19 BravoBigBoom Beta Testers 211 posts 5 battles Report post #1 Posted July 11, 2015 Are there any historical data where I can gather further info about the USN Tier 5 Destroyer Nicholas? I tried to find it, but no result. Thanks in advance Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,102 Goose21891 Members 11,964 posts 6,273 battles Report post #2 Posted July 11, 2015 Paper Project that I think was called the 1919 Destroyer Leader Project 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
19 BravoBigBoom Beta Testers 211 posts 5 battles Report post #3 Posted July 11, 2015 Ah, I see ... So it was an improvement program of the Clemson class Destroyer. But are there any official records with its development program? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
163 [UDEAD] Paint_Huffer [UDEAD] Beta Testers 341 posts 4,798 battles Report post #4 Posted July 11, 2015 There is info about it in Friedman's U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design history. I fairly certain that the Nicholas is based of of one of the 1919 Destroyer Leader design studies that is in that book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
129 mrlazorz Alpha Tester 571 posts 1,361 battles Report post #5 Posted July 11, 2015 I poked around, WG said a little about it on a blog pose here: http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/common/tech-trees-american-destroyers/ Otherwise my google-fu turned up nothing. I'm kinda interested in the history of it now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
19 BravoBigBoom Beta Testers 211 posts 5 battles Report post #6 Posted July 11, 2015 So, it's partially historical, but not-so historical, eh? At least that should be enough to classify this ship as "historical", not another "built-up" ships licensed by WG I guess we should wait for official answer from the Devs. They should be able to explain the ship's data further than as-listed-on-description text. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
116 illyrium_dawn Beta Testers 295 posts 565 battles Report post #7 Posted July 11, 2015 "Nicholas" is just a name WG made up - if the United States actually built the ship, they'd give it a proper name, not just "1919 Destroyer Leader" so they just assigned it a name. It could have just as easily have been the "Christopher" or the "Epididicus." Well, perhaps the last is a bit unlikely. It's similar to the Hakuryu, Zao, and Myogi in the IJN tech trees; none of these ships had actual names either, they were just design sketches or ideas, but WG assigned them a name since they would have been named had they been made. (I personally feel that Unzen would have been a more awesome name for the Zao.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
19 BravoBigBoom Beta Testers 211 posts 5 battles Report post #8 Posted July 11, 2015 "Nicholas" is just a name WG made up - if the United States actually built the ship, they'd give it a proper name, not just "1919 Destroyer Leader" so they just assigned it a name. It could have just as easily have been the "Christopher" or the "Epididicus." Well, perhaps the last is a bit unlikely. It's similar to the Hakuryu, Zao, and Myogi in the IJN tech trees; none of these ships had actual names either, they were just design sketches or ideas, but WG assigned them a name since they would have been named had they been made. (I personally feel that Unzen would have been a more awesome name for the Zao.) I already noticed about that either. And for the Zao, I prefer its former name "Senjo". The rest are running smooth with their "Wargaming License Name": Nicholas, Myogi, Hakuryu. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
163 [UDEAD] Paint_Huffer [UDEAD] Beta Testers 341 posts 4,798 battles Report post #9 Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) As a follow up to my earlier post, I dug out my copy of Friedman's book and here is what I believe WG used for info for the Nicholas: These are photo's I took from pages 76 & 77 of the book I mentioned in my previous post. This is almost certainly the stock version of the Nicholas. The upgraded version is pure fiction, That being said it would seem like a logical upgrade for a ship of this type and size BTW, sorry the photo's aren't that great. I quite literally took by pointing my phone at the book. I'm not a good photographer. Hell, I don't even own a real camera. Edited July 11, 2015 by How_Terrible 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
19 BravoBigBoom Beta Testers 211 posts 5 battles Report post #10 Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Nice. That's a very interesting detailed info. +1. Btw, what is the book's name? Edited July 11, 2015 by BravoBigBoom Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
163 [UDEAD] Paint_Huffer [UDEAD] Beta Testers 341 posts 4,798 battles Report post #11 Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Nice. That's a very interesting detailed info. +1. Friedman's book is the definitive work on the design history of USN Destroyers. The only way to get more detailed technical information about USN destroyer designs is to personally go digging around the national archives. He has also written similar books on the design histories of USN Aircraft Carriers, Battleships (I have it), Submarines, and Cruisers. He has also written books about Naval gunnery (I have this one to), radar, and anti-aircraft fire control plus a few other books here and there. If the technical details of the design histories of USN warships in the 20th century is of interest to you then I can't recommend book highly enough. The one I most want to buy in the one on US cruisers, but it has been out of print for quite a long time, and used copies typically go for $130+ on amazon. Edited July 11, 2015 by How_Terrible Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
19 BravoBigBoom Beta Testers 211 posts 5 battles Report post #12 Posted July 12, 2015 So that's the reason why I couldn't find any data on Google (at least if they haven't uploaded some pictures yet). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
