The Emergency War Programme Destroyer Debate

[mr3awsome]

The Emergency War Programme destroyers of the Royal Navy were ordered under the Wartime programmes of 1939-1942. They effectively form a bridge between the last of the Interwar Standards, the G, H & Is, and the Weapon class destroyers that followed them in the 1943 Programme.

 

In in-game terms, that places them at tier VII.

 

However, there are 112 destroyers, in 14 different classes. There is a great deal of variance between the first and last. As only one slot exists in the sub branch for a regular ship, which class(es) will be in that slot is a matter for debate.

 

To help you make an informed decision, data sets for the classes have been provided below

Things like rudder shift time, detectability & consumables are part of fine balancing, and thus are not mentioned. 

 

O&P:

 

Dimensions: 105.2m x 10.7m x 4.11m

Tonnage (deep): 2220t

Health: 13,400

Speed: 37kts

Main Armament: 4 x 1 QF 4.7”/45 Mk IX on mount CP XVIII

In game stats: 10rpm of 22.68kg shells @ 808mps doing 2000 dmg (AP)

            10rpm of 22.68kg shells @ 808mps doing ? dmg (HE) with ?% fire chance  

Manual Traverse.

AA Battery: 1 x 4 2pdr Mk VIII on mount Mk VII, 4 x 1 20mm Oerlikon on mount Mk III

In game stats: 14dps @ 2.5km, 14.4dps @ 2.0km

Torpedo battery: 2 x 4 533mm Torpedo Tubes, Mk IX* Torpedo

In game stats: 15,867 dmg @ 8.0km @ 61kts

                                           @ 10.0km @ 57kts

 

Q&R:

 

Dimensions: 109.2m x 10.9m x 4.22m

Tonnage (deep): 2425t

Health: 14,300

Speed: 36.75kts

Main Armament: 4 x 1 QF 4.7”/45 Mk IX on mount CP XVIII

In game stats: 10rpm of 22.68kg shells @ 808mps doing 2000 dmg (AP)

            10rpm of 22.68kg shells @ 808mps doing ? dmg (HE) with ?% fire chance  

 Manual Traverse.

AA Battery: 1 x 4 2pdr Mk VIII on mount Mk VII, 6 x 1 20mm Oerlikon on mount Mk III

In game stats: 14dps @ 2.5km, 21.6dps @ 2.0km

Torpedo battery: 2 x 4 533mm Torpedo Tubes, Mk IX* Torpedo

In game stats: 15,867 dmg @ 8.0km @ 61kts

                                           @ 10.0km @ 57kts

 

 

S, T, U, V & W:

 

Dimensions: 110.6m x 10.9m x 4.32m

Tonnage: 2505t

Health: 14,700

Speed: 36.75kts

Main Armament: 4 x 1 QF 4.7”/45 Mk IX on mount CP XXII

In game stats: 12rpm of 22.68kg shells @ 808mps doing 2000 dmg (AP)

                        12rpm of 22.68kg shells @ 808mps doing ? dmg (HE) with a ? % fire chance

                        Manual Traverse

AA Battery: ?, 1 x 4 2pdr Mk VIII on mount Mk VII, 4 x 2 20mm Oerlikon on mount Mk V

In game stats: ?, 14dps @ 2.5km, 24.4 @ 2.0km

Torpedo battery: 2 x 4 533mm Torpedo Tubes, Mk IX* Torpedo

In game stats: 15,867 dmg @ 8.0km @ 61kts

                                           @ 10.0km @ 57kts

 

 

Z & Ca:

 

Dimensions: 110.6m x 10.9m x 4.34m

Tonnage: 2510t

Health: 14,700

Speed: 36.75kts

Main Armament: QF 4.5”/45 Mk IV on mount Mk V

In game stats: 14 (18?) rpm of 25kg @ 746mps doing 2000 dmg (AP)

            14 (18?) rpm of 26.5kg @ 746mps doing 1600 dmg (HE) with a 7% fire chance

Manual Traverse

AA Battery: 1 x 2 40mm Bofors on mount Mk IV, 2 x 2 20mm Oerlikon on mount Mk V, 2 x 1 20mm Oerlikon on mount Mk III

In game stats: ?, 12.2dps @ 2.0km, 7.2dps @ 2.0km

Torpedo battery: 2 x 4 533mm Torpedo Tubes, Mk IX* Torpedo

In game stats: 15,867 dmg @ 8.0km @ 61kts

                                           @ 10.0km @ 57kts

 

Ch, Co & Cr:

 

Dimensions: 110.6m x 10.9m x 4.34m

Tonnage: 2510t

Health: 14,700

Speed: 36.75kts

Main Armament: QF 4.5”/45 Mk IV on mount RP50 Mk V*

In game stats: 14 (18?) rpm of 25kg @ 746mps doing 2000 dmg (AP)

            14 (18?) rpm of 26.5kg @ 746mps doing 1600 dmg (HE) with a 7% fire chance

10°/s traverse speed.

AA Battery: 1 x 2 40mm Bofors on mount Mk V, 2 x 2 20mm Oerlikon on mount Mk V, 2 x 1 20mm Oerlikon on mount Mk III

In game stats: ?, 12.3dps @ 2.0km, 7.2 @ 2.0km

Torpedo battery: 1 x 4 533mm Torpedo Tubes, Mk IX* Torpedo

In game stats: 15,867 dmg @ 8.0km @ 61kts

                                           @ 10.0km @ 57kts

 

The data shown above is stock.

 

What do you think?

 

Many thanks to Phoenix_jz for the HP & shell damage numbers. 

[MR_BATTLESHIP_2016]

Idk which is which

 

[Destroyer_Zeka]

Wut

[mr3awsome]

Idk which is which

O & P (but with torpedoes in place of the 4" HA) 

 

 

S, T, U, V & W

 

 

Z & Ca

 

 

 

Ch, Co & Cr

 

 

The fact that they are similar is the point of the exercise. 

 

Wut

Que?

 

[mofton]

In order:

 

No, I don't think they can make T7 very comfortably

S-V should be the regular class

Cavalier is a likely Ca premium due to her existence as a museum ship

Group the S-V with Ca perhaps, slanted gun shields for the win!

 

To expand:

These ships are extremely hampered by their guns, and by straight comparisons to the ships most similar to them in form and function - the US cousins Mahan and Sims.

 

Although I think you could justify 12 viz 10 RPM in-game these weapons still really struggle. Manual traverse = pretty bad. ROF = pretty bad. Ballistics = about joint worst. Shells = mediocre. at 12 RPM these will be putting out 48 RPM total vs. 72/75 for the T7 Yanks. That's not to mention that the 5in/38 gets a bonus anti-air role which maybe the 55' elevating S-onwards mounts will get, but be much worse at in terms of DPS. This goes for both the 4.7in which I think should get 12 RPM, and the 4.5in which also struggles with 746m/s mv, a poor starting point. That would be poor on a battleship. I want to see 4.5in's when I get 6 of them and 24 rpm on Daring, not so much before!

 

I cannot imagine a DD these ships could engage with much hope in a gun fight, at practically any range. They don't have a big traverse or ROF advantage over the IJN railguns. They are outright inferior to the USN guns in ROF/traverse. They are inferior to the 6-gun, 12 RPM Kiev in ballistics and possibly traverse too. Maass has an extra gun, though she might be the closest contemporary and she's a bad boat.

 

Torpedoes wise the 8km versions are likely to be pretty hard to use on a ship which may have base surface detect around 7.6km. Although concealment can be a saving grace, these are relatively big hulls with a superfiring forward gun arrangement and bridge on top. WG are free to do what they want, but I don't see it being fantastic. Compared to Sims I don't see them getting the fantastic 500m turning radius either. That leaves a lot for their slightly better torpedoes to offset. The ones you give them (10km @57kts) are better than Mahan's but only 8 tubes to 12.

 

If you can't gunboat effectively, it's all on the torpedoes which at T7 face competition from the 9-tube Akatsuki with superior weapons, 8/16 tube Shira again with superior weapons and even Maass has comparable 8km options. There's Jack of All Trades and then there's 'bad at everything'.

 

My stats tables for comparison are here: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/109269-acla-royal-navy-destroyers-t7-t8/

 

 

Personally I think the S-class onwards with their slanted gun shields are more visually distinctive from the interwars so that's a plus. I also really like Saumarez for the name and history, not many RN DD took part in 2 night torpedo attacks. The O&P also have some good history but if 4.7in armed lack teeth or visual differences and are just the worlds most underarmed J-class hull, those that have for instance 4 single 4in's... shudder in game, though at least they'd have ROF on their side.

 

My $0.02.

[El_Judarino]

I'm agreeing with Mofton on the S-V + Ca grouping idea.

 

Apparently, I like the Leberecht Maas a lot more than he does. My chief gripe with LM is it's weaker torpedoes (I managed to ambush a full health Bismarck, hit 7 of 8 fish, failed to kill him, and got mauled by his secondaries for my trouble).

 

I figured if the DD were basically LM with:

• one less gun
• harder hitting fish (but comparable reload/range/speed)
• a hull less inclined to take normal shell pen damage
• perhaps a more nimble hull than LM

   

That'd I'd find it fun. Then again, I'm a frothing at the mouth whackadoodle that enjoys the game of "bleeding edge of my stealth" torpedo attacks when I DD. Mofton is entirely correct that these won't be changing the current roster of good gunboat DDs anytime soon. 

 

The thing I do like about the guns is the in-game tech progression if the tier 7 selection were a combination of S-V and Z & Ca, the base hull would start with the 4.7s of the tier 6 G,H &I and the top hull would "graduate" to the 4.5s of the Weapon class at tier 8. 

[poeticmotion]

From what I've seen, you can comfortably (eventually) build two separate RN destroyer lines. So maybe more than one gets used? 

 

I mean, the USN Standard-type BBs were all fairly similar and they managed to get four tiers out of those (admittedly, the incremental upgrades in armament were enough to make it work.)

[mr3awsome]

From what I've seen, you can comfortably (eventually) build two separate RN destroyer lines. So maybe more than one gets used? 

 

I mean, the USN Standard-type BBs were all fairly similar and they managed to get four tiers out of those (admittedly, the incremental upgrades in armament were enough to make it work.)

 

Unfortunately tier VII is probably the most crowded tier of RN DDs. 

In addition to the Emergency War Programme ships, you have the J, K & Ns, L & Ms and the Tribals. 

[Trainspite]

 

Unfortunately tier VII is probably the most crowded tier of RN DDs. 

In addition to the Emergency War Programme ships, you have the J, K & Ns, L & Ms and the Tribals. 

 

The J/K/Ns and L/Ms could be pushed up to tier 8 with a bit of buffing or consumable additions. Not sure if tier 7 or 8 is best for them though, and where they would go in the lines, considering the multiple directions to focus 1-3 lines in.

[poeticmotion]

 

Unfortunately tier VII is probably the most crowded tier of RN DDs. 

In addition to the Emergency War Programme ships, you have the J, K & Ns, L & Ms and the Tribals. 

 

You can also use some of the extra designs in a Commonwealth DD line (Canada, Australia, etc.) Especially the Tribal-class; since the only surviving Tribal is HMCS Haida which is almost certain to be a premium, it might make sense to slot the Tribals at tier VII of a Commonwealth line. 

[Lord_Magus]

From what I've seen, you can comfortably (eventually) build two separate RN destroyer lines. So maybe more than one gets used? 

 

I mean, the USN Standard-type BBs were all fairly similar and they managed to get four tiers out of those (admittedly, the incremental upgrades in armament were enough to make it work.)

 

You could maybe get a couple of tiers out of the War Emergency Programme DDs by varying the torps that are available, but they're all very similar despite being in a total of 14 classes with 5 distinct groupings. But you couldn't make a whole subline out of them without flat-out making up stats to increase the difference between them.

[Carl]

In addition to the Emergency War Programme ships, you have the J, K & Ns, L & Ms and the Tribals. 

 

 

 

Given per mofton these aren't T7 designs and would thus gop at lower tiers, no, you don't have the war emergency programmes. Date of service does not = tier, it's merely a guideline.

[poeticmotion]

poeticmotion, on 06 March 2017 - 04:36 PM, said:

From what I've seen, you can comfortably (eventually) build two separate RN destroyer lines. So maybe more than one gets used? 

 

I mean, the USN Standard-type BBs were all fairly similar and they managed to get four tiers out of those (admittedly, the incremental upgrades in armament were enough to make it work.)

You could maybe get a couple of tiers out of the War Emergency Programme DDs by varying the torps that are available, but they're all very similar despite being in a total of 14 classes with 5 distinct groupings. But you couldn't make a whole subline out of them without flat-out making up stats to increase the difference between them.

 

  I wasn't saying you could get a subline just out of the WEP DDs. But there is potential for three DD lines out of the British destroyer history...two RN lines (or one full line and a partial line such as IJN and VMF both have) and a Commonwealth line. So several of the designs could be used. I think you could, as you said, massage the WEP DDs by varying soft stats, torps, etc. to get two tiers out of them, maybe even three if needed to fill out the lines. 

[mr3awsome]

The J/K/Ns and L/Ms could be pushed up to tier 8 with a bit of buffing or consumable additions. Not sure if tier 7 or 8 is best for them though, and where they would go in the lines, considering the multiple directions to focus 1-3 lines in.

Probably, depending on soft stats. I'd prefer to be safe rather than sorry, given WG's power creep problem. 

 

You can also use some of the extra designs in a Commonwealth DD line (Canada, Australia, etc.) Especially the Tribal-class; since the only surviving Tribal is HMCS Haida which is almost certain to be a premium, it might make sense to slot the Tribals at tier VII of a Commonwealth line. 

There simply aren't enough ships for three regular lines, without resorting to copy & paste ships. 

Whilst WG doesn't seem averse to doing that with premiums, we have yet to see it happen with regulars. 

At the current state of the polls, Crusader or Cresent for the RCN and one of the Australian Rs could be added as extra Commonwealth premiums, at tiers 7 & 6 respectively. 

Extra as in as well as Haida (VII) & Vampire (VIII). 

 

There's Jack of All Trades and then there's 'bad at everything'.

tbh thats probably why I put them in the last bracket, along with the slightly less uncomfortable Weapons. 

Along with oddities such as the Hunts, Swift & Nonsuch. 

And the L&Ms, but those are only there because J, K & N and Tribal fit in better with the idea. 

Still, thats a thread (or three) for another time (April). 

 

[Trainspite]

Probably, depending on soft stats. I'd prefer to be safe rather than sorry, given WG's power creep problem. 

 

 

 

 

I guess I am not exactly representative of the average player, and provided a massive [edited]up like the RN CLs doesn't happen, I am okay with them in most states (See my views on the German DDs). The average Bob however will probably get frustrated if they are not easy to get the hang of or yield decent results without moderate effort.

 

Basically My Safe zone is a lot larger. Sorry zone is limited to RN CL hell. (Damn, I sound like an elitist with a severe disdain for those less able in battle).

[Dunk_Master_Flex]

Probably, depending on soft stats. I'd prefer to be safe rather than sorry, given WG's power creep problem. 

 

There simply aren't enough ships for three regular lines, without resorting to copy & paste ships. 

Whilst WG doesn't seem averse to doing that with premiums, we have yet to see it happen with regulars. 

At the current state of the polls, Crusader or Cresent for the RCN and one of the Australian Rs could be added as extra Commonwealth premiums, at tiers 7 & 6 respectively. 

Extra as in as well as Haida (VII) & Vampire (VIII). 

 

tbh thats probably why I put them in the last bracket, along with the slightly less uncomfortable Weapons. 

Along with oddities such as the Hunts, Swift & Nonsuch. 

And the L&Ms, but those are only there because J, K & N and Tribal fit in better with the idea. 

Still, thats a thread (or three) for another time (April). 

 

 

I'd prefer Crusader myself after Haida, her Trainbusting record in Korea is very interesting.

 

Plus Crusader is just a cool name either way.

[mofton]

In addition to the Emergency War Programme ships, you have the J, K & Ns, L & Ms and the Tribals.

I know in my ADLA here: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/115916-adla-hms-jervis/ I plumped for Jervis as a T7, but there was a lot of question to me on T8 or not.

 

At T8 with decent 'soft stats' of maneuverability and concealment she might well look comparable to Benson - 10 torps, 6 guns to 5 with similar ballistics and ROF partially balanced by the 4-ahead and good rear arcs (ideally rotating forward) to let you sink 6 guns into that IJN DD you're chasing. The basic hull and weapon layout is inherently sound.

 

I don't like the look of the L&M's so much. Heavier shells, but lower ROF and 8 vs. 10 torpedoes might work out better, but not by a tier. That said an L&M with 4x2 4in's, 8 torpedoes might look like an Akizuki with better torps, better speed, better handling traded off for HP and gun performance. But a 4in ship really breaks the progression, so should be branch or premium.

 

The Brit Tribal class might do ok at T7, but I'm not sure that that 2 guns are worth 6 torpedoes in the trade-off with the JKN classes which further supports JKN at T8. vs Tribal a tier lower (or Tribal at T6?!). The issue then though is that if the ships' in tree we get a weird torpedo bump -

T5 Vansittart 6 tubes, T6 Active 8 tubes (maybe Glowworm w/10), T7 Tribal 4 tubes, T8 JKN 10 tubes - I do think Trainspite's trees keeping Tribal out of the first go around are on the right track.

 

The 'problem' with the Emergency's is that they didn't get the 4.7in/50 or 5in/38 the RN looked into but instead kept the armament of an interwar and put it on a new hull. The new hull is nice, but in game more HP,  AA and maybe 1kt of speed may be negated by higher detectability. larger target size and poorer turning, not to mention the I-class with 10 torpedoes.

 

You can also use some of the extra designs in a Commonwealth DD line (Canada, Australia, etc.) Especially the Tribal-class; since the only surviving Tribal is HMCS Haida which is almost certain to be a premium, it might make sense to slot the Tribals at tier VII of a Commonwealth line.

 

Debate's been had before but if a JKN is a T7 there's no way a Canadian Tribal with the same gun armament but only 40% of the torpedo load can be. There's soft stats, and then there's trading 6 torpedoes for an effectively useless AA gun. Without the 4th twin 4.7in the Haida looks lacking in the firepower department in-game.

 

Probably, depending on soft stats. I'd prefer to be safe rather than sorry, given WG's power creep problem. 

DD's are, I think less susceptible to power creep than other lines.

 

Cruisers you're partially stuck with what you have - maybe not so much now the USN cruisers had that ROF buff - but DD's are I think easier to tweak with 'soft' torpedo stats and concealment. Cruisers depend more on their 'hard' stats of armor and gun performance.

[hoom]

Maybe OK with long torps & good concealment.

But if they are to be gunboat/mixed then 4* single guns with slow traverse & shell speed is no good for T7.

Even the IJN T7s now have fairly respectable guns.

 

J, K & N is much better suited to the tier to me.

[mr3awsome]

The 'problem' with the Emergency's is that they didn't get the 4.7in/50 or 5in/38 the RN looked into but instead kept the armament of an interwar and put it on a new hull. The new hull is nice, but in game more HP,  AA and maybe 1kt of speed may be negated by higher detectability. larger target size and poorer turning, not to mention the I-class with 10 torpedoes.

Early on it was assumed that they would have their 50pdrs replaced with 62pdrs at a later date. 

Also, I was having a quick flick through a copy of Nelson to Vanguard earlier, and it put the initial rate of fire for the 4.5"/45 Mk III as 18 whilst they had ready use ammunition. 

That could be quite helpful in balancing vs the 6/8 gun ships. 

And make Battle [edited]RoF closer together. 

 

J, K & N is much better suited to the tier to me.

Thats why the J, K & Ns are in the first wave. 

 

 That would be poor on a battleship. I want to see 4.5in's when I get 6 of them and 24 rpm on Daring, not so much before!

Enjoy having two tiers worth of them before getting to Daring (i.e. Gael & Battle). 

[mofton]

Early on it was assumed that they would have their 50pdrs replaced with 62pdrs at a later date.

Also, I was having a quick flick through a copy of Nelson to Vanguard earlier, and it put the initial rate of fire for the 4.5"/45 Mk III as 18 whilst they had ready use ammunition. 

That could be quite helpful in balancing vs the 6/8 gun ships. 

And make Battle [edited]RoF closer together. 

 

I know, the 4.7in/50 is the 62pdr, IIRC they could have gone to the 5in/38 but could only mount 3 guns if they did so which was considered unacceptable. As it was there was a mix - old 4.7in/45, 4in/45 and then eventually the 4.5in/45.

 

The issues to me are firstly, it's an ahistoric gun and should be avoided. Secondly I question if in-game the 4.7in/50 will actually be significantly superior to the 4.7in/45. The issue being that it will presumably be a trade off between more damaging, shorter time-to-target shells with the /50 and raw ROF on the /45. Given we're still starting at around 800m/s the /50 is still going to be out of the Russian, Japanese and Swedish gun league.

 

In short an interwar with 4.7in/50's may not be much more competitive.

 

 

18 RPM on the 4.5in/45 might be on to something - that would make Cavalier far more Sims-esque with 4x guns at 18 RPM and 8x torpedoes. Soft stats as you like them. Without that upgrade 12 RPM is just sad. Cool thought.

 

Enjoy having two tiers worth of them before getting to Daring (i.e. Gael & Battle). 

 

I hope not. Well, Battle's inevitable but I hope for at least 5 of them and 4-forward which I think should be a minor British trend: good forward firepower. 5 and 4-forward is also significantly better than Gael. Gael's a paperschiffe so not my preference at T8 where I think JKN could make it, if not maybe LM, if not.... struggling.

 

My current thought is:

T2 - HMS '2 game grind'

T3 - HMS '4 game grind'

T4 - HMS '8 game grind' / HMS Vancouver

T5 - HMS 'T5 MM is ruined so who cares' / HMS Ambuscade

T6 - HMS Glowworm with 10-torp hull upgrade option

T7 - HMS Afridi possibly with Torp Reload, otherwise with fast torp reload - tricky tier, I might now think about Ca/Z class with 18 RPM

T8 - HMS Jervis

T9 - HMS Barfleur w/5x 4.5in's operating

T10 - HMS Daring

 

That's 100% bonafide built ships.

[Battleship_Dunkerque]

As long as I get the Admiralty V/Ws from 1917 down in the lower tiers somewhere, I'll be a happy camper.  HMAS Vampire premium would be good, too.

[mr3awsome]

As long as I get the Admiralty V/Ws from 1917 down in the lower tiers somewhere, I'll be a happy camper.  HMAS Vampire premium would be good, too.

 

You mean like this?

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/121081-rn-dds-the-beginning/