• You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

52 posts in this topic

How about Dupleix as the tier III French cruiser? Similar to St. Louis in terms of armor, speed and size but with 4x2 164,7 mm guns. The main sore point is the rate of fire of 3 rounds per minute if you go by the 164,7 mm gun that is on NavWeaps. I've however read that they had an APC shell of 54,9 kg fired at 900 m/s which is pretty decent. Unlike the mount data on NavWeaps I've also read the claim that the guns on Dupleix were electrically trained rather than manually - maybe the rate of fire was also higher? Probably not, but with some WG tweaks it might be alright. One bonus over St. Louis is the armored turrets, you won't just randomly lose guns to enemy HE fire.

 

Perhaps...although she's essentially a slightly slower, more heavily armored version of the ship the last tier, but this time her armament is in twin turrets rather than single mounts... the 3 rpm... that might need buffs in order for it to fit. She'll only be able to fire 6 shots per broadside, so that's at best 18 rounds on a target in a minute. To compare to St. Louis, who can put 8 guns on target, with a RoF of 7.5rpm... that's 60 shells at a target in a minute. St. Louis is also faster, and her shells will likely do more damage... 3,000 for the AP, at a muzzle velocity of 853mps... while the 164.7mm gun, with a MV of 770mps, will only manage 2,800 with her original ammo, and with the heavier shell from the 1940s, she can just reach 3,000... I don't know what the bursting charge for the HE shells is, but it'll probably do more damage than St. Louis, as it is a heavier shell... but it's from the '40s as well. All that at 3 rpm with a 6 gun broadside? Even if you gave it 4rpm, that's still only 24 shells on target... Even stock, St. Louis would be able to out-fight her.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if all the NavWeap values are correct then it's pretty much out of the question, but...

From Naval Weapons of World War One by Norman Friedman assuming I'm reading the table correctly: a 45 kg CI shell with 2.1 kg burster (no muzzle velocity given, probably 935 m/s), a 54.9 kg APC with 0.97 kg burster fired at 900 m/s and a 52.3 kg SAPC with 3.1 kg burster fired at 865 m/s. The 770 m/s (with a 52.3 kg SAPC) value as given on NavWeap would be for the M1891 and M1893 models, not the M1893-96 that's on Dupleix if Norman Friedman is to be trusted. (Edit: To clarify these seem to be the values already in the WW1 era for the M1893-96 gun)

Still, 3 rpm is on the low side even with these better shell values, but then rate of fire is also one of the NavWeaps values that I put the least trust on. Not that they are necessarily incorrect but it's difficult to know how comparable they are. No rate of fire value is outright give by Friedman.

Edited by Snowyskies

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the idea of having an armored cruiser in the game and especially of a non-premium one. It's a pity that Edgar Quinet is way too strong  and Dupleix is too weak unless the ROF gets an ahistorical buff. There's few enough armored cruisers that had a single-caliber main battery that it'd be nice to get as many of those as possible in the game.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Navweaps does have quite a few variations of guns whose specifics aren't listed, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Given the values you've given, that raises her damage quite a bit, she could reach 3300 AP damage, at at 900mps, that would give her some really nice arcs.

However, she still retains the RoF issue, which will be hard to balance even with a full extra round per minute... Given the guns and their ballistics, I could see a better range justified, although that seems to be depended on fire control rather than actual max range. Also, one should not ignore the penetration of these guns. If these guns are able to hit that sweet stop of pen in tier 3- enough pen to get through St. Louis's armor, but not too much as to over-pen it... She could just rely on high pen damage. That'd be a fun ships. However, I still think 3rpm is unacceptable as a RoF number, and would definitely need some kind of buff... and that's the one sticking point.

Seems to be the sticking point for France in general XD


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I sure wouldn't like 3 rpm either so I don't disagree with that. On the other hand I'd rather fudge around with the rate of fire than introduce a fantasy ship there. As Magus said it is also uncommon with armoured cruisers that has a single-calibre battery and I'd love to see at least one of the French armoured cruisers ingame, so Dupleix in that sense is such a nice match. No idea what it's with the French guns and low rate of fire though, but on the other hand the importance of a theoretical high rate of fire is probably exaggerated in WoWS compared to the real world.

 

By the way in your General Discussion -> Warships; Steel, Paper, or Fiction? thread you have "Aircraft Carriers: Thread here", "Battleships: Thread here", "Cruisers: Thread here" and "Destroyers: Thread here" above their respective graphics, but you don't actually link to their respective threads! "Aircraft Carriers: Thread here" links back to your General Discussion thread while the other three don't link anywhere. I'm a bit late with pointing this out but you might want to fix it.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap!

Thanks for the heads up, I'll fix it when I can next get to my computer... That's annoying, they worked when I first posted them... Argh, I sense Murphy's law at work here!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, the links have been repaired, they should work perfectly fine now. I also fixed a few of the lower-tier mistakes in my German DD speculation box.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Phoenix, I know it's not much but here's what I could find on Zaō: 1941 Type A heavy cruiser.

qKtNtt4.png

 

From Shipbucket: This ship was designed in early 1941 for the Dai-Roku-Ji Kaigun Gunbi Hojū Keikaku (Sixth Naval Armaments Supplement Program), also known as Maru 6 Keikaku (Circle Six Program) but the plan was quickly shelved and replaced with the 1941 wartime construction program in September 1941.
the 1941 Type A cruiser was planned as an eight-ship class, 218 meters long, armed with twelve 8-inch (203mm) guns in triple turrets and twelve 3.9-inch (100mm) guns in twin turrets (the same model that would eventually see service with the Akizuki class destroyers) and a 5.5-inch(140mm) planned armor belt would have been a match even for the Des Moines heavy cruisers (at least in terms of dimensions and firepower).


From a personal point of view tough these ships had a flaw, the 4 quadruple torpedo tubes fitted there at the stern; knowing how susceptible to explode was the Long Lance when hit in battle there is a real risk of wrecking the entire stern loosing steering and propellers at the same time, as the Japanese CA's proved also a bit susceptible to had their stern crippled by torpedo hits (a fact that Takao, Myoko, Haguro and Chikuma learned at their expense).

 

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3704


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

 

Ah, the mysterious Zao... yeah, I've seen the image before, but once again, it's an artist's interpretation stemming back to a magazine publication.

 

She was never actually planned out, but rather there were specifications assigned. The artist of the magazine, from what I understand, drew up what they believed the ship would look like based off of that, and that has been what every 'Zao' (as we know her) has been based off of. The ship from shipbucket comes from the same place, the circle six program's specifications.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any plan that you might be aware of, of the Alaska class cruiser being implemented into the game?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ah, the mysterious Zao... yeah, I've seen the image before, but once again, it's an artist's interpretation stemming back to a magazine publication.

 

She was never actually planned out, but rather there were specifications assigned. The artist of the magazine, from what I understand, drew up what they believed the ship would look like based off of that, and that has been what every 'Zao' (as we know her) has been based off of. The ship from shipbucket comes from the same place, the circle six program's specifications.

 

Pretty much this,

 

All we truly have is the circle requirements and the different listings on the tonnage, armament, and the following. The Original program called for up to 8 new Class A cruisers to replace the Furutaka/Aoba and Myoko classes, and without the limitation of the treaty, they opted to design them larger.

 

Initially, they just opted to refine the Mogami class with the Ibuki, but designs were generated of 12500, 14000, and 15000 tonnes. The General Board put forth the following requirements.

 

Cruisers are to be capable of resisting vertical fire from 20.3cm guns and horizontal fire from 15.2cm guns. A radius of 8000nm at 18kt, armed with 20.3cm guns and the new Type 93 torpedo. So from there, they designed ships, but due to the war any progress on them was canceled past 1942. They did grow into the B-65 design. Hence why the magazine/art design of it borrowed concepts and ideas. To my knowledge only quick sketches of the new Type A cruisers were done with basic hull line, turret placement, turret type (2 gun, 3 gun, and to my knowledge one 4 gun design) but no actual blueprint or preliminary concept was done beyond. The armor listed in the magazine article was based off a Japanese report that listed what armor would be required to meet the horizontal and vertical fire requirements. Basically, 152mm at 15 degrees incline to resist 8'' shell impacts and 40mm deck to resist 6'' impacts.

 

Later on though, they found in studies and results against the Mogami class, that 30-40mm of deck armor was not enough to resist bomb impacts and that became a concern, especially considering that US 600lbs AP bombs were effective against such armor.

 

Everything beyond this was discontinued as the B-65 was pushed forward and then it was too canceled due to progress in the war after Midway.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any plan that you might be aware of, of the Alaska class cruiser being implemented into the game?

 

Nope, not that i've heard. I'm sure WG will hold back on her for a long time, not only because they've got a lot of other stuff to add before they revisit the American or Japanese trees (outside of balance issues), but also because the Alaska's will be an absolute headache to figure out.

 

However, the more they play around with fragile ships with large caliber guns that tread the line between cruiser and battleship, the more they'll get a feel for the fate of Alaska. She's ultimately a cruiser... but her armor is quite akin to that of Dunkerque, with a 229mm belt closed by 260mm bulkheads. Her deck thickness depends on where on the ship you are, 108mm over the magazines at over the machinery up to 102mm.

 

The extreme ends of the ship will be determined by what tier WG puts her, and if she's a cruiser or battleship... and while she is a cruiser, for game purposes i think she'd have to be counted as a BB (their hitpoints are calculated differently, and while as a BB her hitpoints would be ok, as a cruiser they'd be astronomical.

 

Her AA is easy to predict; 

6x2 127mm/38:   90.6 dps @ 5.01km,

14x4 40mm/60:   222.6 dps @ 3.51km,

34x1 20mm/70:   122.4 dps @ 2.01km,

 

Basically a bit better than Baltimore.

 

As far as guns go... they'll have awful, awful arcs (762mps MV)... but they should hit pretty hard (SHS, so considering the damage boost they get... probably around 9000 damage on a citadel hit), and they are fairly quick firing (20-25 second reload).

 

She's fast at 33kts, but probably turns like an Iowa... so I'd imagine she'd be fairly vulnerable to torpedoes.

 

As a BB, she's have 25mm of bow/stern armor if tier VI or VII, and 32mm if tier VIII+... and that will have a big affect on her durability.

In the case she's a cruiser, than that's 16mm at tier VI or VII, and 25mm if tier VIII+

 

 

 

 

Edited by Phoenix_jz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nope, not that i've heard. I'm sure WG will hold back on her for a long time, not only because they've got a lot of other stuff to add before they revisit the American or Japanese trees (outside of balance issues), but also because the Alaska's will be an absolute headache to figure out.

 

However, the more they play around with fragile ships with large caliber guns that tread the line between cruiser and battleship, the more they'll get a feel for the fate of Alaska. She's ultimately a cruiser... but her armor is quite akin to that of Dunkerque, with a 229mm belt closed by 260mm bulkheads. Her deck thickness depends on where on the ship you are, 108mm over the magazines at over the machinery up to 102mm.

 

The extreme ends of the ship will be determined by what tier WG puts her, and if she's a cruiser or battleship... and while she is a cruiser, for game purposes i think she'd have to be counted as a BB (their hitpoints are calculated differently, and while as a BB her hitpoints would be ok, as a cruiser they'd be astronomical.

 

Her AA is easy to predict; 

6x2 127mm/38:   90.6 dps @ 5.01km,

14x4 40mm/60:   222.6 dps @ 3.51km,

34x1 20mm/70:   122.4 dps @ 2.01km,

 

Basically a bit better than Baltimore.

 

As far as guns go... they'll have awful, awful arcs (762mps MV)... but they should hit pretty hard (SHS, so considering the damage boost they get... probably around 9000 damage on a citadel hit), and they are fairly quick firing (20-25 second reload).

 

She's fast at 33kts, but probably turns like an Iowa... so I'd imagine she'd be fairly vulnerable to torpedoes.

 

As a BB, she's have 25mm of bow/stern armor if tier VI or VII, and 32mm if tier VIII+... and that will have a big affect on her durability.

In the case she's a cruiser, than that's 16mm at tier VI or VII, and 25mm if tier VIII+

 

 

 

 

 

you make it seem as though her arcs are the worst ingame( looking at you cleveland ), their not 762 MV is  quite manageable if they model them like the Iowa's at med to long range their great at hitting below the waterline of ships and countering the turtle back armor of german ships. Her turn radius was also 731m so not as good as a Colorado but better then the other T7 BBs currently in game.

 

given the ships' specs i'd expect her to come  in as a T7 premium BB.

Edited by ACEGUNNER0228

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nope, not that i've heard. I'm sure WG will hold back on her for a long time, not only because they've got a lot of other stuff to add before they revisit the American or Japanese trees (outside of balance issues), but also because the Alaska's will be an absolute headache to figure out.

 

However, the more they play around with fragile ships with large caliber guns that tread the line between cruiser and battleship, the more they'll get a feel for the fate of Alaska. She's ultimately a cruiser... but her armor is quite akin to that of Dunkerque, with a 229mm belt closed by 260mm bulkheads. Her deck thickness depends on where on the ship you are, 108mm over the magazines at over the machinery up to 102mm.

 

The extreme ends of the ship will be determined by what tier WG puts her, and if she's a cruiser or battleship... and while she is a cruiser, for game purposes i think she'd have to be counted as a BB (their hitpoints are calculated differently, and while as a BB her hitpoints would be ok, as a cruiser they'd be astronomical.

 

Her AA is easy to predict;

6x2 127mm/38:   90.6 dps @ 5.01km,

14x4 40mm/60:   222.6 dps @ 3.51km,

34x1 20mm/70:   122.4 dps @ 2.01km,

 

Basically a bit better than Baltimore.

 

As far as guns go... they'll have awful, awful arcs (762mps MV)... but they should hit pretty hard (SHS, so considering the damage boost they get... probably around 9000 damage on a citadel hit), and they are fairly quick firing (20-25 second reload).

 

She's fast at 33kts, but probably turns like an Iowa... so I'd imagine she'd be fairly vulnerable to torpedoes.

 

As a BB, she's have 25mm of bow/stern armor if tier VI or VII, and 32mm if tier VIII+... and that will have a big affect on her durability.

In the case she's a cruiser, than that's 16mm at tier VI or VII, and 25mm if tier VIII+

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Alaska line would be awesome for the US group that are in the game now. Yes, I can see WG dumbing them down to the point people would hate them and besides, nobody wants the US to have really good ships. Still, since they are implementing new ships into the game, either the Guam or the Alaska would be awesome, if not just to own one.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She'd be pretty unique, but it would be difficult to balance. I agree tier VII BB sounds best though.

 

A better armed, torpedoless, less armored Scharnhorst


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem with the paper label in this post (And the game's use of them) is there is a wild difference between three sets of paper used.

 

General Plans - This is the exact plans the shipyards would follow and try to achieve, deviating only when needed.

 

Design proposals - these are basic 'designs' and are just a general idea of x armament, x expected machinery, x profile, and x armor. A shipyard could not build from these as they may not even be feasible with current construction techniques and/or machinery.

 

Requirements listing - This isn't a design even it's simply a listing of what a navy wanted from a ship and would be given to a design board to try to achieve. The few ships in the game made from these are essentially fictional.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would want Alaska as tier 10 cruiser coming from the Baltimore, which would allow the Des Moines to end off a potential CL line, if we ever get a cruiser line split. I do understand if she is put in as a tier 7 BB but wouldn't like it.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAJOR UPDATE!!!!!

 

So, I've updated the thread once again, for the new information of the French cruisers!
Here's the new chart; 

 

382b3fe7fa7cb0114ab4e72f8efedd39_zpsbjzr


So, a breakdown of exactly what these new cruisers are, at least those we know;

 

Tier I - Bougainville - A class of colonial sloops built in the '30s, these things saw quite a bit of action in WWII, and within the class share one of the odd occurrences where two ships of the same class fire their guns in anger at each other, and sink one of them!

Tier II - Graviére - The last French protected cruiser, she's also the oldest ship in the game, beating out Albany by about a month. She saw action during WWI.

Tier III - Friant - Also known as Projet 171, from 1919, this was the first iteration of the design that would produce the Duguay-Trouin class light cruisers. They were smaller versions of the final design, featuring the 138.6mm gun so famous on french destroyers instead of D-T's 155mm guns.

Tier IV - Duguay-Trouin - France's first post-WWI class of major warships, these light cruisers saw action in every theatre of war, from the Atlantic to Pacific.

Tier V - Émile Bertin - The sole member of her class, this flotilla leader was the first French warship to mount triple turrets. She saw service in WWII before and after the Armistice.

Tier VI - La Galissonniére - The most powerful French light cruiser class to serve in WWII, the six ships saw action in the Mediterranean and Atlantic.

Tier VII - Algérie - The finest heavy cruiser France ever built, Algérie is often considered the best WNT cruiser, a perfect balance of speed, armor, and firepower. She's particularly well known for her thick deck armor and torpedo defense system. She's also a single sister, and briefly saw action in WWII before her scuttling at Toulon.

Tier VIII - Charles Martel - A blueprint design known as C5A3, this was to be a successor to the Algérie-class, a bit faster and better armored, but the biggest difference was a change to suing triple turrets for the 203mm guns.

Tier IX - Saint Louis - A design from 1940, the last CA plans France drew up. These were to replace the now aged Duguay-Trouin class cruisers, but a rather inconvenient occupation cut off any further development of the design. They were heavy cruisers, and although meant to succeed the D-T's, were really developments of the C5 designs (of which there were several, which included plans for autoloading 203mm guns).

Tier X - Henri IV - Umm.... Well, I've got no idea. As of now, this looks to be another Hindenburg, a wargaming fabrication... AFAIK, France did not continue CA development post-war, but this class shows what looks to be post-war weaponry... so unless I can find something suggesting otherwise, or WG just tells us what it is, she's being left orange for the moment.

 

That should hopefully be all correct, but as usual, if anyone spots anything incorrect, feel free to call me out on it! That's the point of it, after all! Also, if anyone finds out what Henri IV is... because I've got no clue... 

 

Happy Hunting!

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier III - Friant - Also known as Projet 171, from 1919, this was the first iteration of the design that would produce the Duguay-Trouin class light cruisers. They were smaller versions of the final design, featuring the 138.6mm gun so famous on french destroyers instead of D-T's 155mm guns.

I believe that the guns are 138.6mm/55 M1910s, the secondaries on French Battleships, rather than the smaller 138.6mm/25 or later weapons that were proposed/used for destroyers.

Otherwise it all seems great. :medal:


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Another forum member on here found out from a French Battleships book where the the French tier 10 cruiser more than likely came from.  And Killjoy found that her design is the exact same to what Dunkerque's original design was, a super heavy cruiser, until they canceled that design, going with the better armored fast battleship design that she came to be. That's why her conning tower and bridge are identical to the Dunk's.

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/118085-speculation-henri-iv/page__pid__2856739#entry2856739

Edited by renegadestatuz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another forum member on here found out from a French Battleships book where the the French tier 10 cruiser more than likely came from.  And Killjoy found that her design is the exact same to what Dunkerque's original design was, a super heavy cruiser, until they canceled that design, going with the better armored fast battleship design that she came to be. That's why her conning tower and bridge are identical to the Dunk's.

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/118085-speculation-henri-iv/page__pid__2856739#entry2856739

 

So WG just re-armed that design with a different caliber of guns? That sounds fairly plausible. Was there any development post-war on 240mm guns, or was that just made-up?

 

Also, in regards to the Orlan, checking it's page on the WoWS wiki says that it appears to be based off of an amalgamation of the different designs for the Project 37 destroyer. I'm not sure if that is enough to change it's color to blue though.

 

Finally, would you consider adding in the various premium ships into the list as well?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the Orlan should be considered fake. If she's fake, then so is the Dmitri Donskoi as they are both the product of Wargaming merging a bunch of designs together.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WG said in the French CA dev diary that they got tons of blueprints so I assume that the HIV is one of the blueprints we just dont know which one yet


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.