Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About Sanglune

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sanglune

    Update 0.11.0 – Pan-Asian Cruisers: Part 1

    The link to the Player Support page to view the full patch notes seems broken. Also When are you going to fix the module names on the Dutch (also some Pan EU) ships. You've been informed 8-9 months ago and the only thing you did change made things worse.
  2. Sanglune

    Armada: De Zeven Provinciën

    Does anyone even proofread the script? The historical introduction is littered with inaccuracies. Half-true. The Dutch were anxious about more than just the Empire of Japan. China and Thailand also played a role. Japan was on the radar, but not as much till 1937. False. The Royal Navy can't approve extensive shipbuilding plans. Plans are constructed by the 1st Room and approved by the 2nd. Even so, De Ruyter was approved in 1931 and only in 1938 were the Kijkduin cruisers approved. False. The project started mostly in 1937 and didn't pertain new cruisers, but the replacement of Java and Sumatra. Are we still talking about 1932 because she wasn't even finished by then. False, Vickers had De Ruyter preliminary drawings in 1930 (1002A). The design of De Ruyter was mostly done by Ir. G 't Hooft. Although Germans did play a part, it was as Ingenieurskantoor van Scheepsbouw which was technically a Dutch company, though staffed my mostly Germans. Despite that the ship had strict parameters that kept her distinctly Dutch. And she was laid down and constructed in Dutch yards. Correct. *claps* Someone teach this man how to pronounce. Sidenote, thought they're technically correct they're talking about a different ship, that ship was not De Zeven Provinciën but her sister that became De Ruyter C801. Their names were swapped and then some.
  3. Sanglune

    A hypothetical Dutch Tech Tree

    Since the Dutch cruisers are about to be released I thought I'd publish an update to this post. It has been expanded and reworked some, but I've mostly worked on cataloging stuff in the background. And since Wargaming's Russian "Dutch" Cruiser line is that egregiously bad I'll be spending my efforts to get them to fix stuff; rather than promoting the addition of new stuff that's going to be f**ked up anyway if this direction persists.
  4. So whilst scouring through ancient Dutch tomes I managed to find some interesting ships, including a design for a dreadnought by an italian named Lorenzo D'Adda. Whilst the ship's specifications are unremarkeable apart from being lighter than usual, there's something very interesting going on about her... Just wanted you to see this. Stats are below.
  5. New stuff got announced recently. Some bad some good. Firstly, wargaming made sure that all ship hangars were treated equally. They also once more revealed the camo that looks like it's drawn by someone whose only encounter with the Dutch was a football match around the turn of the millenium. But on the bright side, they have new models for A/Y turrets. Hooray! They finaly fixed an item from the list. And it only took them 92 days! On another note, I had some fun wondering how other ships would look like if Wargaming designed them the same way as Gouden Leeuw. I think they look stunning. Also I probably broke Shipbuckets' license so please don't share these cursed images out of context. But I digress, The list was updated, here are the changes: Sidenote: There should be a better place to post this but Wargaming's forums do not seem to have a proper category this belongs in.
  6. I'm not sure about the orange triangle being in use to the end of the war, as I have found no photo of the period corraborating this. Some sources, such as this one, explain the Dutch flag was in use by the indies during wartime. But then there's also these images [1] [2] and especially [3] from NIMH's archive 1942 that have the classical marking with Dutch flag. This all leads to the orange triangle making no sense for warships in wartime. In either case, using neutrality markings on the Fokker T.V., even if serial 852 had them for a short period including the maydays, is out of character for most ships before and after that period. Especially those "designed in 1942+" (come on wargaming, get your fiction straight). This also extends to the onboard aircraft.
  7. Found some more info on P1047 secondaries so updated the list with that. Also I'm still angry that Dutch botes are around the corner and not a single item has been fixed. As far as being built in limited numbers goes, this would have to be ignored for game reasons. If the same principle as aircraft was applied to ships the game shouldn't allow more than 1 De Ruyter and no Montana per match etc. The markings for Fokker T.Vs also don't make sense for "Eendracht", "Haarlem" and "Johan de Witt" as the dates given by wargaming exceed the date the triangle was still in use. Also pinging @Tuccy since he talked about investigating the Dutch aircraft markings on stream today.
  8. Since Dutch cruisers are coming closer it’s time to update this thing. Unfortunately, nothing is going to be removed from this list - as wargaming hasn’t addressed a single item. Despite me receiving confirmation that they are aware of this tread. I guess that explains why every other history aficionado is cutting ties and moving to the snail company. Myself I stopped bothering releasing new info I found and compiled. I’ve found lots of neat stuff, such as info on a P1047 with 6x 38cm, 40.000t battlecruisers, fast Bismarcks, new carriers and 20cm cruisers. But if Wargaming wants it they’d have to ask for it. At least that way I know they care. For now I will just list the things going wrong and base my future efforts on the way Wargaming handles those. Though I expect wargaming to not care and walk face first into the pole that is lootbox laws of the Benelux. Yet I still ought to give them some option towards betterment. Changes below You know I had hoped Wargaming would at least change the descriptions and pick a few easy ones from the list. But Wargaming does not fail to disappoint.
  9. I'm not well versed in the dialogue and inventory of other nations to comment on their situation, but I find the air armament (not consumable) for the Dutch navy not odd at all. The Dutch put a relatively extensive emphasis on air power, specifically from land, as the geography of the indies allowed for it. And aircraft played a vital role in Dutch roedeltaktiek. Though I won't bore you and bother myself an essay on Dutch doctrine leading up to WW2. I also find it dubious where the number 37 comes from. Depending on your definition of bomber the Dutch fielded 15 (+1 destroyed) Fokker T.Vs, 28 Fokker C Vs, 33 Fokker C Xs, native license built wals (though most scrapped), 37 Dornier 24s, 48 Catalinas, 33 Fokker T IVas, 121 Martin B-10s, a fokker T IX, 18 A-17 8A-3N and had ordered 48 DB-7Cs The latter aside all in the Dutch inventory before the outbreak of the war. Now I'm not yet in possession of reliable sources; but I am interested in the statistical results once you equate these to any other nation's air powers after putting them relative to the respective naval and or army strengths at the outbreak of hostilities.
  10. Update Gelderland Java De Ruyter Kijkduin Eendracht Gouden Leeuw De Zeven Provinciën There you have it folks. You copy paste the wrong guns on Kijkduin, you also copy paste the mistakes. I've skipped some errors (especially in the propulsion) of Haarlem, Johan de Witt and Gouden Leeuw because Wargaming's renditions are just too fictional for me to bother right now.
  11. Updated Van Kinsbergen with the following: Better ping @Crysantos Big if true.
  12. Though I appreciate the gesture, I am not sure what you are attempting to communicate. Therefore I wish to clarify a couple of things. The referenced site (Netherlandsnavy) is indeed a great source. Hence why I already listed and referenced it in my arguments. However, the webmaster was not the original author of the article and did not add any new information in his reproduction. That aside, most of the plans attatched in the article are (although distantly related to project 1047) not direct preliminaries; or said plan herself. If observed in rough phases there's the Eendracht-like (real Eendracht, not Wargaming Eendracht) itteration and the later at NEVESBU developped Project 1047. Aside from this the changes inbetween are minimal and any hypothetical future changes are expected to be either modest or based on substantial change in circumstances. If we drop the project 1047 moniker and compare all itterations (with their respective design history) of her distant relatives then as mentioned previously we still don't have a good match in resemeblance between them and Gouden Leeuw, Johan de Witt or Haarlem. Wargaming's shenanigannery has no excuse.
  13. The situation probably arose due to the fact that she was designated a training ship till Van Kinsbergen relieved her from duty. Not my area of expertise. Nor have much interest in delving into it as the Germans are already overrepresented in World of Warships and there are diesel advocates specialising in this subject already. Though I must say, as far as I know Ägir and Siegfried may be the least of your worries.
  14. Sanglune

    New dutch cruiser line announced

    Gouden Leeuw does not resemble any of the perliminary stages of 1047 at all; not even the related design studies. The stick tower doesn't appear anywhere, the guns Wargaming botched from Spee guns and gave them Scharnhorst values, the hull is shorter than any design proposals - even including the German studies with high pressure boilers, the beam doesn't match any design, the funnels are nowhere to be found and even the AA suite is made up. Wargaming calls it a 1047 design but you have to be pretty drunk to mistake it for one. On that note, they also call Haarlem and Johan de Witt as derived from 1047, I don't even know where to begin with this. And before anyone mentions the 16.000t tables... no... just no. By the mentioned classification Mogador would be a light cruiser too. The reality is that language is largely dependant on the context and recepient. Though I wouldn't call Tromp a normal destroyer, she does fit the Destroyer Leader category and would likewise the Tashkent probably be made into a Destroyer in World of Warships.
  15. It is not on the official discord server as far as I can tell. I cannot see the channel myself either, since I have no special connections to Wargaming. Hence why I have to make forum topics like these.