Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Kingpin61

Historical Proposal: T6 Destroyer Peder Skram

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
754 posts
19,884 battles

Hello and welcome to another one of my (long overdue) ship proposals. I'm currently stuck at home with COVID, so i don't have a ton of energy for this writeup, but I certainly have a lot of time :)

With that out of the way, let's get into things.

1201164405.png


The Peder Skram class of frigate was the largest class of ship in service for the Danish Navy from their completion in the mid 60s until their decommissioning in 1988. While originally classified as a destroyer, the class's two members were eventually rated as Frigates or Inspection Vessels - despite being larger than many WW2 destroyers. Both ships were built in Danish yards, though with technical assistance from the USN. Carrying 5"/38 turrets and 40mm/70 Bofors throughout their careers, both ships, Peder Skram and Herluf Trolle, were refit, losing their B turrets for Harpoon SSMs and adding Sea Sparrow SAMs to the rear.

In terms of gameplay, the Peder Skram would share similar gameplay to the T9 Russian DD Neustrashimy. While these ships both carry middling firepower for their tier, they both carry consumable sets that allow them to succeed in many situations, and have steller staying power.

Statistics

HP: 15,700

The Peder Skram class are something of a middle ground between WW2 frigates- destroyer escort like vessels- and modern frigates, which carry displacements as low as 1500t up to ~7000t 'frigates' carrying modern guns and missile armaments.

Obviously, such a ship has no armor, and a 0% TDS in game.

Firepower

File:USS Iowa Peder Skram Rommel 1986.jpeg

Peder Skram (left) and the West German destroyer Rommel are replenished by the USS Iowa during NATO exercise "Northern Wedding '86" on September 1st, 1986.

Peder Skram, like many other ships built with American technical assistance, carries American 5" guns. This means we know exactly what the guns on this ship are capable of.

2x2 127 mm Gun K M/60 LvSa2

Don't let the designation fool you. The trusty 5"/38 Mk. 38 carries performance equal to its performance on the T10 Gearing, with one fewer mount.

image.thumb.png.77a2781342a397c8a6699fbb165dfbdb.png

Remember, you only get 4 barrels in total. This gunpower is quite good for the tier-most ships with similar gunpower pay for it with poor firing angles-but Peder Skram only has the ~30 degree blind spot in her rear to worry about. 

In combination with other factors, that blind spot could be very concerning.

Torpedoes:


2x2 533mm
533mm TP612
64 knots
18.5 km
11,800 alpha
Detect: 1.4km
Flood Chance: 179%
40s Reload

WOW OMG 18.5 TORPEDO RANGE ON A T6?!

Well.... yes, but trust me, there's not a lot of reason to worry. Peder Skram's torpedoes have very long range and are fairly quick for the tier. That is about where their positives end. They are not mounted on the centerline, but on the main deck, in such a way that you have about -/+ 5 degrees to fire them facing forwards. So, you have extremely limited angles to fire 2 long range torps with okay damage and detectability. They are not weapons to be relied upon.

Also, it's a Swedish export torpedo. So expect WG to give such a torpedo meme stats.

image.thumb.png.2c973ea26354684552aca165f4739ad7.png

533mm-torpedo.png

Visible here, the side mounted torpedo launchers have no corresponding cutout section in the superstructure, meaning their firing angles are similar (but worse) to the front mounted launchers on low tier German destroyers.

AA

For a postwar ship, the AA being spicy is likely not a big shock. Indeed, the Peder Skram carries a fierce midrange armament of 4x1 Bofors 40mm/70 Mod 48.

Bofors L/70 guns + defensive fire create a fearsome AA aura at T10. At T6, it might even be enough to defend a ship from a carrier attack. Pity the faildivved Langley you meet.

image.thumb.png.4b59c3e0fb2b7604fe72daf045f6aca6.png

Maneuverability
Maximum Speed: * shp for 32.7 knots. 
While Peder Skram is not fast, it should have an engine with 2-3x more HP than normal destroyers. The ship pioneered CODOG (Combination of Diesel or Gas) engines, carrying 2 16 cylinder 2 stroke diesel engines for speeds of 15 knots or less, and 2 GG4A-3 gas turbines for higher speeds. In game, this combined propulsion should be included by giving Peder Skram's engine 2-3x more HP than standard destroyer engines, making it more difficult to knock out.

Rudder Shift: 3.8s

Size: 
    
Length    108m
Beam    12m
Draft    4.3m

Peder Skram is a fairly big target. She's similar to Farragut in size, but with a much larger superstructure. Such is the postwar curse.
    
*Concealment    
7.6km by sea    
3.8km by air    

 

Consumables:    
     
Slot 1 Damage Control Party I & II  
Slot 2 Smoke Generator  
Slot 3 Heal (+1.5%/s, 20s)  
Slot 4 Defensive Fire Engine Boost
Slot 5 Hydro (British)  

Get out the Box O' Gimmicks. Peder Skram's strength is its versatility. You can take Engine Boost to compensate for your slow speed, or take DFAA to kick the piss out of any plane you see.

Add more flags to the game, WG. thanks.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
958 posts
220 battles

I like players suggesting ships.  I'm all for it.  :)

 

I do see issues with this suggestion being tier 6.  Looking at other tier 6 DD's.

  1. Fubuki - laid down in 1927
  2. Gnevy - 1936
  3. Farragut - 1932
  4. Leone - 1921
  5. Gaede - 1934
  6. Vasteras - 
  7. Geupard -  launched 1928
  8. Icarus - 1936
  9. Fushun - 1935 (same as Gnevy)

To me a ship laid down in 1964 doesn't fit.  It will have 20-30 years of modernization when compared to its peers.

 

reference for the dates is from Wows Wiki

Edited by Laser_Beam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,638
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
26,251 posts
22,540 battles
35 minutes ago, Laser_Beam said:

It will have 20-30 years of modernization when compared to its peers.

So ... How will this modernization affect its tonnage, and thus health? Not at all. Its TDS maybe? Magic modern steel magically more resistant per mm thickness? Nope. Oh! I know! Everyone knows guns automagically start shooting faster as the design ages, right? Oh, no, wait, this ship has guns that are already in game with very known performance. Hmmm, super magic shells that pen 10x as much and do 20x as much dmg? Nope, not that either. Torpedoes? Modern ones explode underneath the keel of a ship, but that's just a tweaking factor, be just as easy to make them function as any other torpedo in the game - in fact, the high tier Pan Ikea destroyers already have torpedoes from the 1960s+ and they work normally, so it's not that either.

So, pray tell, what exactly does the 'it's more modern' affect, in terms of playability? No, not a vague 'but it's more modern' dismissive answer, but actual answer, what aspect of the ship makes it unsuitable to fight at the tier proposed? Year of introduction does not matter, if it doesn't affect its actual combat abilities. Or are you arguing that if I take a dinghy and put a 50 cal on it, it should be higher tier than the USS Iowa because it's 80 years more modern?

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
958 posts
220 battles
4 minutes ago, Lert said:

So ... How will this modernization affect its tonnage, and thus health? Not at all. Its TDS maybe? Magic modern steel magically more resistant per mm thickness? Nope. Oh! I know! Everyone knows guns automagically start shooting faster as the design ages, right? Oh, no, wait, this ship has guns that are already in game with very known performance. Hmmm, super magic shells that pen 10x as much and do 20x as much dmg? Nope, not that either. Torpedoes? Modern ones explode underneath the keel of a ship, but that's just a tweaking factor, be just as easy to make them function as any other torpedo in the game - in fact, the high tier Pan Ikea destroyers already have torpedoes from the 1960s+ and they work normally, so it's not that either.

So, pray tell, what exactly does the 'it's more modern' affect, in terms of playability? No, not a vague 'but it's more modern' dismissive answer, but actual answer, what aspect of the ship makes it unsuitable to fight at the tier proposed? Year of introduction does not matter, if it doesn't affect its actual combat abilities. Or are you arguing that if I take a dinghy and put a 50 cal on it, it should be higher tier than the USS Iowa because it's 80 years more modern?

And the self-acclaimed forum troll is back   :cap_like:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,638
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
26,251 posts
22,540 battles
2 minutes ago, Laser_Beam said:

And the self-acclaimed forum troll is back   :cap_like:

Yes I'm a troll. And you're ignoring the question. Tell me how being built later affect its gameplay parameters.

Edited by Lert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,279
[SIM]
Members
5,908 posts
9,432 battles
1 hour ago, Laser_Beam said:

I like players suggesting ships.  I'm all for it.  :)

 

I do see issues with this suggestion being tier 6.  Looking at other tier 6 DD's.

  1. Fubuki - laid down in 1927
  2. Gnevy - 1936
  3. Farragut - 1932
  4. Leone - 1921
  5. Gaede - 1934
  6. Vasteras - 
  7. Geupard -  launched 1928
  8. Icarus - 1936
  9. Fushun - 1935 (same as Gnevy)

To me a ship laid down in 1964 doesn't fit.  It will have 20-30 years of modernization when compared to its peers.

 

reference for the dates is from Wows Wiki

The only issue with it being more modern than its tier/classmates is that it may look more advanced than the rest of them. In terms of balance, elements such as superior fire control or targeting radar are represented by soft stats that WG freely manipulates independent of historical data. 

Seems like an interesting write-up. The torpedoes might be a bit much, but not to the degree that it spoils the viability of the proposal.

Finally, I hope that you recover quickly and completely, Kingpin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[VVV]
Members
2,987 posts
5,065 battles

Seems to me that while Peder Skram only having 2 torps per side is a major weakness, I'd think she'd be better suited for T7. 15700 HP is a lot for a T6 DD (bigger than any in the tier except for Ernst Gaede and Guépard, and both of those are from lines where big hulls with lots of HP is part of the "national flavor") and in fact is slightly more HP than T8 Benson. If you're gimmicking out Skram with a combo of smoke, heal, British hydro and choice of speed boost or DFAA, I think she'd easily work at T7.

Her DPM would be 88% of Mahan's (the easiest comparison since they're both packing 5"/38s) and she'd have a much smaller torp punch. But that all-forward layout lets her use all the guns while presenting small target profile. The torps to the extent they could be used in a 1-on-1 DD duel also favor this kind of aggressive approach since you can only fire them along a forward arc. The other comparison would be Haida since they both have only 4x torps and thus have to rely mostly on guns. Skram out-DPMs Haida, though she has regular smoke to Haida's crawling smoke and less potent torps.

Edited by Lord_Magus
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,499
[SPTR]
Members
27,729 posts
18,515 battles

Very good ship suggestion! Through it being at tier 6 is questionable, any tier higher its top speed and torpedo output quantity becomes a burden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,040
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
9,111 posts
16,890 battles

This is a pretty cool concept, a lot of the later ships which just about squeeze into the game start to struggle a little bit - something like a Mitscher, British County DDG or Norfolk need a lot of kledging to get in.

The Peder Skram, seems pretty viable, there's certainly less firepower out there at mid-tiers than 2x2 5in/38's, the torpedo armament is odd, but odd in a good way, it's unusual but not utterly unprecedented thanks to the German destroyers with their 'jousting' foredeck tubes as mentioned.

Balance-wise this ship seems like a lot, at T6 it's a good amount of firepower and synergizes very well with the smoke and hydro. Her only major shortcoming is concealment and speed. I think an all bow-on turret arrangement is a huge plus, it's basically the only significant difference between T5 Kongo and T6 Dunkerque, and the ability to sit in a rapid-cooldown smoke, bow on, with hydro in a tier with little radar is probably not necessarily what you want. Good players will absolutely abuse this ship, in a way you can't with say Icarus.

The torpedo range is certainly eye catching, but landing hits with just 4 tubes at 18.5km? It's not much of a 'wall', it's certainly very handy for a battleship charge-down if you can manage it, probably pretty brutal against RN CL which you can stay end-on to, charge and torp. I'd consider reducing the torpedo range, not so much because I think it's unbalanced, but because I don't want idiots on my own team trying to launch them from that far out at practically zero hit probabilities... oh of the red team, because no doubt they'll be behind me and presciently good at friendly fire!

I think a repair party, especially a 1.5% x 20s or 30% pretty super-repair (Kidd is the normal 14%) is a bridge too far, but maybe all of this is working toward an uptier.

 

Aesthetically, I don't love super out of place looking ships at tiers they don't thematically fit. I don't like T10 Somers in her 1939 configuration, or T10 Plymouth with freaking PomPoms while Minotaur's a cold-war looking beast, looking silly among the 1945-1955 contemporaries for instance. That's a personal artistic 'feeling' but a bit of uptiering wouldn't go amiss from that perspective. I like it when ships of the same tier could at least conceivably have sailed past one another at some point, while I don't think Peder Skam circa 1967 would fit T10, at least there are a few early post-war ships at T8 like Kutuzov, Irian and Oland.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
668
[VVV]
Members
2,987 posts
5,065 battles
8 hours ago, mofton said:

 Aesthetically, I don't love super out of place looking ships at tiers they don't thematically fit. I don't like T10 Somers in her 1939 configuration, or T10 Plymouth with freaking PomPoms while Minotaur's a cold-war looking beast, looking silly among the 1945-1955 contemporaries for instance. That's a personal artistic 'feeling' but a bit of uptiering wouldn't go amiss from that perspective. I like it when ships of the same tier could at least conceivably have sailed past one another at some point, while I don't think Peder Skam circa 1967 would fit T10, at least there are a few early post-war ships at T8 like Kutuzov, Irian and Oland.

As I said, I think Peder Skram could easily be T7. Maybe even T8 depending on the efficacy of whatever gimmicks she's given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[TWE]
Beta Testers
364 posts
1,956 battles

Agree with @Lord_Magus, it's certainly an interesting ship and worthy of inclusion but if it's wonky weapon layouts mean it has to rely on the an extra helping of gimmicks to work, tier VII or even VIII(?) would be more appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
754 posts
19,884 battles

Unfortunately I have to disagree with uptiering it any further. At T7, your gunpower is acceptable, but the complete lack of torpedo power is not. Addditionally, the low base speed and big target would be a disaster against T9s. Peder Skram would struggle with uptiering as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,543
[FOXY]
Members
3,353 posts
8,165 battles
14 hours ago, Kingpin61 said:

Unfortunately I have to disagree with uptiering it any further. At T7, your gunpower is acceptable, but the complete lack of torpedo power is not. Addditionally, the low base speed and big target would be a disaster against T9s. Peder Skram would struggle with uptiering as it is.

They can always buff it, WG doesnt really have issues playing with stats to make a ship fit in a place.

Its a unique ship, i hope it does make it in, in some way.

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.

×