Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
GrandAdmiral_2016

Royal Navy Destroyer Main Guns

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

657
[HELLS]
Members
2,431 posts
24,015 battles

At some point, War Gaming/World of Warships is going to add a line of Royal Navy destroyers to the game's tech tree, and some premiums. I have seen some uninformed comments about how weak RN DD guns will be, and being a Gallant owner, have a pretty good idea of how the current 50-lb 4.7-inch shell works in the game. I include, with attribution of source in the image, information on all RN medium-caliber guns used on WWII and early postwar ships we are likely to see in the game.

 

I expect the DDs equipped with Mk IX 4.7-inch-50-lb guns in twin turrets (Tribals and J,K and N classes) to have identical shell ballistics and range to Gallant with superior sigma (better fire control systems) and a slighly higher rate of fire with power ramming. Emergency War flotillas, classes O to U, will match Gallant as they have the same guns. Ships equipped with the Mk XI 4.7-inch 62-lb guns ( L and M classes) which have powered twins, wilI have similar sigma to the earlier class with slighty greater hitting power and range. I expect the 4.5-inch 55-lb shell to closely match the 5inch/38 55-lb round very closely in performance, with perhaps a small range increase, with sigma equal that of the USN Sumners and Gearings. This would include the Z, Ca and Cr DDs with single turrets, and the Battle and Daring classes. That means that every DD from Tier 8 up, and some single turret T6s and T7s which would show up in a split line at some point, will have equivalent hitting power and rates of fire of most of the USN DD line, barrel for barrel.

I invite discussion as the devs may actually see this thread at some point

Medium calibre guns.jpg

Edited by GrandAdmiral_2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,271 posts
3,634 battles
18 hours ago, _Maho_Nishizumi_212 said:

AP only?

bounce shatter bounce bounce shatter bounce

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,392
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,345 posts
13,324 battles
On 11/11/2017 at 9:34 AM, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

At some point, War Gaming/World of Warships is going to add a line of Royal Navy destroyers to the game's tech tree, and some premiums. I have seen some uninformed comments about how weak RN DD guns will be, and being a Gallant owner, have a pretty good idea of how the current 50-lb 4.7-inch shell works in the game.

As far as I'm aware there's a problem with your premise of changing sigma in that all destroyers of all nations and tiers get 2.0 sigma. Similarly all cruisers get 2.0, except at high tiers where they get 2.05.

I would be surprised if WG change the sigma of RN destroyer guns, there's not much room for improvement even if they did break with tradition.

 

The 4.7in/45 looks like it gets 12 RPM on both the single (Gallant) and twin (Gadjah Mada i.e. JKN/Tribal) mountings. That's probably about OK given that they're both torpedo boats in my view. With 6 guns and 360' traverse on X turret the Gadjah will probably be competitive with 72 RPM (Mahan gets 75), and with that firepower the fire chance of 8% is very good. Less HE DPM than the Mahan, more fires, more guns bearing dead ahead, slower traverse = balanced. The shell arcs are the biggest drawback with the weapon, inferior to the USN's guns at any kind of range.

The 4.7in/50 we don't have yet. The heavier shell isn't worth that much in game, and the MV drops to 774 m/s despite the heavier 'dense' shell. The other issue is that the historic ROF of 10 RPM (and WG stuck to historic for the 4.7in/45) is pretty lacking. My overall thought would be to keep it out of an initial line at all. The L&M class is the only major historic user and can be substituted for easily. The heavier shell will give few in-game advantages - HE pen doesn't change, so far all 4.7in guns do the same HE damage, AP pen might be better but who cares on destroyers.

The 4.5in/45 could be a major problem if implemented as it appears on high tier Battle/Daring or even WEP classes. It's HE penetration is unable to pen the hulls of T8+ destroyers. The ROF is good but the HE alpha is low (1,600) and the MV is very poor at 746m/s. Although the shell is heavier than the USN 5in on a smaller front (so better weight-drag?) that's just something it'll be very hard to get around.

Range is apparently set more by the height of the FCS and WG magic than by gun power. Gadjah Mada gets 11.9, Gallant gets 10.2. I'd guess fairly middling values would continue. There are some pretty similar hulls and superstructures.

Some have suggested getting around the 4.5in's problems with special AP only per RN cruisers, though I think just giving them 1/4 HE pen would be more sensible, otherwise with IFHE a basic requirement they look very under-gunned.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
657
[HELLS]
Members
2,431 posts
24,015 battles

From the Q class onward they all had J class hulls and and machinery, and the O, P, and R classes had J class machinery as well. Hull design starts to change with the S class that has a Tribal bow form and J class lines, and things stayed that way until the Battles were built. The 4.5 has as muzzle velocity 151 fps slower than a 5/38. It would be loopy at long range, like the 5/38 round, with the same hitting power for HE as it is the same weight. I agree that the AP would be weaker. IFHE is going to be a must IMHO. While the RN did not have the dual purpose Mk37, their surface fire control was not to be denigrated either. They are definitely going to need a gimmick related to the torpedoes and stealth or they are going to be difficult to play. I have not looked all that hard at the P-A line, but since there are a couple of RN DDs in it, modded to suit their countries' navies as seen in service, there is going to be some kind of crossover effect I would think. Wait and see, I guess. It will be a while in any case. As much as I respect the RAN, I cannot see myself buying a T3 destroyer with 4-inch guns and weak torpedoes!

Edited by GrandAdmiral_2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,392
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,345 posts
13,324 battles

Very similar hulls from the perspective of FCS height which is apparently the determining factor of gun range.

The 4-5 is going to be one of the most disadvantaged guns in the game due to WG mechanics:

  • 1,600 HE damage is what it 'should' get, and does get as a secondary on the Neptune. That is based on caliber which is how WG are doing it. For a projectile the same weight as the USN 5in/38's (which does 1,800) that is quite a slap. The RN 5.25in also suffers, only 1,900 HE damage on a shell 40% heavier than the USN.
  • 19mm of pen is insufficient to pen T8+ destroyer hulls. If you add IFHE you're going up to 24mm of pen, which lets you deal with destroyers but doesn't give you the ability to pen the extremities of cruisers - which bigger guns get. Then there's the downside of using 4/19 skill points for something you just get with bigger guns and losing 1% off your fire chance and dropping to 6%.
  • In game where ships move 5.25x as fast as in real life and jink about all over the place the low MV is far more damaging than it would otherwise be

My general thought is that it's probably better not to include the WEP classes in an initial tree. The O&P's either don't fit with the 4in, or are strictly a little better than Gallant with the 4.7in but much worse than the T7 JKN or L&M classes. The Cavalier as a museum ship makes sense to me as a T7 premium pretty equivalent to the Sims - similar but inferior guns in a 4x1 arrangement, option for slightly better torpedoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
234 posts
12 battles

There's slight difference between 114mm HE shells in game.

 

Mark II BD mounts (12 RPM) get 1700 HE alpha and 8% fire chance.

Mark VI RP 41 mounts (20 RPM) get 1600 HE alpha and 7% fire chance.

 

Who knows what the destroyers will get. :cap_old:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,392
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,345 posts
13,324 battles
41 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

There's slight difference between 114mm HE shells in game.

 

How did I miss QE's guns?

I was going more off of Neptune's weapons as they fit the 1600 prediction and she's been in game longer, with the same Mk VI (I think?) as the Daring, rather than the older QE weapon and shell.

WG did make a move to standardize secondaries/destroyer main guns with the KM battleships, though the Zao/Kii secondaries and Akizuki's shell stats do differ in game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
657
[HELLS]
Members
2,431 posts
24,015 battles
45 minutes ago, mofton said:

How did I miss QE's guns?

I was going more off of Neptune's weapons as they fit the 1600 prediction and she's been in game longer, with the same Mk VI (I think?) as the Daring, rather than the older QE weapon and shell.

WG did make a move to standardize secondaries/destroyer main guns with the KM battleships, though the Zao/Kii secondaries and Akizuki's shell stats do differ in game.

 

It is the same shell in both guns, 55 lbs, fixed ammo in the BD mounts, and separate shell and cartridge in the later mount, and both should have the same HE/Firestarter potential. It needs a fix in-game as it is. The Neptune's 4.5 guns are indeed in the same mounts as in Daring (and it was planned that way according to Friedman). I still think that the HE should equal the 5/38 USN shell, but I can live with it at 1700. DK Brown says that the mounts in the Z class and later classes, including Daring, equal the rate of fire per barrel as a USN 5/38. That is 6 barrels in a Daring, 5 in a Battle, 4 in the earlier classes. That would make the upper tiers workable with stealth like Gallant's and Edinburgh's torpedoes at T8 and Minotaur's (Neptune's are identical) at T9 and T10, Match the upper tier cruiser smoke and you may have a viable DD line. Nor would they need radar or a heal as a gimmick to work decently. Give the Tribals and J, K, and N classes a 5-second reload with power ramming and they fit nicely at T7/T7 premium. The L and M classes get the same at T8 with a bigger shell, which will probably match the 5/38 HE and would probably need at least a 5-second reload to work well. Best comparison for the 4.7 is the 120mm guns on Blyskawica, which have no power ramming (6.5 second reload) and use the 50-lb shell-same gun as on RN DDs as built with a larger breech and charge, allowing a higher muzzle velocity, with only 1700 HE. Have you played the Pan Asian ships on the SEA server at all? I have not so I don't have a clue beyond the SOON news in the NA game so this is, as usual, all speculative!

Edited by GrandAdmiral_2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,392
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,345 posts
13,324 battles
30 minutes ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

It is the same shell in both guns, 55 lbs, fixed ammo in the BD mounts, and separate shell and cartridge in the later mount, and both should have the same HE/Firestarter potential. It needs a fix in-game as it is. The Neptune's 4.5 guns are indeed in the same mounts as in Daring (and it was planned that way according to Friedman). I still think that the HE should equal the 5/38 USN shell, but I can live with it at 1700. DK Brown says that the mounts in the Z class and later classes, including Daring, equal the rate of fire per barrel as a USN 5/38. That is 6 barrels in a Daring, 5 in a Battle, 4 in the earlier classes. That would make the upper tiers workable with stealth like Gallant's and Edinburgh's torpedoes at T8 and Minotaur's (Neptune's are identical) at T9 and T10, Match the upper tier cruiser smoke and you may have a viable DD line. Nor would they need radar or a heal as a gimmick to work decently. Give the Tribals and J, K, and N classes a 5-second reload with power ramming and they fit nicely at T7/T7 premium. The L and M classes get the same at T8 with a bigger shell, which will probably match the 5/38 HE and would probably need at least a 5-second reload to work well. Best comparison for the 4.7 is the 120mm guns on Blyskawica, which have no power ramming (6.5 second reload) and use the 50-lb shell-same gun as on RN DDs as built with a larger breech and charge, allowing a higher muzzle velocity, with only 1700 HE. Have you played the Pan Asian ships on the SEA server at all? I have not so I don't have a clue beyond the SOON news in the NA game so this is, as usual, all speculative!

My bad, I thought they had new shells for the new model. Either way they're sub-par in damage.

My guess is that Daring will have up to 24 RPM, Battle(s) in the 18-20 range, and maybe Cavalier a little lower. Up to 24 RPM is best-case according to Navweaps.

There's no need to guess or conjecture on the JKN/Tribal's gun - it's in game: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gadjah_Mada With that N-class in at T7, there's no guessing on the other JKN. That's a 5s reload for certain. 12 RPM.

 

@creamgravy has done an excellent look at the L&M's gun here: That shell is even lower MV which is what matters, and I think it's a 60lb shell on the /50 gun.

My take home was IJN DD-like gun arcs at range.

Honestly, Neptune/Mino's torps on the T10 would suck. They are inferior in basically every way to the torps of the Fletcher and Gearing. WG will need to cook up something good for them - I believe they did the same with the German DD's.

With the inferior torpedoes, less damaging and inferior trajectory guns (which maybe need IFHE) I'd not feel that confident on Daring vs. Gearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
657
[HELLS]
Members
2,431 posts
24,015 battles

Twelve rounds per minute per barrel, with 6 barrels, and you are pumping serious steel downrange, as much as a Fletcher for weight of broadside with a lighter shell, even more so with eight barrels in a Tribal, which beats a Fletcher for weight of fire. They lose on ROF though. The L and M types have even heavier weight of fire, matching the Gearing's broadside weight but not for ROF.That closes the gap some. The 5-gun Battles make it up with rate of fire, as do the Darings with 6 barrels.  Any 4-gun 4.5 emergency war flotilla Z or Ca, Ch, or Cr DDs that show up in the game at any point will suffer, as will the earlier classes with 4.7s. Like you, I think they will gimmick the torpedoes for hitting power only, not for range, and give stealth a good look, about 5.9 km, 100 meters less than Gallant with her squared bridge and a CE captain. Gonna need a gimmick of some kind, rest assured....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,392
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,345 posts
13,324 battles

'Serious steel' on the JKN is true, but it works out as being 72 RPM with 1,700 HE damage - the Mahan throws 75 RPM with 1,800 HE damage. The Benson/Fletcher with 18 RPM throw 90 RPM. You win against Mahan on fire chance and gun layout, Fletch/Benson are a tier higher.

The 5-gun Battles are decent Fletcher analogs, only with the 113mm HE pen issue. You could trade a bit of ROF for the lighter shells and have it work out. The problem is that the Fletcher's 10.5km range at 66kt torpedo for 19,033 damage with a 106s reload (21.2s per tube) beats the high tier RN torpedo on range (10km), speed (62kt) and damage (16,766) as well as reload (24s per tube).

The 6-gun Darings are reasonable Gearing analogs on face value, only again with the 113mm HE pen, the less damaging shells and the worse shell arcs. The torpedo issue remains.

 

I would agree and hope for about 5.9km concealment - at high tiers the stock concealment starts to creep up, but at T8 the concealment module makes a big difference. The Daring is pretty tall, but I think successive Grozovoi and Z-52 concealment buffs indicate WG will do what they need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
234 posts
12 battles

Tier 7 is the home of horrifically under tired OP British seal clubbers, a full J/K/N without nerfs is hilarious at tier 7. I wouldn't put it past WG to continue that tradition with the 8 gun Tribal. :cap_haloween:

 

Spoiler

 

Tier 7 destroyers Tier Guns Reload (s) HE Alpha Fire chance (%) Hit rate (%) Broadside HE DPM Fires per minute DE
Tribal (4x2) 7 8 5 1700 8 50% 3,400 20,400 2.6 3.2
Mahan B 7 5 4 1800 5 50% 2,250 16,875 1.2 1.7
Sims 7 4 3.3 1800 5 50% 1,800 16,364 1.2 1.7
J/K/N/Tribal (3x2) 7 6 5 1700 8 50% 2,550 15,300 1.9 2.4
Leningrad 7 5 5 1900 8 50% 2,375 14,250 1.6 2.0
Minsk 7 5 5 1900 8 50% 2,375 14,250 1.6 2.0
Leberecht Maass 7 5 4 1500 6 50% 1,875 14,063 1.5 2.0
Błyskawica 7 7 6.5 1700 8 50% 2,975 13,731 1.7 2.1
Mahan C 7 4 4 1800 5 50% 1,800 13,500 1.0 1.4
L-Class (10 RPM) 7 6 6 1700 9 50% 2,550 12,750 1.8 2.2
C-Class (Mk II shells) 7 4 4.3 1700 8 50% 1,700 11,860 1.5 1.9
C-Class (Mark VI shells) 7 4 4.3 1600 7 50% 1,600 11,163 1.3 1.7
Akatsuki 7 6 7.5 1800 7 50% 2,700 10,800 1.1 1.4
S to V class 7 4 5 1700 8 50% 1,700 10,200 1.3 1.6
Shiratsuyu 7 5 7.5 1800 7 50% 2,250 9,000 0.9 1.2

 

Winfast sets 2.6 fire per minute with DE/IFHE for comparison.

The difference between 114mm shells isn't huge for the C-Class, it won't change the torpedo boat game play (RN Shiratsuyu)

 

Edit:

Oh yeah you can also see RN AP shells have reduced Krupp compared to other factions. For the 120mm guns RN gets 2,396, Pan Asia get 2,438. (Krupp is a variable that moves the AP penetration curve up or down for balance) 

I wonder if British Pan Asia destroyers will get a nerfed 5-6% fire chance after a few months?

 

On 15/11/2017 at 3:50 AM, mofton said:

The torpedo issue remains.

 

The RN torpedo boat line won't get nerfed cruiser/gunboat torps, they'll have more range and/or speed depending on tier.

Low tier torpedoes should have a 7.4km range like Campbeltown. At tier 6 we could get the Mk IX in 10km/57 knot config etc.

 

Plus WG make stuff up! Fletcher has sub torps with a wonky reload.

 

Edited by creamgravy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,392
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,345 posts
13,324 battles
8 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

Tier 7 is the home of horrifically under tired OP British seal clubbers, a full J/K/N without nerfs is hilarious at tier 7. I wouldn't put it past WG to continue that tradition with the 8 gun Tribal. :cap_haloween:

So it seems. I was somewhere between T7 and T8 on the JKN - to be honest the difference between a T7 and T8 can be pretty slight, just put Gadjah Mada at T8 and it gets the concealment mod which is big plus. Mahan wouldn't be so different from Benson with the concealment mod - that's a good chunk of the difference.

Gadjah Mada seems perfect to exploit the horrendously overpowered smoke, a better gunboat than I was anticipating with continuous smoke? Flamu had a great game but he could just smoke and smoke and smoke, no radar, no real torps into smoke after the Minekaze, no carrier to spot in the brief periods between spot.

Give that boat normal smoke with a 90s period between them and it might change a bit.

Also interesting that Flamu went with a gunboat build - BFT over TAE in particular, that's not what I was anticipating.

 

I do love the 360' turret rotation and insanely good forward arcs at the expense of rearward arcs. That looks super fun when chasing DD (and useful sitting in smoke bow-on firing everything). Very much in keeping with the RN destroyer doctrine - just a shame that it's best off sitting stationary in smoke... again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
234 posts
12 battles
7 minutes ago, mofton said:

just put Gadjah Mada at T8 and it gets the concealment mod which is big plus

 

Yep, unfortunately they need to maintain the Benson>Fletcher>Gearing progression, that's the only reason it's at tier 7. A RN J/K/N will be brilliant at tier 8 with the 5.5km surface detection and 10km single fire torpedoes.

 

The smoke is a bit silly but you can do the same with other destroyer lines, you just have more down time for a spot of stealth torping.  A 6 gun Tribal with the heal consumable at tier 7 won't be as reliant on smoke...:cap_fainting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,392
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,345 posts
13,324 battles
2 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

Yep, unfortunately they need to maintain the Benson>Fletcher>Gearing progression, that's the only reason it's at tier 7. A RN J/K/N will be brilliant at tier 8 with the 5.5km surface detection and 10km single fire torpedoes.

The smoke is a bit silly but you can do the same with other destroyer lines, you just have more down time for a spot of stealth torping.  A 6 gun Tribal with the heal consumable at tier 7 won't be as reliant on smoke...:cap_fainting:

Eh, the progression's all over the place as it is. Another jump wouldn't have been the end of the world, though not sure what they'd have gone with at T7 instead, maybe something Japanese.

You probably don't want to spend 90s stealth torping in your Tribal. I think a 6-gun Tribal with repair will struggle compared to this ship, the firepower's the same but the lack of torpedoes and P-A smoke isn't good, not worth the heal.

Also not sure how good the Y turret arcs are on a Tribal.

I'd try a T8 RN JKN any day of the week, problem to me though is maintaining progression. You likely have a GHI at T6, then you want something a bit better but keeping the 4.7in/45 at T7. The 4.7in armed WEP's are little if any better than the T6's, trading maneuverability and concealment for some HP. I'm not that keen on them.

Weird but not unprecedented on the krupp change. I think Murmansk benefits from that over Omaha too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,275
[ARGSY]
Members
16,255 posts
11,121 battles

Gun buffs (if needed) will probably = fire chance to correspond to their very big brothers in BB land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×