Found inaccuracies on the preliminary Dutch cruisers

[Sanglune]

Preface

At the recommendation of Crysantos’ answer to the query on the method of addressing Wargaming with subject towards historical inaccuracies I hereby post my findings on historical inaccuracies found in the current implementation of the new Dutch cruisers.

Whilst it was mentioned that deviation was reserved for the preservation of the integrity of gameplay and balance, the sheer amount of neglect on research and adherence to historical documents makes the author suspect wargaming is being dishonest with adherence to advertised historical accuracy.

 

I also wish to express my displeasement with the lack of explicit disclosure of what’s a wargaming design and what’s historically sourced. - which in a game advertising to be historical can be seen as a deceptive practice.

 

Of note is that these ships are still being developed, tested and nothing is final. Therefore Wargaming is not yet accountable for the representation (though I will hold them on release). However, it is exactly because of the aforementioned development that I wish to inform wargaming about the inconsistencies early, so they can be fixed before release.

Omitted information on visuals

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/mnoscf/the_new_dutch_cruisers_are_an_affront_to_dutch/ contains many points on the visual aetshetic that is incoherent with the release of prelimary info on Dutch ships. The information on historical accuracy in the post is not always accurate such as working on the assumption that some ships represent certain designs or referencing unverifiable sources, but gives a rough overview of the neglect in the visuals and goes into more detail, although in a more informal setting.

Library

MST - NL-HaNA 4. MST (Dutch archives)

MB - Marineblad (magazine)

NN - Netherlandsnavy (site)

NP - Navypedia (site)

NW - Navweaps (site)

WI - Washington International (magazine)

 

CMDZP - Schepen van de koninklijke Marine in woord en beeld: De Zeven Provinciën, Chris Mark

RDWG - Robert O. Dulin, William H. Garzke - British, Soviet, French and Dutch Battleships of WWII-Jane’s Publishing Co. (1980)

KNO - Anten, J, Kruiser nekt Onderzeeboot
TVEP - Tussen Vloot en Politek

 

#? → absence of source. (aka no source found mentions the specific case, but absence of evidence cannot be used as evidence), ergo to be questioned to Wargaming.

#! → Citation Needed

* → Based on lack of corroborative sources, assumed to be a fictional wargaming design.

 

Accuracy Classification System based on how the implied fix would interact with the game: 1 - Affects gamebalance, 2 - Coding can affect game balance, with subtype a requiring new effort and b requiring adjustments within the existing working space. 3 - Should not affect game balance under any circumstance. (optional subtype a specified as above for model adjustments on non-hitbox containing elements) (namings are Class 3 unless specified)

Van Kinsbergen

2b 40mm AA mount should be Bofors No. 4, not 3. (Kinda obvious since she wouldn’t fit a Centraal Richttoestel). Jaarboek 1937 - 1938, pg. 98 & 99

1 Missing 4 12,7mm machine guns. Jaarboek 1937 - 1938, pg. 98 & 99

 

Namings:

120 mm/50 Wilton-Fijenoord Nr.6 -> No. 6

2b 40 mm/56 Bofors N.3 -> No. 4 (model swap req too)

SUO Mk # Mod. # -> Vuurleiding No. # Mod. #

Gelderland

1 AA layout is wrong. Gelderland, nor any Holland-Class ship has seemingly any source for the 8x1 12,7mm machine guns. Gelderland did receive 5 more machine guns in 1933-1934 (Overview 1933, Overview 1934) but that totals only to 7, which specified in 1935 were consisting of 2 Schwarzlose, 1 Madsen, 2 Lewis, 1 12,7mm Browning and 1 40mm Vickers. #?

3 Schwarzlose machine guns didn’t use the M07 designation but No. 1 - 2 designation. (MB 90 1925 nr. 2 pg. 64)

3 Gelderland was equipped with 12 cm No. 2, not No. 3. ( Oorlogschepen 1902; Overview 1928 )

2b Shell weight was 23,8kg; not 21kg. (WT 1914)

1 V0 was 840mps, not 820mps (Handleiding tot Kennis Der Artillerie 1913)

2b Shell weight of Brisantgranaat was 23,65 kg; not 20kg. (Militaire Spectator 1930 pg. 200)

1 V0 for Brisantgranaat was 680mps, not 820mps (Militaire Spectator 1930 pg. 200)

3 Pantsergranaten were not available for this gun; only Halfpantser, Granaatkartets, Kartets, Pantserkogel, Gewone granaat, stalen & glasharde. #? (Handleiding tot Kennis Der Artillerie 1913, Atlas van Plaaten of Beknopte Handleiding Tot Kennis Der Artillerie Deel 1 Plaat XXVII)

 

Namings:

7.92 mm/80 Maschinengewehr Patent Schwarzlose M.07‎3 × 1 7.9 mm -> Mitrailleur No. 2 Patent Schwarzlose 7,9 mm

12.7 mm/80 Browning -> Mitrailleur van 12,7 mm Browning

SUO Mk # Mod. # -> Vuurleiding No. # Mod. #

120mm AP Pantsergranaat -> 120mm AP Pantserkogel

Java

1 Java-Class was designed for 31kts, no sources found that indicate a speed above 31kts except for Wayer’s Taschenbuch, though still not 33kts. #? (WG said to fix this)

1 12,7mm brownings weren’t added till the 1935 refit. AA suite should contain Vickers machine guns instead.  (algemeen overzicht der schepen en vaartuigen van oorlog op den 1sten juli 1934 (0000058869) + 1935 (0000061850) + MB 40 1925 Nr. 2 Pg. 63 + Maritiem Digitaal A/003a/386 )

2b Whilst she had 65000 designed SHP (Scheepsbestekken Zeeuws Archive), the actual vessel was rated at 73000 SHP. ( Overview 1928, Jane’s 1933 )

3 8 of the 20 guns on the class were Krupp, 12 were built under license by Bofors. (NN, Jaarboek 1922 pg. 73)

3 75mm No. 4 were made by Skoda, not WF. (G-class: Jaarboek 1919, Marineblad 28 - 4)

3 Java-Class used 75mm SA No. 4. (Overview 1928) which were made by Bofors, not WF (Tijdschrift voor Zeegeschiedenis, Jaargang 27 nr. 2, Sept 2008 & Jaarboek 1921 pg. 149)

Brownings were 90 calibres long, not 80 (NP)

 

Namings:

12.7 mm/80 Browning -> Mitrailleur van 12,7 mm Browning

75 mm/55 Wilton-Fijenoord Mk4 -> Kanon van 7,5 cm SA No. 4

150 mm/50 Bofors Мк.6 -> Kanon van 15cm No. 6

SUO Mk # Mod. # -> Vuurleiding No. # Mod. #

De Ruyter

1 The 40mm Bofors mounts on the aft should be twin mountings. (4.MST_3236)

1 A hull uses 25mm Bofors M/32, even though no such AA gun was ever in use by the navy. #?

Uses 40mm Bofors M/36, even though no such AA gun was ever in use by the navy under this designation. #? 2a The only single mount was a Vicker 40mm known as No. 1

1 De Ruyter would have had twin .50cal machine guns, not singles. (NP, corroborated by NN)

Missing 4 Lewis Guns ( Regerings-almanak voor Nederlandsch-Indië, 1939, Deel: 1, pg. 416 & Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Marine 1937 pg. 82 )

2b De Ruyter had 66000 SHP overclockable to 75000 (or 76000). (NN, NP, Gereformeerd jongelingsblad 4-12-1936 )

1 A Hull uses fictional 25mm cannons instead of 105mm prelim AA cannons. (MB 51-3, MST 3240)

1 Toren I angle should be 30 degrees instead of 31 degrees from the centerline (MST 3240)

3 Recon aircraft should have non-neutrality markings like the fighter aircraft. #!

 

Namings:

150 mm/50 Bofors Мк.9 -> Kanon van 15 cm No. 9

150 mm/50 Bofors Мк.10 -> Kanon van 15 cm No. 10

12.7 mm/80 Browning -> Mitrailleur van 12,7 mm Browning

SUO Mk # Mod. # -> Vuurleiding No. # Mod. #

Celebes*

Indirectly suggested by Wargaming to be a fake (discord chat image from forums)

3 Description says her to be a development of the Java-Class designed in 1938, although none like her were designed in 1938. #?

1 Uses 25mm Bofors M/32, even though no such AA gun was ever in use by the navy. #?

Uses 40mm Bofors M/36, even though no such AA gun was ever in use by the navy under this designation. #? 2a The only single mount was a Vicker 40mm known as No. 1

Ship is missing access to most of the officer cabins due to implemented barbettes. (MST 3533)

Ship is missing half of the common area and missing officer and normal mess kitchens due to implemented barbettes (MST 3533 & 3532)

Has an added AA director behind B turret that is not linked to any 40mms nor shares angles meaning either the AA can’t shoot or the director can’t target. #!

3 Doesn’t have radio receivers. #!

The ship has a German copied superstructure but the German shelter company IvS left the Netherlands in 1933, before the given design date of 1938. #!

 

Namings:

150 mm/50 Bofors Мк.9 -> Kanon van 15 cm No. 9

SUO Mk # Mod. # -> Vuurleiding No. # Mod. #

“This cruiser was a development of the Java-class ships. She was larger in size, and her main battery guns were mounted in turrets.”

->

“This cruiser is a theoretical refit of the enlarged Java-class Celebes type. Her main battery guns are mounted in turrets.”

// note: WG’s desc. implied the real Celebes actually had turrets, which she didn’t.

Kijkduin

1 Kijkduin designs had triple underfiring turrets before 1938. (4. MST 3314)

2b SHP was 78.000, not 85.000, but could be interpreted as 78.000+ (CMDZP)

2b Kijkduin’s primary armament calibre was 15cm (149,1mm), not 152mm (NN, NW)

1 Kijkduin should have torpedoes (MST 3314)

1 Kijkduin’s AA suite on the sides should consist of 4x2 12,7mms, not 40mm Bofors (MST 3314)

3 Has American SG and SC radar, despite Dutch ships only being fit with English type 277 radar and Dutch type 282 and 293 radar with English yagi antennae. (NP - specifically Tromp)

3 Kijkduin was laid down before the development of M42 guns. #!

1 Shell mass was 46kg and MV 880 mps for Bofors M/42 ( Ammunitionsregister för flottan (1947) 15,2cm M/42; Skjuttabell 15,2cm kanon M42 )

2a Searchlights on the funnel are misplaced forwards. (MST 3314, 3330) (note: this seems to be from KH, TVEP)

3 40mm Bofors are a makeshift mix of Mk. 1 mounts and No. 4 mounts. But are all referenced as Mk. 1s ingame. #!

 

Namings:

40 mm Bofors Mk IV 40 mm Bofors Hazemeier on an Mk.4 mount-> Mitrailleur van 40mm No. 4

152 mm/53 Bofors M42 -> Kanon van 15cm No. 15

SUO Mk # Mod. # -> Vuurleiding No. # Mod. #

“A variant of a new-generation light cruiser project developed in the late 1930s. She had eight 152 mm guns as her main battery.”

->

“A theorised variant of a new-generation light cruiser project developed in the late 1930s. She was given eight 152 mm guns as her main battery.”

// note: WG’s desc. implied the real Kijkduin actually had 8 152 mms, which she didn’t.

Eendracht*

Said to be designed in 1945, but design on Kruiser 1938/1939 didn’t start until 1946 in Bath. (Jordan, Warship 2019, CMDZP)

1 Designs up to armament D (may ‘46) had torpedoes. (MST, various to 3311, stopping at 3312)

2b Shares Kijkduin’s Horsepower and Radar issues.

Design does not look to be in accord with any image found in archives. (MST)

Model has a diesel engine chute despite not having a diesel engine #?

1 Shell mass was 46kg and MV 880 mps for Bofors M/42 ( Ammunitionsregister för flottan (1947) 15,2cm M/42; Skjuttabell 15,2cm kanon M42 )

Ship model has no radio receivers. #?

 

Namings:

40 mm Bofors Mk IV -> Mitrailleur van 40mm No. 4

152 mm/53 Bofors M42 -> Kanon van 15cm No. 15

152 mm/53 Bofors M42 -> Kanon van 15cm in a triple turret.

SUO Mk # Mod. # -> Vuurleiding No. # Mod. #

“A variant of a new-generation light cruiser project with ten 152 mm guns as her main battery.”

->

“A theorised refit of a new-generation light cruiser project originally developed in the late 1930s. She was given ten 152 mm guns as her main battery.”

Java Haarlem*

Year of design is mentioned as 1944, despite the Netherlands not owning a place to design this ship. #!

Year of design is mentioned as 1944, but she bears a German primary armament despite the Dutch government being at war with the country. #!

Year of design is mentioned as 1944 and secondary armament as Bofors, despite Sweden being neutral and unable to export to the Netherlands. #!

1 Belt armour couldn’t be much higher than 150mm at given displacement (NN: WI, MB 54-9, MB Nuboer and Bussemaker)

Her speed, armour and armament values are impossible in line with Ir. Gunningh’s comments. (MB 55 1940 no. 1 pg. 49)

1 Armament should be 24cm twins, as that was the nearest equivalent armament in dialogue and nothing smaller of calibre was found #? (MB 54-9, 55-1, NN: WI)

1 Secondaries should be a variant of 12cm No. 8, meaning their Muzzle Velocity should be 800m/s, not 850. And calibre length should be /45, not /50.(NN: WI, Siegfried Breyer’s Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-70)

1 The bow armour should decrease to 15mm from 30mm, not be 40mms. (NN, WI: drawing D 1 b)

1 Angled citadel deck should be 30mms, not 25mms. (NN, WI: drawing D 1 b)

Year of Design is 1944, despite all dockyards and design bureaux of Nevesbu being in occupied territory. #!

2a Only has one Searchlight #!

 

Namings:

No guns to fix because none of these guns were in use by the navy.

// Note: if you make things up, please follow a Dutch scheme instead of a German one. 

SUO Mk # Mod. # -> Vuurleiding No. # Mod. #

203 mm/60 SK C/34 in a turret -> Kanon van 203mm/60 in a turret.

203mm Spr.Gr. L4.7 Kz. -> 203 mm B.G. L4,7 met S.B.

203 mm P.Spr.Gr. L/4.4 -> 203 mm Pantsergranaat L4,4

“A heavy cruiser design, armed with German 203 mm guns and 120 mm dual-purpose artillery manufactured in Sweden.”

->

// Note: …. I don’t know a way to non-invasively fix this *********.

Johan de Witt*

She is described as a smaller project 1047 with a year of design mentioned as 1945, but the project ceased after the German invasion in 1940. #!

If the 16.000 ton washington design is intended to be referenced by the description, it in no way should have 23.703 ton maximum displacement. (NN, WI)

1 The bow armour should decrease to 15mm, not stay 30mm (NN, WI: drawing D 1 b)

1 Update: the aforementioned armours should not be 40mm for the same reason. ಠ_ಠ

1 Stern armour is missing steering protection (NN, WI: dawing D 1 b)

1 Project 1047 had a top speed of 34 kts in temperate waters, not 32,1kts. If the ship is a 16.000t reference, the top speed should be 29kts or above 33kts. (NN, WI)

1 Angled citadel deck should be 30mms, not 25mms (NN, WI: drawing D 1 b)

Johan de Witt has a maximum displacement of 23.703 ton (note that this entails full load, not standard displacement), which is way below what was ought to be necessary - a standard displacement of 25.000t (MB 55 1940 no. 1 pg. 25)

Her speed, armour and armament values are impossible according to Ir. Gunningh’s comments. (MB 55 1940 no. 1 pg. 49)

3 QF is an English designation. #!

Model has a diesel engine chute despite not having a diesel engine #?

1 The only found Dutch battlecruiser in 1945 would have had 6x 38cm guns, not 9x 24cm. #? (KNO)

1 Secondaries should be a variant of 12cm No. 8, meaning their Muzzle Velocity should be 800m/s, not 850. And calibre length should be /45, not /50.(NN: WI, Siegfried Breyer’s Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-70)

2a Aft Searchlight is missing parts to turn it. #!

 

Namings:

40 mm Bofors Mk IV -> Mitrailleur van 40mm No. 4

// Note: probably rename the 24cm QF to 24cm SV. (Snelvuur) or SA.

SUO Mk # Mod. # -> Vuurleiding No. # Mod. #

“A smaller version of a Project 1047 battlecruiser armed with 240 mm main battery guns.”

->

“A hypothetical small battlecruiser inspired by Project 1047, armed with 240 mm main battery guns.”

 

Gouden Leeuw*

The ship is said to be project 1047, but the ingame length of 227,4m is shorter than any Dutch naval designs. (NN, RDWG, WI)

Armament is said to be 28cm C/28, despite no source for this armament. #?

3 Armament is in a German designation, even though the Dutch used their own designations. #!

2a The 28cm C/28 was 50 calibres long, not 54. (NW)

2a Shell weight of the AP shells should be 315kg, not 330kg (NN, WI, NW)

1 Shell velocity was 900m/s, not 890m/s (NN, WI, NW)

1 The bow armour should decrease to 15mm, not stay 30mm (NN, WI: drawing D 1 b)

1 Update: the aforementioned armours should not be 40mm for the same reason. ಠ_ಠ

1 Angled citadel deck should be 30mms, not 25mms (NN, WI: drawing D 1 b)

1 Top speed should be 34 knots, not 33,5kts (NN, WI)

2a AA mounts were twins, not singles (NN, RDWG, WI, Teek. X4)

2a Ship model is missing planes and catapults (NN, RDWG, WI, Teek. X4)

Model has a diesel engine chute despite not having a diesel engine #?

3 Gouden Leeuws YOD is before M1942. #!

1 Shell velocity for the HE shell in Wargaming’s questionably attributed gun should be 900mv, not 890. (Merkbuch über die munition der 28cm S K C/24 in Drh L C/28 nr 172 M.Dv.Nr. 170,47)

1 Secondaries should be a variant of 12cm No. 8, meaning their Muzzle Velocity should be 800m/s, not 850. And calibre length should be /45, not /50.(NN: WI, Siegfried Breyer’s Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-70)

 

Namings:
Inaccasible to me. lol I forgot I can read game files.

// Note: if you make things up, please follow a Dutch scheme instead of a German one. 

SUO Mk # Mod. # -> Vuurleiding No. # Mod. #

283 mm/54 28cm Drh.L. C 28 -> Kanon van 283 mm/54 in a turret.

“A battlecruiser project (Project 1047) developed in the Netherlands in the late 1930s to counter the Japanese fleet in the Pacific. Her main armament comprised nine German-built 283 mm guns.”

->

“A hypothetical battlecruiser inspired by Project 1047, which was developed in the Netherlands in the late 1930s to counter the Japanese fleet in the Pacific. Her main armament comprised nine German-built 283 mm guns.”

De Zeven Provinciën

Underfiring turrets should not have rangefinders or seaborne support beams. (MST 3393: Tek. M23, NIMH 2009-013-131_006 ) Fixed after 92 days!

1 Shell mass was 46kg and MV 880 mps for Bofors M/42 ( Ammunitionsregister för flottan (1947) 15,2cm M/42; Skjuttabell 15,2cm kanon M42 )

3 Gun should be known as 15cm No. 15 (Maritiem Digitaal Munitions [1] [2] and corroborative model [link])

1 Toren IV angle should be 28 degrees instead of 30 degrees from the centerline (MST 3398)

1 Toren III angle should be 40 degrees instead of 30 degrees from the centerline (MST 3398)

The ship was built on a ramp, not a drydock. (CMDZP)

The Dockyard event is taking place at Wilton-Fijenoord, where De Ruyter C801 was built, not DZP. (TVEP)

 

Namings:

152 mm/53 Bofors M42 -> Kanon van 15cm No. 15

40 mm/70 Bofors Model 1948 - Mitrailleur van 40mm No. 6

SUO Mk 8 Mod. 1 -> Vuurleiding No. 8 Mod. 1

// Note: no source or information on the 57mm cannon yet.

“A light cruiser laid down before the outbreak of World War II. The ship was completed in the 1950s utilizing a changed design. Carried powerful AA defenses centered on the use of 152 mm dual-purpose guns.”

// Note: No changes directly requested, but the Wilton-Fijenoord Cruiser was laid down 5th of September 1939, after the outbreak of WW2. It also might be more clear to name ‘early to mid’ before the mentioned date of 1950s to clearly distinguish the decade from the year.

Friesland

Namings:

40 mm/70 Bofors Model 1948 - Mitrailleur van 40mm No. 6

120 mm brisantgranaat M/50 -> 120 mm brisantgranaat No. 10

120 mm pantserprojectiel M/50 -> 120 mm pantsergranaat No. 10

Groningen

Namings:

40 mm/70 Bofors Model 1948 - Mitrailleur van 40mm No. 6

120 mm brisantgranaat M/50 -> 120 mm brisantgranaat No. 10

120 mm pantserprojectiel M/50 -> 120 mm pantsergranaat No. 10

…. her description is empty by the way.

 

Visuals

The next section, although smallest in volume, contains the most erroneous disregard on research. The presence of any entry should be a red flag.

 

The following ships have made up elements or lack of features in their design which do not have a resemblance to every other within their classes that could be found in the sources mentioned under library:

 

V - Celebes: fore superstructure.

VII - Eendracht: fore superstructure, funnel, catapult, rear superstructure

VIII - Haarlem: fore superstructure, funnel to a degree, arguably the 12cm director, lack of catapult

IX - Johan de Witt: lack of bridge, funnels, lack of catapult despite presence of hangar

X - Gouden Leeuw: fore superstructure, lack of bridge, funnels, lack of catapult despite presence of hangar.

Aircraft

3a Fokker T. V markings should not be peacetime neutrality markings. #!

3a De Ruyter and Eendracht onboard aircraft’s markings should not be peacetime neutrality markings. #!

3a Some fighter markings use the dorito for some reason too. #!

Web stuff

On the A Look Through Time: Dutch Cruisers

" VII Eendracht was recreated in World of Warships based on the redesign stages for these cruisers."

- Dubious, since she matches none of the redesign drawings. (Also to be noted that there was no design taking place in 1945, see above for more details.)

 

" The ship was designed during the Great Depression and the widespread movement of pacifism in the Netherlands. For these reasons, so that the ship would not be canceled, in all documents, the design was officially called a flottieljeleider (flotilla leader) instead of a cruiser, and every effort was made to cut costs."

- Neat, but you're talking about the Tromp class cruisers instead of De Ruyter.

 

" De Zeven Provinciën received her final name in 1947 and was launched in August 1950, while the second ship in the series was renamed De Ruyter in honor of the flagship of the East Indies fleet that had been sunk in the Battle of the Java Sea in 1942. After being sold to the Peruvian Navy in the 1970s, the ships were renamed again, and they remained in service for many years.

What was the name of De Zeven Provinciën before 1947?"

- De Zeven Provinciën received her final name in 1950 after Wilton Fijenoord wanted to build another De Ruyter. Hence the names got swapped in 1950.

This creates some ambiguity about which ship is being talked about. If we're talking about De Zeven Provinciën (1947) then the name before said date is actually.... De Zeven Provinciën, KH 1, De Zeven Provinciën or Kruiser 1938. Meaning none of the answers are correct.

 

About the Armada: De Zeven Provinciën video

"So, in 1932, the Royal Navy of the Netherlands approved an extensive shipbuilding program."

"The program planned for the construction of two new light cruisers to serve in the East Indies."

- False. The project started mostly in 1937 and didn't pertain new cruisers, but the replacement of Java and Sumatra.

"The project was created on the basis of cruiser De Ruyter"

- Are we still talking about 1932 because she wasn't even finished by then.

"Which had been designed at the beginning of the 1930s by German speclialists, and a strong German influence was present in the design."

- The design was mostly done by Ir. G 't Hooft. Although Germans did play a part through Ingenieurskantoor van Scheepsbouw and were the final responsibles, calling it made by German specialists is an utmost sign of disrespect towards Ir. G 't hooft.

 

Furthermore, from the article

"The ship bore the name of "Kijkduin" (in honor of the area on the North Sea coast in southern Holland)"

...........

Kijkduin refers het hoge uitkijkduin at Den Helder where the battle of Texel took place, not the tourist beach area Kijkduin at Den Haag.

On  Update 1.0.8 announcement

 

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-0108-wows-anniversary/

You know this banner is Dutch because of the excessive tulip fields and windmills wargaming keeps adding everyone, including on those nice rolling hills of the Netherlands.

 

Wait… hills in the Netherlands? Oh god…

[x_scheer109_x]

18 minutes ago, Sanglune said:

Armament is said to be 28cm C/28, despite no source for this armament. #?

Doesn't C / 28 mean the turret and not the gun itself? At gamemodels3d, Drh.L. C 28 which actually means the turret construction.

[Sanglune]

4 minutes ago, x_scheer109_x said:

Doesn't C / 28 mean the turret and not the gun itself? At gamemodels3d, Drh.L. C 28 which actually means the turret construction. 

From what I could find, C/(n) refers to construction year - both for weapons and turret mounts. (NW) - Thought I must admit this is not my field of expertise.

[Kingpin6100]

4 hours ago, x_scheer109_x said:

Doesn't C / 28 mean the turret and not the gun itself? At gamemodels3d, Drh.L. C 28 which actually means the turret construction.

Either way it's wrong, as 1047 was to use a slightly modified version of Scharnhorst's guns. C/28 is Graf Spee's.

[Onsterfelijke]

Are you mad you knwo this is a arcane game and changed models to keep them playable. (while some visuals i agree) Now i don't have WoWs data but i have the blueprints of most ships but i don't want to compare those with a arcane game. I don't have the time for that.

[x_scheer109_x]

What is an arcane game?

[Todger_Fairmile]

15 minutes ago, x_scheer109_x said:

What is an arcane game?

I believe that's supposed to be arcade. The problem with using spell check without proof reading. Puts in a real word but not always the correct word.

[Onsterfelijke]

2 hours ago, Todger_Fairmile said:

I believe that's supposed to be arcade. The problem with using spell check without proof reading. Puts in a real word but not always the correct word.

Yes i was rather put out by the OT sorry about that Arcade is correct...

[KratosTheUnforgiving]

Hats off to the research, but WG will just look go meh and continue on course, they care nothing for input, especially if it shows they are wrong !

[Sanglune]

8 hours ago, Onsterfelijke said:

Are you mad you knwo this is a arcane game and changed models to keep them playable. (while some visuals i agree) Now i don't have WoWs data but i have the blueprints of most ships but i don't want to compare those with a arcane game. I don't have the time for that.

Whilst I appreciate your lack of concern, if you took more than the halftime of hydrogen-4 to read the post it should have been stated that it's not about the details but volume of errors and interpretive design that are cause of my concern. I would furthermore like to stress that it being an arcane game has no bearing on the subject - because wargaming markets the game as based on realistic and historic ships. It's in this vector I hold them accountable for their neglect.

[Sanglune]

Quote

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/570047679615467531/840224545894039582/Screenshot_20210507-095208_Discord.jpg

It has come to my attention that wargaming insists that all T8-10 ships are Project 1047-based.

I must once again stress that there is only one Project 1047 from when the naval construction department moved into the space provided by Nevesbu (RDWG). Is it that hard to not misname a battlecruiser? I guess so.

But let’s for a minute assume they meant the battlecruiser endeavours as a whole. As such taking not only Project 1047 as reference, but also IvS 323 and it’s preliminary stages, the German design studies and the Naval Construction Department’s preliminary designs.

… then we still have no match. 

 

Wargaming has said they consider how the ship could be improved during design or war. This is their only valid basis on which their defence lies. And it’s time to dispel that one too.

 

Firstly, the amalgam of the funnels. It seems that Wargaming saw De Zeven Provinciën’s funnels and thought to expand the design. However, they exaggerated the features, even though there have been no contemporary designs on these. But what about future designs? Well, De Zeven Provinciën’s funnels looked normal before the final design too (MST 3304, 3308, 3309, 3310, 3311, 3312, 3313, *even 3315*, 3334, 3338, 3488, and the contemporary 3314, 3329, 3330, 1142, 3527, Zeeuws Archief 3006, 3009).

Moreover, I cannot fathom how giving a funnel anorexia would be beneficial for a ship meant to evade larger battleships by speed. Then there’s the question of those additional deflection caps that weren’t in use until way after the commissioning date of De Zeven Provinciën. The real funnels should’ve looked quite more tame and conventional. (NN WI reprint, drawing D 1 b, RDWG)

 

Secondly, there’s the superstructure. Which has been mostly altered in the following ways:

removal of the bridge, extension of the freeboard in sections not ever seen before on Dutch ships (Eendracht only), addition of a Graf-Spee like tower on Celebes, removal of AA fire control equipment, removal of airplane launch equipment, addition of diesel engines despite the ships being already too small for the perceived power plant, the reduction of main calibre despite the praise of 28cm cannons effectiveness in the battle of the river plate, removal of small calibre weapons, removal of aft armour plates for steering protection, addition of belt armour to a lighter design despite protest from the designer of Project 1047 himself. (MB 55 1940 no. 1, NN WI reprint, RDWG, MST 3314, Enclosure 6 to B.AK. 1919 Nr. 5)

Moreover the “expansion” of battlestation. This is an outright lie. Each ship with documentation had a larger battlestation. Including the 1939 NCD design (RDWG, NN WI reprint), the German design 21th July 1939 (NN WI), IvS plans 11 March 1940 (NN WI) or 18 march according to RDWG or even the final, actual P1047 design (NN WI, RDWG, Klaas Meijer’s published teek No. X 4)

For illustrative purposes see the following images attached:

https://imgur.com/D4WLuIv

https://imgur.com/IlQzYXp

https://imgur.com/ZtttIS1

 

In summary, Wargaming says they add stuff that would’ve been added, but instead remove important components from the ship then muzzle their funnels.

 

So what needs to be changed to make the ships historical?
Eendracht: De-sunken the catapult, remake space for another plane, return the funnel to a normal state.

 

All 1047 derivatives (T8+):

(Reshape the funnel to something normal that matches the internal structure, give her back her stern protection, remove the diesel chutes, give her her planes back because she has a hangar for a reason, reimplement her fire directors at the top of the tower)

 

Haarlem: Replace the primary armament with 24cm twin cannons. Reduce the belt armour to 175mm. (You can then reinstate her 30mm turtleback since you want to make her close range)

 

Johan de Witt: Remove the funnel cap. Reimplement her forward command tower. Stretch the tower more longitudinally to match the space needed for her battle stations.

 

Gouden Leeuw: Remove the funnel cap. Reimplement her forward command tower. Stretch the tower more longitudinally to match the space needed for her battle stations. Give her forward funnel something to eat because she’s thinner than a modern supermodel.

 

The above, aside from some renaming of equipment, should mostly cover the big problems. Alternatively, wargaming could disclose the true nature of the designs. I’m tired of being lied to in my face.

[x_scheer109_x]

@Sanglune

 

A quick question aside from the actual topic: is the #wowsqna area on the official Discord server? I can't find it anywhere. Do you have a link for me? 

 

Now back to the topic: I can understand you well, I feel the same way with the German ships. The latest example is the Hanover. Apart from the totally stupid name, this is presented to us as the "Version of Project H42". However, it has no resemblance whatsoever to the H42 or any other H-Design. It's a WG fantasy design again. And as for those who keep coming up with "it's an arcade game": as long as WoWs advertises historical ships and Wargaming keeps emphasizing the design of ships according to historical plans, they have to put up with such questions.

[Sanglune]

5 hours ago, x_scheer109_x said:

A quick question aside from the actual topic: is the #wowsqna area on the official Discord server? I can't find it anywhere. Do you have a link for me?

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.

[x_scheer109_x]

12 minutes ago, Sanglune said:

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.

Ah ok the area will probably not be for the general public. It is a shame that I would like to ask the developers one or two critical questions.

[SodaBubbles]

21 hours ago, Onsterfelijke said:

Are you mad you knwo this is a arcane game and changed models to keep them playable. (while some visuals i agree) Now i don't have WoWs data but i have the blueprints of most ships but i don't want to compare those with a arcane game. I don't have the time for that.

Why even make this comment? The OP did excellent work. Hope it is rewarded with changes by WG. 

[SodaBubbles]

On 5/7/2021 at 4:45 AM, Sanglune said:

Gelderland

AA layout is wrong. Gelderland, nor any Holland-Class ship has seemingly any source for the 8x1 12,7mm machine guns. Gelderland did receive 5 more machine guns in 1933-1934 (Overview 1933, Overview 1934) but that totals only to 7, which specified in 1935 were consisting of 2 Schwarzlose, 1 Madsen, 2 Lewis, 1 12,7mm Browning and 1 40mm Vickers. #?

 

 

Man, I'd hate to be the guy in charge of ammunition on that ship. "Now, where did I put the 12.7 Browning ammo??"

[22cm]

26 minutes ago, SodaBubbles said:

The OP did excellent work. Hope it is rewarded with changes by WG. 

Most likely not. 

[Yedwy]

@OP Dude those models are already made, WG is not likely to be changing much if anything on them, maybe some soft stats and perhaps the odd AA mount but thats it

[totally_potato]

On 5/7/2021 at 2:15 AM, Sanglune said:

The bow armour should decrease to 15mm, not stay 30mm (NN, WI: drawing D 1 b)

This is completely fine and the angled cit is also fine imo

The rest of the changes need to be addressed tho

[totally_potato]

16 hours ago, Sanglune said:

 

It has come to my attention that wargaming insists that all T8-10 ships are Project 1047-based.

I must once again stress that there is only one Project 1047 from when the naval construction department moved into the space provided by Nevesbu (RDWG). Is it that hard to not misname a battlecruiser? I guess so.

But let’s for a minute assume they meant the battlecruiser endeavours as a whole. As such taking not only Project 1047 as reference, but also IvS 323 and it’s preliminary stages, the German design studies and the Naval Construction Department’s preliminary designs.

… then we still have no match. 

 

Wargaming has said they consider how the ship could be improved during design or war. This is their only valid basis on which their defence lies. And it’s time to dispel that one too.

 

Firstly, the amalgam of the funnels. It seems that Wargaming saw De Zeven Provinciën’s funnels and thought to expand the design. However, they exaggerated the features, even though there have been no contemporary designs on these. But what about future designs? Well, De Zeven Provinciën’s funnels looked normal before the final design too (MST 3304, 3308, 3309, 3310, 3311, 3312, 3313, *even 3315*, 3334, 3338, 3488, and the contemporary 3314, 3329, 3330, 1142, 3527, Zeeuws Archief 3006, 3009).

Moreover, I cannot fathom how giving a funnel anorexia would be beneficial for a ship meant to evade larger battleships by speed. Then there’s the question of those additional deflection caps that weren’t in use until way after the commissioning date of De Zeven Provinciën. The real funnels should’ve looked quite more tame and conventional. (NN WI reprint, drawing D 1 b, RDWG)

 

Secondly, there’s the superstructure. Which has been mostly altered in the following ways:

removal of the bridge, extension of the freeboard in sections not ever seen before on Dutch ships (Eendracht only), addition of a Graf-Spee like tower on Celebes, removal of AA fire control equipment, removal of airplane launch equipment, addition of diesel engines despite the ships being already too small for the perceived power plant, the reduction of main calibre despite the praise of 28cm cannons effectiveness in the battle of the river plate, removal of small calibre weapons, removal of aft armour plates for steering protection, addition of belt armour to a lighter design despite protest from the designer of Project 1047 himself. (MB 55 1940 no. 1, NN WI reprint, RDWG, MST 3314, Enclosure 6 to B.AK. 1919 Nr. 5)

Moreover the “expansion” of battlestation. This is an outright lie. Each ship with documentation had a larger battlestation. Including the 1939 NCD design (RDWG, NN WI reprint), the German design 21th July 1939 (NN WI), IvS plans 11 March 1940 (NN WI) or 18 march according to RDWG or even the final, actual P1047 design (NN WI, RDWG, Klaas Meijer’s published teek No. X 4)

For illustrative purposes see the following images attached:

https://imgur.com/D4WLuIv

https://imgur.com/IlQzYXp

https://imgur.com/ZtttIS1

 

In summary, Wargaming says they add stuff that would’ve been added, but instead remove important components from the ship then muzzle their funnels.

 

So what needs to be changed to make the ships historical?
Eendracht: De-sunken the catapult, remake space for another plane, return the funnel to a normal state.

 

All 1047 derivatives (T8+):

(Reshape the funnel to something normal that matches the internal structure, give her back her stern protection, remove the diesel chutes, give her her planes back because she has a hangar for a reason, reimplement her fire directors at the top of the tower)

 

Haarlem: Replace the primary armament with 24cm twin cannons. Reduce the belt armour to 175mm. (You can then reinstate her 30mm turtleback since you want to make her close range)

 

Johan de Witt: Remove the funnel cap. Reimplement her forward command tower. Stretch the tower more longitudinally to match the space needed for her battle stations.

 

Gouden Leeuw: Remove the funnel cap. Reimplement her forward command tower. Stretch the tower more longitudinally to match the space needed for her battle stations. Give her forward funnel something to eat because she’s thinner than a modern supermodel.

 

The above, aside from some renaming of equipment, should mostly cover the big problems. Alternatively, wargaming could disclose the true nature of the designs. I’m tired of being lied to in my face.

Can you also bring the whole Agir and Siegfried armor scheme inaccuracy to light

Coz there is no balance in this, there is only laziness or hate for German ships

[x_scheer109_x]

1 hour ago, totally_potato said:

Can you also bring the whole Agir and Siegfried armor scheme inaccuracy to light

Is the front armor meant where WG means it was an invention of book authors?

[totally_potato]

1 hour ago, x_scheer109_x said:

Is the front armor meant where WG means it was an invention of book authors?

not only that

The turtleback as well is all weird

And I did hear that this thing had an icebreaker but not so sure on that

[x_scheer109_x]

21 minutes ago, totally_potato said:

The turtleback as well is all weird

As far as I know, these ships shouldn't get turtleback. I don't know whether WG did this for balacing reasons.

24 minutes ago, totally_potato said:

And I did hear that this thing had an icebreaker but not so sure on that

They should definitely get that. I even have an original document that confirms this and clearly refutes the statement by WG "this is an invention of book authors".

[totally_potato]

2 minutes ago, x_scheer109_x said:

As far as I know, these ships shouldn't get turtleback. I don't know whether WG did this for balacing reasons.

They should definitely get that. I even have an original document that confirms this and clearly refutes the statement by WG "this is an invention of book authors".

the ships did have a turtleback according to some sources.

Can you show which doc has the icebreaker

Atleast it confirms my statement and yours as well

 

[x_scheer109_x]

12 minutes ago, totally_potato said:

Can you show which doc has the icebreaker

Here it is:

Please view in full screen then you can see more. The lines that I have highlighted in red are labeled "Oberkante" and "Unterkante Seitenschutz". In English: Side armor above and Side armor below. I hope the translation is reasonably correct and understandable. For me, however, it was clear that an icebreaker bow was planned here.