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

Forrest Sherman-class destroyer. More Importantly USS Turner Joy

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

21
[RST]
Members
180 posts
17,188 battles

The Forrest Sherman-class destroyer was the post ware WW II style destroyer. This ship was the succeeding designed destroyer to the Farragut. 

General Statistics:
Displacement:    4,050 tons full load
Length:                418 ft (127 m) overall
Speed:    32.5 knots (60.2 km/h)
Armament:    
3 × 5 inch (127 mm) 54-calibre Mark 42 single gun mounts
4 × 3 inch (76 mm) 50-caliber Mark 33 guns
2 × Mark 10/11 Hedgehogs
4 × 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes.

I am more hoping that the ship USS Turner Joy may be added to the game. There is just 2 of the 18 ships left as museums. First being the USS Edson and the other being the USS Turner Joy. Which got its name sake from Admiral Charles Turner Joy. 

I am curious how far post WW II Wargaming with use for ships. Even before adding the "on-paper" ships. My count of ships possible to use in the game is up to 316.  Though most of my list is limit to ships built around WW I and WW II. Post WW II I was looking around 10 years at most. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,812
[HINON]
Supertester
20,304 posts
13,793 battles

3x 127 /54 and 4x torpedo tubes? Going to have to be a mid tier destroyer at best then. However, being 15% heavier than Gearing means it'd have a ship ton of hit points, which makes it very awkward with such a meager armament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,669
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,438 posts
11,421 battles
6 minutes ago, Lert said:

3x 127 /54 and 4x torpedo tubes? Going to have to be a mid tier destroyer at best then. However, being 15% heavier than Gearing means it'd have a ship ton of hit points, which makes it very awkward with such a meager armament.

She is super awkward, but these are post-war 5in/54's - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk42.php

You could easily justify 34-40 RPM for 102-120 output from the ship, that's better than Fletcher/Benson's 90 RPM.

In addition these are the /54 which throws a 70lb projectile at 808m/s instead of the 55lb at 792m/s projectile of the /38 we all know and love from US destroyers. I believe it should be ballistically the same as the Harekaze's 3x1 5in/54 - significantly better arcs and in game that gets a 9% fire chance instead of the 5%. Harekaze is held back by having 15 RPM on the older mounts.

 

120 RPM with decent shell arcs and a 9% fire chance is a ton of firepower. The torpedoes are a problem, I think the 2x2 original plan was for fixed mountings largely for ASW and then they were replaced with 2x3 launchers for ASW torpedoes only. It could be that she gets no ingame torpedoes at all. No torpedoes is a problem, but the firepower is such that I think she'd be forced up to high tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,405
[SYN]
Members
15,193 posts
11,728 battles

Those are Mk.42 turrets that do 40RPM, so they throw the same number of shells as Gearing.

The HE and AP stats on them would be 100% identical to Harekaze's 3rd option

Edited by MrDeaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,812
[HINON]
Supertester
20,304 posts
13,793 battles
7 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

Those are Mk.42 turrets that do 40RPM, so they throw the same number of shells as Gearing.

That could work, then. Still, 15% heavier than Gearing with considerably less torpedo output and a more fragile gun loadout. It's still going to be an awkward machine, but maybe tier 8 or 9 can be justified.

Huh. FXP T9 destroyer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,644 posts
4,265 battles

There were Mitscher designs with the autoloading 5"/54 or the twin 5"/54(same either way, mostly) that carried conventional torpedoes as well. Forrest Sherman might serve as a T9 in a line with that as T10, though I would align more towards having one of the intermediary fast destroyers as part of a USN large destroyer line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,812
[HINON]
Supertester
20,304 posts
13,793 battles

The more I think about her, the more she reminds me of Friesland, a high-tier gunboat destroyer with some awkwardness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
287 posts
10,491 battles

Totally down with seeing USS Edson in game, took the kids to visit last year, pretty amazing (and pretty big for being a "little" ship!)

edit: the torpedo armament would have to be completely fictionalized or made to be something wildly different than what we currently expect. I believe Tengu had a proposal for one of the class on Reddit, there was at least one where they tried sticking 8" guns on a DD. As for torps, a case could be made for spamming something the equivalent of Umikaze torps at a high tier - low alpha, but blazing reload (and limit the range to something reasonable in the current meta - 9.2km maybe?) and working towards trying to stack damage over time.

Edited by cheereereerios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,676
[SALVO]
Members
19,391 posts
19,575 battles

I don't see any need for this DD.  Better to create a second USN DD line with DDs that were build before and during WW2, than a post war design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
381
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,866 posts
10,876 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

I don't see any need for this DD.  Better to create a second USN DD line with DDs that were build before and during WW2, than a post war design.

Problem is, The US Navy built a lot of nearly identical destroyer classes between the wars, and very few classes during the war. The Forrest Sherman's are about the only unique USN destroyers that aren't in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
239 posts

It is doubtlessly awkward to place. Not only because it has no torpedoes but also because it doesn't jell with the rest of the US destroyers. A stand alone premium is probably the best idea for it, perhaps as a FXP ship as mentioned.

41 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

There were Mitscher designs with the autoloading 5"/54 or the twin 5"/54(same either way, mostly) that carried conventional torpedoes as well.

My understanding is that the Mitscher only had fixed 533 mm tubes, two to each side presumably. Fixed tubes are not seen in the game. The one exception is Furutaka which originally carried fixed tubes while in game it gets rotating mounts on the stock hull. Although in that case at least a real life refit also gave it rotating torpedo mounts. Mitscher was also a bigger ship than Forrest Sherman (even larger than Yūbari) yet it had only two thirds of the firepower. So you get more hitpoints but pay for it with a rather horrendous turning circle and less firepower. I'd consider it a tier below Forrest Sherman rather than a tier above it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,644 posts
4,265 battles
5 minutes ago, Snowyskies said:

My understanding is that the Mitscher only had fixed 533 mm tubes, two to each side presumably. Fixed tubes are not seen in the game. The one exception is Furutaka which originally carried fixed tubes while in game it gets rotating mounts on the stock hull. Although in that case at least a real life refit also gave it rotating torpedo mounts. Mitscher was also a bigger ship than Forrest Sherman (even larger than Yūbari) yet it had only two thirds of the firepower. So you get more hitpoints but pay for it with a rather horrendous turning circle and less firepower. I'd consider it a tier below Forrest Sherman rather than a tier above it.

"Designs" is the operating word there, Mitscher was a much more ambitious destroyer during much of its design process than what actually came out. It had traversable tubes, torpedo reloads, 3 mounts, and was much faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
239 posts
2 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

"Designs" is the operating word there, Mitscher was a much more ambitious destroyer during much of its design process than what actually came out. It had traversable tubes, torpedo reloads, 3 mounts, and was much faster.

Ah, okay, sorry about that. I read "Designs" as in "some of the built Mitschers were armed differently" for whatever reason and I'm now left scratching my head as to why I do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,676
[SALVO]
Members
19,391 posts
19,575 battles
41 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Problem is, The US Navy built a lot of nearly identical destroyer classes between the wars, and very few classes during the war. The Forrest Sherman's are about the only unique USN destroyers that aren't in the game.

I wouldn't mind seeing the USS Phelps (Porter class) as a premium, probably tier 7, DD, with 2 hulls.

USS Phelps

Hull A would be the original 8 gun (4x2) design, though its main guns would be surface combat only, so the Porter-A would have rather weak AA.  The main guns on this version of the Phelps are technically 5"/38's, but not of the version people recognize.

And the B hull would have the main guns reduced to 5 guns (2x2, 1x1), but they'd be the more traditional dual purpose USN 5"/38 guns, along with additional AA.

 

Note that I have no special personal attachment to this ship.  I only being it up because it's something that would be both unique and could support two different variations, based on history.  The A hull being the original commissioned version of the Phelps, and the B hull being a WW2 refit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,059
[LEGIO]
Members
3,224 posts
5,951 battles
1 hour ago, Aetreus said:

There were Mitscher designs with the autoloading 5"/54 or the twin 5"/54(same either way, mostly) that carried conventional torpedoes as well. Forrest Sherman might serve as a T9 in a line with that as T10, though I would align more towards having one of the intermediary fast destroyers as part of a USN large destroyer line.

Do you know if any of these designs used twin autoloading 5"/54 mounts? As far as I've been able to find only later variations of the cancelled large CLAA (CL-154 class) would have carried them.

Edited by Lampshade_M1A2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
381
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,866 posts
10,876 battles
17 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Do you know if any of these designs used twin autoloading 5"/54 mounts? As far as I've been able to find only later variations of the cancelled large CLAA (CL-154 class) would have carried them.

As far as I know, the twin 5/54 cal turret never went to sea.

 

34 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I wouldn't mind seeing the USS Phelps (Porter class) as a premium, probably tier 7, DD, with 2 hulls.

USS Phelps

Hull A would be the original 8 gun (4x2) design, though its main guns would be surface combat only, so the Porter-A would have rather weak AA.  The main guns on this version of the Phelps are technically 5"/38's, but not of the version people recognize.

And the B hull would have the main guns reduced to 5 guns (2x2, 1x1), but they'd be the more traditional dual purpose USN 5"/38 guns, along with additional AA.

Note that I have no special personal attachment to this ship.  I only being it up because it's something that would be both unique and could support two different variations, based on history.  The A hull being the original commissioned version of the Phelps, and the B hull being a WW2 refit.

Would be interesting. Probably would have to seriously nerf the 5"/38 Mark 22 mounts to make her fit at tier 7, the lack of AA and worse traverse rate probably wouldn't make up for having 4 twin mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Members-
1,542 posts
26 battles
14 hours ago, Shadewe said:

The Forrest Sherman-class destroyer was the post ware WW II style destroyer. This ship was the succeeding designed destroyer to the Farragut. 

General Statistics:
Displacement:    4,050 tons full load
Length:                418 ft (127 m) overall
Speed:    32.5 knots (60.2 km/h)
Armament:    
3 × 5 inch (127 mm) 54-calibre Mark 42 single gun mounts
4 × 3 inch (76 mm) 50-caliber Mark 33 guns
2 × Mark 10/11 Hedgehogs
4 × 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes.

I am more hoping that the ship USS Turner Joy may be added to the game. There is just 2 of the 18 ships left as museums. First being the USS Edson and the other being the USS Turner Joy. Which got its name sake from Admiral Charles Turner Joy. 

I am curious how far post WW II Wargaming with use for ships. Even before adding the "on-paper" ships. My count of ships possible to use in the game is up to 316.  Though most of my list is limit to ships built around WW I and WW II. Post WW II I was looking around 10 years at most. 

 

12 hours ago, Crucis said:

I wouldn't mind seeing the USS Phelps (Porter class) as a premium, probably tier 7, DD, with 2 hulls.

USS Phelps

Hull A would be the original 8 gun (4x2) design, though its main guns would be surface combat only, so the Porter-A would have rather weak AA.  The main guns on this version of the Phelps are technically 5"/38's, but not of the version people recognize.

And the B hull would have the main guns reduced to 5 guns (2x2, 1x1), but they'd be the more traditional dual purpose USN 5"/38 guns, along with additional AA.

 

Note that I have no special personal attachment to this ship.  I only being it up because it's something that would be both unique and could support two different variations, based on history.  The A hull being the original commissioned version of the Phelps, and the B hull being a WW2 refit.

 

 

Nice suggestions guys. As with all ships, making them viable for the game might take a bit of tweeking but some great ideas here. Will certainly pass them along for you

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21
[RST]
Members
180 posts
17,188 battles
19 hours ago, Lert said:

3x 127 /54 and 4x torpedo tubes? Going to have to be a mid tier destroyer at best then. However, being 15% heavier than Gearing means it'd have a ship ton of hit points, which makes it very awkward with such a meager armament.

Actually have one correction. Being the final ship in the build cycle for the DD. The Turner Joy actually had these armaments:

Armament:

 

USS Turner Joy (DD-951) underway at sea, 9 May 1964.

Edited by Shadewe
Added Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
246
[TOAST]
Members
958 posts
8,227 battles
On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:36 PM, mofton said:

She is super awkward, but these are post-war 5in/54's - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk42.php

You could easily justify 34-40 RPM for 102-120 output from the ship, that's better than Fletcher/Benson's 90 RPM.

In addition these are the /54 which throws a 70lb projectile at 808m/s instead of the 55lb at 792m/s projectile of the /38 we all know and love from US destroyers. I believe it should be ballistically the same as the Harekaze's 3x1 5in/54 - significantly better arcs and in game that gets a 9% fire chance instead of the 5%. Harekaze is held back by having 15 RPM on the older mounts.

 

120 RPM with decent shell arcs and a 9% fire chance is a ton of firepower. The torpedoes are a problem, I think the 2x2 original plan was for fixed mountings largely for ASW and then they were replaced with 2x3 launchers for ASW torpedoes only. It could be that she gets no ingame torpedoes at all. No torpedoes is a problem, but the firepower is such that I think she'd be forced up to high tiers.

A DD with no torpedoes? No thanks. That'd be more painful than playing Pan Asian or Asashio... or handcuffing your ankle to your face and trying to play with one hand passed under your left knee joint while teeter-tottering on a bar stool. 

Edited by Vekta408

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,576
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,260 posts
12,602 battles
On 6/5/2018 at 5:21 PM, Lert said:

3x 127 /54 and 4x torpedo tubes? Going to have to be a mid tier destroyer at best then. However, being 15% heavier than Gearing means it'd have a ship ton of hit points, which makes it very awkward with such a meager armament.

They're' the same guns as on Harekaze.  You might be able to fit her into t8, the extra HP making up for the craptastic torpedoes.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[RUST]
Beta Testers
514 posts
4,682 battles

Were the Mark 32 torpedo tubes only used for anti-sub torpedoes or were they still able to be directed at surface threats too?  And if we're willing to hand wave them into being viable in game does that mean we can make ARSOC a type of torpedo launcher so we can have FRAM I Gearings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
24 posts
4,457 battles
On 7/21/2018 at 1:06 PM, crzyhawk said:

They're' the same guns as on Harekaze.  You might be able to fit her into t8, the extra HP making up for the craptastic torpedoes.

No they are absolutely not the same guns as the Harekuze their completely different, thats like saying the 120mm M58 on the M103 and the 120mm  L44 on the Abrams are the same because of their caliber. the mount ton the Forrest sherman class are Modern guns, precursors to the weapons most destroyers today have.

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.

×