Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
3r22r

USN Super DD ? Why Not ?

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

98
[1813]
Members
411 posts
15,578 battles

It seems the rage is for super cruisers and DDs latelly, EX; Hurugumo or French larger Destroyers

Since WG lakes to come up with real or made up ships, is it possible that WG may come up with super USN DD equivalent to the French Kleber ?

Edited by 3r22r
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
230
[CS7]
Members
327 posts
5,860 battles
1 hour ago, 3r22r said:

It seems the rage is for super cruisers and DDs latelly, EX; Hurugumo or French larger Destroyers

Since WG lakes to come up with real or made up ships, is it possible that WG may come up with super USN DD equivalent to the French Kleber ?

They don't have to make anything up for US super destroyers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Norfolk_(DL-1)?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mitscher_(DL-2)?wprov=sfla1

I suspect these ships will show up eventually, either as premiums or a US DD tech tree split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98
[1813]
Members
411 posts
15,578 battles
1 hour ago, Maddau said:

They don't have to make anything up for US super destroyers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Norfolk_(DL-1)?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mitscher_(DL-2)?wprov=sfla1

I suspect these ships will show up eventually, either as premiums or a US DD tech tree split.

Add John Paul Jones post war DDs too, 3 single 127mm mount, 2 twin 76mm and guided torps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
230
[CS7]
Members
327 posts
5,860 battles
1 hour ago, 3r22r said:

Add John Paul Jones post war DDs too, 3 single 127mm mount, 2 twin 76mm and guided torps

I don't think those would qualify as gunboat super destroyers like the Kleber, Gumo or Khab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,099
[SYN]
[SYN]
Beta Testers
2,453 posts
14,532 battles
14 hours ago, Maddau said:

I don't think those would qualify as gunboat super destroyers like the Kleber, Gumo or Khab.

I don't think 2 barrels of 5" guns on Mitscher qualify her as gunboat in this game either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
242
[CUDA]
Members
619 posts
9,455 battles
19 hours ago, chewonit said:

I don't think 2 barrels of 5" guns on Mitscher qualify her as gunboat in this game either. 

Rate of fire 40 rounds per minute, range 23k, 32 kg shell, is it sounding better now?  Plus the ship gets 4 3" guns, 90-100 rounds per minute, 19k range. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,099
[SYN]
[SYN]
Beta Testers
2,453 posts
14,532 battles
6 hours ago, Swervenkill said:

Rate of fire 40 rounds per minute, range 23k, 32 kg shell, is it sounding better now?  Plus the ship gets 4 3" guns, 90-100 rounds per minute, 19k range. 

That throw weight is about Gearing level. Not sure if Gearing still count as a gunboat. And 3" guns are AA only. The game doesn't do mix caliber main guns.

WG can certainly boost any numbers in game. They do that a lot.

Edited by chewonit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98
[1813]
Members
411 posts
15,578 battles

Either way, WG will screw it up regardless... and its not Russian... ( you know that bias thing ? )

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[GRETA]
Members
161 posts
16,409 battles
On 10/28/2020 at 4:22 PM, Maddau said:

They don't have to make anything up for US super destroyers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Norfolk_(DL-1)?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mitscher_(DL-2)?wprov=sfla1

I suspect these ships will show up eventually, either as premiums or a US DD tech tree split.

I don't think 76mm main armaments qualify for "Super" anything and the missile armed DDs are beyond the scope of the game.

The two most likely HISTORICAL candidates are:-

  • USS Timmerman (DD-828) -- 42 knot Gearing with 100,000 shp from GE turbo-machinery and 875 psi boilers.
  • USS Percival (DD-452) -- 43 knot Fletcher with 100,000 shp from GE turbo-machinery and 875 psi boilers*

*Started but not completed; the turbo-machinery was moved to the Timmerman which was completed and served till 1958.

I did suggest the USS Percival a while back and did a render of what it'll look like back in August...

--

For World of Warships the Percival's appearance is very similar to that of a Fletcher with larger funnels. These displaced the aft torpedo launcher and the X position 5"/38 gun slightly rearwards. The elevated 40mm Bofors between the X-Y five inch mountings is eliminated.

Functionally the changes from a Fletcher are as follows:-

  • 43 knots maximum speed
  • 2 x 4 533mm torpedo tubes with Mk 17 (Gearing) torpedoes and slightly faster reload (99 sec vs the Gearing's 103 sec)
  • Minus one 40mm Bofors AA mounting compared to the Fletcher

In every other way it is a Fletcher with the (B) Hull and its 17,100 HP before modifiers. This is a stealthy, very fast and very agile destroyer with a decent torpedo and gun armament. On the downside, it is more vulnerable than the Gearing with fewer guns and two fewer torpedo tubes. Consumables are also identical tot he Fletcher with Smoke and a choice between Engine Boost or Defensive AA.

USS Percival DD-452.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
230
[CS7]
Members
327 posts
5,860 battles
5 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

I don't think 76mm main armaments qualify for "Super" anything and the missile armed DDs are beyond the scope of the game.

Give it the same penetration  as the 100 mm Japanese battery found on the Haragumo, etc. (3/10 of diameter or 23 mm before IFHE) with a 7% or higher fire chance, good ballistics (a first for a US DD) and a high rate of fire (historically accurate) and these would be just fine in a super cruiser role.  The could pen every DD in the game without IFHE, and light cruisers and parts of most heavy cruisers with IFHE.  I'd give them a set of the excellent Mk 17 torps from Gearing, DFAA/speed boost, and US smoke but a lower top speed the Gearing.

Edited by Maddau
Corrected typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[GRETA]
Members
161 posts
16,409 battles
1 hour ago, Maddau said:

Give it the same penetration  as the 100 mm Japanese battery found on the Haragumo, etc. (3/10 of diameter or 23 mm before IFHE) with a 7% or higher fire chance, good ballistics (a first for a US DD) and a high rate of fire (historically accurate) and these would be just fine in a super cruiser role.  The could pen every DD in the game without IFHE, and light cruisers and parts of most heavy cruisers with IFHE.  I'd give them a set of the excellent Mk 15 torps from Gearing, DFAA/speed boost, and US smoke but a lower top speed the Gearing.

The problem is that NONE of it is true. The 3"/50 has a reload time of 3~4 sec. It has a relatively low muzzle velocity of 820 m/s. A 76mm shell logically will not have a high fire chance by the norms of the game. The Norfolks are also very slow ships by WoW standards at 32 knots while being very big ships with three times the displacement of the Fletcher. Unless you start making things up completely, they are going to suck completely.

But, more importantly, the question is why these post war designs with priorities which are irrelevant for the game? These ships are ASROC carriers and (later on) Terrier/SM-1 carriers. They don't fit into the gun slinging paradigm of a WoW match. If you want a "super" destroyer and you don't like the two "FAST USN" options I listed, why not stick the 5"/54 Mk41 twin mounts on the Gearing or the Fletcher which will have flatter arcs at the cost of lower RoF. You can already experience them on the HSF Harekaze if you opt for the #1 config (which sucks). Or, you can do some kind of fictitious Gearing with 40 rpm Mk42 6"/54 mounts.

Personally, though, I think a fast USN DD is the best option because the game DOES NOT currently have a fast, low detect, DD and it introduces a new dimension to the game play. Iprefer the fast fletcher (Percival) because it is easier to balance. You get 43 knots speed with 5.8km detect which can be extremely deadly, but you are a Tier X with Tier IX health, one fewer gun barrel and two fewer torps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
230
[CS7]
Members
327 posts
5,860 battles
48 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

The 3"/50 has a reload time of 3~4 sec. It has a relatively low muzzle velocity of 820 m/s.

You could use the 3"/70 that was refitted onto the Norfolk.  1000 m/s muzzle velocity and 90 - 100 rpm.  Heck, you would not need much more than a 2 - 3% fire chance at that rate of fire for it to be a flame thrower (realistically they'd have to slow down the ROF for the game if they went with the 70).  Also, 820 m/s isn't bad if the shell doesn't lose too much velocity over range due to air drag.  WG tunes that, so that if you kept the air loss low for the entire flight of the shell, it would still have outstanding ballistics.  If we want to talk realism, the smaller the shell, the smaller the air drag.  They could stick with the 3"/50 and get good ballistics provided that was the case.  But they'd have to balance it.  Give it good ballistics, then it being slow (Norfolk is the Atlanta hull IIRC) and big (detection on the order of 8 km with full concealment) seems like a fair trade. 

48 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

The problem is that NONE of it is true.

On second thought, you're right about the highish fire chance.  That wouldn't work for physics (as you pointed out) but more importantly for game balance.  I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure she (Norfolk) could lay smoke (most ships of the time could).  ASROC wasn't added until 1960, but subs are coming to the game, and having a strong DD sub hunter sounds pretty good.  The US in game currently has zero DDs with hydro, so maybe add the UK DD hydro as a consumable.  Speed boost is made up, so yep, that is not true (for any of the DDs in game).  DFAA is also just made up for a consumable in the game, but she was a strong AA platform and this is a highlight of US destroyers in the game.  Maybe even give her unlimited DFAA like the Atlanta since the earlier hulls had that. 

The Norfolk and Mitscher class were built in steel, and served in the fleet.  The Percival sounds nice (I love the Fletcher) and I like your idea to balance her, but I hardly think the game needs another never completed experimental Fletcher hull (four already), and they currently all have an option for speed boost which can get them close to your desired speed.  I just don't think it is as interesting as the Norfolk or the Mitscher.  The Timmerman is more unique (only 2 Gearing(ish) hulls currently in game) but both are torpedo boats with decent guns.  Not what the OP was asking about.

There really isn't a slow, high DPM, DD gunboat in the game.  The closest is the Harugamo, which isn't really that slow.  I hope WG will add one in, and the Norfolk would be perfect in this role at T10 if they follow the precedent set by the IJN 100 mm/65 for penetration.

Edited by Maddau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[GRETA]
Members
161 posts
16,409 battles
8 minutes ago, Maddau said:

You could use the 3"/70 that was refitted onto the Norfolk.  1000 m/s muzzle velocity and 90 - 100 rpm.  Heck, you would not need much more than a 2 - 3% fire chance at that rate of fire for it to be a flame thrower (realistically they'd have to slow down the ROF for the game if they went with the 70). 

I don't think you understand the fire chance mechanics. If you have a 5% fire chance, it DOESN'T mean that 5% of the hits will start fires -- far from it. Hits that shatter do not start fire regardless of fire chance. Hits that impact the water before impacting the hull do not start fires. Hits that ricochet do not start fires. Hits on the hull sides do not start fires. ONLY hits that penetrate and land on the deck or superstructure has a chance to start fires. Hits on the turret secondary gun, AA mount, torpedo tubes, rudder or whatever "object" do not start fires -- although they may break that object.

An IJN gunboat like the Akit, Haru or Kita has a 7% fire chance (with commander skill) from the 100mm/L70. Play one and look at the stats at the end of the game. You'll get 300 hits and maybe 6 fires. That is 2.3%. Why? Because about half the hits shatter and about a quarter hit the hull sides or ricochet or whatever. That leaves 75 hits on the deck or superstructure which penetrated and which did not hit any breakable object. 0.07 x 75 is 5.25 fires -- so 6 is actually a bit lucky but about right.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
230
[CS7]
Members
327 posts
5,860 battles
18 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

Hits that shatter do not start fire regardless of fire chance. Hits that impact the water before impacting the hull do not start fires. Hits that ricochet do not start fires. Hits on the hull sides do not start fires. ONLY hits that penetrate and land on the deck or superstructure has a chance to start fires. Hits on the turret secondary gun, AA mount, torpedo tubes, rudder or whatever "object" do not start fires -- although they may break that object.

Pens are not necessary to start fires with HE, only hits.  

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Ammo

"Direct damage to the ship is inflicted only if the shell penetrates the part of the ship it hits. Blast damage and fire may be inflicted whether or not it penetrates."

Edited by Maddau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[GRETA]
Members
161 posts
16,409 battles
44 minutes ago, Maddau said:

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Ammo

That is not what the Wiki says about non-pens, nor is it consistent with my experience in game.

"Direct damage to the ship is inflicted only if the shell penetrates the part of the ship it hits. Blast damage and fire may be inflicted whether or not it penetrates."

Shatters do ZERO damage -- blast or fire. That is why you never do any damage when you only see shell shatter ribbons. Try it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
230
[CS7]
Members
327 posts
5,860 battles
10 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

Shatters do ZERO damage -- blast or fire. That is why you never do any damage when you only see shell shatter ribbons. Try it!

Yes, shatters do zero damage, but they can cause fires.  Fire damage is damage over time.  It does not happen when a HE round penetrates or shatters, even if they cause a fire, but takes place after a HE round starts a fire.  If you use damage control immediately after a fire starts, you will take no fire damage.  Again, check the Wiki if you don't believe me.  I shared the link above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts

Initially Somers was somewhat of a USN super-dd, with 2x4 guns with reload of 4 seconds. They nerfed it before release though and she ended up more like a US shima.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[GRETA]
Members
161 posts
16,409 battles
On 12/11/2020 at 4:48 AM, mrieder79 said:

Initially Somers was somewhat of a USN super-dd, with 2x4 guns with reload of 4 seconds. They nerfed it before release though and she ended up more like a US shima.

LOL... worse than Shima because the Somers' quad torpedo tubes takes LONGER to reload than the Gearing's Quintuple launchers and the Gearing actually has decent guns and good AA. In the end they nerfed it to the point where the Gearing is just as good a torpedo boat and a better gun boat while also being better protected from aircraft. How many Somers do you see in games these days? Practically ZERO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[GRETA]
Members
161 posts
16,409 battles
On 12/11/2020 at 2:07 AM, CatinHat said:

At time rate, why not the USS Hull (DD-945) -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hull_(DD-945)

Laid down on 12 September 1956, later prototype with 8 in/55 Mark 71 gun mount

Having a 8in gun dd would be unique.

Here's the problem with the C F Adams class DD. They are slow as hell, they only have 324 mm torps. And, three 8" guns will make the DDs terrible gunboats against DDs and still no match for cruisers or BBs. You can't buff the guns's ROF either since they are larger than 130mm. I'll be like the German 150s only worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×