Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
tm63au

Trying To Understand Prinz Eitel Friedrich's Ahistorical Refit

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,522
[POP]
Members
2,923 posts
23,676 battles

I have had this ship for a little over 24 hours and I have been following the forum and know the views that have been written about it, I have also played a number of games and its certainly a handful to play and that's putting it mildly.

For all intense and purpose the ships design appears that the hull that was languishing in a port for so many years has been dry-docked by WG given a Atlantic bow and various other modifications.

Now WG have decided to give this ship some sought of Ahistorical refit ok fine if there going to that way why does it look like the ship look modern but the fire control systems still WW1 standard, what is the actual year that WG are basing this so called refit.

The in game description says its a 1914 class Mackensen Battle Cruiser which is certainly not correct anymore, the original design might have been.

Looking at the main armament I see the turrets are 350mm  L/42  SC C/14, what are these because a quick Google of them comes up SNAKES EYES, the ships of this class were suppose to have  35 cm SK L/45 guns  which were still around in numbers as late as 1922. 

In fact its entire armament suite main and secondaries seem fictitious as even the secondaries were suppose to have L/45 guns.

Now I am not expert of naval guns maybe these fictitious guns are better than the ones that should be on the ship but the fact remains that through the interwar period and the early part of WW2 Germany was one of the leading Nations in Naval radar, aviation and fire control systems.

All I see is a refurbished ship for eye candy sake with a antiquated weaponry system hopelessly outclassed facing modern fast warships with better firing systems that have been converted into game terms for WOWS. 

If someone from the design department would kindly explain to me what year this mythical refit for this ship would have taken place.

Quite frankly I would have rather had a true Mackensen class BattleCruiser at a lower tier.      

 

      

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,026 posts
27,489 battles

Since they were never finished and WG didn't wan't to grind away... sorry, give away a T4 premium (not many would have spend that much money on her), they decited to "update" the plans for the ship, sho it can fit T6.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
35 minutes ago, tm63au said:

Now WG have decided to give this ship some sought of Ahistorical refit ok fine if there going to that way why does it look like the ship look modern but the fire control systems still WW1 standard, what is the actual year that WG are basing this so called refit.

I am not quite sure what you mean about her fire control systems being WW1 standard. You can clearly see five large rangefinders which all differ from the original design.

25 minutes ago, tm63au said:

Looking at the main armament I see the turrets are 350mm  L/42  SC C/14, what are these because a quick Google of them comes up SNAKES EYES, the ships of this class were suppose to have  35 cm SK L/45 guns  which were still around in numbers as late as 1922. 

I am not quite sure why the game lists those guns as L/42, but a quick comparison of a few gun stats (namely shell weight and muzze velocity) reveals that these are the same guns. I assume it's a UI typo.

28 minutes ago, tm63au said:

In fact its entire armament suite main and secondaries seem fictitious as even the secondaries were suppose to have L/45 guns.

The Secondaries are a bit weirder than the main guns. The shell weight is the same, but for some odd reason the muzzle velocity differs in favor of the in-game gun, having a 40 m/s faster v0.

38 minutes ago, tm63au said:

If someone from the design department would kindly explain to me what year this mythical refit for this ship would have taken place.

Not from the design department, but I assume the refit is from somewhere around 1938-1941, based on her rangefinders, bow and radar suite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,352
[KWF]
Members
4,928 posts
6,598 battles

If you check the "historical info" section on the ship wiki, you can see some of the inaccuracies listed:

Quote

Historical Inaccuracies

  • Prinz Eitel Friedrich is depicted in a fictional 1941 refit; construction of the real ship was cancelled in February 1918 and broken up in 1921.
  • Prinz Eitel Friedrich was built for the Imperial German Navy. She is instead depicted flying the Kriegsmarine flag and wearing Baltic camouflage from the Nazi-era.
  • Historical World War I configuration based on its finalized design is missing.
  • In-game description falsely claims that the ship entered service in 1914.

So just consider the Kriegsmarine having a battlecruiser left, some leftover turrets and secondary guns, and shoving them on P.E.F to bring her a bit up to WWII standards.

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,218
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
28,213 posts
24,603 battles

Statistically, PEF is doing fine as is in Tier VI.  But if it were up to me, she should have been in a WWI configuration had she been completed, and put into Tier V.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
624
[UN1]
Members
1,280 posts
3,946 battles

I would agree that expectations have a lot to do with why people don't like the PEF.  Don't get me wrong, the ship is a little harder to make work due to her weak main battery, but she's a T6 ship.  She can't have Bayern's turtleback and 15" guns, 28knot speed, best-in-tier AA, and best-in-tier secondaries all at the same time.  I'm still learning the ship, but I think she's a blast, as she's the only T6 ship you can make somewhat legitimately viable as a secondary brawler.  And with it, she has amazing AA.  I can work with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
624
[UN1]
Members
1,280 posts
3,946 battles
43 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Statistically, PEF is doing fine as is in Tier VI.  But if it were up to me, she should have been in a WWI configuration had she been completed, and put into Tier V.

That, my friend, is an opportunity for the Derrflinger-class battlecruisers!

Why have just one when you can have both, eh?  :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,587 posts
16 battles

The only part of Eitel's refit that sticks out as out of place is the new bow grafted onto the ship. In game terms it probably just adds more to the turning circle for no gain except for looks in the eyes of some. I'm not convinced it was necessary to stick a new bow onto Eitel as Hipper, Scharnhorst had etc. - given how minor the rebuild of Eitel is compared to Kaiser or Konig.

But out of all the WG rebuilt German WW1 Capital ships, Eitel is the best aesthetically, and the best historically. When the competition is Kaiser, Konig & B-hull Bayern, Prinz Eitel easily walks away with it by retaining her Imperial German tripod mast, original speed and most of her superstructure. Sure, there are funnel caps, the Atlantic bow,  modern rangefinders, and a smattering of AA including the abundance of dual 105mm mounts, but that is comparatively minor stuff.

The L/42 in both 35cm and 15cm guns is a typo, the shells the secondary guns fire should be the same as Bayern however, and that isn't the case for some reason. If only such differences ahistorical or no made the ship anything other than thoroughly mediocre, I'll wait and hope a regular T6 Mackensen doesn't get such nerfs and ends up more enjoyable to play. 

 

You may not like it, but this is what peak fictional rebuilt German BB/BCs look like. 

 

Edited by Trainspite
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,115
Alpha Tester
2,552 posts
4 hours ago, tm63au said:

If someone from the design department would kindly explain to me what year this mythical refit for this ship would have taken place.

PEF's stat card says 1941.

prinz_eithel_friedrich.png.4d38a1e904081

4 hours ago, tm63au said:

Quite frankly I would have rather had a true Mackensen class BattleCruiser at a lower tier.       

I'm just glad they chose to fictionalize an incomplete ship and not any of the Derfflinger BCs. I would've preferred to see PEF in her historical configuration which would've made her 1-2 tiers lower. But at least she has an alternate white hull camo which looks like the paint scheme of German WW1 ships. Just need to complete the Mighty Prinz campaign to get it.

4 hours ago, Erebthoron said:

Since they were never finished and WG didn't wan't to grind away... sorry, give away a T4 premium (not many would have spend that much money on her), they decited to "update" the plans for the ship, sho it can fit T6.

Dreadnought is only T3 yet WG made it very tedious to get anyway, so I doubt they would've made the PEF directives any easier even if she was a tier lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
959
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,293 posts
12,976 battles
4 hours ago, tm63au said:

Looking at the main armament I see the turrets are 350mm  L/42  SC C/14, what are these because a quick Google of them comes up SNAKES EYES, the ships of this class were suppose to have  35 cm SK L/45 guns  which were still around in numbers as late as 1922. 

350mm L/42 SC C/14 is probably a British authors "correction", the guns are actually 42 calibers long by British standards, even though Germans call them 35 cm SK L/45 guns. You see this a lot with German naval guns, American ship classes, and a number of other designations. The SC I'm guessing means "Ship Cannon" even though in German it's SchiffsKanone, and officially "SK" as per German standards.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[M-O-M]
Members
170 posts
7,282 battles

Greetings:

 

Since the PEF in game required some guesswork get it to Tier 6, it was not a bad result.  If you want a Defflinger, you can always dive on it and take measurements or pull the blueprints.  That would be a Tier 5 with Von Der Tan at Tier 4. Von Der Tan was 1910 design (give or take).

NJRoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,733
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,752 posts
15,286 battles

i think the most illogical thing about this refit is that it should place the ship somewhere in the 1930's-1940's, the 105mm gun only entered service in 1935.

Yet she's armed with unmodified shells which keep the WWI era 0.4075 drag.

The Germans took the time to design new shells for the 305mm guns (of Kaiser/Konig) even though it was only for a handful of them in use as coastal artillery, that dropped the drag from (A to B hull Konig) 0.419 to 0.309.

 

Somehow in the world according to WOWS the German Navy decided to upgrade the 305mm gun shells, but not those of the newer Mackensen class for PEF...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,067 posts
2,545 battles
3 hours ago, Ranari said:

I would agree that expectations have a lot to do with why people don't like the PEF.  Don't get me wrong, the ship is a little harder to make work due to her weak main battery, but she's a T6 ship.  She can't have Bayern's turtleback and 15" guns, 28knot speed, best-in-tier AA, and best-in-tier secondaries all at the same time.  I'm still learning the ship, but I think she's a blast, as she's the only T6 ship you can make somewhat legitimately viable as a secondary brawler.  And with it, she has amazing AA.  I can work with that.

I would say the issue is that the shell behave oddly even if it's 14" because PEF is supposed to have been refitted in 1941 (WG's Alternative History) which mean she should also have better AP shells and not stuck with the WW1 AP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles

I really dont get players:

 

We used to have most of the WW1 era stock hulls into the game, and...  players used to complain about that...

 

WG removed most of those hulls, and... players complained about that...

 

Some of those stock hulls were introduced a tier lower, and... players complain about that... 

 

WG makes a refit from a WW1 era ship and... players complain about that...

 

One thing im sure, its not easy to be WG. 

  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,352
[KWF]
Members
4,928 posts
6,598 battles
39 minutes ago, mofton said:

i think the most illogical thing about this refit is that it should place the ship somewhere in the 1930's-1940's, the 105mm gun only entered service in 1935.

Yet she's armed with unmodified shells which keep the WWI era 0.4075 drag.

The Germans took the time to design new shells for the 305mm guns (of Kaiser/Konig) even though it was only for a handful of them in use as coastal artillery, that dropped the drag from (A to B hull Konig) 0.419 to 0.309.

 

Somehow in the world according to WOWS the German Navy decided to upgrade the 305mm gun shells, but not those of the newer Mackensen class for PEF...

The little story I play in my head to justify  the refit is that Kriegsmarine high command panics over the loss of Bismarck; P.E.F by that point was rusting away until the urgent need for another capital sized ship arose. But hey, that's just my brain trying to rationalize :cap_book:.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,469
[ARGSY]
Members
21,655 posts
15,696 battles
32 minutes ago, Xlap said:

One thing im sure, its not easy to be WG. 

Truth.

6 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

The little story I play in my head to justify  the refit is that Kriegsmarine high command panics over the loss of Bismarck

It all depends whether PEF's refit starts or ends in 1941. Assuming a post-war Germany that was even permitted to retain a completed PEF (in real life she would not have been), I can easily see Hitler's navy putting her into the field to supplement the Scharnhorsts and hold the line while the Bismarcks are being completed, with a 1939-40 reconstruction ending in 1941.

Given that the entire class was abandoned even before the First World War ended, the timeline in which the PEF exists takes too many diversions from reality for me to make even half-decent guesses. This is not to say that I object to her presence in the game, just that her existence presents a fascinating challenge to the theorists. I suspect we would have been looking at a very different Kriegsmarine. It's a pity Dseehafer is no longer among the living; it would have been interesting to see what he made of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,721
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,536 posts
12,810 battles
53 minutes ago, Xlap said:

I really dont get players:

 

We used to have most of the WW1 era stock hulls into the game, and...  players used to complain about that...

 

WG removed most of those hulls, and... players complained about that...

 

Some of those stock hulls were introduced a tier lower, and... players complain about that... 

 

WG makes a refit from a WW1 era ship and... players complain about that...

 

One thing im sure, its not easy to be WG. 

Different players complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,584
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,148 posts
5,664 battles
Just now, Xlap said:

I really dont get players:

 

We used to have most of the WW1 era stock hulls into the game, and...  players used to complain about that...

 

WG removed most of those hulls, and... players complained about that...

 

Some of those stock hulls were introduced a tier lower, and... players complain about that... 

 

WG makes a refit from a WW1 era ship and... players complain about that...

 

One thing im sure, its not easy to be WG. 

Easy answer.  The players complaining about each line item are different plays from those complaining about other line items you listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles
15 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Different players complain.

 

5 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Easy answer.  The players complaining about each line item are different plays from those complaining about other line items you listed.

Which goes back to my last point, its not easy to be WG. If we had the stock Mackensen hull we would be in a thread of "why a stock hull and not a refit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,469
[ARGSY]
Members
21,655 posts
15,696 battles
20 minutes ago, Xlap said:

If we had the stock Mackensen hull

We would be at T4 or T5 and having a very different discussion from the start. Of course we might yet get stock Mackensen with no AA and significantly gimped secondaries at a lower tier somewhere down the road, but I suspect very few people would buy her. At least you can take PEF to an op like Aegis and bully light cruisers and T4 battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,885
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,304 posts
9,284 battles

Daily reminder that the current version of the ship is just a worse Kongo with better AA slapped at tier VI. Very little actual attention to balance detail was placed in this ship, and in effect it has essentially become a tier VI Kii.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,721
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,536 posts
12,810 battles
2 hours ago, Xlap said:

 

Which goes back to my last point, its not easy to be WG. If we had the stock Mackensen hull we would be in a thread of "why a stock hull and not a refit".

I don't disagree.  it comes down to different players wanting different things.  As someone more interested in the historical ships, a refit Mackensen is pretty meh.  People who don't care about the historical ships, are obviously going to want the better performance that fictional refits provide.  Personally, I think there is room for both, ala Ashitaka and Amagi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,841
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,775 posts
2,137 battles
10 hours ago, tm63au said:

I have had this ship for a little over 24 hours and I have been following the forum and know the views that have been written about it, I have also played a number of games and its certainly a handful to play and that's putting it mildly.

For all intense and purpose the ships design appears that the hull that was languishing in a port for so many years has been dry-docked by WG given a Atlantic bow and various other modifications.

Now WG have decided to give this ship some sought of Ahistorical refit ok fine if there going to that way why does it look like the ship look modern but the fire control systems still WW1 standard, what is the actual year that WG are basing this so called refit.

The in game description says its a 1914 class Mackensen Battle Cruiser which is certainly not correct anymore, the original design might have been.

It very much is still a Mackensen-class battlecruiser, just heavily modified given it's represented in a 1930s refit.

To go point by point;

10 hours ago, tm63au said:

Looking at the main armament I see the turrets are 350mm  L/42  SC C/14, what are these because a quick Google of them comes up SNAKES EYES, the ships of this class were suppose to have  35 cm SK L/45 guns  which were still around in numbers as late as 1922. 

In fact its entire armament suite main and secondaries seem fictitious as even the secondaries were suppose to have L/45 guns.

@SireneRacker This may be of interest to you as well.
German gun designation uses different standard from the rest of the world. The Germans give barrel length measurements based on the overall barrel length, while almost every other country designates it based on the bore length. In reality, the German 35cm guns were L/42.4 weapons.

For the same reason, the Germans designated the 38cm SK C/34 a 'L/52' weapon (actually 51.66 by barrel length), but many references refer to it as L/47 (it is actually an L/48.43).

By the same standard that PEF's guns can be considered /45 caliber guns, the Roma's 381mm guns are /54.38

Thus, the game, like many sources, offered a 'corrected' designation for the German guns. Not something I agree with (official names should be used, so long as gun details don't change), but make no mistake - the WoWs is not screwing the guns out of an extra three caliber lengths by any means.

The funkiest thing about this whole situation is the shells for the 150mm guns, which seem to be some sort of weird mix between the WWI 150mm HE and the 1930s 150mm HE, having the mass of the former but the designation of the latter. Still, performance could be worse, if they stuck with the original shells...

10 hours ago, tm63au said:

Now I am not expert of naval guns maybe these fictitious guns are better than the ones that should be on the ship but the fact remains that through the interwar period and the early part of WW2 Germany was one of the leading Nations in Naval radar, aviation and fire control systems.

All I see is a refurbished ship for eye candy sake with a antiquated weaponry system hopelessly outclassed facing modern fast warships with better firing systems that have been converted into game terms for WOWS. 

I'll agree on radar, although they were rapidly surpassed by the British and Americans in that regard.

But fire control? Not really. German anti-aircraft fire control developed entirely based on British designs from Barr & Stroud, which they got in 1926 when (ret.) Admiral W.A. Mouton left the company for Nedinsco (a Dutch front for Zeiss). Thus, German AA Fire Control developed from the Barr & Stroud flyplane method - the main element of German origin in the Kreigsmarine's AA systems was their stabilization methods, which were of mixed results.

As far as surface fire control, the situation from above again induced them to adopt methods from Barr & Stroud, which produced the C/30 used on the Königsberg-class, Leipzig, and Deutschland. NürnbergAdmiral Scheer, and Admiral Graf Spee all used the successor C/32. Then, in 1931, the Italians provided the Germans with a fire control system, which all subsequent German fire control was based on (thus, the C/35 computer that armed the Scharnhorst-class, the C/38S for the Bismarck-class, and the C/38K for the Admiral Hipper-class, plus all future designs).

'German' fire control, as it turns out, ultimately had little to do with the fire control systems used by the Kreigsmarine. Far from being a leading nation in the field, German fire control was essentially a mix of British and Italian influences. 

 

As far as in-game in concerned - there is no meaning behind the Fire Control designations WG gives, as only the player is the fire control. PEF for all intents and purposes appears to be very much equipped with modern fire control equipment - her directors appear to be in the later style used by KM warships with the C/35 or later computers - her foremast director even featuring a Seetakt radar. Meanwhile, she has the distinctive spherical directors, which could be either the SL 6 or SL 8 (I'd guess SL 6), which means at the very least she's using the Type 1933 fire control system.*

By all accounts, PEF has a fire control system that across the board at least on par with with that of the Scharnhorst-class, which currently resides at tier VII.

 

*Edit - I missed the fact this is a '1941' project. Since that is the case, she's definitely using the C/38S for her main battery, and an SL 8 director with the Type 1937 fire control system for her dual-purpose secondary battery. She's basically got a fire control suite equal to the best the Kreigsmaine ever actually fielded 

  • Cool 1

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.

×