got, as both the battleships HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney had been called back to England for torpedo repairs and a refit respectively. Literally no other british battleship was ready: Barham lost to a submarine, the four Revenge class ships en route to India, Malaya and Valiant had been put in reserve. USS New York just started sailing to Novia Scotia. King George V. was on convoy duty in the North Atlantic. But another force was in vincinity: USS Texas together with USS Augusta was acting as safeguard for a convoy sailing from Newfoundland to Scotland and had been detached with her escort just 20 hrs from the Azores. Due to heavy seas both battlegroups left their destroyers behind; the 3 british light cruisers also stayed with HMS Eagle. When german long range reconaissance flight picked up the the converging forces, Admiral Ciliax knew it was too late to disperse. He had to fight his way through the hostile battleships, even with their larger guns. But the enemy was slow, if he could dictate the engagement and hit the enemy hard with a suprise attack, he might be able to escape .. only to face HMS Duke of York, HMS King George V. and USS Washington a week later with the remains of his force, when he was trying to break the GIUK gap. In short: Scharnhorst, Gneisenau & Prinz Eugen vs. Texas, Renown & Augusta follow up: Scharnhorst, Gneisenau & Prinz Eugen vs. Duke of York, King George V. & Washington (game over) ... not so fast: Tirpitz makes a sortie from Bergen, Norway and reaches the battlefield just in the nick of time...

[@grimmwolf9690]

Note to self: if you want to have a fighting chance, put a human in command.

[@CED99]

I'm surprised to find out the historical displacements were so similar

[@Beuwen_The_Dragon]

On paper, the ships produced by navies were supposed to adhere to the Washington Naval Treaty, limiting the size of Ships of the world’s Navies. In practice however, the Navies would build the largest ships they could get away with without being caught breaking the Tonnage limits by Spies and espionage. As the saying goes, ‘everyone obeys the rules of war, until they don’t.”

[@seductive_fishstick8961]

Personally I don’t think displacement matters to much as it’s not vary accurate to real life. I’d like to see more historical specs (reload rate armor thickness etc.) even if that means going drastically over the displacement

[@arc-Droper]

To be fair high explosives are what killed Yamato

[@Stealth17Gaming]

Just a different method of delivery this time

[@ronansmith9148]

2:40 later American designs removed armored conning towers in general because the rarely worked and just added more weight high up in the ship.

[@xRxixcxhxtxexrx]

HI, can the Bayern class of ships be built in this game? The The Bayern class was a class of four super-dreadnought battle ships in WW1, thanks.

[@tektier4009]

Later on during the Korean war, ships like the Iowa class USS Wisconsin that are very close to the Montana, were used for bombardment of ground targets and they proved more useful for that use. The Wisconsin was also later modernized, and given Tomahawk Cruise missiles. It would be interesting to see what would happen then if they added modern weaponry to the game.

[@swiftdraw]

If these videos have taught me anything, gun size is king in this game. As if the super speed 20in campaign didn't highlight this already.

[@pittbul1993]

stealth on World Of WarshipS do they have ships you are looking for and are the closest how they were on blueprints

[@mrunkown7114]

round two hood and prince of wales vs bismarck and prinz eugen will it thistime be diffrent

[@DragonZer0]

Side note the armor plates for japan at the time was not as advanced as the rest of the world powers at the time. To make up for this flaw they went thicker on the plates but that lead to them not being able to wield them together so they were riveted which subjected them to leaking when struck as they rivets heads popped off. This is what did in both Yamato class ships when struck by bombs and torpedo's.

[@firewolf2079]

I think seeing the Hood or Baltimore going up against the graf spee or Mogami would be interesting to see. Also for me. Aircraft carriers would be a pain. However I wouldn’t mind support aircraft that many battleships and heavy cruisers had. Or if they add land masses, maybe as an airfield.

[@Cailus3542]

Hood was essentially a fast battleship, despite being called a battlecruiser. It could've beaten Graf Spee, Mogami and Baltimore at the same time with minimal problems. Baltimore would've destroyed Mogami in short order (insufficient armour) and probably been a rough match for a Deutschland.

[@arc-Droper]

WW2 American ships are not specifically designed to operate the way that your using them in these one on one's they're more designed to operate in fleets with backup and multiple fire points so with one on one's they're more at a disadvantage but that just seems to be the way the cookie crumbles.

[@Ascaron1337]

Thx Captain

[@stephaniewatkins8847]

How are they at disadvantage?

[@aliabdallah2235]

You should lower the technology for Japan as that will make Japanese equipment tonnage for tonnage worse (as it historically was). While Yamato did have radar, it had a max range of 20km and was incapable of useless in fire control (it didn't provide anything that her optical couldn't, not even during night or bad weather), it would however have aided her avoid getting kirishima like point-blank ambush. Also Montana could penetrate Yamatos belt from 20km while Yamato would have needed to close within 17-18km (can't remember). I recommend adding armour with "immunity zones" against enemy guns instead of actual armour thickness, ap values in this game are questionable.

[@Kyleaalen25]

KMS Bayern vs HMS Queen Elizabeth ( World War I configuration )

[@snakeplissken1754]

So what if you would give the Montana 18" duals instead of it's 16" trips?

[@sadadzuhair5725]

Scharnhorst VS HMS hood? Both are BCs

[@Panzergraf]

Repulse VS Kongõ, or Prince of Wales VS Nagato?

[@Hibbidyhai]

I'll repeat my request from the Montana v H-44 video; a battlecruiser battle between USS Lexington and the IJN Amagi.

[@SuperLoconnor]

Here's a good one: USS Alaska and USS Guam VS Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

[@PomniMW]

Also Shikishima from WOWs and H44

[@Amondil1]

It doesn't seem like a fair comparison when we do these matches with the American ships considering you can't even use the same guns and their guns could do more penetration damage than the Yamatos guns

[@Cailus3542]

Well, not exactly. The Iowas had better penetration at certain ranges, but the Yamatos had better penetration at closer ranges as well as a much larger shell.

[@AllNetTony]

USS Montana vs IJN Super Yamato ( Aka A-150)

[@hi13760]

Chipotle VS Taco Bell. Wait! Wrong channel.

[@W1se0ldg33zer]

Excellent strategy that time.

[@jamiestarcher3220]

You should try Yamato vs Bismarck

[@strategosopsikion8576]

Not having the 30 second reload really screwed the Montana. That might’ve changed things

[@jurkoskvarka2154]

Stealth own design(rn/ijn/kms) vs hms dido. Could be?

[@Notmyname1593]

Speaking of the angled side armor. It is within the armor efficiency, I recall some techs that either increased strength or reduced weight of side armor.

[@tekie1725]

I think the techs you are thinking of is the Krupp armor techs. The issue is, Yamato already has Krupp 4 armor, the best quality in the game, so you can't use that to offset for Montana's angled belt. The Yamato's armor arguably shouldn't be Krupp 4 already, since they had some issues in armor quality due to lacking materials and issues properly heat treating such thick slabs of armor, but that's how he has Yamato set up, so Montana can't get an armor advantage from that tech.

[@Notmyname1593]

@@tekie1725 Some techs add armor efficiency and reduce its weight regardless of what quality of armor you use. First efficiency buffs came before 1900 I think. But what I was thinking was some stuff around 1910, where you start getting dreadnoughts. Description said something about angled armor, bonus was -7.5% belt armor weight, if I remember correctly.

[@tekie1725]

@@Notmyname1593 Ah, I dont have the game so I hadn't seen those.

[@billcarter2848]

how do you model angled armor in this game anyway

[@StevieTheBush]

Is reducing the year viable ? I mean the yamato turret is the Mk1 18in and you might be able to gat it more accurate if u do it like that Plz dont get mad at me 4 saying this btw

[@leminhquocvinh9486]

Man the later generationturrets for Japan looks so ugly, I hope they change it soon

[@glennmariusbergmolvik8852]

What year Will this game come to steam

[@taylorcash2507]

The Iowas had 17” of conning tower armor I can’t see a reason the Montana would have any less considering she wasn’t conceived as a replacement for the Iowa more as the new “standard type battleship” basically had WWII happened the way it did (ie carrier supremacy) later Montanas would have made up the main battle line and Iowas the fast wing. Like heavy armored Battlecruisers

[@gordonpromish9218]

try a Yamato class in 1941 commissioning trials gun configuration, but with 1945 armor

[@Frontline_view_kaiser]

Suggestion: Bismark vs Roma

[@Krehueth]

Hms Vanguard (partially historical build) vs Ijn Fuso (also partially historical build, you can have 1940 tech with it)

[@rubenstahl8550]

The Yamato had only one funnel not two

[@CMDRSweeper]

Carriers on the main game mode wouldn't add much. If a carrier gets into the classic campaign battle range that the game portrays, I am afraid it is already done for and it is like a bigger transport vessel that in the BEST case, can get one volley of aircraft airborne before their deck gets peppered and it starts to become a bad investment. On the strategic map though as you said, that is a different ball game.

[@bismarck-medvebocs9285]

Can you pleas do Roma VS bismarck?

[@illinoiscentralrailroadfan6015]

Montana was supposed to get the same turrets as the Iowa class but more armor than the Iowa class

[@Kobaneko2005]

Think the H44 vid showed just how well it's gonna hold up to 20in...

[@Kghammond852]

It's not surprising the Montana's are getting eaten alive since with how the game is right now. You can't have all the features of the Montana-Class and Iowa-Class which both had angled armour. Also one more thing I wish the game devs did was make the autoloader and shell weight based on the country. Since some countries had lighter autoloaders than others. A good example of that is America. Also from what I can find it. The Montana's were going to get the same main guns as the Iowas. edit: If we are going off tech limits. The closest we can get to accurate would be anything that's South Dakota Class battleship or lower. Since the Mark 7s were MUCH lighter compared to the mark 3s but they didn't enter service till 1943 with the Iowa so we just need 3 more years to be added for the Mark 7s. Also a lot more accurate too.

[@BloodRavenSkull]

Depending which way the armor is angled it might even be a detriment at long ranges to have angled armor though.

[@liammorgan3282]

a great idea would be nelson vs Bismark to see whether or not if need the king George V to sink the Bismark

[@ProjectAtlasmodling]

Kgv was very useless because her main guns were off line 95% of the battle

[@liammorgan3282]

@@ProjectAtlasmodling The rodney expended 380 16in rounds and the kgv 339 14in ones it was firing most of the time much more than 5%

[@ProjectAtlasmodling]

@@liammorgan3282 you do realize that the quads on that ship were so bad just firing them would case them to brake

[@derelictdiabeto5094]

Alaska Class vs. Deutschland class would be a good one

[@gebus5633]

"It really requires positioning in this ship".. translation, luck with the game spawning you in a winning position. Granted, the AI Montana spawned also behind Yamato and couldn't exploit that weakness, so you truly did better than the AI. Only problem is, like you've said it many times yourself, the AI isn't really very good. And this isn't to knock your skills, I just hope they improve the AI and increase the aggressiveness.

[@saschawagner5167]

The problem is that Montana is armored agist 16 inch guns nobdy known that Yamato had 18 inch till after the war.

[@Amondil1]

Refit HMS Hood vs Bismarck, what could have happened lol

[@Klemeq]

My suggestion is to build the ships as true to life as possible, tonnage be damned. If the ship in real world had a 30 second reload, built it for that, no matter if tonnage doesn't matter. Then you don't get hamstrung by game mechanics and have your 'legendary encounters' be a little more true to life and enjoyable to watch. I know, I know... game, not simulator. But it does come down to choices you're making.

[@glauberglousger6643]

Yamato actually had an 18 inch belt and 9 inch deck (according to most sources) Though the Iowa was supposed to be a counter to the supposed Yamato, not the actual one The Montana was a superior

[@clevaugnebanton4870]

Try Ohio vs Yamato Basically Montana but with 2x4 18" guns

[@bobobeeper2]

Prince of Wales vs Bismark

[@Stealth17Gaming]

Prince of Whales no less?

[@bobobeeper2]

@@Stealth17Gaming My apologies for the typo, auto correct can be quite annoying at times. Prince of Wales was so new at the time of its battle with Bismark that much of the equipment had issues, would be interesting to see if it could do better without this limitation.

[@archise3191]

USS Montana or H44 vs design A150 would be cool

[@TylerS1327]

If you want to really represent the history of naval combat from the time periods they are doing you have to include carriers

[@AcePilot_]

USS Baltimore vs KMS Prinz Eugen

[@AcePilot_]

also with the battleships, all you need to do is aim your bow straight at the enemy at a slight 5-15 degree angle and the shells will miss because of your smaller profile, or ricochet

[@noaho6407]

I think you should ignore replacement and just go for accuracy as weight's don't seem to add up

[@croskerk]

NOw I wonder how will the Montana do if given a twin turret 18in guns

[@alphakiller2269]

Do the one wit hms hood n that other bb hood had wit her vs the Bismarck n that cruiser

[@kallumcantell5254]

HMS Lyon Vs H39 ( DKM Hutten ) might be a good match

[@TheMonkey747]

19:30 The American Hail Mary.

[@allanstewart4135]

How about picking 10 historical ships and having them fight 5 v 5 and them be s mix's of ships

[@keighanmarshall9200]

USS North Carolina vs Vittorio Veneto, pretty even match up and most of the info is just on Wikipedia