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

Dunk vs Normandie

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
13 posts
3,384 battles

Summary: Why play Dunkerque now given Normadie's specifications?

So, I know that Dunk is not a super popular ship (but those that do like her tend to love her, despite her flaws - like me), but I am rather annoyed with the specs of the Normandie. Now, if the Normandie were built and specked liked an actual historical ship I would not feel this way, but Wargaming made Normadie a "hypothetical ship" - which means they did what they wanted. 

Can someone explain to me how a BattleSHIP with more armor, larger caliber guns, 4 more guns, more secondary guns, etc has the same top speed, better rudder shift, and better turning circle than the BattleCRUISER Dunkerque? Also, it looks like the hull on the Dunk is longer, which would naturally give it a higher top speed than a shorter hull with the same power plant (look up ship speed and hull length). One of Dunkerque's benefits was that it was the fastest T6 in the battleship class, which helped to compensate for its flaws. Now Normadie, a tech tree T6 BB, is just as fast and even easier to turn yet with 4 more guns and 10mm larger caliber. Yes, the Dunk has some things better like a spotter plane and 4,000 more HP. But 4,000 HP does not compensate for the better armor of Normadie, the 11% increase in torpedo protection is not enough given the slower and wider rate of turn and longer hull, etc

Am I the only one that feels this way? I'd like to hear from other Dunk captains how they feel about the Normandie compared to their Dunkerque; especially given that Dunkerque is a premium in the same tier. 

I would like to see Dunk's turning radius or rudder shift or speed improved. Maybe give the Dunk speed boost, or improve the accuracy/consistency of its guns given that it has a smaller caliber. Or maybe faster reloads, given that it has 4 less guns to work with. Something, I feel, needs to be done.  

How do you guys feel about it?

Edited by PoorlyMadeKnight
typo
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
489
[SVF]
Members
1,498 posts
1,830 battles

I wouldn't mind a buff to the sigma value, maybe 0.1 or so.  Dunkerque's only real issue is her wonky dispersion tendencies imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
442 posts
10,850 battles

Wait until the Dunk gets uptiered against the Richelieu. That big boy is everything the Dunkerque wishes to be. Actual capacity to bow tank? Check. Guns with actual accuracy? Check. (Slightly) Better armor? Check. Spood beest? Check. Cruisers still love to spam HE at you? Check. Seriously, if Dunkerque had the accuracy of the Richelieu, even at the cost of the 28 second reload, it would be  a much better ship. A 27mm bow wouldn't hurt either, though that might be pushing it a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,747 posts
3,622 battles

I was hoping for Stratsberg (to lazy to look up correct spelling) at T6 since she had a bit more armor everywhere

 

If not a sigma buff, I would also be happy with IJN dispersion vs the KM dispersion she currently has, or heck USN one would be favorable also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,543
[WOLF3]
Members
25,125 posts
22,156 battles
1 hour ago, Captain_Benevolent_Fair said:

Wait until the Dunk gets uptiered against the Richelieu. That big boy is everything the Dunkerque wishes to be. Actual capacity to bow tank? Check. Guns with actual accuracy? Check. (Slightly) Better armor? Check. Spood beest? Check. Cruisers still love to spam HE at you? Check. Seriously, if Dunkerque had the accuracy of the Richelieu, even at the cost of the 28 second reload, it would be  a much better ship. A 27mm bow wouldn't hurt either, though that might be pushing it a little bit.

Richelieu's main battery accuracy isn't all that.  It's just like Dunkerque, unreliable past a certain brawling range.  Both ships' guns get markedly more reliable with shorter ranges.  Richelieu however is far superior in toughness than all the previous French BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
442 posts
10,850 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Richelieu's main battery accuracy isn't all that.  It's just like Dunkerque, unreliable past a certain brawling range.  Both ships' guns get markedly more reliable with shorter ranges.  Richelieu however is far superior in toughness than all the previous French BBs.

I mean , it isn't NC accuracy, but it is at least Bismarck Accuracy, and that's pretty much all you can ask from a BB with up to tier gun caliber and all guns mounted on the front. Dunkerque has Lyon accuracy with half the guns and a smaller caliber. Honestly, Dunkerque barely feels like a tier 6, especially when ships like Giulio are at tier 5. At least Richelieu feels up to tier in general. Far from your best choice at tier 8, but not necessarily your worst either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,759
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Dunkerque is not/was not a battlecruiser. She was a fast-battleship. In fact, she was the first purpose-built fast-battleship ever.

 

Concerning balance, its worth noting that Dunkerque is still the only t6 bb with a fighter plane and she also has the capability to fire all of her guns dead ahead. This means that, unlike Normandie, Dunkerque does not have to expose herself to get off a broadside. Further, Normandie's guns may be larger, but they are also older and do not have nearly as much penetration as Dunkerque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,497 posts
14,046 battles
6 hours ago, PoorlyMadeKnight said:

Am I the only one that feels this way? I'd like to hear from other Dunk captains how they feel about the Normandie compared to their Dunkerque; especially given that Dunkerque is a premium in the same tier. 

I am on the way to unlocking Normandie, and I have 283 games in Dunkerque. I'm not too worried about the Normandie eclipsing the Dunkerque, though Dunkerque's not that 'competitive'.

Dunkerque's guns are absolute railguns, so long as they a) hit and b) don't overpenetrate. Having 8 forward is huge, without that arrangement Dunkerque would basically be a T6 Kongo with not much going for it. Being able to wiggle 90' from a base course and keep firing without the rear turrets having to turn 270' is great and encourages you to dodge as you should.

Normandie seems to need her speed because she's otherwise lackluster compared to Fuso and New Mexico. Dunkerque will frequently find herself bow-on and punching citadels into Colorado's at 15km which it doesn't look like Normandie can.

Without playing Normandie I can't be certain, but Dunkerque should always have a role.

1 hour ago, dseehafer said:

Dunkerque is not/was not a battlecruiser. She was a fast-battleship. In fact, she was the first purpose-built fast-battleship ever.

Dunkerque... well, the French said so, but:

  • If she'd been at Jutland 4 of the British (Lions+Tiger) and all of the German battelcruisers would have had thicker belt armor
  • She was specifically designed to counter a cruiser (the Deutschland's) and not only are they a cruiser counter, but a counter for a cruiser somewhat reminiscent of the Armored Cruiser
  • She did trade off main armament and belt for speed - she's not 'light' she displaces as much as Warspite, but Warspite trades 305mm armor and 15in guns for ~7kt of speed
  • Her armament, though ballistically superb is pretty weak compared to a contemporary battleship - Nelson's 20% heavier, but has double the weight of metal in a broadside

Strasbourg with the thicker belt armor is possibly a different story, and there's possibly an argument that deck rather than belt armor is a cutoff - though as most BC's are WWI era it's not that decisive an argument to me. A Fast Battleship should have cake and eat cake, Dunkerque makes trades and not the trades for a battleship of her displacement. With 1930's technology you could have built a QE with matching belt, thicker deck armor, a couple more knots of speed and the same armament, and the French didn't, but went for >28kts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,759
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
1 hour ago, mofton said:

 

Dunkerque... well, the French said so, but:

  • If she'd been at Jutland 4 of the British (Lions+Tiger) and all of the German battelcruisers would have had thicker belt armor
  • She was specifically designed to counter a cruiser (the Deutschland's) and not only are they a cruiser counter, but a counter for a cruiser somewhat reminiscent of the Armored Cruiser
  • She did trade off main armament and belt for speed - she's not 'light' she displaces as much as Warspite, but Warspite trades 305mm armor and 15in guns for ~7kt of speed
  • Her armament, though ballistically superb is pretty weak compared to a contemporary battleship - Nelson's 20% heavier, but has double the weight of metal in a broadside

Strasbourg with the thicker belt armor is possibly a different story, and there's possibly an argument that deck rather than belt armor is a cutoff - though as most BC's are WWI era it's not that decisive an argument to me. A Fast Battleship should have cake and eat cake, Dunkerque makes trades and not the trades for a battleship of her displacement. With 1930's technology you could have built a QE with matching belt, thicker deck armor, a couple more knots of speed and the same armament, and the French didn't, but went for >28kts.

 

3

 

The Germans may have reclassified the Deutschlands as Heavy Cruisers in 1940 but it must be remembered that the Deutschlands were built with the intent of exercising Germany's right to build a battleship of 10,00t displacement. The Deutschlands, no matter what classification is heaped upon them, were something entirely unique, in a class of their own. The French understood the uniqueness of this threat and that is exactly why they could not and did not simply counter them with a bigger/better cruiser.... because the French did not think of the Deutschlands as mere cruisers.

 

Edit: It should also be noted that the French were not afraid of the term battlecruiser, or above designing and building them. In fact in 1926 the French drew up several battlecruiser projects. The fact that, despite this, the French still classified the Dunkerque as a battleship speaks for itself. If the French thought Dunkerque was a battlecruiser they would have called her a battlecruiser.

Spoiler

Image result for french battlecruisers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,497 posts
14,046 battles
12 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

The Germans may have reclassified the Deutschlands as Heavy Cruisers in 1940 but it must be remembered that the Deutschlands were built with the intent of exercising Germany's right to build a battleship of 10,00t displacement. The Deutschlands, no matter what classification is heaped upon them, were something entirely unique, in a class of their own. The French understood the uniqueness of this threat and that is exactly why they could not and did not simply counter them with a bigger/better cruiser.... because the French did not think of the Deutschlands as mere cruisers.

Wait, you're saying the Deutschland's were battleships - but at 10,000t rather than 35,000t rather small, almost... pocket sized ones :) ?! - and not cruisers. Well, in my view they were cruisers, Germany realized a 10-12,000t battleship was practically impossible.

I don't understand how 'the Germans called them battleships' can be an argument as needed for the Scharnhorst's not being battlecruisers, when the German's then called Deutschland's 'Heavy Cruisers'.

If the threat was unique, then to me it's almost a resurgence of the Armored Cruiser. In 1910 armored cruisers had 8.2-9.2in guns, 100-150mm belts in comparison to light cruisers with 4-6in guns and not much armor. In 1923 the Deutschland's 11in guns vs. 6-8in ones and 100mm of armor (plus lots of internals) in a world of eggshell 76mm belted cruisers - but lower speed compared to CL's seems pretty similar.

 

If you have a new cruiser-ish but better threat, then the counter to it still being a battlecruiser still seems logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,759
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
41 minutes ago, mofton said:

Wait, you're saying the Deutschland's were battleships - but at 10,000t rather than 35,000t rather small, almost... pocket sized ones :) ?! - and not cruisers. Well, in my view they were cruisers, Germany realized a 10-12,000t battleship was practically impossible.

 

 

I never said the Deutschlands were battleships. Obviously, the Germans didn't feel comfortable calling them that because it would not have been accurate. That's why initially they were simply called Armored ships. Anyways, the point of limiting the Germans to a battleship no larger than 10,000t was so that the Germans wouldn't be capable of building anything better than a coastal battleship (which could easily be countered). And indeed Germany's initial designs for the 10,000t battleship project were pretty much just that, coastal battleships...

 

Project II/10 - 10,000t, 2x2 15" main battery, 200mm belt, 22kn top speed.

II / 10

 

 

Project I/35 - 10,000t, 1x3 14" main battery, 300mm belt, 19kn top speed

I / 35

 

 

Project II/30 - 10,000t, 3x2 12" main battery, 250mm belt, 24kn top speed

II / 30

 

 

Just to list a few...

 

None of these designs would have presented a serious or unique threat that could not be countered by existing French and British battleships.

 

Eventually, the Germans strayed away from the coastal battleship mentality that the Allies wanted and expected them to pursue and instead came up with something that did present a unique threat. Something more powerful than any cruiser and faster than any existing battleship, something that only 3 ships in the entire world were capable of countering, something that left the French completely vulnerable.

 

All of that to say, in short, that while Deutschland came about from the project to build a 10,000t battleship, she was not a battleship, pocket or otherwise. And it is unfair to call her a cruiser when she obsoleted every single cruiser in the world.... that would be like calling the Dreadnought a pre-dreadnought. The decision to reclassify the surviving ships as Heavy Cruisers in 1940 was more for political reasons than anything else.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
13 posts
3,384 battles

Interesting points. I like the conversations.

I used the term battlecruiser for Dunk because that is what Wargaming said it was in its description of the ship when your mouse hovers over it in port. Also I figured that both Graf Spee and Dunk were apart of the nebulous "battlecruiser" hybrid class as they both less well armored than traditional battleships but with heavier guns than traditional  cruisers. 

 I personally think that the plane of the Dunk is not a read advantage as the dispersion is so rough at that distance that it is almost irrelevant at times. I wish WOWs provided the 'penetration" stats.  I can see that the AP's are lower velocity on the Normandie (have you sen the HE velocity, over 900m/ps!?) 

But even with the better penetration of the Dunkerque shells I feel like it is not an equal trade, because I just won a brawl with a Bismarck in my Normandie (i was VERY surprised, but it was probably due to having 12 guns plus the secondaries). This is something that I suspect would never be possible in my Dunkerque - fewer guns, insufficient secondaries, weaker armor, larger target.... yet isn't any faster  and has worse turning.  (Edit: I just brawled with a Geneisenau in the Dunkerque, and I didn't even take down half of his health before I died, and it wasn't the torps that got me either).

But some of you are causing me to rethink my issues with the addition of the Normandie. I still think that they should have put the original Normandie plans as tier 5 and made the tougher Strasbourg as the T6, which would make a more logical segway to the Richelieu. Or, maybe move the Dunkerque down to T5, actually i kind of like that idea, that way Cesare and Oktober would have some competition.

Edited by PoorlyMadeKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,497 posts
14,046 battles
12 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

All of that to say, in short, that while Deutschland came about from the project to build a 10,000t battleship, she was not a battleship, pocket or otherwise. And it is unfair to call her a cruiser when she obsoleted every single cruiser in the world.... that would be like calling the Dreadnought a pre-dreadnought. The decision to reclassify the surviving ships as Heavy Cruisers in 1940 was more for political reasons than anything else.

My overall thought is that the Deutschland is a resurgence of an 'Armored Cruiser' concept. In WWI the Blucher would take out any number of light cruisers on a one-on-one basis, but she'd be taken out by even the worst battlecruisers with great alacrity (see Falkland Is. etc) - while still being an expensive and low-unit-count ship. However the battlecruiser didn't obsolete the more numerous and still useful light cruiser, which had a wide variety of roles.

Come the 1920's there aren't many battlecruisers around, the Brits have a few, the French never built any, nor did the Americans - the Japanese likely aren't a threat to Germany.

In that environment, if an armored cruiser (with superb cruising range) bursts onto the scene, well there's a poacher in the woods and with only Hood, Repulse and Renown there are few gamekeepers... does that mean that the counter for a Deutschland is a fast battleship or a battlecruiser? Given that the RN BC's would be considered counters, it doesn't seem definitive that you need a fast BB to counter a Deutschland, and thus that Dunkerque was that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,543
[WOLF3]
Members
25,125 posts
22,156 battles
14 hours ago, Captain_Benevolent_Fair said:

I mean , it isn't NC accuracy, but it is at least Bismarck Accuracy, and that's pretty much all you can ask from a BB with up to tier gun caliber and all guns mounted on the front. Dunkerque has Lyon accuracy with half the guns and a smaller caliber. Honestly, Dunkerque barely feels like a tier 6, especially when ships like Giulio are at tier 5. At least Richelieu feels up to tier in general. Far from your best choice at tier 8, but not necessarily your worst either.

I really don't think Richelieu uptiers well.  8, 15" guns are sorely underpowered facing against Tier IX-X threats.  She's cool when she's top tier but when facing equal or higher tier threats, nah, Richelieu's mediocre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
442 posts
10,850 battles
3 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I really don't think Richelieu uptiers well.  8, 15" guns are sorely underpowered facing against Tier IX-X threats.  She's cool when she's top tier but when facing equal or higher tier threats, nah, Richelieu's mediocre.

Eh, she's alright, much like the Bismarck, which also doesn't do very well against tier X. She's not gonna beat any tier X BB in a fair fight, that's for sure. But at least she's not completely hopeless to the point where you feel straight up sad when you see that your team has a Richelieu and the enemy has an NC, which is pretty much how I feel when I see that my team has a Dunkerque and the enemy has a Warspite. At the very least, Richelieu can be an annoying ship when well positioned to hold an area, something the Dunkerque needs to win the lottery in order to achieve with so many ships capable of overmatching her bow. And at the very very least, she doesn't require WG's full attention to be balanced, like the Gascogne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
577
[-GPS-]
Members
2,894 posts
33,815 battles

Has the OP played Normandie?

ignoring all the historical arguments, I unlocked Normandie yesterday. My opinion may change after more than 2 battles, but Normadie’s dispersion is so bad it’s almost funny. The firing arcs for the rear turret are horrible, and you need every shell in the air to hope to hit anything.  It is nice that the middle turret traverse nicely across the bow (like Nikolai’s 3 forward turrets), but it would be better if they were super firing like so many other BBs.  And the playstyle is so different from what makes Dunkerque work.

Choosing a Tier 6 BB, Queen Elizabeth, Warspite, Arizona and Fuso would be my choices well before either of the French BBs. Let’s complain about that instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,497 posts
14,046 battles

Well, I've played 4 in Normandie and my take home message is 'take EM for goodness' sake' - I used my Dunkerque skipper in her, who really doesn't need EM in the 5's Dunkerque (saving you 2 points for AR). The games without EM were, unpleasant.

I can some up some of the major differences in this one picture -

Spoiler

wvefsJo.png

I'm bow on to a broadside New Mexico (he's actually AFK). I've just fired the front turret at 12km range against this flat broadside and I have 2 shatters on his 343mm belt. At 12km Dunkerque would get penetrations (470mm of pen at that range), or even citadels.

This is garbage penetration - I'm usually not a big worrier about BB penetration values, they're usually universally sufficient to blap cruisers, it doesn't matter on DD's, or on angled BB's - pen gives you a narrow range of advantage - but this pen is so anemic it's depressing. You are not a threat to make people angle, meaning they can maneuver more freely and use all their turrets more.

The other issues are that due to the island to port I can't turn that side to bring the aft turret to bear. If I turn to starboard the aft gun is going to need to do a 270' traverse, taking about a minute to do so. The amidships gun I can clear arcs on, but will have to turn, lose speed and stop closing as fast to do so.

In this situation Normandie is pretty weak, while Dunkerque is very strong. It's a little unusual but map geometry does this a lot. If a destroyer pops around that corner I'd have a very difficult decision to make on how to turn to evade and get guns on target. Not so in Dunkerque (which also has a fighter plane I would launch to cover the corner).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,747 posts
3,622 battles

I went 2v1 with 2 Normies vs my Dunk and I wiped the floor with them. Now it could have been bad captains I was facing but they have to show a awful lot of their broadside to get all 3 turrets exposed which made of several citadels on them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[-TNT-]
Members
933 posts
17,640 battles
On 2/17/2018 at 11:54 AM, PoorlyMadeKnight said:

Summary: Why play Dunkerque now given Normadie's specifications?

So, I know that Dunk is not a super popular ship (but those that do like her tend to love her, despite her flaws - like me), but I am rather annoyed with the specs of the Normandie. Now, if the Normandie were built and specked liked an actual historical ship I would not feel this way, but Wargaming made Normadie a "hypothetical ship" - which means they did what they wanted. 

Can someone explain to me how a BattleSHIP with more armor, larger caliber guns, 4 more guns, more secondary guns, etc has the same top speed, better rudder shift, and better turning circle than the BattleCRUISER Dunkerque? Also, it looks like the hull on the Dunk is longer, which would naturally give it a higher top speed than a shorter hull with the same power plant (look up ship speed and hull length). One of Dunkerque's benefits was that it was the fastest T6 in the battleship class, which helped to compensate for its flaws. Now Normadie, a tech tree T6 BB, is just as fast and even easier to turn yet with 4 more guns and 10mm larger caliber. Yes, the Dunk has some things better like a spotter plane and 4,000 more HP. But 4,000 HP does not compensate for the better armor of Normadie, the 11% increase in torpedo protection is not enough given the slower and wider rate of turn and longer hull, etc

Am I the only one that feels this way? I'd like to hear from other Dunk captains how they feel about the Normandie compared to their Dunkerque; especially given that Dunkerque is a premium in the same tier. 

I would like to see Dunk's turning radius or rudder shift or speed improved. Maybe give the Dunk speed boost, or improve the accuracy/consistency of its guns given that it has a smaller caliber. Or maybe faster reloads, given that it has 4 less guns to work with. Something, I feel, needs to be done.  

How do you guys feel about it?

It's power creep is why she needs a buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
100 posts

I like my Dunkerque,  but with the French battleships being introduced, the sense of being power crept is starting to become too familiar. Sure you have a catapult fighter or spotter plane but how is that really an advantage when almost any ship you see will be within range with the tiers you see? Maybe WG could give it a few stat buffs and maybe add the engine boost as a "gimmick" and fixe the lazy/cross eye dispersion a little bit.  

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.

×