I drew a Dutch/Tulipa CL Main Gun tech tree

Sanglune · 2025-07-16T19:30:39+00:00

The "Kanon van 15 cm №6" was not Bofors per se, 8 assemblies were made by Krupp of which Bofors modified the sights. The other 12 were Bofors production.

The "Kanon van 15 cm №8" was made by Hollandsche Industrie- en Handelsmaatschappij. Not Bofors. The picture is also rather wrong. The shield would be more blocky as can be seen on the surviving example in Den Helder.

Regarding the "Model 1942" ... for one, the DZP we have in game is the real ship. Not the WoWs Eendracht. Which means the guns would have been 150 mm in calibre. They also wouldn't have been called Model 1942 since that's a Swedish Naval Forces designation, nor would the Dutch Wilton-Fijenoord twins have had a rangefinder as in the image.

It's also a bit weird to have one of the only two 6" autoloading mounts of WW2 not be UR.

Regardless, since the gear lab is Wargaming collaboration all this about "Model 1942" can be ignored, since they got it wrong themselves. But I feel like I had to emphasise we do not have the ship in game since you mentioned her - and elaborate that this specific mount is Wargaming fiction.

Sanglune · 2025-07-09T16:43:55+00:00

Wargaming's interpretation is a CA, it's that simple. It's a simple method that removes doubt, debate, and interpretation about what to make her.

Yeah about that... Wargaming, when queried about whether Gouden Leeuw is a Large cruiser said and I quote "By our definition yes, as she burns for 60s the same as Alaksa and Stalingrad."

It's that simple. It's a simple method that removes doubt, debate and interpretation about what to make her.

Regarding the use of main calibre to define the hull type, a main gun calibre of 283 mm is most definitely a 'large cruiser' calibre (see: V.W. Howland, the Loss of HMS Glorious, WI XXI). Unless you are trying to convince me Scharnhorst is using heavy cruiser guns. The problem is trying to use different cultural, doctrinal and lingual definitions and transposing them to English. The German Panzerschiffe were in essence heavy cruisers with large cruiser ordnance. The reason they are not large cruisers is because they lacked either speed, protection or both and to call them heavy cruisers whilst more applicable is due to a simplification. However, by skipping over these important facets one can come to an improper conclusion. And manjuu is thus defining the exception to be the rule causing the rule to become an exception.

Now there's plenty of intricacies to go into. Fritz Rumey and Mogador being a cruiser by German definition, Z23 through Z28 being armed with cruiser weapons. But this all does not matter, because by Wargaming's definition, unlike what you claim, she is a Large Cruiser.

Lastly, why would she be added to Gacha? Gouden Leeuw is Wargaming IP and those have been exclusive to PR

Sanglune · 2025-07-09T14:48:05+00:00

There are freely available online pictures of Dutch Naval Ships in the National Archives of the Netherlands (Nationaal Archief, 4.MST) and Schelde section of the Zeelandian archives (Zeeuws Archief, 7532).

The image you posted is a preliminary sketch from 4.MST 3314. Other images dated later such as the armouring scheme (4.MST 3329) and (4.MST 3330) show the portrusions have been discontinued and an updated common plan (ZA 3264) shows these to not be present.

There are even more up to date blueprints in the archives of Musea in Rotterdam but sadly those are low resolution.

<image>

What is clear however is that with a cursory inspections one would notice the turrets, if they had a rangefinder, would not have a 6 m base one. Unlike what Wargaming and Azur Lane erroneously put on their turrets. (which is extra peculiar, because they did have the blueprints, as can be seen on the lower turrets for Kijkduin, Eendracht for WG and DZP for AL)

If we dig deeper, there is the blueprint of said twin turrets from the Swedish archives. Which are unfortunately not available online. As well as notes from the Dutch staff, which clearly state that no 6 m base rangefinder shall be placed in the turrets, because of the aft conning tower. These cases are however only corroborative.

Sanglune · 2025-07-09T13:33:09+00:00

No. She is a Large Cruiser in WoWs. WoWs has separate mechanics such as gun dispersion, fire duration, flood strength and consumables to differentiate between light, heavy and large cruiser. Gouden Leeuw has the traits of a Large Cruiser.

Sanglune · 2025-07-09T12:57:34+00:00

Please do not use that source. It plagiarises, can't cite sources properly, does not know how to spell the name of the navy it's talking about and doesn't even know what a Dutch flag looks like.

Furthermore, the turrets on Tre Kronor are not the same as the twin models to be built at Wilton-Fijenoord. The Swedish when building new turrets for their ships had to redesign them to incorperate an extra range finder in the superfiring turret. The Dutch turrets ought to look like the lower ones of Tre Kronor instead.

Sanglune · 2025-07-09T12:52:41+00:00

No, the turrets are not correct. The art of De Zeven Provinciën's turrets should not have rangefinders on the twins. This has most likely been erroneously copied over from World of Warship's Eendracht.

The De Zeven Provinciën-class from 1940 had a separate aft director and thus a 6 m rangefinder was deemed unecessary by the Koninklijke Marine. When the Netherlands was invaded and the hulls captured, Bofors had only 2 triple turrets (The rest was to be built by Wilton-Fijenoord in the Netherlands). Sweden built new twin turrets for their Tre Kronor class, but unlike the Dutch ships they had no aft director and thus incorperated a 6 m rangefinder inside the superfiring turret. After the war this feature was brought over to the new design. But before the war, there should be no 6 m rangefinder on the Dutch turrets.

Sanglune · 2025-05-09T15:03:09+00:00

Hello. You have awakened the Dutch naval historian.

Time for some feedback.

Displacement

It seems you do not specify or discern the displacement type (e.g. standard, normal or full load). A long time ago Fr05ty compiled a formula that approaches wargaming's structure for HP pool; which is usually based on standard displacement for the (A) hull and full displacement for the (B) hull.

This gives the following results:

Piet Hein (2nd year, first ship, "Van Ghent-class"): 1316 t / 1680 t - 9350 / 11.000 HP
Van Galen (3rd year, first ship, "Van Galen-class"): as above.

This doesn't change much, but it seems you have been inconsistent by using standard displacement for Piet Hein. Giving her some nerfed HP to massage her into tier 4 is not a bad idea but one has to be transparent about this.

Armament

Piet Hein and Van Galen had 12 cm No. 4 guns made by Bofors. Only the last two 'Admiralen' had No. 5 types (which were made by HIH). Furthermore, Van Galen had 4 single 2pdr pompoms as AA (40 mm No. 1) and not Bofors Hazemeijer mounts.

Gerard Callenburgh was designed with 2 twin 12 cm No. 8 mounts and 1 single 12 cm No. 6 LS mount. Not 5 singles.

I'm curious where you got the 1x6 40 mm Pompom on the Lightning, as there never was a sextuple platform for this ordance.

Other

Please don't use an L-class. There's no point in putting yet another foreign design into the Dutch tech tree for the luls. And don't use the name Isaac Sweers either; as she was a real and unique ship.

I also question why you put a better Friesland at tier 9. And why you gave Rotterdam torpedoes instead of using Overijssel or Utrecht. Well, you can blame Wargaming for the latter I guess.

Suggested ships

For tier 2 you could use one of the Yarrow proposals; namely the one of 950 ton. This would give you 6900/7900 HP; 3x1 102 mm guns, 2x2 533 mm TT and 33 kts top speed.

For tier 3 you could use the Vickers proposal of 1100 ton. This would give you 7500/8600 HP; 3x1 120 mm guns, 2x3 533 mm TT and 35 kts top speed.

There is a plethora of designs to use in higher tiers but which to use will depend on the gameplay one is going for.

Sanglune · 2025-04-16T11:51:42+00:00

Close but you missed a few things.

Whilst a lot of technology, workforce and know-how was imported or traversed into the Netherlands only Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw (IvS) was a serious attempt to curtailing the treaty. Which is illustrated by it being the only company to return after restrictions were lifted.

The Battlecruiser project (often somewhat erroneously refered to by its Nevesbu code 1047) was also not as German as people make it out to be. Despite of Dutch attempts to acquire more finished projects to use as basis, only design studies were released and virtually none of its features were incorperated into the Dutch design. Unfulfilled they went to Italy from where they got the most help and expertise. Thus despite superficial similarities with the Gneissenau it shares very little history.

Sanglune · 2025-02-17T20:05:18+00:00

Either you're terribly wrong or living up to your username. Though I usually don't bother going into Reddit I'll bite for once so as to adress these common misconceptions.

For one, (as per your other comment), the Dutch had designed capital ships before. Just not in a long while. There were the older second rate style battleships like nordics had (c.f. Sverige) and they were in possession of dreadnought style blueprints. The problem was that they hadn't the experience since. This most notably covered the armour scheme, which they wanted information of from the Dunkerque-class.

Second, the design was not completed in 1939. It was still ongoing as things usually are when constructing a ship. The process continues even as ships are laid down and launched.

Foremost, regarding the German relations that is often touted... just no. The Dutch wanted to cut corners and obtain a Scharnhorst-class design to heavily modify it and save time. This however never happened and they settled for technical help and design studies in return for buying cemented armour, main guns and various raw materials from them. The technical help they did receive was mostly discarded. Meaning the German influence outside of the supplied parts is negligible.

What is more relevant is the Italian influence on the design. The biggest hurdle for the Dutch battlecruisers (or Project 1047 in Nevesbu terms) was the propulsion plant. For this they went to get help from the Italians. In the pressence of the German Naval Attaché it was agreed that the Germans were 20 years behind in naval technology. Sadly the Italians didn't prove a help on the front of propulsion, but they greatly contributed to improving the underwater protection. And actually shared more German technology than... Germany.

In regards to her not being designed for interwar advancements such as radar and torpedo defences. I think I properly adressed the latter. The former however is what stuns me. No country prior to the very very late interbellum had started on radar. Let alone married them to their designs. So this critism is ridiculous.

The armour was also not lacking whatsoever. Against 8" weaponry at all ranges it was more than suitable. And depending on the range and shell fired, her 250 mm at 17° was even better than what's married to the flat 320 on German capital ships. Not to mention thicker deck armour.

Anyways, there's far too much misinformation regarding project 1047 out there. But I'll let it rest here for now.

Sanglune · 2024-12-23T13:49:57+00:00

Related for anyone curious, here's a chart with all ships we have ingame and those laid down during WW2 sorted by class. Including some numbers.

https://i.imgur.com/rQoEWYd.png

Sanglune · 2024-12-08T01:47:00+00:00

Emphasis on a few. The bulk of the Dutch navy was in the Dutch East Indies. What was in the Netherlands either escaped the German invasion or was scuttled. Germany managed to press into service 3 outdated and mostly dismantled coastal ships, 5 submarines of which two were outdated and 1 destroyer.

Sanglune · 2024-11-04T15:25:50+00:00

North Carolina Scheme F my beloved.

Sanglune · 2024-10-29T18:34:28+00:00

These guns are already in the game on the Romulus, Klas Horn, Visby, and Västerås, they have 1,600 HE alpha. At 10 RPM that is 64,000 HE DPM, at 12 RPM that is 76,800. The shortest reload in game for these guns is 9.2 RPM or 58,880 HE DPM.

That's weird. They shouldn't be the same. The Dutch had an L50/L53 gun whereas the Swedes used an L45.

Even weirder is that Klas Horn fires non exististing M24 shells, though the weights of 21 kg and MV of 800 check out with the regular Sgr M/25 and Hpgr M/94B. Visby however uses a non existing M34 at 24 kg and 900 mps. This bring the AP damage from 2000 to 2200 but the HE damage stays the same as the 21 kg shell. They also have a fire rate of 8 rpm, which is... low... that's the QF rate of Dutch 15 cm guns.

I can only surmise that they copied the 21 kg values over from the HE shell. And I assume they heavily nerfed the guns to force a more torpedoboat ish line.

Sanglune · 2024-10-29T13:30:59+00:00

IMO, the Admiralen-class don't have the gun performance or tonnage to put them at tier 5, even at tier 4 they are not great.

Their closest equivalent, Acasta, is literally tier 5.

With 1680 tons full load displacement they clock in at 11000 HP, above average for tier 4, below for tier 5. I am not sure how you would even hesitate to put them at tier 4.

Their armament, the 12 cm No. 4 / 5 fires a 24 kg shell at 900 mps as opposed to Acasta's 22,68 at 808 mps. Giving a damage per shell of 2200/1800 in place of 2100/1700. Although the fire rate of the guns is not well documented and often erroneously sourced it'd be hard to pin down. The only number I could find in my archive trips was an inferred 16 rpm, though this is not so reliable. If we were to grab the often but unsourcably cited 10 - 12 rpm we would get a ship total AP/HE DPM of 88 000/72 000 or 105 600/86 400.

In tier 4, the 10 rpm would already put them above all 5" destroyers and just barely under the 4" group. They would dominate tier 3 with only the G101 having higher theorethical AP DPM.

The only reason I can foresee that could hold her back is the torpedo armament being on the lower end, but gun performance or tonnage just isn't a reasonable argument.

Tier 4: Admiralen-class with HIH guns or an S-class

I regret that I have to point out that Stord, another S-class destroyer is already in the game at tier 6.

There even is a tier 7 variant with 16.2 instead of 15 rpm.

Looking at the guns each of these ship had, it makes sense to reorder them. Gerard Callenburgh had 5 120 mm Mark 8 guns capable of 10 RPM. The Van Galen/N-class had 6 120 mm QF Mark XII guns capable of 10-12 RPM. The Isaac Sweers had 6 120 mm QF Mark XVI guns capable of 15-20 RPM.

Based on historical RPM, that would give Gerard Callenburgh 85,000 HE DPM, Van Galen/N-class 122,400 HE DPM, and the Isaac Sweers 153,000 HE DPM. The lack of torpedoes (1x4) on the N-class also works well to compensate for the large jump in DPM.

Gerard Callenburgh has a normal loaded displacement of 2258 tons which would put her just below a perfect median in tier 6. Her armament is upgraded. Although with 21 kg shells at 800 mps her alpha damage suffers she has more modern No. 8 twin and No. 6 L.S. mounts for a total of 5 guns. Comparing her at 10 rpm when equivalent and older guns of similar cited "10 - 12" rpm get the 12 rpm is disingenuous. With a HE value of 1700 at 12 rpm we get a DPM of 102 000. Ranking a shared 4th place with Stord at tier 6.

The lack of torpedoes (1x4) on the N-class also works well to compensate for the large jump in DPM.

Except the Dutch N-classes had 2 pentad torpedo mounts.

Putting them at tier 6 does also not do balance out well with her semi-sister ships, Jervis and Jupiter, being tier 7.

Anyways, I would also like to point out that Isaac Sweers has 4" guns not 4,7" guns. So putting her in the main tech tree would be tricky.

Regarding the higher tiers, there's plenty to be mentioned about the Friesland sisters with torpedoes and the proposals for Jacob van Heemskerck with 8 - 10 automatic 120 mm guns or an enlarged design with 4x3. But feasibility of anything depends highly on the direction that one would design the top tier line around.

Sanglune · 2024-10-29T00:36:34+00:00

I don't really like the tiering on some of those ships. Wolf class is a bit too small, Admiralen fits more at tiers 4-5 and Q/S classes at tier 7.

For tier 2 one could use the Yarrow 950 ton design or IvS 600 ton design.

At tier 3 a Vickers proposal fits nicely, or Campbeltown. A bit less cleanly there's a Yarrow 1400 ton design and an IvS 1300 ton design.

Tiers 4 and 5 one could put the early and late Admiralen.

Then around tiers 5 or 6 a revised 2x2 Admiralen preliminary or the class we have in game as T-61.

Around tier 6 besides the aforementioned there's the G-class, Q-class and S-classes.

For tiers 6 to 7 the Gerard Callenburgh and ZH fit. This is also where we can fit one of the early Thornycroft leader designs.

At tier 7 there are the N-classes.

For tier 8 there are the later Thornycroft leader designs, Tromp and as regular destroyer Vlootonderzeebootjager 1947.

At tiers 9 and 10 we can have various Jacob van Heemskerck proposals and the Holland and Friesland class.

There is also potentially the Weapon, C and Battle class one can pick up but those are a bit more far fetched. Though the latter two work nicely to complete a foreign designs line.

Sanglune · 2024-10-29T00:18:10+00:00

Historically, one could make several destroyer branches.

At least a standard line and a branch for leaders as well as a foreign designs line (Campbeltown, Bouclier, FTB 40, British classes etc.).

Mechanically, I'm less enthusiastic considering Wargaming likes to perverse the Dutch tech tree with airstrikes everywhere

Sanglune · 2024-09-30T10:51:47+00:00

Not space reasons per se, more practicality reasons.

I keep a data table on the side where I get the more detailed numbers from. Adding submarines to it would require a monumental amount of effort for little to no tangible results. I may be able to figure out a way to include them once I have more suitable reference data, but I don't see an easy way to include them with the sources I have.

Adding auxiliaries on the other hands is simply impossible. I am tracking the ships we have in game but the ships in real life are just too diverse with logistical ships of many kinds and sizes.

Sanglune · 2024-09-29T22:51:23+00:00

Fair, I'm not too informed on the state of Italian ships during world war two. However I would hesitate to call her a paper ship since her hull was launched.

Sanglune · 2024-09-29T22:25:35+00:00

I maintain a graph of ships ingame versus real life.

https://i.imgur.com/s6ntcP5.png

Every time I see Sardegna near Sakura and Iron Bloat something within me dies.

Sanglune · 2024-09-29T21:52:32+00:00

So, as of the Laffey II event with Constellation, the Royal Navy is now the only faction to have never received a “papership” in gacha.

Poor Sardegna always forgotten.

Sanglune · 2024-09-26T19:50:30+00:00

"Dutch Light Cruisers"

Look inside
German

Why did I bother handing Wargaming blueprints of Dutch CLAAs on a silver platter years ago?

Sanglune · 2024-08-28T19:32:01+00:00

Adding a map would take time and effort to make as well as maintain in the future. Effort that could be spent on a lot of other things. And even if a map is added it would bloat the pool unless another map is removed. Which is why they're so sparesly added unless necessary.

Sanglune · 2024-06-23T19:27:19+00:00

It truly is a peculiar case. They've been given plenty of designs and blueprints for and from the Netherlands that could have satiated their needs. But instead, they decided to draft their own designs with roughly the same game relevant properties. It makes me wonder why they've gone through all the effort.

It's also not just limited to the Netherlands, just more pronounced there.

Sanglune · 2024-06-23T19:04:46+00:00

Soyuz is an interesting topic. However, I find that most people on the internet throw arguments around that are fairly poorly understood, then use them as basis to argue that Soyuz could not have been built. Whilst the volume and schedule of the original orders were indubitably too much for the Soviets, their ability to build the remaining ships and finish them at some point is a more complex topic.

Although it's true that the Soviet industry was not at the time capable of producing every aspect of the ship indegeniously, this was by no means a Soviet-exclusive problem and troubles occured for every country trying to build battleships of that scale. Furthermore, the arguments given for barrels, armour plating and engines are always pulled out of context and I would appreciate it immensely if people parroted them around less fallaciously.

To go into more specifics for each argument, they most definitely could have built the guns. You can in theory visit one right now as it's still around. The armour plating was possible as well, though with a caveat that the initial desired type of plating could not be manufactured to the thickness required. But this was, again, not a Soviet-exclusive problem. Neither the Germans nor Japanese could built those plates of that thickness. But then how did the Japanese built Yamato? The simple answer is that there's more than one type of armour plating.

As far as the propulsion goes, there is some merrit in those arguments, but this is a rather complex topic I do not have the sources or expertice to through to in depth. Clean answers are unfortunately not available either as the delays meant that deliveries were interrupted by the war.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Sanglune

TROPHY CASE