StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What about the higher tier destroyers makes them so awful? I assume they become too flimsy to the rate of fire that cruisers put out, which is somewhat the case even at a lower tier, but may be more pronounced later on when their torpedo effectiveness is dropped versus the cannonades of enemy vessels. They still seem like they should be good for something though.

Nephtys wrote:I find even with a Minekaze, your biggest successes (sinking BBs or multihits on cruisers) still are 4km launches where there's no real margin for evasion.

Yeah, the long range torpedoes tend to be slow, so sensible captains who do not drive in straight lines can avoid them.

Obviously, sensible captains who do not drive in straight lines are not in ready supply (even at high tiers because they can drive their Tirpitz in straight lines too!), but the principle is the same.

Covenant wrote:What about the higher tier destroyers makes them so awful? I assume they become too flimsy to the rate of fire that cruisers put out, which is somewhat the case even at a lower tier, but may be more pronounced later on when their torpedo effectiveness is dropped versus the cannonades of enemy vessels. They still seem like they should be good for something though.

Tier for tier they're basically not as good as the Minekaze. Not as stealthy and not usually as effectively armed for their tier. It's not that they're "worse", but that the power curve for destroyers as you up tier is flatter than other ships.

Covenant wrote:What about the higher tier destroyers makes them so awful? I assume they become too flimsy to the rate of fire that cruisers put out, which is somewhat the case even at a lower tier, but may be more pronounced later on when their torpedo effectiveness is dropped versus the cannonades of enemy vessels. They still seem like they should be good for something though.

The main problem is aircraft. Higher tiers have lots of aircraft which spots them reliably. And a good CV will just have some fighters or dive bombers trailing a DD if it gets spotted close to the fleet.

Second problem is that higher tier BBs are by and large no idiots and regularly change speed and course. Thus, you have to get in close.

Third problem: Certain BBs have good secondaries (nagato) or fast-traversing guns (Tirpitz). Thus you cannot just go <4km and broadside them. So at high tiers - unless you are in islands - you have to do long-range sniping.

At lower tiers (up to 5) the DDs are overpowered, beyond that they are not that much of a threat.

Data for the German cruisers has been posted.

I'll leave the comments regarding the values to more experienced players.

They claim they will be brawlers but they have the worst armor values of all cruisers
Their AA is mediocre until Tier IX and X, when it turns into the best AA in the entire game
They disregarded the German decision to not have triple turrets due to their bad experiences
Rate of fire is awesome, but damage is quite low on most shells.
Range is awesome, more like BB range.
Torps suck due to only 6km range

So overall a mixed cat of bags and looking like combining the worst of the US and Japanese lines. I can't see them being brawlers because most of their advantages - rate of fire and range - seems more suited to long range fire. But that is kinda screwed by the bad shell damage. So...I don't know what exactly they are supposed to be good for except for Carrier killing post Tier IX.


Better review than my scribblings, ignore the bad bavarian at the start, after 20 seconds it starts in English.

Let's say I really really want a South Dakota (1942) when the next USN BB line is announced - should I stockpile XP on my New York (if the next ship is one of the earlier Standards, Nevada probably) or on my New Mexico (again leading to another Standard, Tennessee?) WHich do you reckon has better odds of being the node for the split?

AniThyng wrote:Let's say I really really want a South Dakota (1942) when the next USN BB line is announced - should I stockpile XP on my New York (if the next ship is one of the earlier Standards, Nevada probably) or on my New Mexico (again leading to another Standard, Tennessee?) WHich do you reckon has better odds of being the node for the split?

What is this about a split?

I can't remember if it's confirmed or not, but the trees that have enough unique ships for more than one tree- US BBs for example -may end up with a second tree.

Yeah, but not in a year or so. Besides, why don't you want to drive the NC or Iowa? They are awesome. NC makes you feel like a massive plane-smiting torpedo dodging BB with the right skills and AA upgrades and Iowa is a tough, quick ship with great artillery and armor angling.

Montana and Colorado less so admittedly. But then in general the whole US line up to the NC feels underwhelming and underpowered to me. Currently grinding the Japanese line and they handle far better and have far better artillery - and because they are not that wide and very agile/quick you can easily dodge torps.

At least up to T5, I prefer the Japanese too. Kongo is a beast, while New York is...good, but just not as good. My opinion might change when it comes to Amagi v. NC and on though. It'll be some time till I get that far though.

Personally, the main reason I have to look forward to the split in the US line is the original South Dakota. I'm interested in seeing how that ship plays. That, and if they bring in the original Lexington design (Constellation in game maybe?).

I love my Kongo but I am very inconsistent with it. But I am getting better.

I previously was horribly frustrated with the South Carolina, then decided I didn't want to sail at 20 knots until the North Carolinas. So I tried to swap to the IJN line.

Good grief. The Kawachi's guns are the least accurate thing I've ever seen. Despite a pitiful range of 8km, I literally cannot hit immobile targets at 5!

Yeaaahhh...that's why I free xp'd to the Myogi myself.

Nephtys wrote:I previously was horribly frustrated with the South Carolina, then decided I didn't want to sail at 20 knots until the North Carolinas. So I tried to swap to the IJN line.

Good grief. The Kawachi's guns are the least accurate thing I've ever seen. Despite a pitiful range of 8km, I literally cannot hit immobile targets at 5!

I've consider the South Carolina to be worse. Longer range, but good god, that dispersion of a full salvo... Happy to be in a Wyoming now. Will probably go up the japanese cruisers (except for the Myogi) and US battleship tree.

A question, are XPs assigned by nation ? While I qualified for the Wyoming, I couldn't acquire the Kuma for the same price.

they are assigned by ships, except for free XP (golden number right top of screen in port) which can be used for everything.

Thanas wrote:they are assigned by ships, except for free XP (golden number right top of screen in port) which can be used for everything.

That's even worse, so I basically have to play the precursor to go on.
At least the Tenryu is fun, although I get sunk regularily during torpedo runs. Should probably switch to destroyers.

yeah you don't want to do a torp run unless its close combat or islands and the other guy has messed up. Because driving a Cruiser directly towards a BB is just a nice juicy gift.

Thanas wrote:Yeah, but not in a year or so. Besides, why don't you want to drive the NC or Iowa? They are awesome. NC makes you feel like a massive plane-smiting torpedo dodging BB with the right skills and AA upgrades and Iowa is a tough, quick ship with great artillery and armor angling.

Montana and Colorado less so admittedly. But then in general the whole US line up to the NC feels underwhelming and underpowered to me. Currently grinding the Japanese line and they handle far better and have far better artillery - and because they are not that wide and very agile/quick you can easily dodge torps.

I like the look of south Dakota, particularly compared to NC. I'll be happy to run any of the reconstructed post pearl harbor standards too.

Nephtys wrote:I previously was horribly frustrated with the South Carolina, then decided I didn't want to sail at 20 knots until the North Carolinas. So I tried to swap to the IJN line.

Good grief. The Kawachi's guns are the least accurate thing I've ever seen. Despite a pitiful range of 8km, I literally cannot hit immobile targets at 5!

Yes Kawachi is terrible but the Myogi and especially the Kongo are much better. Kongo is quite good infact.

Thanas wrote:They claim they will be brawlers but they have the worst armor values of all cruisers

Welcome to German naval design in WW2, armored like crap no matter how huge and bloated it got like the Hipper class. Since the designers are insisting on using real armor values whenever known, while never telling anyone how much armor guns can penetrate, that's just the way life is going to be.

They disregarded the German decision to not have triple turrets due to their bad experiences

Utter hoards of German paper designs used triple and quadruple turrets and kept doing so until the end of Nazi ship designing. The Germans never actually had bad experiences with triple turrets either, just a bunch of Nazi goosesteppers whom showed up at a key point and turned the naval design offices into a barracks.

darthkommandant wrote:

Nephtys wrote:I previously was horribly frustrated with the South Carolina, then decided I didn't want to sail at 20 knots until the North Carolinas. So I tried to swap to the IJN line.

Good grief. The Kawachi's guns are the least accurate thing I've ever seen. Despite a pitiful range of 8km, I literally cannot hit immobile targets at 5!

Yes Kawachi is terrible but the Myogi and especially the Kongo are much better. Kongo is quite good infact.

Kongo and Fuso are amazing. In fact, even the Nagato is substantially better than the Colorado. Up until the NC every Japanese ship is much better. NC and Iowa are better than their counterparts (though it is close with the Amagi) but the Yamato wipes everything. So clear advantage up to Tier VIII and then again in Tier X.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Utter hoards of German paper designs used triple and quadruple turrets and kept doing so until the end of Nazi ship designing. The Germans never actually had bad experiences with triple turrets either, just a bunch of Nazi goosesteppers whom showed up at a key point and turned the naval design offices into a barracks.

They did however prefer the dual turrets whenever possible for easier firecontrol I think.

They did however prefer the dual turrets whenever possible for easier firecontrol I think.

Also due to the fear of putting all their eggs in one basket. The German Navy was afraid that if they did triple or even quadruple turrets (like in the King George V), that a single well-placed hit could knock out nearly half of their firepower.

Which definitely will be a problem in WoWs, as turret hits happen quite a lot. Just three days ago I knocked two turrets out of the Lolorado with a single salvo in my Nagato.

Borgholio wrote: Also due to the fear of putting all their eggs in one basket. The German Navy was afraid that if they did triple or even quadruple turrets (like in the King George V), that a single well-placed hit could knock out nearly half of their firepower.

Funny enough Bismarck then had two turrets knocked out by a single 16in hit from HMS Rodney! This shell burst between the armor decks too, meaning that it is entirely possible and even likely that had she not had her asstarded upper belt system it might not have detonated. It appears destruction of poorly placed power cables was the cause of this failure but nobody is sure. B turret later managed to fire a single salvo, 25 minutes later, probably via manual operation.

But you know, she was ton for ton probably the worst battleship of WW2 so what do we expect. Didn't have the horrendous armor deck step flaw of Scharnhorst, but at least Scharnhorst was a ship that wasn't thousands and thousands of tons above the treaty limit with nothing to show for it like Bismarck was.

As for the fire control issue, I have never seen a real source for that claim, ever or any real indication that the Germans considered it more or less of an issue then other naval powers, all of whom had reservations about triples, yet all of whom went and adapted them anyway for the enormous weight economy (German turrets were lightly armored too). It seems to just be repeated over and over from Garzke and Dulin, who's books while good efforts have proven much less then reliable for both axis and allied ships. And even they state that another reason given was actually to have more aft firepower; which would be reasonable in view of constantly needing to run away from RN ships, and also that the issue was simply never given a serious debate by the naval high command. Bismarck and the Hipper class were designed during the period in which Hitler was consolidating power, and both were horrendously inefficient designs, to the point of comedy for Hipper, so its not hard to surmise that the system was simply not functioning in a rational manner.

Another possibility that is not from documentation but fairly logical, because everyone else struggled with it, was the Germans may have been concerned about the thickness of the TDS abreast A turret if it were a triple. They used a fairly thick and non tapering TDS, though the actual design was poor. On the other hand since Bismarck ended up very beamy because she was so damn big, and her draft had to be limited for German ports and docks, its hard to see this as having been all that critical.

Unlike other powers that even hell, Italy, tried to keep closer to the actual treaty limits, Germany just let the design grow as big as they wanted, they may have simply decided to do WTF they wanted when political admirals ordered it. No matter how dumb, and how pathetic of a 50,000 ton ship it produced at what cost. It really says something that an Iowa is only 7,000 tons heavier full load, and about 3,000 tons more standard! The disparity in those figures being largely because of the enormous fuel tankage built into Iowa too.

Left to a free hand its very clear German designers would use triples, as on the K class cruisers, the pocket battleships, Scharnhorst (even in far different designs predating the decision to actually reuse turrets, it was always triples), the P class project, and indeed the later pair of Hipper's were supposed to have 15cm triples but this was changed around 1938 to all ships having the 203mm armament. The O class had twins, but they had a logical reason for reusing Bismarck class turrets, and were also comically horrendous designs with 34 knot speed but armor on par with that of early British battlecruisers and not liked by the KM high command by the time they were done being drawn and modded by Hitler linked suggestions for more speed. A number of paper cruisers and hybrid carriers drawn through 1944 had triples and quads.

Thanas wrote:Which definitely will be a problem in WoWs, as turret hits happen quite a lot. Just three days ago I knocked two turrets out of the Lolorado with a single salvo in my Nagato.

The games decision to allow so many temporary incapacities is certainly annoying. I have no idea what that is supposed to be based on. We know from actual combat that a mere 5in armor for example can completely stop 14in HE rounds. It happened. Also that nearly any kind of hit which leads to a shell bursting into or within a turret was simply going to kill everyone inside, from gas poisoning if nothing else.

On the other hand the firing ranges in the game are generally pretty short in naval terms, and in that case a pretty high percentage of hits on turrets and barbettes would be expected as they are pretty large targets for horizontal fire. It isn't for nothing that they were generally armored better then the belt and decks; though this was not often the case on German ships. In a true long range plunging battle the turret roofs generally aren't as big of targets as the barbettes are for horizontal fire. So a fair number of turrets being knocked out for good should occur, but all the damn disablements should not.

Sea Skimmer wrote:But you know, she was ton for ton probably the worst battleship of WW2 so what do we expect.

The usual trope I've read is that is caused because the German designers had to base the design on the Mackensen's due to not being able to design in proper for ~20yrs due to Versaille. How true is that? How much weight could be saved with a proper DP secondary battery (say of 4.5"-5") and an AoN armour scheme?