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

The new Dutch cruisers are an affront to Dutch aesthetic and history

2 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
19 posts
1,320 battles

The following below is a copy of what I've posted on Reddit


 

De Zeven Provinciën had me shaking in my boots at the immaculate design work that went into it. She’s gorgeous; and with the announced tech tree ships it seemed after these first few ships it looked to be a great set of new boats.

If only they’d given the same quality to the rest ships…

Wargaming has decided that, instead of the traditional aesthetic, they would give Dutch ships box superstructures and funnels from an alternate dimension. Wherefrom they came up with these I have no idea.

 

So… what’s wrong?

 

First there’s De Ruyter.

Fortunately, there’s virtually nothing wrong with her model. The only problem is all of her AA guns are missing a barrel… So uhm… why are half her barrels gone?

 

Next up is Celebes and… oh boy…

For historical context, Celebes was a slightly longer third ship in the Java-Class that was laid down but scrapped. The ship Wargaming announced would be a development of the Java-Class. Though this is historically correct the original Celebes wouldn’t differ much except from a small increase in length and internal arrangements. Moreover, some of her changes are peculier.

First, they swapped the plane and boat positions so she could have a catapult and a plane capacity half of what the main class had.

Next, they added AA guns where the boats would be. Now this is very peculiar, the Dutch wouldn’t put AA guns between the funnels because they thought that AA guns ought to have a good line of fire. This reduced the boats that can be stowed on the ship to virtually none, leaving two cranes for a pathetic total of two boats. Moreover the Dutch had a tendency to concentrate their AA guns along with a Fire Director for better fire control. And one more question; Why does she have 25mm guns when the Dutch never used guns of this calibre in any design?

Ultimately, there’s the superstructure. And oh god.... It’s like someone took De Ruyter’s superstructure and turned it into a box.

This ship is an affront to what could have been. She looks nothing like the planned twin turret refits of the Java class [1] [2] and Wargaming’s shenaniganry have reduced her boat and plane count to half for some reason.

 

Kijkduin

So good news, this one is okay… her model is as the various blueprints said she’d be.I’m unable to verify whether she’s supposed to have twins in her current superstructure state and she has a few more AA guns than designed but otherwise she’s fi.....

WkPHUYo.png

oh.

So an historical explanation is in order. Basically the Dutch used 15cm (14,91cm) guns prior to WW2. And thus the guns for Kijkduin were 15cm too. It would be unsavant to suddenly switch, considering ammo types and production machinery etc. The only reason DZP had 152mm is because the damage of the war could warrant such a change. So how did the pre-war design end up with 152mms? It’s a mystery.

 

Eendracht

Historically, Eendracht was the name given to Kijkduin by Koningin Wilhelmina for political reasons. Wargaming has decided to use this to make a fictional refit of Kijkduin. Now there are some glaring issues with her. Firstly, she shares some of the same design flaws as aforementioned ships. Her AA battery is not properly concentrated making it a nightmare for fire control and her gun calibre should be 15cm. She’s also slightly more blockier in the forecastle.

Her main crimes are amidships. The catapult is, for some inexplicable reason, sunken and she lost plane stowage. Now if you remember, their gimmick would be close tie in with aviation forces as was Dutch doctrine for cruisers. So why would they reduce her capacity for aircraft operations? You tell me.

In addition, her superstructure is visually incoherent with Dutch design. None of the Dutch designs had a deck as non-flushed as WG’s Eendracht. The split superstructure and planes in the gap is a typical British design feature. The Dutch would have had the catapult more raised.

Furthermore, her funnel is inexplicable. The tip is way more angled than any of the designs than even the later De Zeven Provinciën would have. It’s also a single small funnel instead of two smaller or one big ones. And ultimately, the base seems to have an impossible connection with the boilers.

 

Java Haarlem

Some people may have pointed out that her name doesn’t fit, which I do not exactly agree with. Her name although not having little historic use, seems reasonable. There were already complaints that the great names were being spent on destroyers by naval personnel. - And Wargaming has to reserve most of them to the ships that carried those names. And thus, “mediocre” names have to be used for Cruisers to save them for Battleships and Carriers. Haarlem itself is not a terrible choice either. Though my history of the 80-years war is a bit lacking, the city has seen naval battles as she was next to the Haarlemmermeer. (Later becoming the polder Schiphol was built on).

As far as her design is concerned. It’s once again quite blocky and her forward superstructure is once again missing a forward AA platform. The funnels are of an unconventional design compared to the blueprints she is based on. And having a split funnel with one being so fair back makes me wonder where the engine would fit. She’s also missing a plane catapult? What the heck.

Another egregious point is the rangefinder placement. The 12cm guns have received some odd pole rangefinders on the side and the rangefinder for the primary armament is very low. How the heck are you supposed to use them when you don’t have a line of sight over the horizon?

 

Johan de Witt

I could talk about the funnel again, but you know the drill.

And her catapult is once again sunken to deck level for some reason.

She actually has AA in the right position for once… but her AA fire control is missing.

And she’s also missing her bridge…

 

Gouden Leeuw

Funnels are ahistorical.

She’s missing AA fire directors.

Her forward superstructure has been split into two towers for some reason.

And her bridge has been reduced to the size of Wargaming’s ability to create historical funnels. Oh yeah, they also seemed to have taken flying boats a bit too literally.

 

You know what, I think you guys deserve a highlight album.

But my voice is my voice, so what do others think about these Dutch ships.

 

In summary, all wargaming interpretations of the Dutch ships have unorthodoxly split superstructure, lack of proper AA distribution in fire control groups and lack of fire directors. But most egregious are the hideous made-up funnels and forward superstructure from their imagination.

 

  Hide contents

 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,649 posts
19,101 battles

Well, WG are getting adept at cutting corners. 

 

So...

 

1 - Yes, the Calibre of the main guns is wrong on the Tier VI and VII. The NavWeaps entry for these guns is pretty clear that they were 5.9 inch and were bored out to 6 inch/152mm when used in the Swedish Navy post WW2. 

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_59-53_m1942.php

 

It's a small thing, but another sign of the fact that WG can't really be bothered. Furutaka - which was re-armed from 200mm to 203mm guns - has this attention to detail. 

 

2 - Celebes superstructure. I think they've ported it off the Graf Spee, in order to show a German influence in the ship's development. It seems a bit big, though - far too much weight forward for a hull that size - and also anachronistic. Looks as if they've tried to make Celebes a 1930s cruiser, designed between De Ruyter and Eendracht/DZP, rather than a 1920s design which had been refitted.

 

3 - Celebes AA. No idea where they've got those 25mm guns from. AFAIK the Dutch only ever used 12.7 or 40mm guns. 

 

10 hours ago, Sanglune said:

The catapult is, for some inexplicable reason, sunken and she lost plane stowage. Now if you remember, their gimmick would be close tie in with aviation forces as was Dutch doctrine for cruisers.

Yup. You can see on the Tromp and De Ruyter that the catapults were raised so it seems odd for them to be sunken in the British style. 

Share this post


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

×