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

Flotilla leaders small cruisers or large destroyers.

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
33 posts
  • This is a question that keeps popping in to my mind.

 

When you look at the Shimikaze and Akazuki Destroyers they are very large for their classes around 130 meters.

The Atlanta is 160 meters officially a flotilla leader in game as a premium cruiser .

The Dutch Tromp and the Heemskerk are officially flotilla leaders 130 meters.

The amount of guns and size of the guns of these ships would then be one of the more powerful Destroyer classes in game .

Or the most stealthy cruisers in game.  If classified as Destroyer a destroyer tech tree would be more than possible.  Just take a look at the specs of all 3 ship classes and the 2 dutch variants.

Let me know what you think, flotilla leader a cruiser or destroyer.

Akizuki.jpg
Akizuki on trial run off Miyazu Bay on 17 May 1942.
Class overview
Name: Akizuki class
Builders:
Operators:
Subclasses:
  • Akizuki class (Pr. F51)
  • Fuyutsuki class (Pr. F51)
  • Michitsuki class (Pr. F53)
Cost:
  • 12,090,000 JPY in 1939
  • 17,820,400 JPY in 1941
  • 19,194,000 JPY in 1942
Built: 1940–1945
In commission: 1942–1945 (IJN)
Planned: 6 (1939) + 10 (1941) + 23 (1942)
Completed: 12
Cancelled: 20
Lost: 6
Retired: 6
General characteristics (as per Whitley[1])
Type: Destroyer
Displacement:
  • 2,700 long tons (2,743 t) standard
  • 3,700 long tons (3,759 t) full load
Length: 134.2 m (440 ft 3 in) overall
Beam: 11.6 m (38 ft 1 in)
Draught: 4.15 m (13 ft 7 in)
Propulsion:
  • 3 × Ro-Gō Kampon water tube boilers,
  • 2 × Kampon impulse geared turbines,
  • 2 shafts, 52,000 shp (39 MW)
Speed: 33 knots (38 mph; 61 km/h)
Range: 8,000 nmi (15,000 km) at 18 kn (21 mph; 33 km/h)
Complement:
  • 263 (Akizuki in 1942)
  • 315 (Akizuki in October 1944)
Armament:

 

Shimakaze.jpg
Shimakaze underway.
History
42px-Naval_ensign_of_the_Empire_of_JapanEmpire of Japan
Name: Shimakaze (島風) (Island Wind)
Builder: Maizuru Naval Arsenal
Laid down: 8 August 1941
Launched: 18 July 1942
Commissioned: 10 May 1943
Struck: 10 January 1945
Fate: Sunk in the Battle of Ormoc Bay near Cebu, Philippines, 11 November 1944
General characteristics
Class and type: Shimakaze
Type: Destroyer
Displacement:
  • 2,570 long tons (2,610 t) (standard)[1]
  • 3,300 long tons (3,400 t) (full load)[2]
Length:
  • 129.5 m (424 ft 10 in) o/a
  • 126 m (413 ft 5 in) w/l
Beam: 11.2 m (36 ft 9 in)
Draft: 4.15 m (13 ft 7 in)[3]
Installed power: 75,000 shp (56,000 kW)
Propulsion:
Speed: 40.9 kn (75.7 km/h; 47.1 mph)
Range: 6,000 nmi (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 18 kn (33 km/h; 21 mph)
Complement: 267 (May 1943)
Armament:

 

 

Tromp before the war
Tromp in 1936
Class overview
Name: Tromp class
Builders: Nederlandsche Scheepsbouw Mij.
Operators: 22px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png Royal Netherlands Navy
Built: 1936–1940
In commission: 1938–1969
Completed: 2
General characteristics
Type: Flotilla leader
Displacement: 3,350 long tons (3,404 t) standard
Length: 131.95 m (432 ft 11 in)
Beam: 12.43 m (40 ft 9 in)
Draught: 4.32 m (14 ft 2 in)
Propulsion:
  • 2 Parsons geared steam turbines
  • 4 Yarrow boilers
  • 2 shafts
  • 56,000 shp (41,759 kW)
Speed: 32.5 knots (37.4 mph; 60.2 km/h)
Complement:
  • 380 (Tromp)
  • 420 (Jacob van Heemskerk)
Armament:
  • Tromp :
  • 6 × 150 mm (5.9 in) guns (3×2)
  • 4 × 75 mm
  • 8 × 40 mm (4×2)
  • 2 × 20 mm
  • 6 × 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes (2×3)
  • Jacob van Heemskerk :
  • 10 × 102 mm (4 in) guns (5×2)
  • 8 × 40 mm (4×2)
  • 4 × 20 mm
Aircraft carried: 1 × Fokker C.XIW floatplane (Tromp)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DMAS]
Beta Tester
304 posts
2,220 battles

Considering that moving DDs to cruisers would be a nerf. I'd say don't move them.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,159 posts
4 minutes ago, rigawe said:

Considering that moving DDs to cruisers would be a nerf. I'd say don't move them.

 

 

Too true, the last thing a DD needs is a citadel, they have so little armour and such a small HP pool as it is they would just be even more comedy deletion targets than the current cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,377 posts
11,978 battles

That's a problem with the difference between real life and the game. In real life the borders between ship classes are fluid (Graf Spee says hi), in the game the ship classes are rigid.

Tromp for example is very similar to the  Z-23 and could easily be balanced around a long reload of 7,5s. Making the ship a cruiser would put it on the bottom of the list, as it would be a very weakly armed light cruiser compared to ships like Fiji or La Galissonniere.

Besides the ships, from the stats you provided, would be very lumbering in game. And that's a massive problem for destroyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
33 posts

its also worth to mention the heemskerk caried british guns that only fired 102 mm HE shells  20 rounds a minute , and if we look at the the British origin DDs in game and their guns . this would mean the heemskerk would fire 200 shells a minute with a fire chance of 11%  would make them an interesting dd killer.

 

The tromp would be interesting to as its small frame and heavy guns and advanced fire controll would be a verry acurate ambush ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
33 posts
2 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

That's a problem with the difference between real life and the game. In real life the borders between ship classes are fluid (Graf Spee says hi), in the game the ship classes are rigid.

Tromp for example is very similar to the  Z-23 and could easily be balanced around a long reload of 7,5s. Making the ship a cruiser would put it on the bottom of the list, as it would be a very weakly armed light cruiser compared to ships like Fiji or La Galissonniere.

Besides the ships, from the stats you provided, would be very lumbering in game. And that's a massive problem for destroyers.

The akizuki has the same problem low speed compared to other DDs  but still its an interesting thing to think about . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,427 posts
15,503 battles

Small scout cruisers should be balanced as cruisers and large destroyers/destroyer leaders should be balanced as destroyers. :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AXIS]
Beta Tester
4,074 posts
17,364 battles

Many RU DDs from game were in fact flotilla leaders, USSR did not have the proper technology for naval guns, so many of their ships were undergunned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,377 posts
11,978 battles
5 minutes ago, HNMLS_Bloyesvantreslong said:

The akizuki has the same problem low speed compared to other DDs  but still its an interesting thing to think about . 

 

 

Have you played it? Because from my experience the Akizuki, for all it's firepower, suffers when fighting players in ships like the Kidd.

And it can easily be countered by a wall of skill. It's still a powerful ship, but it doesn't faceroll people in other DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OSC]
Players
2,735 posts
10,307 battles
10 minutes ago, 22cm said:

Many RU DDs from game were in fact flotilla leaders, USSR did not have the proper technology for naval guns, so many of their ships were undergunned.


You must be mistaken.
This historicly accurate game have shown us that USSR had best ships with best gun / shell characteristics in history of naval warfare.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DMAS]
Beta Tester
304 posts
2,220 battles
13 minutes ago, cro_pwr said:


You must be mistaken.
This historicly accurate game have shown us that USSR had best ships with best gun / shell characteristics in history of naval warfare.

Considering they also made some of the best, Light, medium and heavy tank. I don't see any problem.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
33 posts
29 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

 

Have you played it? Because from my experience the Akizuki, for all it's firepower, suffers when fighting players in ships like the Kidd.

And it can easily be countered by a wall of skill. It's still a powerful ship, but it doesn't faceroll people in other DDs.

True , that is why i made this thread to discus what ships like flotila leaders fit in to.

This makes them iteresting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,314 posts
7,730 battles
49 minutes ago, cro_pwr said:


You must be mistaken.
This historicly accurate game have shown us that USSR had best ships with best gun / shell characteristics in history of naval warfare.

Best gun on paper, in practice barrel life expectancy was little underwhelming:Smile_smile:

 

But hey, such trivial bits like reliability can be ommited when you're tasked with developing new gun, which is expected to be better than Capitalist counterparts and main reward is NOT getting tickets to gulag holiday resort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
[WG-EU]
WG Staff, Community, Alpha Tester
3,424 posts
6,302 battles

Historically there were two approaches to destroyer flotilla leader concepts (which never really worked to user's satisfaction):

  • large destroyers
  • small cruisers

 

The first concept had kinda problem in trying to keep the destroyer speed and size, with heavier gun armament and usually did lead to compromises (usually ships that were rather top heavy, in case of American interwar classes also in removing one of main advantages of the 5"/38 gun and making them low angle only). 

Additionally, with increasing size of destroyers the flotilla leaders often soon lagged behind (just take the Destroyer Leader project from 1919 - in game as Nicholas - in its original form with 5"/51 SP guns and compare to the Farragut). Especially once the Japanese turned tables on everyone with "Special Type" destroyers (Fubuki and her follow-ups) and everyone quickly upped the ante with large fleet destroyers.

 

From the other end the results were often rather anemic cruisers who again had to make a lot of compromises, in speed and armament. Case in point being Japanese light cruisers, which spent most of the war tied up in port, as unless it was really necessary the destroyer squadron commanders preferred to move their flag for actual combat operations to one of their destroyers.

Atlanta class is kinda special - she started as destroyer leader design as well and initial plans called for dual purpose 6" twin guns, supplemented by 5"/38. As the design lagged, it was decided to go for the all 5" design instead which meant that she had trouble fulfilling her surface role (as one of goals for DD leaders was to have bigger caliber and thus more range and destructive power than any enemy DD). Surface engagements off  Solomons shown the issue with the cruiser too light to fight and too heavy to run, so they were relegated to the AA role.

 

In game, the DD leaders would have to be split along the same lines - hence large destroyers being stuck with DD branches and small cruisers in cruiser branches. Still, there are many interesting ships in this category on both sides of the divde so I hope we'll manage to add some more :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
2,002 posts
24,078 battles

Small ships like Tromp have some armour and are better used in cruiser low tier, an excellent T4 IMO. Sweden was very impressed and thought that a slighly heavier variant was suitable, and had serious plans to build 5-6 of them to accompay their smaller destroyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
6 hours ago, Aragathor said:

 

Have you played it? Because from my experience the Akizuki, for all it's firepower, suffers when fighting players in ships like the Kidd.

And it can easily be countered by a wall of skill. It's still a powerful ship, but it doesn't faceroll people in other DDs.

Aki has to pick the right time to start shooting.

 

A Kidd isn't necessarily stronger as she has less DPM and less rof. In a straight fight to the death an Aki would come out on top.

 

Of course the Aki finds it difficult to disengage due to huge size, slow speed and sucky rudder.

 

Play as the 2nd line DD supporting the Spotter is where the Aki belongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AXIS]
Beta Tester
4,074 posts
17,364 battles
6 hours ago, Tuccy said:

...

 

Destroyers grew in size during and after the WW1, during and after WW2, so it s more complicated.

Generally a destroyer was a ship over 1000 t but below 2000 t, very fast 30-35 knots, and, characteristic, with single gun turrets (dual mounts were cruiser-type or heavier) and very little armor or no armor at all.

Below 1000 t were frigates and escort destroyers, and over 2000-2500 tones started light cruisers. But light cruisers grew also until 5000 t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,427 posts
15,503 battles

Arethusa, De Ruyter and Émile Bertin are the smallest ships I'd give cruiser MM (~7000 tons full load)

 

Historically WG should balance Tromp as a tier 8-9 destroyer, like Z-23 or Agile. Don't chuck her in with WW1 ships at tier 4.

5 hours ago, Tuccy said:

 

Additionally, with increasing size of destroyers the flotilla leaders often soon lagged behind (just take the Destroyer Leader project from 1919 - in game as Nicholas - in its original form with 5"/51 SP guns and compare to the Farragut).

 

A-hull Nicholas is arguably better than C-hull Farragut for anti DD duties and Jian Wei can beat up Gallant. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
33 posts

The tromp , i agree on it also caries a good amount of AA,

So where would you place the Heemskerk same ship instead of torps and 150 mm guns it carried 10 british made 102 mm Dual purpose guns which only fire HE shells and even more impresive AA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×