Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

Community Reputation

43 Neutral

About Snowyskies

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Snowyskies

    List of all the 'Paper' Ships in game.

    I was thinking about the tiering using more normal torpedo stats (and their real armament) rather than the buffed ones found on the line right now. The torpedo type that's currently used on Halland was for example in reality roughly a 15 km/30 knots, 10 km/40 knots torpedo. Torpedo speed is obviously buffed for all torpedoes, but not to the degree that it is done on the Swedish ships. The gimmick is actually a good idea from a gameplay perspective to make the destroyer line more unique but it's still a buff from how they would "naturally" be tiered. Huh, yeah. I have of course not played the destroyers and thus only got the wiki stats to go by. I had completely overlooked that they gave Tátra triple launchers, really no idea why that would be necessary. It's of course difficult to have too much of an opinion about their balance without actually getting to play them. I'll agree with your overall point, though, again, that's assuming the buffed torpedo stats. Wrangel would be a difficult target to be fair, but it's at least 1000 HP less than a Tachibana and with only three 75 mm guns on a broadside compared to the four on Tachibana. The guns do fire a 6,8 kg shell at 800 m/s, so better stats there. Maybe you could massage it into a workable tier 2, WG has yet to show that they are willing to make use of destroyers/torpedo boats of such diminutive size however. The smallest destroyer I consider a possibility at the moment is the Norwegian Sleipner which is a couple hundred tons heavier. Using Ehrensköld would technically be possible, but the idea of splitting up the Ehrensköld -> Visby lineage into three separate tiers doesn't sit all that well to me and WG might agree there. That leaves Mode (1942) which is a bit of a question mark, with the reasonable guess that they chose the imported Romulus so that they get a (cheap to create for WG) Italian premium ship later.
  2. Snowyskies

    List of all the 'Paper' Ships in game.

    The fictional armament on the pan-European ships is a big question mark. As far as Halland is concerned I'd guess it's simply a gameplay decision, with a (according to sources) 1,3 - 1,5 second reload it should easily be able to be a tier 10 even with only 8 torpedoes. But for the rest I'm assuming it's an attempt to use as few outright paper ships as possible while simultaneously restricting the selection to only Swedish ships, Tátra being the exception. Most of them fit more naturally a tier lower than their current placements. Edit: Visby not only has extra guns, but the guns aren't the same type as the ones used on the actual Visby either. They seem to be taken from Błyskawica.
  3. From what I've read they seem more likely to have been intended to carry Bofors guns, likely the same kind as found on the Swedish Gotland. Bofors was constructing six 152 mm twin-gun turrets for Siam during this time period but due to the onset of war they were never delivered, ultimately ending up as fixed coastal artillery. Edit: I suppose I could add the stats for the ammunition used on Gotland while I'm at it: SAP: 46 kg, 900 m/s muzzle velocity, 2,58 kg explosive charge HE: 46 kg, 900 m/s muzzle velocity, 5,45 kg explosive charge It strikes me that the 76 mm/40 Ansaldo AA guns might actually be 75 mm Bofors guns as well. It'd make sense to get a more modern AA gun from the same source that you're buying the main guns from after all. Unlike with the main guns however I don't have any sources backing me up on this, it's simply a guess.
  4. Snowyskies

    Romulus' WoWS armament?

    Not as far as I'm aware. I can share some curiosities taken from the magazine "Teknisk Tidsskrift" in 1941 though. Originally it was in free text form but I'll split it up in some categories: Pros: The metalwork is very well done. The entire hull structure is overall good. The weaponry placement is well thought out. The machinery is more powerful then that used by Swedish destroyers per kilogram. Cons: The propeller efficiency is lower than on the Swedish destroyers, so despite the horsepower/kg advantage of the machinery they are still less efficient in "propulsive hp" The machinery is less efficient at lower workloads than the Swedish machinery Notes: Less use of welding than on Swedish ships Fuel and freshwater stores proportionally larger than on Swedish destroyers Piping and electrical fittings cruder/more basic than on Swedish destroyers Swedish ships has higher standards of comfort for non-commissioned officers and crew Swedish ships carries more food stores Modifications: Insulation and heating elements added Improved comforts for non-commissioned officers and crew Improved kitchen (to handle "our more complicated cooking") Some stores have been increased Pipes and vents for water above deck has been placed frost-free Heavier motorboats and lifeboats have been added They seem to have been called (direct translation) kustjagare (coast destroyer) in Swedish service, not jagare (destroyer). They were later called fregatter (frigates) in 1953. The move from coast destroyer to frigate may have been purely administrative as I haven't found any reliable information about any actual modifications done to them at that time.
  5. Snowyskies

    What in the ever living hell, WG?

    I'm not going to argue as to how good idea it is to introduce an almost exclusively Swedish line, just giving a potential rationale for it. Plans for Dutch ships are online, I've gone through them myself in the past, but not all of the schematics are there. Stuff is missing that's presumably in the Dutch archives but not digitalized (or simply lost to time). I don't know how much WG really needs (and certainly there are people who point at various issues with modelled ships that indicate they aren't necessarily that picky) but if we assume they want as much info as possible and aren't satisfied with only the digitalized material then order they visit the archives matter.
  6. Snowyskies

    What in the ever living hell, WG?

    For those wondering if there were anything but Swedish destroyers in Europe the answer is of course yes. To toot my own horn I made a crude destroyer tree with two pan-European lines here: It included destroyers from 13 different European nations. A reasonable guess is that they simply got their hands on Swedish destroyer plans first and that eventually we will see ships from the other European nations in new destroyer lines. Not that it takes away from it being odd that it isn't mixed up at all. Considering that they stuck Tátra in at tier 2 I doubt that you'll see them anyway . Otherwise I would have assumed they'd put the Swedish Wrangel there instead, ships that were fairly equivalent to the Dutch Wolfs.
  7. @renhanxue has shared a lot of relevant information. Look at the two folders that start with Kryssare Tre Kronor & Göta Lejon. The one that ends with ritningar contains drawings while the one that ends with beskrivning contains information about the ships and the gun mounts in text format along with some drawings. The drawings in the beskrivning folder are however preliminary and not entirely accurate for the end product. Now it's all in Swedish unfortunately but you can still glean some stuff from it. It also has an original range table for the guns in Skjuttabell 15,2 cm kan M42 (Tre Kronor) and a newer one (including shell cut-outs and data) in Skjuttabell 15,2 cm kan M42 (Tre Kronor, ny 1957). Finally for torpedo info you have Torpeder which, while not official data tables for the torpedoes, should be accurate enough. Belt: 70 mm Upper belt (above citadel level): 20 mm Inner longitudinal bulkhead (belt citadel armor in game terms): 20 mm Upper deck: 30 mm Lower deck (deck citadel armor in game terms): 30 mm Lower deck (between the belt and the inner longitudinal bulkhead): 20 mm Transverse bulkheads (ends citadel armor in game terms): 75 mm Turret front: 125 mm Turret roof: 50 mm Turret sides: 30 mm Turret back: 80 mm Turret barbette (roughly, going downwards): 100 mm, 80 mm, 60 mm Overall the armor scheme and the citadel size is reminiscent of the Italian Duca d'Aosta. Unless I'm overlooking something the main differences are two 30 mm decks instead of a single 35 mm deck, 75 mm transverse bulkheads instead of 50 mm and a 20 mm inner longitudinal bulkhead instead of the 35 mm/40 mm as on d'Aosta. The turrets and barbettes are also a bit better armored on Göta Lejon. There are options if needed for balancing but presumably by the time Göta Lejon was around you'd be looking at the Typ 14 torpedo. Without converting to World of Warships data: Name: Typ 14 (so... Type 14) Caliber: 533 mm Length: 7579 mm Weight: ~1700 kg Warhead: 248 kg Speed (high/low): ~40 knots, ~32 knots Range (speed high/low): ~10 km, ~15 km Woodland camo, is there any other choice? I with you on tier 6 being the more natural fit for a ship without gimmicks. *d'Aosta* is very comparable and I haven't found many that claim it is overpowered at the same tier. Still just as a counterpoint I'd like to add two things that to me would speak for tier 7. First of all it's somewhat unfortunate the restrict the automatic main guns to 10 rounds per minute (here I'm assuming 15 rounds per minute was an achievable max rate of fire for the guns). That doesn't really set them apart from other cruiser guns of that calibre. Nürnberg at tier 6 gets exactly the same rate at tier 6! The second is that, as a proponent of pan-European tree, a tier 7 Tre Kronor and a tier 8 De Zeven Provinciën would mean you've gotten quite far in a potential cruiser tree without having to resort to paper ships. Of course this isn't an issue if you simply look at Göta Lejon in isolation.
  8. @Phoenix_jz has a really great thread for this: Although he hasn't updated it for some of the latest additions (RN destroyers, IJN destroyer branch). As for premiums the majority existed. This is an attempt at a quick list of the ones that didn't exist or existed but were never completed (ignoring anime ships). I may of course have overlooked some but it should be a reasonable start: Ishizuchi - Paper Iwaki - Paper Fūjin - A fictional Kamikaze-class destroyer Ashitaka - Laid down but scrapped due to the Washington Naval Treaty Kii - Paper Graf Zeppelin - Laid down and launched, sunk as target ship after Germany surrendered T-61 - Laid down and launched, destroyed by aircraft before completion Imperator Nikolai - Laid down and launched, ended up scrapped due to the Russian civil war Okhotnik - Paper De Grasse - Paper...ish, laid down but finished as another design Gascogne - Paper Huange - Existed, but not in the form it has in-game
  9. I haven't looked through any of this systematically like you but it definitely seems to have been part of it with the U-boats. I've read that RN submarines were dispatched to hunt/ambush specific German submarines. As for other theatres this is three examples from combinedfleet.com; So I do think it's an important factor. A potential problem for analysing it though is that you can't be certain that the intelligence intercepts are always mentioned even if they existed.
  10. Once again a great post mofton, very interesting. When it comes to Soviet mine sweeping effort specifically in the Baltic there wasn't only the air threat, the mine barrages were also covered by coastal fortifications. From e.g. Mäkilouto (Finland) the 305 mm dual turret emplaced there could fire all the way to Naisaar that's part of Estonia. Almost all the way to Aegna as well where Estonian 305 mm guns were emplaced. I'm a bit unsure of the status of the Estonian guns though, don't know if they were operational during the German occupation. Either way being under threat of heavy artillery doesn't help sweeping efforts. I do think it could be worth emphasizing the information disparity somewhat more. Knowing when and where an enemy submarine will be due to code breaking surely changes things, especially for submarine to submarine kills.
  11. Oh right, I put more weight on the floatplane consumable so I didn't take into consideration the ASDIC to justify hydro. Thanks for the answer.
  12. Another good post! Using the floatplane as kind of a gimmick on a premium ship is a good idea. Is there any reason as to why you'd specifically want Witte de With as a premium rather than one of the other Admiralen destroyers? I'll just nitpick about this so my own post contains at least something relevant. The mounts were different but so were the No.4 and No.5 guns. Though I'd assume they fired the same ammo and had the same practical performance. If you'd like to see here's an example of the breech of a No. 4 http://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=120015003 While here's the No.5 http://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=120069800
  13. Courtesy of @renhanxue the ballistic tables for the guns (at least with the ammo used on the Swedish Halland) is available at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8bCDRcq9BVeSUJoZllQb0xtUXc Muzzle velocity: 835 m/s Shell weight: 23,5 kg HE shell explosive content: 2,26 kg Shell flight times 5 km: 7,5 s 7,5 km: 12,8 s 10 km: 19,7 s 12,5 km: 28,3 s 15 km: 38,2 s If you try to compare it to ingame ships then remember that flight times are compressed by a factor of 2,61 per the devs. While not Russian railguns they have, without checking ingame, generally shorter flight times than e.g. the common Japanese 127 mm/50.
  14. Good post. A bit late to the party but I've got this attempt at a side profile of the armor to offer: As written on the image it may be incorrect. Though not visible on the profile the 30 mm longitudinal armor bulkhead continues below the 30 mm deck behind the armor belt. Not very impressive and as you say Phoenix and Omaha are (at least per game mechanics) probably better armored. Though this is still slightly better than what e.g. Königsberg at tier 5 has. These are fair points and De Ruyter does look like a tier 4 overall. A small comment about you comparison to Omaha regardless as I think you are a bit unfair when it comes to the reload. First of all even your example ship of Omaha has a buffed rate compared to the value on NavWeaps and secondly, as I'm constantly harping about, rate of fire is one of the most questionable stats of a gun. Just because NavWeaps states a rate of fire value doesn't mean they are correct nor comparable between guns. To offer some defense for De Ruyter it should be pointed out that while a rather modern ship by world war 2 standards it was also light, lighter than all the tier 5 cruisers except for Königsberg. Even the preceding Dutch light cruisers Java and Sumatra were heavier and combat capability is connected to tonnage. So compared to Java more modern building techniques such as welding may save tons. At the same time however De Ruyter gets more advanced fire control equipment, better/more compartmentalization/damage control equipment (well... hopefully at least) and three full turrets instead of lighter pedestal gun mounts. This isn't at all represented in the game but eats up the weight savings of being a more modern ship. The decision to build the ship in the real world may be questioned but given the tonnage it isn't that odd that De Ruyter is stuck fighting older ships, that's partly a consequence of how the game works.
  15. Snowyskies

    Tier VIII Brit DD: Lightning

    True, that's also an oddity, though 12 to 10 isn't such a big jump. Here's my estimation of the time-to-distance values. Once again I can't and won't claim they are 100% correct but they should at least be somewhat accurate and give an idea of how they perform.