Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Benedictus_de_Suede

HMS Östergötland

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[NWNC]
Players
78 posts
17,875 battles

Hmm...correction please!

 

Entered service in 1958*....Ship in a series: 4

 

Just read the description of the T9 swedish destroyer HMS Östergötland (J20). Perhaps this is due to some corrections but.

The ship is not a merely a design from 1958. The blueprint is from 1952 and the order for four ships came in 1953. She was put to sea in 1956.

She was in service until 1982.

Bildresultat för hms östergötland

 

*edited 28/1. I changed 1956 to 1958, because fumtu kindly pointed out that that ship was launched in 1956 but entered service first in 3:rd of march 1958

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,020 posts
16,365 battles

Who cares? By the rate this is going we will soon have missle cruisers in the game from late 1980's...

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,780 posts
17,292 battles

WG found sekret blueprints from 1958 with Östergötland class equipped with super sekret torpedoes and launchers. This is the Östergötland we get, not the real one.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SV]
Players
1,098 posts
14,066 battles
18 hours ago, Azalgor said:

Who cares? By the rate this is going we will soon have missle cruisers in the game from late 1980's...

we care the history should be acurate! now who cares about your stupid comment ? 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWNC]
Players
78 posts
17,875 battles
5 hours ago, creamgravy said:

WG found sekret blueprints from 1958 with Östergötland class equipped with super sekret torpedoes and launchers. This is the Östergötland we get, not the real one.

Well I think the WG version of the real ship is pretty close... if u compare it with the photo above.
In game the class is equipped with 2x4 torpedo launcher. This is not totally correct. In reality it was 2x3. After modernization 1965 these where put in a 1x6 launcher and at the same time they where equipped with SA launcher for Rb07 (Sea Cat).

Main battery is pretty correct. Should have been Bofors 12cm m/44 though. An older version compared to the Halland-class with no "auto-loader".

AA was 7x1 Bofors 40 mm Lvakan m/48 pretty ok too when it comes to facts.

Topspeed: 35kts is 100% correct

719883606_J20HMSstergtland.thumb.jpg.763aa7338343dca185a7b1491a260d16.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,020 posts
16,365 battles
14 hours ago, albin322 said:

history should be acurate!

Yup, especially today, when half the Europe tries to rewrite/alter it to benefit themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,222 posts
11,997 battles
12 hours ago, Benedictus_de_Suede said:

In game the class is equipped with 2x4 torpedo launcher. This is not totally correct. In reality it was 2x3

Mogami have quad launchers instead historical triples as well.

 

Gameplay wise based on datamined info, Ostergotland and Halland seems to follow Fletcher->Gearing relationship, with tier 10 being not really an improvement.

same torps in quad vs quint launchers

same gun reload, different turrets and shells though

same speed

5.7km vs 6km concealment

Halland is clumsier (660m turning and 4.3s compared to 610m and 3.7s

 

"on paper", Ostergotland combines tier 10 gun dpm with 5.7km concealment, making her nasty cap surprise, without smoke as "oh :etc_swear:" button though. Halland on other hand is outgunned by other gun hoses, Gearing and Daring and have least amount of hp of those three. Only thing seemingly going for her are railgun torps (sample of which you get tier lower) and AA dps, which might prove inadequate against CV aware of your location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
7,058 posts

Lol the cause for "oh sh:etc_swear:" to such dd will likely carry  radar or long range hydro so smoke will hardly help there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KOKOS]
Players
460 posts
6,789 battles
2 hours ago, Panocek said:

Only thing seemingly going for her are railgun torps (sample of which you get tier lower) and AA dps, which might prove inadequate against CV aware of your location.

Had the pleasure to play against a Halland yesterday in my Enterprise, played by someone from [WG-EU].

 

It was a certrainly nuisance, because he was hiding behind an island for half the game (epicenter mode), but all things considered it wasn't very impressive.

With some good rocket hits you can probably take 10.000 hitpoints per attack run, which are two strikes per squadron for me.

 

Players who are actually good with carriers can probably sink it from full health with two squads.

 

If someone was hoping those ships might change the CV meta in any meaningful way, I have to disappoint you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,982 posts
28,625 battles
17 hours ago, Benedictus_de_Suede said:

Well I think the WG version of the real ship is pretty close... if u compare it with the photo above.
In game the class is equipped with 2x4 torpedo launcher. This is not totally correct. In reality it was 2x3. After modernization 1965 these where put in a 1x6 launcher and at the same time they where equipped with SA launcher for Rb07 (Sea Cat).

Main battery is pretty correct. Should have been Bofors 12cm m/44 though. An older version compared to the Halland-class with no "auto-loader".

AA was 7x1 Bofors 40 mm Lvakan m/48 pretty ok too when it comes to facts.

Topspeed: 35kts is 100% correct

 

Well you have to take into account that regular ships are quite often mix of all ships in the class or historical ships with some balance changes. For example in game Helena is combination of both Helena and St. Loiuse. It has early war bridge modification of Helene, while AA guns are taken from St. Loius as Helena never had 40mm Bofors.  You can find quite a lot of other examples in the game like Shira AA suite is totally made up by WG and so and so. These small modifications are done to provide better balance/progression for the ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
5,494 posts
5 hours ago, Azalgor said:

Yup, especially today, when half the Europe tries to rewrite/alter it to benefit themselves.

 

Not just Europe, it's going on everywhere. And it's not all about new research giving new information, it's about ignoring existing facts and knowledge  of history. Whereas 1980's missiles in WoWS might be entertaining, what goes on in the real world is not.

 

Gamewise, there has to be some kind of a balance between historical accuracy and balance. I still would like to have historically near-accurate performance, perhaps one way to get that would be if WoWS would balance the ships differently for AI modes like the scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWNC]
Players
78 posts
17,875 battles
1 hour ago, fumtu said:

 

Well you have to take into account that regular ships are quite often mix of all ships in the class or historical ships with some balance changes. For example in game Helena is combination of both Helena and St. Loiuse. It has early war bridge modification of Helene, while AA guns are taken from St. Loius as Helena never had 40mm Bofors.  You can find quite a lot of other examples in the game like Shira AA suite is totally made up by WG and so and so. These small modifications are done to provide better balance/progression for the ship. 

And I can live with that as it´s part of game balance. All Iowa-class, South Dakota BBs for example have radar. No BBs have fighter squads etc...However it´s pretty obvious that the Östergotland IX in the game refers to the real one i.e it´s not a merly a design or a "paper ship".  Facts are facts. So to sum up: Entered service in 1956....Ship in a series: 4. Can we agree on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWNC]
Players
78 posts
17,875 battles
6 hours ago, Panocek said:

Mogami have quad launchers instead historical triples as well.

 

Gameplay wise based on datamined info, Ostergotland and Halland seems to follow Fletcher->Gearing relationship, with tier 10 being not really an improvement.

same torps in quad vs quint launchers

same gun reload, different turrets and shells though

same speed

5.7km vs 6km concealment

Halland is clumsier (660m turning and 4.3s compared to 610m and 3.7s

 

"on paper", Ostergotland combines tier 10 gun dpm with 5.7km concealment, making her nasty cap surprise, without smoke as "oh :etc_swear:" button though. Halland on other hand is outgunned by other gun hoses, Gearing and Daring and have least amount of hp of those three. Only thing seemingly going for her are railgun torps (sample of which you get tier lower) and AA dps, which might prove inadequate against CV aware of your location.

Personally I think they should made a distinction between the Östergötland and Halland when it comes to rate of fire. I´m happy with only the fact that these ships will enter the game. I really hope that their general characteristics are preserved and portrayed with care, tweaking and balancing is ok but should, in my opinion, be done i regard to that.

 

Talking about Halland vs. Gearing and Daring in a gun fight. Here are the real stats that I found (if you are interested and a navy nerd like me;)..... Feel free to comment on this. 

 

DD comp.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SV]
Players
1,098 posts
14,066 battles
7 hours ago, Azalgor said:

Yup, especially today, when half the Europe tries to rewrite/alter it to benefit themselves.

do you really need to drag this into a political debate? we are talking numbers and facts here not politics pls keep them to yourself ! 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,222 posts
11,997 battles
3 minutes ago, Benedictus_de_Suede said:

Personally I think they should made a distinction between the Östergötland and Halland when it comes to rate of fire. I´m happy with only the fact that these ships will enter the game. I really hope that their general characteristics are preserved and portrayed with care, tweaking and balancing is ok but should, in my opinion, be done i regard to that.

 

Talking about Halland vs. Gearing and Daring in a gun fight. Here are the real stats I found if you are interested. Feel to comment on this. 

 

DD comp.jpg

Times when WG actually cared about "real life stats" are long gone camrade, now there is only spreadshiet:etc_red_button: 

 

https://wowsft.com/ship?index=PWSD110&modules=11111&upgrades=000000&commander=PCW001&consumables=1111

Halland and Oster have identical 2s reload, which you can bring down to 1.58s with BFT and reload mod + whatever AR bonus. 2s is (bit too) nice on tier 9, as Oster takes "highest theoretical HE dpm" crown from Kitakaze, but the same 2s reload falls short against 6 barreled gun hoses. Swedish EU destroyers also have THE shortest gun range, worse than IJN "torpedoboats" even, making 6th slot VERY contested between torp reload, gun reload and gun range. But then, existing Friesland and her guns aren't exactly conductive for long range shelling, so I suppose 11-12km is going to be max effective range you can pew pew at

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
7,058 posts

I think the new line will be first fully DOT oriented DD line, very fast torps with narrow spreads that will land several hits if aimed properly but with a low alpha and on guns agan low alpha and high number of shells to have more rolls for starting fires but no smoke or range for prolonged dakka, in essence - start perma fire/flood and bail, rinse and repeat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,222 posts
11,997 battles
1 minute ago, Yedwy said:

I think the new line will be first fully DOT oriented DD line, very fast torps with narrow spreads that will land several hits if aimed properly but with a low alpha and on guns agaij low alpha and high number of shells to start fires but no smoke or range fir prolonged dakka, in essence - start perma fire/flood and bail, rinse and repeat...

You mean kind of damage that is next to irrelevant for certain glorious master race?:cap_cool:

 

Fun fact, EU torps have the lowest flooding chance by far, 173% on Halland. Gearing have 301% on 16km torps, Shima have 401% on 12km ones. Even Zed-52, ship not exactly known for making flood damage have 240%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,982 posts
28,625 battles
1 hour ago, Benedictus_de_Suede said:

All Iowa-class, South Dakota BBs for example have radar.

 

Complaining about radar is pointless. For example during the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, all US destroyers had older version of radar Fletcher and O'Bannon  had both old version and new one. Till the end of war all fleet destroyers had radar. So BBs are not the only ships that are missing radar, basically almost all ships from T6 should have radar.  

 

1 hour ago, Benedictus_de_Suede said:

However it´s pretty obvious that the Östergotland IX in the game refers to the real one i.e it´s not a merly a design or a "paper ship".  Facts are facts. So to sum up: Entered service in 1956....Ship in a series: 4. Can we agree on that?

 

Well not sure what is said in game client but again it is a regular ship which is representative of the whole class hot just one ship and it doesn't to be 100% correct when compared to its RL counterpart. And yes there are 4 ships in the series but first two were commissioned in 1958. They were launched in 1956. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWNC]
Players
78 posts
17,875 battles
50 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

Complaining about radar is pointless. For example during the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, all US destroyers had older version of radar Fletcher and O'Bannon  had both old version and new one. Till the end of war all fleet destroyers had radar. So BBs are not the only ships that are missing radar, basically almost all ships from T6 should have radar.  

 

 

Well not sure what is said in game client but again it is a regular ship which is representative of the whole class hot just one ship and it doesn't to be 100% correct when compared to its RL counterpart. And yes there are 4 ships in the series but first two were commissioned in 1958. They were launched in 1956. 

I did not complain just stating some facts.....I wrote: "And I can live with that as it´s part of game balance. All Iowa-class, South Dakota BBs for example have radar." (IRL i.e  and of course most ships had some sort of radar especially in the late half of the WW2) nore do I push for more radar ships in the game...However I do believe that radar mechanics should be altered in the game, but that´s another story....

 

Your second statement: You are correct! Thank you for pointing that out. Launched in 1956. Sea trails by the end of 1957 and delivered to the Navy by the 3:rd of march 1958. So... the information about the Östergötland class should read (edited the originally post in accordance with your statement):

Entered service in 1958 ...Ship in a series: 4

 

Now can we agree on that and that I didn´t complain about radars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×