European destroyer tree

[Snowyskies]

Edit 2018:

Due to how the game has evolved I've made a new attempt at a pan-European tree. I tried to be a bit more grounded and put somewhat more effort in it this time. I'll respond on the US forum:

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/160203-lazy-pan-european-tree-take-two/

For whatever stupid reason you need to be logged in on the US forum to even be able to see the topic.

 

You'll note that things are somewhat the same but also with some big differences from before. One good example is that' I've entirely discounted the possibility of putting the 140 mm armed Yugoslavian Dubrovnik and Split at the higher tiers. Thanks for the nice photos though @Andrejevic_.

 

A topic that has come up which I'd like to address directly is whether a pan-European tree is a good idea at all or whether you should have separate Dutch, Spanish etc. trees. Personally my subjective opinion is that joining them all up in a single tree is a preferable and here are some reasons as to why I personally would prefer a joint pan-European tree over individual nations.

• It allows even very minor naval powers to get at least one free researchable ship. In the two lines I've created for this topic every minor European nation which at least fielded one unique WoWS "capable" destroyer is present.
• You get lines which rely on less paper designs. While I'm not overly fussed about paper myself as long as it isn't excessive I do prefer built designs.
• No clones/copies from the major nations needed to fill it out. I would not be very excited about seeing even more clone Fletchers when it can be avoided.
• WG is of course a business and this allows WG a more varied choice for premiums. If you create, say, a Dutch tree then you are pretty much exhausting all Dutch designs simply to create the tree itself.
• No premiums in a vacuum such as the current Błyskawica. Inside a pan-European tree it'd have a purpose not only as a fun ship but also as a possible captain trainer.
• Ship visual and gameplay differentiation. The more lines you add the more troublesome it gets. The current somewhat copy-cat Pan-Asian tree uses designs from the major nations but at least WG implemented deep water torpedoes in an attempt to make them different. That becomes more difficult to do the more lines of similar designs you add.

Those reasons are compelling enough for me that I'm generally outright opposed to e.g. a Dutch tree. Not because the Dutch don't deserve to be implemented, I simply find adding them in a pan-European tree to be an overall superior solution.

 

I'll paste the opening post from the US forum here, you can also find my original 2016 "proposal" below this.

---

So seeing that the Pan-American tree is now a thing and getting a bit tired of reading posts about how all minor nation ships are hand me downs I decided to revive my old European destroyer tree thread and expand on it. Well, except instead of dredging up that old thread I'm making a new one. I put a bit more effort into this but not by much, I'm still lazy. My tiering shouldn't be taken as absolute though I tried to be a bit more careful with it this time around than the previous one. I might add a cruiser line later but for now it's just destroyers.

Gun values may not be correct, rates of fires are what they are, either a guess or taken from NavWeaps. I've been outspoken before about this being one of the less reliable stats though. What torpedoes where used is not trivial to find so I've often simply ignored that part. Hitpoints are calculated according to the full load displacement according to hitpoints = (displacement • 4,1651 + 3957), rounded. When comparing to ships at the same tier I usually ignore premiums unless stated otherwise. My laziness got the better off me as well when it comes to AA and I haven't calculated the AA DPS auras.

 

Short and sweet:

Tier	Gun line	Torpedo -> gun line
2	Tátra, Austria-Hungary	Sleipner, Norway
3	Aetos, Greece	Huitfeldt, Denmark
4	Mărăști, Romania	Ehrensköld, Sweden
5	Kocatep, Turkey	Vouga, Portugal
6	Split, Yugoslavia	Vasilefs Georgius I, Greece
7	Oquendo, Spain	Isaac Sweers, Netherlands
8	Grom, Poland	Jacob van Heemskerck, Netherlands
9	Friesland, Netherlands	(merged)
10	Halland, Sweeden	(merged)

 

More in depth:

---

---

Gun line

Tier 2: Tátra, Austria Hungary

As the only class of destroyers from Austria-Hungary that'd fit in World of Warships Tátra is an easy choice for tier 2. It helps that there aren't a whole lot of ships to actually choose from at this tier overall. With the first two ships laid down in 1911 it also fits right in chronologically at tier 2.

Hitpoints: 7700 7700 7800 [8300] 8700 9100

Middle of the pack, losing out to Sampson (9100) and Umikaze (8700) but more than V-25 (7700), Longjiang (7700) and Storozhevoi (7800).

Main guns: 2x1 100 mm/47. 13,75 kg shell fired at 880 m/s. 10 RPM, 1500 HE damage.

One gun placed forward and one aft, the aft gun might have pretty good forward angles but that's just a guess. With 30000 theoretical HE DPM this will not be a spectacular gunboat regardless, beating only Umikaze (20400). Thanks to the high muzzle velocity I estimate that the shell trajectory is comparable to the Russian 102 mm/60 gun at the ranges used ingame.

Torpedoes: 2x2 450 mm. ? damage, 53 knots, 5 km range

Centerline mounted torpedoes. Faster than all but the torpedoes on *Sampson*.

AA: 2x1 66 mm/42, 1x1 8 mm MG

—

Manoeuvrability: 32,5 knots, 450 m turning circle

Coming in at 84 metres long only V-25 and Longjiang is shorter of the researchable ships, the premium Tachibana is about the same length. That should give the ship a decent turning circle, though speed wise it's on the lower end at the tier only managing better than Sampson.

---

Tier 3: Aetos, Greece

Apparently originally ordered by Argentina and briefly serving under French flags, this is one of two or perhaps three destroyers classes that Greece had which I consider unique. Laid down in 1910 it would be more at home in tier 2. What I'm suggesting here is not the original form though but the later modernized version of Aetos.

Hitpoints: 8200 8700 8900 [9400] 9700 11000

On the high side of things. Derzki (9700) and G-101 (11000) have more health.

Main gun firepower: 4x1 102 mm/50. 14,08 kg shell fired at 823 m/s. 8 RPM, 1500 HE damage.

Two guns forward (superfiring), one midship between the stacks and one aft gun. 48000 HE DPM is once again not great. The modern setup with a superfiring forward gun does give you a bit better forward firepower than would be expected at this tier.

Torpedoes: 2x3 533 mm

Centerline mounted torpedoes gives it a nice broadside for its tier. Only Wickes can match it with 533 mm torpedoes.

AA: 2x1 40 mm/39

2 pdr Mark II

Manoeuvrability: 31 knots, 480 m turning circle

Another rather short ship giving a nice turning circle. It will need it being a few knots slower than the rest of the destroyers.

---

Tier 4: Mărăști, Romania

Originally purchased by Romania ships of this class also ended up serving in the Italian, Spanish and Russian navies. An argument could be made for the Italians to have the priority on this ships as that's where they served initially due to WW1. Laid down in 1914 only Izyaslav is older at this tier.

Hitpoints: 10300 10300 10300 10600 10900 [11100]

King of the health pool and enough to allow it to squeeze in at tier 5 instead. Clemson is the closest contender with 10900 hitpoints. Still, it'll need it and besides G-101 had as mentioned 11000 at tier 3.

Main gun firepower: 2x2 & 1x1 120 mm/45. 22 kg shell fired at 750 m/s. 7 RPM, 1700 HE damage.

Two guns forward (twin mount), one midship between the stacks and two aft (twin mount). 59500 HE DPM and I continue the tale of having sub-par DPM and only getting the better off the Japanese. This is why the relatively high hitpoints doesn't mean that much, it will need it. I'm also hoping that the aft mount has good firing angles forward to further help it out, which it might have eyeballing it. Increasing the rate of fire might also be in the cards.

Torpedoes: 2x2 450 mm

Side mounted torpedoes and only 450 mm torpedoes. Horrible torpedo boat to the point where you can ask whether it's actually worth a position at tier 4 or if this is actually a tier 3 ship.

AA: 2x1 76 mm/40, 2x1 6,5 mm MG

—

Manoeuvrability: 38 knots, 520 m turning circle

I'm being generous here by using the 38 knots speed quoted as a trial speed on Navypedia to compensate the shortfall in offensive power. Combined with the turning circle this ought to lead to a rather nimble ship overall.

---

Tier 5: Kocatep, Turkey

Despite supposedly based on an Italian destroyer class it is certainly different enough in my eyes that there shouldn't be any chance mixing them up. It is also the only unique class Turkey really has to offer. Laid down in 1930 you get a ships that's newer than most. However the 1940 T-22 blows it away in terms of age so I don't see much cause for concern.

Hitpoints: [10800] 10900 11300 11300 12500 12700 13100

Lowest of the bunch. Closest is Minekaze (10900). Well, someone has to be last in this category anyway.

Main gun firepower: 4x1 120 mm/50. 23,15 kg shell fired at 950 m/s. 7 RPM, 1700 HE damage.

Two guns forward (superfiring) and two aft (superfiring). 47600 HE DPM, well, now you are probably just getting annoyed. Yes another under performer in HE DPM thanks to the low rate of fire credited to them on NavWeaps though it is still better than the Japanese. This time it does at least fire the shell at a high velocity to partly make up for it being comparable to the guns found on Nicholas. Once again some increase in rate of fire may be needed.

Torpedoes: 2x3 533 mm

Centreline mounted torpedoes giving a tier-standard 6 torpedo broadside.

AA: 3x1 40 mm/39, 2x1 20 mm/70

—

Manoeuvrability: 36 knots, 540 m turning circle

Slightly slower than the average, slightly better turning. Quite standard overall.

---

Tier 6: Split, Yugoslavia

Originally designed as a ship most similar to the French large destroyer what I'm talking about is the finished product when it was armed with US equipment. Laid down in 1939 but completed only in 1958 this is the first ship that's really out of place chronologically. This is where I try to set the tone of the line: high rate of fire on the guns giving a high DPM for the tier with the drawback of sub-par torpedoes.

Hitpoints: 11500 11700 12900 14100 14100 15700 [16500]

King of the researchable ships being more survivable than even the large German Ernst Gaerde (15700). This will help it bring the gun damage to bare in a similar way to Akizuki. If we include premiums though Aigle (17000) still holds the crown.

Main gun firepower: 4x1 127 mm/38. 24,5 kg shell fired at 792 m/s. 18 RPM, 1800 HE damage, 5% fire chance.

Two mounts forward (superfiring), two aft (superfiring). These are the same mounts that Benson and Fletcher have which gives Split a respectable 129000 HE DPM. Despite this it doesn't surpass the US Farragut which can thank its additional gun (assuming A or B hull) for its 135000 HE DPM. In a pure damage duel Split will win due to the large health pool however in game the smaller and more maneuverable Farragut may be the ultimate victor in practice.

Torpedoes: 1x5 533 mm

Centreline mounted torpedoes. Five torpedoes in a broadside is the worst for the tier, being in a quintuple mount the reload will also be long. Conclusion: not a torpedo boat.

AA: 4x1 127 mm/38, 1x4 & 2x2 & 4x1 40 mm/56

—

Manoeuvrability: 31 knots, 640 m turning circle

Split won't be getting out of a fight easily as it combines a relatively bad turning circle with a low top speed. Instead it has to make rely on the large health pool to stay alive.

---

Tier 7: Oquendo, Spain

Going all in on the good DPM, bad torpedoes we arrive at our first destroyer that lacks torpedoes entirely. Laid down in 1951 this is also a clear post-war creation which explains the lack of torpedoes putting more emphasis on ASW weapons instead. In this I will deal with Oquendo as it was originally laid out during the first trials where it sported three dual gun mounts.

Hitpoints: 12800 13100 14100 14300 15100 [15500] 17500

We drop down a bit on hitpoints but we are still on the high side for the tier with only the Germans (17500) having more. As said previously I think it's rather fair to have a lot of hitpoints when you can't rely on torpedoes as much.

Main gun firepower: 3x2 120 mm/50. 22 kg shell fired at 900 m/s. 18 RPM, 1700 HE damage.

One mount forward, two aft (superfiring). I haven't found that much about these guns or mounts. What little I do have suggested it's a continuation of the 120 mm guns used as AA weapons on the Spanish cruisers Canarias and (modernized) Méndez Núñes and I have therefore based my stats on the 120 mm/45 Mark F stats found on NavWeaps. By my estimation the high muzzle velocity makes it superior to the German 128 mm C/34 even if it still of course loses out to the flat shooting Russian 130 mm gun. An impressive 183600 HE DPM makes it the undisputed top dog at the tier with Mahan as the closest contender (at least pre-Cossack) and almost rivalling the 192000 HE DPM put out by the tier 8 Akizuki. Great guns will be needed because...

Torpedoes: None

... there are no torpedoes.

AA: 4x2 120 mm/50, 6x1 40 mm/70, 4x1 20 mm/70

—

Manoeuvrability: 35 knots, 620 m turning circle

I'm somewhat conservative here and don't trust the 39 knots value on Navypedia. 35 knots is enough to keep pace with Mahan while the turning circle is rather average for the tier.

---

Tier 8: Grom, Poland

Laid down in 1935 we jump back to the past and in doing so we suddenly end up with the oldest ships for the tier. A rather stark contrast from before. The ship in question is of course not technically Grom either but her sister Błyskawica as outfitted by British sporting dual purpose 4-inch guns.

Hitpoints: 15100 15400 [15500] 15500 16100 16200 19500 20400

By this tier we are falling a bit behind on the hitpoints curve as we don't have any more than the previous tier. Only Kagero (15100) and Benson (15400) has less. That said at least we have some torpedoes again. Hopefully the pure damage it can throw out will compensate for the rest.

Main gun firepower: 4x2 102 mm/45. 15,88 kg shell fired at 811 m/s. 20 RPM, 1500 HE damage.

Two mounts forward (superfiring), two aft (superfiring). This is all about pure DPM numbers as we don't have quite as flat shooting guns as on Oquendo and the calibre is also lower. At 240000 HE DPM Grom rivals the upcoming Japanese tier 10 Harugumo despite being two tiers below it and is consequently superior to Akizuki (192000). It may not have the same blazing muzzle velocity as the Japanese 100 mm gun however it does still beat out the "moon gun" US 127 mm/38 and is by my estimation reasonably competitive with the Japanese 127 mm gun.

Torpedoes: 1x4 533 mm

Centreline mounted torpedoes. Only a single launcher so not much of a torpedo boat however having something is much better than nothing like on Oquendo. On a cruiser it often might not matter that much but I suspect that you'll be missing the torpedo while playing a destroyer.

AA: 4x2 102 mm/45, 4x1 20 mm/70

—

Manoeuvrability: 39 knots, 610 m turning circle

Błyskawica has a horrible rudder shift time for reasons unknown to me. Apart from that it has competitive figures for tier 8 being the second fastest ship of the tier after Kiev and a middle of the pack turning circle.

---

Tier 9: Friesland, Netherlands

Another ASW destroyer in the tree this time from the Netherlands, that means no torpedoes once again and it'll have to rely on the guns to carry it through the day. Laid down in 1951 it's also a post-war construction and thus also newer than its tiermates laid down in the late 1930s or early 1940s.

Hitpoints: 15500 [16700] 16800 17100 17100 19900 21800

On the low side on the hitpoints front again with only Yūgumo (15500) more vulnerable. That said it's reasonably close to both Udaloi (16800) and the two Fletchers (17100).

Main gun firepower: 2x2 120 mm/50. 23,5 kg shell fired at 835 m/s. 40 RPM, 1700 HE damage.

One mount forward, one aft. Let me introduce you to the gun you will have at this tier and the next: a dual purpose Bofors automatic cannon firing 40 rounds per minute, woohoo! The high rate of fire allows Friesland to throw out bunch of shells despite only having two turrets giving it a theoretical HE DPM of 27200. Unless someone knows better than me this is likely to be the highest DPM any destroyer will get aside from the Colombian 20 de Julio, the only other contender being Harugumo if the shell damage is changed. Of currently implemented ships at the tier Fletcher is closest in HE DPM with 162000, in other words far behind. Slightly flatter trajectory than the Japanese 127 mm/50 but roughly comparable applying this damage should be reasonable as well. Of course as an ASW destroyer...

Torpedoes: None

... there are no torpedoes so the high gun DPM is required. I am aware that a couple of the Frieslands supposedly carried 533 mm tubes for a while. I suspect those were fixed tubes though which means they aren't applicable to World of Warships.

AA: 2x2 120 mm/50, 6x1 40 mm/70

—

Manoeuvrability: 36 knots, 630 m turning circle

A Fletcher will out turn you but this is otherwise perfectly fine for the tier.

---

Tier 10: Halland, Sweden

Also laid down in 1951 Halland is somewhat larger than Friesland, carries torpedoes and a superior AA suit. As before it's newer than the rest of the built ships at the tier. The Russian Grozovoi could be considered a contemporary considering its outfit though.

Hitpoints: 17900 [18100] 18500 19400 20300 20900 22500

On the low side of things again with only Shimakaze (17900) below it and Yueyang (18500) just above it. Considering the strengths of the ships this perfectly fine I believe.

Main gun firepower: 2x2 120 mm/50. 23,5 kg shell fired at 835 m/s. 40 RPM, 1700 HE damage.

One mount forward, one aft. Exactly the same gun as on the previous tier, still a healthy DPM lead over e.g. Gearing that has 216000 HE DPM.

Torpedoes: 2x4 533 mm, 60 knots, 10 km range, 12300 damage.

Centreline mounted torpedoes and actually as many as the German counterpart at this tier but these are weaker and slower. As Friesland didn't have any it's a major improvement anyway and not all that horrendous for the tier.

AA: 2x2 120 mm/50, 1x2 57 mm/60, 6x1 40 mm/70

—

Manoeuvrability: 35 knots, 650 m turning circle

Almost identical to Gearing this should be fine for the tier.

---

---

"Torpedo" line  [Torpedo line tiers 2-5, hybrid tier 6-7, fully gun focused tier 8 then join back with the previous gun line]

 

Tier 2: Sleipner, Norway

Laid down in 1933 sets it decades apart from the rest of the tier. Unfortunately Norway did not have many other choices with the other being Ålesund (briefly also considered Draug). I'd rather include Sleipner than Ålesund as the latter was never finished. In Europe overall there aren't many tier 2 candidates outside the major nations. Most of the early destroyers used by the minors were a few hundreds tons short of where I'd be comfortable in including them.

Hitpoints: [7000] 7700 7700 7800 8700 9100

Yep, far an away the weakest at the tier you'd have to look at the premiums to find another tier 2 with so few hitpoints where you'll find Tachibana at 7000 hitpoints as well.

Main gun firepower: 3x1 100 mm/?. 16 kg shell fired at 700 m/s 15 RPM, 1500 HE damage.

One gun forward, two aft (superfiring). Not a superb gunboat though having a superfiring arrangement is at least something. I know little about the gun and used the shell stats of a Swedish 105 mm gun.

Torpedoes: 1x2 533 mm

Centreline mounted torpedoes and 533 mm which is larger than usual for the tier. Having only two means it won't be a great torpedo boat either though.

AA: 1x1 40 mm/56, 2x1 12,7 mm MG

—

Manoeuvrability: 30 knots, 420 m turning circle

Shorter than even the diminutive V-25 means Sleipner should be a rather slippery target. It is slow though and only barely misses the last place by beating Sampson with 0,5 knots.

---

Tier 3: Huitfeldt, Denmark

Another out-of-place destroyer as laid down in 1942 it's 21 years younger than the currently most modern tier 3, Wakatake. This is once again unfortunately the only really good destroyer candidate from Denmark, the rest are too light and small.

Hitpoints: [7700] 8200 8700 8900 9700 11000

This would be tied for last place at tier 2, it's even worse at tier 3.

Main gun firepower: 2x1 105 mm/42. 24,2 kg shell fired at 780 m/s. 15 RPM, 1500 HE damage.

One gun forward, one aft. Yet again not so great of a gunboat. Still this is 45000 HE DPM which is more than Wickes (38600) and Wakatake (25500).

Torpedoes: 2x3 533 mm

Centreline mounted torpedoes and the reason why I'm fine with it at tier 3. With modern torpedoes and a 6 torpedo broadside it has the potential of being a great torpedo boat more than making up for the lack of hitpoints and gun firepower.

AA: 2x1 105 mm/42, 3x1 40 mm/56, 2x1 20 mm/60

—

Manoeuvrability: 35 knots, 480 m turning circle

Fast, maneuverable and small. Fits right in at tier 3.

---

Tier 4: Ehrensköld, Sweden

This is a catch-all for the Swedish -sköld, Klas and "town" destroyers which was a long running series of similar designs. The first being Ehrensköld laid down in 1924 and the last Kalmar in late 1942. The 1924 date means we have yet another ship that's newer than the rest, fortunately not by as much as before with the last Clemson laid down in 1920. The low tonnage precludes it from comfortably being a tier higher anyway.

Hitpoints: [9500] 10300 10300 10300 10600 10900

Using the last and largest in the series, the Visby-class, you'd still only get 9500 hitpoints. Acceptable, barely.

Main gun firepower: 3x1 120 mm/44. 21 kg shell fired at 800 m/s. 10 RPM, 1700 HE damage.

Last if it weren't for the usual Japanese victim Isokaze (34000), 51000 HE DPM wouldn't be great at tier 3 and it is bad at tier 4. If you use Visby as the model then at least one gun is set forward while the two others are aft (superfiring), otherwise there is one forward, one aft and one between the stacks.

Torpedoes: 2x3, 60 knots, 6,5 km range, 12500 damage.

Centreline mounted torpedoes, this will be the primary purpose of the ship. Fairly fast torpedoes for the tier and decent damage.

AA: 1x2 40 mm/56, 2x1 40 mm/56, 4x1 20 mm/63

—

Manoeuvrability: 39 knots, 530 m turning circle

Using Visby as the model you get a ship that turns about as well as Isokaze but does a good 5 knots more to allow you to use your torpedoes. This hopefully makes up for the lack of hitpoints.

---

Tier 5: Vouga, Portugal

The sole contribution from Portugal is class laid down in 1932 (also knows as Douro) with a clear UK connection to the point where two of the ships were built in the UK.

Hitpoints: [10500] 10900 11300 11300 12500 12700 13100

Yet again we find the ship at the bottom of the hitpoint scale

Main gun firepower: 4x1 120 mm/50. 22,68 kg shell fired at 850 m/s. 10 RPM, 1700 HE damage.

A nice, modern layout with two guns forward (superfiring) and two aft (superfiring). Unfortunately I don't know much about the guns so the values are just guesses based on the British 4,7"/45 Mk IX. This gives a decent but not good 68000 HE DPM with somewhat flatter trajectory than the Gallant at tier 6, torpedoes should still be your main weapon.

Torpedoes: 2x4 533 mm

Eight centreline mounted torpedoes gives you the largest torpedo broadside for the tier. Should be easy to make it a decent tier 5 considering this despite the hitpoint deficiency.

AA: 3x1 40mm/39, 3x1 20mm/70

—

Manoeuvrability: 36 knots, 540 m turning circle

The destroyers at tier 5 are quite fast so 36 knots is actually below par, just. You have a good turning circle though to make up for it.

---

Tier 6: Vasliefs Georgios I, Greece

Laid down in 1937 as an unholy combination of British shipbuilding and German weaponry gave birth to what, on paper at least, looks like a very potent ship. It is once again the newest ship for the tier, something that's a common theme for the pan-European line, but as the hitpoints show it's once again also rather light.

Hitpoints: 11500 [11700] 11700 12900 14100 14100 15700

Finally a ship that's not at the bottom, not a lot of hitpoints to work with regardless. The other qualities of the ship makes up for it though.

Main gun firepower: 4x1 128 mm/42. 23,5 kg shell fired at 835 m/s. 12 RPM, 1800 HE damage.

Two guns forward (superfiring), two aft (superfiring). I use the rate of fire found on Ernst Gaede on these guns as they are at the same tier. Despite this lower rate of fire it's still a decent gunboat and only Farragut (135000) has a big DPM advantage. Because this torpedo line ultimately merges with the gun line it's fine that the gun part of the ship starts being more important though.

Torpedoes: 2x4

Centreline mounted torpedoes, eight isn't as special at tier 6 anymore as it was at tier 5 but it's more than good enough for a torpedo boat.

AA: 4x1 37 mm/80, 2x4 12,7 mm MG

—

Manoeuvrability: 36 knots, 540 m turning circle

Maneuverable for the tier and almost average in speed. Perfectly fine in total.

---

Tier 7: Isaac Sweers, Netherlands

Part of the Gerard Callenburgh class which was laid down in 1938 Isaac Sweers is the only ship of the class that actually ended up in Dutch service. The lead ship Gerard Callenburgh was finished mostly to plan but in German service while Isaac Sweers was finished using British weaponry instead of the original planned guns. Chronologically it fits quite well at this tier and it will serve as the ship which starts to bring us from the torpedo line to the gun line by putting more emphasis on the gun DPM.

Hitpoints: 12800 13100 [13200] 14100 14300 15100 17500

Climbing in the hitpoints ranking. Still on the lower side of things as the jump down to last is only 400 hitpoints.

Main gun firepower: 3x2 102 mm/45. 15,88 kg shell fired at 811 m/s. 20 RPM, 1500 HE damage.

One mount forward, two aft (superfiring). This gives us the highest DPM of the tier with 180000 HE DPM, about the same as Oquendo in the gun line. The guns on Oquendo should be superior though with a flatter arc. Still Oquendo does not have any torpedoes so I am a bit curious on how this would work out.

Torpedoes: 2x4 533 mm

Centreline mounted torpedoes, still eight of them which at this tier is barely average. That's fine because as mentioned we are now transitioning into the main gun line and torpedoes should no longer be as important.

AA: 3x2 102 mm/45, 2x2 40 mm/56, 2x4 12,7 mm MG

—

Manoeuvrability: 36 knots, 580 m turning circle

Among the slower but maneuverable, nothing to complain about.

---

Tier 8: Jacob van Heemskerck, Netherlands

Laid down in 1936 (Tromp) you may argue that it's a cruiser but in this case I will treat it as a destroyer for my purpose. It straddles the line between destroyer and cruiser and at tier 8 Jacob van Heemskerck is shorter than Akizuki, though heavier. Chronologically tier 8 is a nice place for the ship as well. Basically my idea is that this is a somewhat tougher Akizuki with better DPM but without torpedoes and more arc to the shell trajectories.

Hitpoints: 15100 15400 15500 16100 16200 19500 20400 [24200]

Completely reversing the general trend of having the lowest or at least low hitpoints here we suddenly get the most hitpoints for the tier. 24200 would be the most at tier 10, at tier 8 it's rather overwhelming. Despite being actually armored none of the armor matters that much as it is either A) not better than standard plating given by WG or B) internal.

Main gun firepower: 5x2 102 mm/45. 15,88 kg shell fired at 811 m/s. 20 RPM, 1500 HE damage.

Two mounts forward (superfiring), two midships (next to each other), one aft. This is a lot of firepower but as two mounts are put side by side only four mounts can engage the same targets at most. This does still give you the same 240000 HE DPM that I previously talked about on Grom. Don't know if there's anything to add to that.

Torpedoes: None

As I said this line will be merging into the gun line, here you've really entered the merging part and have ditched the torpedoes.

AA: 5x2 102 mm/45, 1x4 40 mm/39, 6x1 20 mm/70.

—

Manoeuvrability: 33 knots, 730 m turning circle

This is a slow, fat target best compared with Akizuki. You aren't going to run away from other destroyers or cruisers. You'll probably be needing the massive healthpool.

---

---

 

Some comments:

I'm horrible at proofreading or error checking my own stuff so odds are errors have crept in here and there. I'm also not entirely pleased with the layout I got going here however at the same time I'm not sure what the best way of presenting the information would be.

I ignored ships that weren't "unique", so Greece had Fletchers? Ignored. Norway got British destroyers? Ignored, and so on and so forth. The exceptions are borderline cases such as Aetos (which only briefly served under French flag)and Mărăști. There are also cases were the hull is the same/very similar to e.g. a British design but the armament is different such as Vasliefs Georgios I and Vouga. I've tried to avoid it but it's inevitable that such cases will be included if you want a full line.

There is no paper, ships picked were not only laid down but also launched and completed to serve in their respective navy.

Oquendo and Split could conceivably switch places depending on the stats of the guns on Oquendo.

There are certainly many ships that stick out in chronological order. That's a side effect of these minor nations often building smaller ships than what the major nations were doing at the same time. Tonnage is closely related to capability and what tier a ship fits in.

I'd switch Grom and Jacob van Heemskerck in an ideal world as I think that would flow better. However in order to make an initial line with as many different nations as possible I've kept Grom in the first line.

Is Jacob van Heemskerck a tier 8 destroyer? Well it's arguable. With destroyers such as Khabarovsk and the upcoming Japanese Haragumo I'd say it's certainly possible to implement Tromp and Jacob van Heemskerck as destroyers. The other options is as low tier cruisers.

European minors that had WoWS viable destroyers but aren't included: Estonia and Bulgaria. They were unfortunately excluded as the destroyers they had were unmodified Russian destroyers.

If WG accepts destroyers that lack torpedoes entirely is an open question.

As pointed out by mofton in the thread the gun progression isn't perfect. Going from 102 mm guns to 120 mm guns isn't ideal when keeping IFHE in mind.

 

 

 

 

Below I've kept my original post from 2016.

---

So I've been thinking a bit about how a European tree could look and destroyers are obviously the most numerous class among the minor nations so that's what I've concentrated on. If you accept that there wouldn't be any cruiser or battleship line would it then be possible to create a European tree? I won't claim that I've done any throughout research, think of this as a preliminary sketch as to whether a European tree would even be feasible to begin with - exact details are subject to change.

 

I've managed to scrounge together two full destroyer lines but both end with the same ship: Halland. I'm not really sure Halland is a good tier 10 though as it's a wee bit more modern than I'd like. Is there any other, better choice though? One line is more focused on guns while the other puts more emphasis on torpedoes until tier 8 when it switches to become more gun focused as well. I've tried to include every European nation that had at least one destroyer class which fits within the context of WOWS. That's why you e.g. see the modern Huitfeldt at tier 3 - it's because it's the only destroyer class Denmark had that would fit in the game. There are of course some classes that are missing as well due to this, such as the Swedish Ehrensköld and its developments or the Polish Wicher, but that's how it goes if you want to include as many European nations as possible. There isn't really enough classes for a third line either, although a partial line would be possible (II: Sleipner, III: Ehrensköld, IV: Mărăști, V: Wicher?).

 

One of the main stumbling blocks was that it's difficult to get reliable details of the weaponry and I'm sure I've messed up details in more than one place, feel free to point them out! If I've added a question mark then I completely lack confidence in it being correct. Not having a question mark on the other hand doesn't at all mean it is correct, just that there is at least some reasoning behind it. I've taken the liberty to simply guess a lot of the values, especially the torpedo ones.

Many of the stats are from NavWeaps or navypedia although they aren't the only sources. I should especially note that NavWeaps have the 140/53 with a rate of fire of 5-8 rounds per minute. However according to navypedia the weapon is derived from the UK 5,5 inch Mk I gun which NavWeap lists at 12 rounds per minute -  I went with the favourable interpretation that the 140/53 could fire at 12 rounds per minute simply to get some valid alternatives for tier 8 and 9. Rate of fire is overall the most suspect stat in my table either way.

 

 

This is the line-up I had in mind:

Tier	Torpedo line	Gun line
II	Austria-Hungary: Tátra	Greece: Aetos
III	Denmark: Huitfeldt	Spain: Alsedo
IV	Turkey: Kocatepe	Norway: Ålesund
V	Portugal: Douro (Vouga)	Netherlands: Admiralen
VI	Spain: Álava (Liniers)	Romania: Regele Ferdinand
VII	Netherlands: Gerard Callenburgh	Poland: Grom
VIII	Greece: Vasilefs Georgios I	Yugoslavia: Dubrovnik
IX	Sweden: Öland	Yugoslavia: Split
X	Sweden: Halland	Sweden: Halland

 

 

An overview of the "torpedo line".

Name	Year	Hitpoints	Speed	Guns	Calibre	Shell (kg)	MV (m/s)	RoF	Torpedos	Side	Range	Speed	Torpedo
Tátra	1911	8300	32	2x1	100/47	13,75	880	10	2x2	4	5	53	450 I/3 1909
Huitfeldt	1942	7700	35	2x1	105/42	16	700	15	2x3	6	5	51	Swe: m/15?
Kocatepe	1930	10800	36	4x1	120/50	22	850	7	2x3	6	7	52	Ita: W260?
Douro	1932	10500	36	4x1	120/50	28,12?	770?	10?	2x4	8	8	56	UK: Mk X?
Álava	1944	13200	36	4x1	120/45	22,68	808	10	2x3	8	9,6	56	UK: Mk IX?
Gerard	1938	13200	36	5x1	120/45	20,5?	800?	12?	2x4	8	10	61	UK: Mk IX*
Vasilefs	1937	11700	36	4x1	128/45	28	830	18	2x4	6	10	61	UK: Mk IX*?
Öland	1943	13300	35	2x2	120/45	23,5	840	20	2x3	6	10	63	Swe: T14?
Halland	1950	18100	35	2x2	120/50	23,5	850	40	2x4	8	10	63	Swe: T14?

 

An overview of the "gun line".

Name	Year	Hitpoints	Speed	Guns	Calibre	Shell (kg)	MV (m/s)	RoF	Torpedos	Side	Range	Speed	Torpedo
Aetos	1910	8900	32	4x1	102/50	14,06	823	8?	4x1	2	6,8	50	UK: Mk I?
Alsedo	1920	9500	37	3x1	102/45	14,06	805	15	2x2	4	6,4	49	UK Mk VI?
Ålesund	1939	11000	34	1x2, 2x1	120/45	20,5?	800?	10	2x2	4	5	60	Swe: T11?
Admiralen	1925	10800	36	4x1	120/50	24	900	10	2x3	6	4	62	T II (UK?)
Regele	1927	11700	37	5x1	120/50	24	900	10	2x3	6	7	52	Ita: W260?
Grom	1935	15500	39	3x2, 1x1	120/50	24	900	9,2	2x3	6	8	57	UK: Mk X
Dubrovnik	1930	16000	37	4x1	140/53	39,8	880	12	2x3	6	8	57	UK Mk X?
Split	1939	16500	38	5x1	140/53	39,8	880	12	2x3	6	8	57	UK Mk X?
Halland	1950	18100	35	2x2	120/50	23,5	850	40	2x4	8	10	63	Swe: T14?

 

There you have it! Not perhaps as detailed and as much thought put into it as some of the other tech tree suggestion that's been posted on these forums, but I think it does make the case that a European tech tree of destroyers is a possibility. There's not even any paper ships in the line, at worst you have a class that was never finished. That's better than both the Russian and the US destroyer trees.

Now if you wanted a European tree with cruisers or battleships... well that's a different story unless you accept partial lines (all roads lead to Halland?)

 

Edit: Fixed some errors in my table

[piritskenyer]

The immediate thing that jumps out is that Halland seems a little undergunned for a gunboat, and a little under-torped for a torpedo-boat. 

 

With 10-12km torps she'd be fine as a torpship (esp with a single-launch feature), but 4 120mm guns are weak however we look at it.

 

Split would be a better choice for a TX gunboat (although the 140mm guns don't enefit from B/AFT), especially if we also take into consideration that Halland only does 35kts, while Split does 39.

[Snowyskies]

I appreciate your concern but I think the guns alone on Halland is enough to justify its tier. With both Öland and Halland I've mainly used the USN ships as a point of comparison. Gearing can throw 120 shells per minute at a target, Halland at 40 rpm would have fired 160 shells during that time with a flatter trajectory so it ought to be powerful enough in the gunboat role. If you are worried then increase the rpm to 45 instead which is the max rate of fire according to NavWeaps. I on the other hand am more worried about Öland at tier 9 than Halland at tier 10 as Öland doesn't have the same overwhelming rate of fire. I'm banking on the smaller size of Öland (better concealment) and flatter trajectory to put in on equal footing against Fletcher.

With Split on the other hand I use the Russian ships as the point of comparison and Split isn't good enough in my mind to take on Khabarovsk, especially as I've already had to fudge the rate of fire for the 140 mm gun. Moving Split up a tier would also mean moving Dubrovnik up a tier at which point I'm missing a tier 8 - a tier I'm hard pressed to fill.

[piritskenyer]

That is good reasoning. I didn't check the stats for the 120mm/50 of Halland beforehand, now I did, and yes, it's viable. Only issue here is that you lose half your firepower if one turret is knocked out.

[Snowyskies]

That's without a doubt a big weakness, having only two turrets is a liability. Lose one turret on Halland and suddenly you have the (gun) firepower of Öland, lose a turret on Öland and you have what, the (gun) firepower of a Fubuki and the torpedoes of a Minekaze? Better hope for a decent amount of turret HP.

 

As an aside one thing I don't really bring up at all is the AA firepower of these ships, because I don't think its critical (although certainly good to have), it's difficult to find reliable info on which guns are DP capable, and it is also one of the areas I can see WG doing fantasy refits pretty easily. In that regard Halland is really the shining star of the tree with main guns that are definitely DP capable and should, judging by their rate of fire, have a rather spectacular AA dps. Just one more thing that adds to why I value it as a tier 10 compared to Split.

[Ripeos]

Your idea is rather interesting and nice. Good job with all the math work and numbers, a think i can't do myself xd

 

Actually found your topic because i was talking to a friend about Dubrovnik, and how cool would it be to implement it some way, either in some tree or as a premium ship. If nothing else, i think these few lines justify the wish for Dubrovnik to be added to the game:

 

Dubrovnik was a flotilla leader built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy by Yarrow Shipbuilders in Glasgow between 1930 and 1931. She was one of the largest destroyers of her time. Resembling contemporary British designs, Dubrovnik was a fast ship with a main armament of four Czechoslovak-built Škoda 140 mm (5.5 in) guns in single mounts. 

 

Making it a remarkable ship at the time, which kinda matches the time window they use for ships in the game (1900.-1950. more or less)

 

I guess since you know about Split and Dubrovnik you are familiar with others too, but just in case, if you need inspiration for some lower tiers or something, there are the Beograd-class destroyers too. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beograd-class_destroyer)

[Snowyskies]

Yep, Dubrovnik would doubtlessly be a neat addition to the game, reminiscent of the French large destroyers in size and armament. Of course the 140 mm guns pose a problem with the captain skills as its just above the 139 mm limit, same problem the 150 mm armed German destroyer would have.

 

Moving on to Beograd - yes I'm aware of it. I have it pegged at maybe tier 5 or 6 depending on the performance on the stats of its 120 mm Škoda guns. At tier 5 you have the Portugese Douro and the Dutch Admiralen. Douro as the only viable Portugese destroyer candidate automatically makes the cut while Admiralen I'd argue is more historically interesting than Dubrovnik an therefore also gets chosen.

At tier 6 there is the Spanish Álava and the Romanian Regele Ferdinad.  Álava isn't particularly interesting and are similar to UK ships but it's there to represent one of the largest destroyer series that one of the "minor" nations had (if we see Churucca to Álava as one series). I haven't looked into this in details so I might be wrong, but I think only Sweden had one of similar size (if we see the Swedish Ehrensköld to Visby as one series). With Regele Ferdinad on the other hand I did have the option of using Mărăști at tier 4 instead but then we once again would run into issues as the Turkish Kocatepe and the Norwegian Ålesund are their countries only respective representatives in the tree.

Ultimately it just didn't fit with what I had in mind and Yugoslavia is in a good spot anyway with its 2 ships in the tree - just as many as the much larger navies of Spain and the Netherlands.

 

Actually I should add that there were actually two European nations that had destroyer but didn't ge. Estonia had two WW1-era (Izyaslav and Izylmetyev) Russian destroyer and Bulgaria had one WW1-era (Fidonisi) and one WW2-era (Ognevoi) Russian destroyer. I simply didn't want to include ship classes that weren't specifically built for the nations in question which is why Estonia and Bulgaria are left without any representatives in the tree.

[Ripeos]

Well the problem with captain skills is there, that's true. On the other hand, simply having a quite larger caliber than other destroyers in the game makes the advantage. You can choose using a cap skill and having weaker guns, or no cap skill and having meat grinders.

 

Beograd was a suggestion in case you had to remove Split or Dubrovnik, to have another Yugoslav ship instead. And i do agree, there are some historically more interesting ships. However, in my opinion, not being a big naval force as some countries during the wars and after, Yugoslavia still was a remarkable military force present in Europe at the time. Having Dubrovnik, performance wise, does put it on the European navy chart.

 

Have you thought about HNoMS Stord? It did have an important role in The battle of North Cape.

[Snowyskies]

With respect to the captain skills its the lack of synergy with the rest of the line that's an issue. Either you'd have to respec especially for the two 140 mm armed ships or you have to accept having skills that might be a bit sub-par for them.

 

I'm not saying that the Yugoslav ships are unimportant, but in naval importance they are still way below the weight of the Spanish and Dutch fleets. The few Yugoslavian ships they did have on the other hand were interesting, as you say. Spain especially suffers from using UK designs and in many ways I'd rather see Beograd than Álava due to this, but it is what it is. There isn't a lot of material at tier 8-10 to work with either so it's nice that Dubrovnik and Split existed.

 

As for the Norwegian Stord I haven't considered including it as it's a straight transfer. As I already mentioned I've avoided those as they are usually just straight copies of ships that are likely to show up in the tech tree of on of the main nations (France/Germany/Italy/Japan/UK/USA). In my opinion copies aren't much fun and should only be included if there simply isn't any other alternative. The best Norwegian alternative is the Sleipner class, likely a tier 2 ship that'd replace the Greek Aetos. Sleipner is in fact in some ways a better choice as a Norwegian ship than Ålesund as it was actually finished and in active duty, Ålesund never made it off the slips. Stord could maybe show up as a premium instead.

[DandyDozer]

Is there anybody who wants to be captain of "European" destroyer:-)?

[Ripeos]

With respect to the captain skills its the lack of synergy with the rest of the line that's an issue. Either you'd have to respec especially for the two 140 mm armed ships or you have to accept having skills that might be a bit sub-par for them.

 

I'm not saying that the Yugoslav ships are unimportant, but in naval importance they are still way below the weight of the Spanish and Dutch fleets. The few Yugoslavian ships they did have on the other hand were interesting, as you say. Spain especially suffers from using UK designs and in many ways I'd rather see Beograd than Álava due to this, but it is what it is. There isn't a lot of material at tier 8-10 to work with either so it's nice that Dubrovnik and Split existed.

 

As for the Norwegian Stord I haven't considered including it as it's a straight transfer. As I already mentioned I've avoided those as they are usually just straight copies of ships that are likely to show up in the tech tree of on of the main nations (France/Germany/Italy/Japan/UK/USA). In my opinion copies aren't much fun and should only be included if there simply isn't any other alternative. The best Norwegian alternative is the Sleipner class, likely a tier 2 ship that'd replace the Greek Aetos. Sleipner is in fact in some ways a better choice as a Norwegian ship than Ålesund as it was actually finished and in active duty, Ålesund never made it off the slips. Stord could maybe show up as a premium instead.

 

Well you have the Lo-Yang <> Benson thing already existent in the game. Maybe something could be done to help you with such ''copy-paste'' ships, in that manner. Remove some - Add some.. 

It's a lot of work and thought all this, respect for you for giving it time^^

 

Is there anybody who wants to be captain of "European" destroyer:-)?

 

I don't see why not. Bringing diversity to the game is always good. Let people try out new things..

[piritskenyer]

Is there anybody who wants to be captain of "European" destroyer:-)?

 

Yep.

Europa über Alles

[Snowyskies]

Might be a bit redundant for me to answer as I made the thread, but yes, I'd love to captain a "European" destroyer. It'd give you an opportunity to play ships that are almost always otherwise ignored in games and thus a breath of fresh air. It's a nice mix of designs as well unlike some of the main nation DD-trees where you are playing ships that are very similar in design for several tiers. E.g. Regele Ferdinand >Grom >Dubrovnik >Split is more varied and are more visually distinct than Fubuki >Akatsuki >Kagero >Yugumo.

 

[DandyDozer]

I think Blyskawica did precedens and WG wont do European branch due historical reasons:-)

Btw., where is Burza?

They will rather monetize premium ships.

I hope in many new ships, different trees and branches,

but viable is probably only UK, USA, CCCP, Germany(where are DD?), Nippon, France and Italy,

maybe Spain and Sweden, i would like Dutch ships also.

Rest probably without hope in branch... but still lot to do ahead of WG

The more nations will be in the game, the more clients they will service. They definitively understand that.

I think ingame marketing is quite different from WOT. 

[Snowyskies]

Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands can't really create their own trees without relying on an excessive amount of paper or outright fantasy ships, a pan-European one seems like a more reasonable idea. WG does what WG wants in the end.

 

On another note I did think of one other potential tier 10 "destroyer" candidate; Tromp. Tromp doesn't fit neatly in a cruiser tree although you could of course make it work. As a cruiser it would suffer quite a bit due to the weak citadel armor with only 15 mm (outer hull) + 30 mm (inner bulkhead) vertical protection - even less than what Yūbari has! Furthermore Tromp was initially brought in as a destroyer leader so it's not without historical backing. Neither does it really displace more than Khabarovsk or the potential tier 10 Italian destroyer (Capitani Romani). In the context of the European destroyer tree it lead to a nice ending for the the 140 mm armed Dubrovnik/Split as Tromp has 149 mm guns.

There are of course some issues with Tromp as a tier 10, the first one is the 34,5 knot top speed. Such low speed would make it the slowest of all current and projected tier 10 destroyers, on the other hand someone has to be last. Secondly the 15 mm outer hull armor is actually not a benefit in WoWS as all ships get "standard" hull plating armor that's higher by this tier. It seems a bit silly that a ships with actual hull armor would get less armor than those without so preferably some change/buff would done here. Of course the 149 mm guns are also an issue as they don't benefit from the usual destroyer skills to the same degree and, if you trust NavWeap, only fire 6 rounds per minute (note: I don't fully trust NavWeap rate of fire figures, especially for minor nations). Finally it lacks DP main guns and don't have much light AA while it only has a total of 6 torpedoes for a 3 torpedo broadside.

Sounds like a lot of drawbacks, right? But you don't have a citadel as a destroyer and, depending on how exactly they deal with the 15 mm outer hull armor, you might actually be quite tanky against cruiser HE. You'd have a lot of HP just as Khabarovsk and the 149 mm guns would, for a destroyer, have very flat arcs. Tromp didn't have a catapult but it was equipped with a floatplane. If you gave it a spotter consumable then it would give you an extra boost to help it a tier 10, spotter + smoke sounds like a decent combination.

It's all a bit iffy but it could be a workable idea I think. You would have to get more than 6 rounds per minute out of the guns for it to be feasible, otherwise your damage output is likely too low. There's also of course the Jacob van Heemskerck layout as an option, but would a 4x2 102mm broadside (even with 20 rpm) at tier 10 actually be enough? In theoretical damage per minute it's not bad at all, but the HE penetration mechanics makes it very questionable if it could work. You'd also have to get close to hit but you don't have any torpedoes at all, not a great combination.

[Robber_Baron]

I tend to see the Jacob van Heemskerck as a smaller Dutch version of the Atlanta, and the first HE-spamming version of the RNCL reminded me of this (and gave me hopes for a Premium).

As for the Tromp as a destroyer leader, now that you mention it: on the Russian Wikipedia website about the Tashkent-class she's actually compared to the Tromp and the Capitani Romani, as well as the French Le Fantasque and Mogador.

 

 

One of the problems I see with a mixed European tree is the different languages and names. This is not so much a problem with the Pan-Asian ships. A captain called Mika Toivonen doesn't sound very Dutch, and a captain called Jan de Vries doesn't sound very Spanish. And I want the original flags and ensigns, not some fantasy Europe-thingy.

Another one is with the ships itself: when you want the Bismarck for example, you likely have some interest in German ships already and are possibly happy to grind them. As a Dutchman I'm more than happy about the Admiralen-class (even more so than with the Gerard Callenburgh-class, unless Isaac Sweers will be released) but in the trees how you propose them I'm likely to skip all preceding non-Dutch ships.

 

TL;DR: I like the idea of a mixed European tree, but I want the nationalities to keep their own identity: flag, captain names et cetera.

[Snowyskies]

Flying the original flags on the ships shouldn't be an issue at all, I see no reason why they should fly a fantasy flag in game. As for the captains that's not something that bothers me at all personally, I'd be happy to use a captain by the name of "Aart Alblas" even if I was playing the ship Vasilefs Georgios I. Now of course I don't know exactly how captain names and associated stuff is implemented by WG, but if it is done in a sensible manner then it should be relatively easy to simply add the option to choose nationality when recruiting a captain in the pan-European tree. So you who are interested in the Dutch ships could choose to recruit a captain with a Dutch name and rank. I want to ask though, if you didn't have the xp to free-xp to the Dutch ships directly would it then bother you if you used a captain with a Dutch name while playing the other ships during the grind?

 

One more thing I'd like to add: You said that you were given hope for a Jacob van Heemskerck premium after getting to know about the initial UK cruiser design, but this is one big reason that I'd like to see this European tree. When ships from minor nations are brought up they are always spoken as if they have to be a premium and that bother me. Why can't they be tech tree ships? I doubt people would be happy if e.g. every single Japanese ship in the game were only available as premiums after all. Don't get me wrong it's fine to want to see a ship from <nation> ingame and of course if it's a premium it's probably more likely to make it in at an earlier date. I'd want to give everyone a chance to play at least one ship from these nations though in a freely available tech tree, not lock them all away as premiums.

[Robber_Baron]

I want to ask though, if you didn't have the xp to free-xp to the Dutch ships directly would it then bother you if you used a captain with a Dutch name while playing the other ships during the grind?

No, then it wouldn't bother me. To think about it: perhaps I don't free-XP anything if they're fun to play. I might've been a bit too fast about that skipping, my apologies.

After all I don't care about the Polish navy at all, but the Blyska is one of my favourite ships.

 

One more thing I'd like to add: You said that you were given hope for a Jacob van Heemskerck premium after getting to know about the initial UK cruiser design, but this is one big reason that I'd like to see this European tree. When ships from minor nations are brought up they are always spoken as if they have to be a premium and that bother me. Why can't they be tech tree ships? I doubt people would be happy if e.g. every single Japanese ship in the game were only available as premiums after all. Don't get me wrong it's fine to want to see a ship from <nation> ingame and of course if it's a premium it's probably more likely to make it in at an earlier date. I'd want to give everyone a chance to play at least one ship from these nations though in a freely available tech tree, not lock them all away as premiums.

I agree with you that silver ships are the best way to reach the people who can't or won't buy for real money. I have premium ships, but if possible I prefer stuff for free as well.

With the current lines you can follow the history of a nation in its development of a given class. With the different nations that's difficult. To be fair that doesn't include some other branches as well: the Tashkent was an Italian ship after all.

Then still: the Heemskerck was different. I think it will be more different from Tromp in terms of play style than Isaac Sweers will be from the original Gerard Callenburgh design. As I said I see Jacob van Heemskerck as a sort of mini-Atlanta (lower tier if you will). I have to admit I don't really know much about the other not yet released European navies, but I don't see a full Atlanta-like line happen. Unless it will become some sort of RNCL, but it seems that line is not a big success. And with regular cruisers, one Atlanta-clone would be very strange and difficult with captain training. Even if you don't care about captain names like autists like me do you'll need a specific captain for her to use to her full potential. That can be difficult if you want to grind towards her, or to the ships that come after her.

When I looked to her as a possible premium, the idea of a mixed tree never came to mind. A full Dutch line seemed unlikely (although I've seen proposals that aren't much more reliant on paper ships than say the Russian cruiser line), so I hoped for some premiums.

[Snowyskies]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to point a finger at you specifically just a note on how the ships from the minor nations generally are approached.

 

In a cruiser line Heemskerck would probably be out of place, yes. Although the same is true of Tromp to a degree, they are simply not large enough to fit in how cruisers are currently balanced and the lack of a thicker armor belt around the citadel would be quite crippling. Jacob van Heemskerck as a kind of destroyer actually fits quite well with the captain skills, although the lack of torpedoes is of course a change. You would probably be looking at a gameplay similar to the soon:ish to be released Akizuki.

[renhanxue]

Historical stats for the Swedish Torped 14 are as follows.

 

Caliber: 533mm

Length: 7.58m

Weight (combat ready): ~1700kg

Warhead: 248 kg TNT

Max speed: ~43 knots

Min speed: ~32 knots

Range: 10,000m @ max speed, ~15,000m @ min speed

 

Now, this probably doesn't sound too good as far as range and speed goes, but many torpedoes in game have their speed buffed significantly over historical values. The mk 15 mod 3 on the Benson for example historically did 4,500 yards (4,100 m) @ 45 knots or 9,000 yards (8,200 m) @ 33.5 knots - in game, 9,200m @ 55 knots. The mk 17 on the Gearing had a historical top speed of 46 knots; in game 66 knots. So sticking with the theme of retaining roughly historical torpedo ranges but buffing speed 30% or so, 10-ish km @ 65-ish knots doesn't sound too unreasonable.

 

The main problem is the relatively small warhead - it's comparable to the Benson's stock mk 15 mod 0 (224kg), while the mk 17 warhead weighed in at 399kg.

 

If we "do a Fletcher" and also consider submarine torpedoes there's also Torped 25 which was ~5-7 knots faster but had ~5000m shorter range and a ~50kg heavier warhead.

 

 

53 cm torped 11 did 10,000m @ 30 knots or 5,000m @ 40 knots. Warhead 255kg "novit", which is some proprietary Swedish explosive that is almost completely ungooglable. Don't know what it consists of.

 

45 cm torped m/15 did 7,000m @ 26 knots or 3,000m @ 36 knots, or in modernized form (m/15A) 5,000m @ 31 knots. Warhead 151kg TNT.

 

 

edit: by the way, the 5+3 torpedo tube arrangement on the Halland is a later invention, originally it was 4+4. They changed it to 5+3 to make space for missile launch ramps but that's not relevant for WoWS.

 

AA on the Halland should be pretty okay - it only has 6 40mm Bofors to the Gearing's 12, but it also has a twin 57mm secondary DP turret that should be fairly nasty, in addition to its DP main guns.

[Snowyskies]

Oh, yes, right you are Halland should have 2x4 as that was the original configuration. When it comes to torpedoes I simply add ~20 knots to the real world speed as that seems about inline with that the currently in-game torpedoes gets which would mean 10 km/63 knots for the T14. It wouldn't make it much of a torpedo boat compared to a Shimakaze or Gearing but that's acceptable considering the high rate of fire on the guns.

 

I put T11 for the Norwegian Ålseund but I don't know from who they actually got their torpedoes. Same with Denmark which I gave the m/15, I have no clue as to who they bought their torpedoes from.

 

As for the AA weren't the 40 mm Bofors guns on Halland of the newer design that doubled the rate of fire? So the 6 guns on Halland would be equal to the 12 on Gearing and, as you pointed out, add a potent twin 57 mm gun to that. I have no doubt that it would be a rather potent AA platform as far as destroyers are concerned taken as a whole. Öland isn't quite as good, but ultimately it's not the Swedish ships that I'd be worried about in the AA department.

 

 

Thanks for replying by the way, getting some hard stats for the T14 was nice. Considering you have done at least some research into this in the Swedish archives I'd love to know if you have any more information that you have and would be willing to share. As an example I have a hard time finding any definitive information about the 120 mm guns used on the earlier Ehrensköld -> Visby destroyers. The values I find on the internet are conflicting in almost every respect; different calibres (everything form 44 to 50), shell weight and muzzle velocity. Actually to keep it short I'm curious about all of the naval guns both used and sold by Sweden during this period, hard to find good information about them if the internet is your only source. That also includes the rate of fire for them, the values on Navweaps are suspiciously low. I can accept them as the practical rate of fire, but what could they achieve in trials?

 

Also, as I hadn't asked enough, do you know exactly how the armor layout looked on Tre Kronor? I think I know more or less how it was on Fylgia and Gotland, but Tre Kronor I'm still a bit vague about. Pushing my luck even further ;) supposedly the original idea for Tre Kronor was for a somewhat larger ship with a 3x3 layout, do you know if that design ever made it to the drawing board or was it just talk?

 

I'm drifting quite a bit from the topic, but I just had to ask when I get someone who has done some actual research in the thread, rather than an internet amateur such as myself. I know your focus hasn't been on the navy though so if you don't know any details about all this then so be it.

[renhanxue]

Lots of interesting questions, but unfortunately I can't really answer most of them... I spent only a few hours poking at ship archives and I really don't know much about them. There is a very big and comprehensive book about Swedish destroyers though that I've been thinking I should pick up from the library, but I haven't gotten around to it. The reason I had the torpedo data was because I happened to have come across a pretty comprehensive document with historical details about Swedish torpedoes up to the early 1950's.

 

I don't know anything about the 3x3 Tre Kronor proposal - everything I know indicates that the reason the ships ended up looking like they did was that Bofors had the turrets half-made already (for some foreign customer, don't remember which country - the Netherlands probably?) when the war broke out. I've seen text proposals for three twin turrets but not 3x3.

 

All the archive stuff I've found about Swedish ships is in this open Google Drive folder - everything in Swedish of course but there's quite a lot of drawings.

 

Since I've been more into ships than tanks recently and the Swedish tank tree is basically ready for release now, maybe I should take an archive dive into the ships world again...

[Snowyskies]

Ah, thought it had replied to this but guess not.

 

I don't know anything about the 3x3 Tre Kronor proposal - everything I know indicates that the reason the ships ended up looking like they did was that Bofors had the turrets half-made already (for some foreign customer, don't remember which country - the Netherlands probably?) when the war broke out. I've seen text proposals for three twin turrets but not 3x3.

 

 Navypedia, which generally though no always has accurate information, mentions a 3x3 setup. I kind of remember an article I read that talked about the politics around Tre Kronor and it did paint a picture of it being unclear as to what they really wanted to do, with a lot of back and forth. In that sense a 3x3 being thrown around at some point doesn't seem unreasonable.

Yep, Netherlands was the customer for their two Eendracht (2x2, 2x3 setup) cruisers. That would be enough barrels for two ships with a 3x3 setup at least.

 

All the archive stuff I've found about Swedish ships is in this open Google Drive folder - everything in Swedish of course but there's quite a lot of drawings.

 

Yep, I've had a look through that back when you posted it (which is some time by now). The best source on the internet about Swedish naval designs during that era that I've found

 

Since I've been more into ships than tanks recently and the Swedish tank tree is basically ready for release now, maybe I should take an archive dive into the ships world again...

 

I hope you do someday and then post about it.

[renhanxue]

Hello again! I passed by the national archives library the other day and found some stuff in (among other things) the aforementioned book that may be of interest. See here for a bunch of Swedish naval guns (mainly ones used on destroyers). All rates of fire are practical sustained, not peak.

 

Furthermore:

Ballistic tables for 15,2 cm kanon M/42 (as used on the Tre Kronor class). Muzzle velocity with AP about 880 m/s (better than the Belfast but not on Budyonny's level), theoretical max range 24 km.

 

Armor layout for a few cruisers, Tre Kronor bottom right. (Kvl = konstruktionsvattenlinje = design waterline).

 

Anecdotes etc:

- Four of the six Göteborg class destroyers reached 41 knots in speed trials

- Both Tre Kronor and Göta Lejon exceeded the contract speed of 33 knots in trials, but I don't know by how much.

- On a longer trip (not just a speed run), Tre Kronor averaged 32 knots in open sea between Stockholm and Karlskrona (about 450 km or somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 hours).

- Göta Lejon outran the Soviet cruiser Sverdlov in the North Sea on the way home from the crowning of Elizabeth II in Britain, in 1953.

- The Tre Kronor class had a central AA director for the 15,2cm guns from launch and they could elevate up to +70°.

 

Let me know if you want help interpreting anything.

[Snowyskies]

Hello again! I passed by the national archives library the other day and found some stuff in (among other things) the aforementioned book that may be of interest. See here for a bunch of Swedish naval guns (mainly ones used on destroyers). All rates of fire are practical sustained, not peak.

 

Hi, nice to hear!

 

Okay so the difference between the 12 cm M/24, M/24B and M/24C really does seem to mostly be changes to the mount (shield primarily) rather than the guns themselves. The M/24C having more changes to it overall than the M/24B. I'll take a closer look later but at first glance I'd guess they are 12 cm/45 rather than 12 cm/50 which you can see claims for at some sites (NavWeaps for one). Neither do they look identical to the Dutch 12 cm/50 guns on the Admiralen destroyers (http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/archief/inventaris/gahetnascans/eadid/4.MST/inventarisnr/1851/level/file).

 

On the other hand, 19,3 km with a light 20,3 kg round fired at 790 m/s? Those shells would have to very streamlined and the mount able to elevate to +45° to achieve such a feat.

 

Ballistic tables for 15,2 cm kanon M/42 (as used on the Tre Kronor class). Muzzle velocity with AP about 880 m/s (better than the Belfast but not on Budyonny's level), theoretical max range 24 km.

 

Okay, that's interesting, the values are a bit different from what's found on NavWeaps. Of course the NavWeaps entry for the gun combines the Dutch weapons and the Swedish ones and who knows if they fired the same projectiles. If we trust the NavWeaps values for the guns on Gotland then the Tre Kronor guns had pretty much the same ballistic.

 

It's curious that the HE round (sgr M/30) and the old AP round (stgr M/39) seems to have better ballistic characteristic than the new AP round (pgr M/46) and the SAP round (hpgr M/30). I wonder why that is? As for the Belfast comparison, well, while the muzzle velocity isn't bad it's also a very light round in comparison.

 

Armor layout for a few cruisers, Tre Kronor bottom right. (Kvl = konstruktionsvattenlinje = design waterline).

 

Not an armour scheme optimized for use in World of Warships The 20 mm upper belt isn't much use against anything. Good to finally see how the scheme on Tre Kronor was actually laid out though. Gotland surprises me as well as I recall reading that it had at least 10 mm more side armour than that.

 

Four of the six Göteborg class destroyers reached 41 knots in speed trials

 

Know at which displacement they were run? I've seen claims that they did it at full load displacement which would be quite impressive. Though they were of course quite small ships in comparison to most WW2 era destroyers of the major nations.

 

The Tre Kronor class had a central AA director for the 15,2cm guns from launch and they could elevate up to +70°.

 

Are you sure about this one? In some of the earlier texts you've uploaded they wrote about the mounts and said that a) the triple mount was restricted to +60° and b) the twin mount was restricted to +60°, although it would be possible to modify it to achieve +70°.

The plans of the Dutch cruisers as finished post-war are at least restricted to +60°. (http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/archief/inventaris/gahetnascans/eadid/4.MST/inventarisnr/3338/level/file)

 

 

The Tre Kronor class sure sounds speedy. Quite a dichotomy to the old coast defence ships and the other 30 knots or slower proposed ships.