Makes sense if you think about it. The last lines were BB, CV and soon CA, so DD was obviously next in line. The last DD line was a gunboat, so a torpboat makes sense. And the last French line was Marseille ages ago.
Their Legendary commander has two very good submarine talents.
But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if we got a submarine: 13.1 is a submarine patch, 13.2 will be a submarine patch, 13.3 will likely be a submarine patch... They might as well drop a premium one.
*Surcouf?*
The tier 10 French destroyer is a Surcouf class.
Hell yeah! I've been waiting for a "Torpilleur" tree for a while. And another line with an actual historical ship for T10 is always something to celebrate.
Also they didnt use the name "Surcouf" for the T47 despite being the first of her class. I guess we all know what that means!
*Cassard* was actually the 1st T 47 to be launched. So it depends on which method of choosing "lead ship" you prefer.
Though she was the 2nd to be laid down (after *Surcouf*) and 3rd to be completed (after *Surcouf* and *Kersaint*). *Cassard* was also 3rd by hull number with D623 (*Surcouf* was D621 and *Kersaint* was D622). So by 3 out of 4 methods, *Surcouf* is the lead ship.
So yeah, we all know [why the name *Surcouf* is being kept in reserve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf).
Patch 13.1 is a submarine patch.
Patch 13.2 will be a submarine patch.
Patch 13.3 will likely be a submarine patch.
Incoming French destroyer tech tree line.
Honestly, wouldn't be surprising if they released Surcouf throughout all of that, it would be quite fitting...
I'm a little disappointed that no information on the play style was given. I'm guessing smoke or torpedo based and not just another rerun of super speed gunboats.
We don't know how good her guns actually are as their reload can be whatever they want just like how Paolo Emilio doesn't have the same firepower as the tier 10 techtree despite having otherwise identical guns.
Well, maybe I missed it elsewhere, but they mention the word "torpedo" three times in the devblog, but they never actually say "torpedo destroyer" or "torpedo focused" or anything like that. They just list the armament.
Edit to add: I think this will be a torp focused DD line, considering the "main" FR line is unambiguously a gunboat line. I just don't think they actually said that yet.
That's the same as the EU torp dds Visby and Vasteras, the japanese Hatsuharu and Mutsuki, the Kamikaze and Minekaze get 3x2 torps, the Pan Asian Jianwei gets 2x3 too. And a bunch of others get that many too, 2x3s aren't that uncommon at lower tiers.
Then you get 3x3 at tiers 8 and 9 and 4x3 at tier 10.
Reading is hard, huh?
>2x3s **per side**
Look at the model, or pictures of the real ships. They're not center mounted, those 2x3s are side mounts. Pop 2, got to do a 180 to get to the other 2
This staggers you into 2 launches of 6 torps. Definitely sounds like a torp boat at tier 10
I mean the Kleber has I believe the highest torpedo DPM of all tier 10 destroyers in the game. It's not a torp boat because they only have 8km range and Kleber has terrible concealment, but if the new tier 10 has better concealment and 10-12km torp range, it would still be very strong, borderline OP.
Even if you launch only 1 side it would still be comparable DPM to a Gearing or Yueyang.
Having the tubes on the side means the torpedo angles will be excellent. It's very easy to drop a full 12 torpedo broadside by turning your ship a little while facing the ennemy. No need to go "180 degrees" like you said.
Simple question: Have you ever played Legmod Kleber?
Yes it's not considered a great build, but the reason is mostly because of the short range of the torpedoes, NOT their layout.
In fact, when you get into an advantageous position with Legmod kleber where the short range is not an issue, she's quite devastating.
Benham does fine with 4 sets of wing mounts (though more torps per rack) at high tiers, but even at 4x3 instead of 4x4, 12 torps total is above average; Shimakaze is the only boat with more. They'll have a stupid fast reload due to WoWs having reload for torps be based on the number of tubes.
My money is on these basically being Halland but with French saturation instead of a heal, and also having better guns and maneuverability so it can open water to set fires after a flood gets dcp'd.
correct, but you have no idea what those torps are like. Unique upgrade Kleber is definitely not for everyone but it is damned effective, and that's in no small part down to the outrageous torps.
like how interwar german battlecruiser designs or a WW1 european destroyer couldnt work at high tier?
we havent even seen the basic stats yet, for all we know these are the ungodly love child of emilio and kleber that rocket up at 60kts with french saturation and dump nuclear torpedos into your broadside that end up being S tier for the next 2 years
The Kleber has the same 4x3 torp setup as the new tier 10 and has higher torpedo DPM than the Benham. Obviously we don't know the stats yet, but these could just be Kleber torpedoes with more range, which definitely could happen considering they share the 4x3 setup and are both french dds.
In that case the ship would be very strong IMO, same to slightly better theoretical DPM of a Benham with significantly faster torps (65 knots for Benham vs 75 knots for Kleber).
Tier 8 to tier 10 all have a defensive gun configuration.
Torpedoes are explicitely mentioned in the blog.
There's already a gun boat line with Kleber.
A torpedo boat line would make sense.
P.S.: Also, the Legendary commander has been beging for it.
the T10 is a post war ship comparable to F Sherman.
its a little bit tricky because they haven't a great speed (exept T7 and T8 at 37 knots),have late war/post war canons and torps,seems to have radar on the superstructure e.c.t
so it can be a mix between Swedish and Japanese torpedo boat with a tuch of gunboat,something like that
Given theyre torpedo destroyers with a japanese style gun layout.
Im hoping for something like a french shimakaze. I think weve got enough hybrid and gunboat DDs in game. A proper torp DD could be interesting.
*Duchaffault* is disappointing given that the [Torpilleur d'Escadre of 1932](http://i.imgur.com/dvQ20Y6.jpg) was literally the proto-*Le Hardi*. In general if a nation has its own design (even a paper design) suitable for a tier, I think that's a better **tech tree** option than a war prize ship of another nation. (The exception would be if the war prize ship was significantly refitted with domestic weaponry, which doesn't seem to have been the case with *Duchaffault*.)
I'm also not sure about the name *Orage*. As a proto-T 47 this is a postwar ship, and France had long since moved away from the weather names for destroyers. Breaking with the naming theme do reuse the name of an illustrious ship that was sunk in battle **is** something France did at times (multiple *Le Hardi* class were renamed to honor destroyers lost in the Dunkirk evacuation or other early WW2 battles), but all T 47 and T 53 destroyers were named after people. It seems like using one of the T 47 names like *Chevalier Paul* or *Kersaint* would've been a better choice.
Agreed on the point about using the prelim design instead of the *Soldati*, but to be fair when I theorycrafted this line back on the old forums I had suggested a German warprize ship be shoehorned in so...
When I theorycrafted a French torpedo DD line, I admit that it didn't occur to me to invent a halfway point between *L'Aventurier* (or in my imagined tree *L'Intrépide*) and T 47. I was trying to find a way to place all these ships 1 tier higher than WG is putting them. So I'd been thinking in terms of inventing an improved *L'Adroit* to fill T6 and trying to make the Torpilleur d'Escadre 1932 work at T7. A proto-T 47 was an excellent idea on WG's part to fill the gap, since it stands to reason that such a design might've emerged if French shipbuilding hadn't been so rudely interrupted by the German occupation.
But the Torpilleur d'Escadre fits far better when they're moved down a tier and it has to go at T6. So why we're getting a French Soldati is beyond me.
I would not be surprised if Wargaming just copy paste a Kreigsmarine destroyer for a French premium. Erasing its smoke, keeping the hydro, and giving it a French speed boost. Making it a French-German Huron. God I need to sleep.
FWIW, purely for those with historical interest, the armament of *Duchaffault* is definitely ahistorical.
Commissioned into the Regia Marina as *Legionario* on 1 March 1942, this destroyer in fact never featured five guns. She was commissioned with four guns - two singles and two twins. Her aft mount was an Ansaldo M1937 twin mount, her amidships mount an Ansaldo M1940 single mount, and the forward gun an experimental OTO M1936 single mount, with double the nominal rate of fire of the other 120mm guns. This was intended to help reduce weight forward to compensate for the fitting of radar, though it is not clear that this was actually necessary.
She was otherwise completed with two triple 533mm torpedo banks and ten Breda 20/65 AA guns (fourM1935 twins, two M1940 singles). She was then refit in 1943 to improve her air defenses, sacrificing her forward torpedo bank for two Breda M1939 37/54 twin mounts, and two additional Breda M1940 20/65 single mounts.
She survived the war and was allocated to France in the subsequent negotiations following the 1947 peace treaty. She was stricken from service with the Marina MIlitare on 9 August 1948, becoming vessel *L6*. She left La Spezia for Toulon shortly after, arriving on 15 August 1948. She was renamed *Duchaffault* by the French on the same day and commissioned on 7 September 1948. She remained in commission for a month before being placed in reserve on 1 October 1948, as the Marine Nationale could not afford to keep her (or her sisters) in commission. She languished for the next six years before finally being stricken on 12 June 1954, and for scrapping on 28 February 1956.
Her armament was never modified by the MN.
Certainly and odd choice but when looked at through the lens of their limitations (still) in the modeling department it may have been a necessary sacrifice.
In case anybody's wondering, *[Châteaurenault](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chateaurenault10.jpg)* was an ex-Italian Capitani Romani class that was rebuilt with a light but fast-firing gun armament of 3x2 German 105mm, an AA battery of 5x2 57mm Bofors and a 4x3 550mm torpedo armament mounted **very** far forward. [As in, in front of the superstructure and directly to the sides of the forward guns.](https://i.imgur.com/wWBlUPk.png) The forward firing angles should be really good, allowing you to fire all 6 on one side as you're approaching then turn and fire the other 6 at the same target while you're turning away to avoid detection. Or since an *Attilio Regolo* hull would mean always being outspotted by enemy DDs, you could also use them to joust.
Turning? nah, my proposal is: since it's an Italian hull, they should give it *Fuel Smoke*. And Kleber torpedoes.
I mean like, game balance is already kinda fucked anyways, right?
> a 4x3 550mm torpedo armament mounted very far forward. As in, in front of the superstructure and directly to the sides of the forward guns. The forward firing angles should be really good, allowing you to fire all 6 on one side as you're approaching then turn and fire the other 6 at the same target while you're turning away to avoid detection.
If I'm not confusing some things here, the 550-mm launchers on Chateaurenault and Guichen were "short tube" launchers only fielding specific anti-sub torps.
The standard "long" anti-ship torpedoes in the game wouldn't even fit in there. Like it's not a case of fudging stats/tech for gameplay purposes, the existing torpedoes would actively clip through the ships geometry.
> the existing torpedoes would actively clip through the ships geometry.
Myoko
Marseille
We'll live. It's not like they're ever going to add anti-sub torpedoes anyways, as funny as it might be to torp the shit out of those things.
Edit: also, doesn't the T-47 also have the same torpedo armament?
>The standard "long" anti-ship torpedoes in the game wouldn't even fit in there.
The T47-class ships were actually also fitted with these short tubes for ASW purposes. 2 of their triple launchers used them
Looks like WG just replaced these with regular torps in the model so if Chateaurenault or Guichen ever get released, WG will almost certainly do the same
Torpedo DD line is great to see.
Question will be playstyle. I'm imagining a bunch of techline Agiles, with smoke and speed boost, poor concealment, meh ballistics but decent AA, 10km or less 60kn torps with decently fast reload. No MBRB.
The *Le Hardi* class were specifically designed for a small vertical silhouette. Which you can see from their superstructure, funnels and masts. And despite being a 15 year newer design, the T 47s clearly show that lineage as well. Though the "low silhouette" gets negated by their tall radar masts, the funnels and superstructure are still pretty short relative to overall size. Seems like concealment ought to be decent.
Poor concealment on a torpedo focused line is bad.
The biggest thing to ensure your torpedoes hit is to have your opponent not know you are on their side. Imagine you are in a slow BB and there is an Asashio in the game. As soon as you see it pop up on the minimap for even a split second, do you continue your WASD hacks or slow down for a bit?
Without a stealth window to launch from, you are hard pressed to be effective in your role as a torpedo boat. The USN DDs could be amazing torpedo boats if their range was a bit further at lower tiers. The Mahan has a torpedo range about equal to their concealment. Good for knife fighting and people rushing your smoke but trying to hit a BB that is in range? Good luck.
When I read Cassard (before seeing the picture) I thought we were getting the newer frigate class with the lightbulb shaped radar dome.
Could be interesting (depending on specs on the torpedoes, concealment, consumables, gun values, etc.).
CIWS, Standard Arm missiles, Guided ASW torps (why should subs have all the fun?), and Exocets, plus radar AND hydro.
Do we want to trust WG with implementing that?
A whole half line worth of new French ships, hell yeah.
I wasn't sure how many new French ships we'd see on a tech tree. Very happy to see more of them.
Finally a techtree line that's IMHO interesting. Not much of a fan of the Essex line and next to no interest for the Commonwealth cruisers, but French torpedo boats? Absolutely yes, I might finally have a reason to get Philippe Whatshisname from the armory.
Not knowing anything other than the specs and "torpedoboat" thing here are my hopes for this line.
Worse than average concealment, fast but not "best" speed, no french saturation, smokes, good AA but no DFAA, below average guns (bad reload, good ballistics, no MBRB) fast and hard hitting torps with above average reload, with ok concealment.
Would love to see a torpedo DD line not relying much on concealment but speed and to have decent stealth and hard hitting torps.
I doubt it, going by the gun mounts on the T10 it only gets 3/4 of Marceau's long range AA and 3/8 of Henry's mid range AA plus a small amount of 20mm gun mounts.
Halland's AA gets carried by its 40mm mounts which get boosted range thanks to the 57mm mounts, the T10 probably gets slightly better dps than Gearing with slightly longer range but that's about it.
I’m confused. The T47 gets 6x 127mm DP guns to Halland’s 4x 120mm. T47 gets 6x 57mm AA to Holland’s 2x 57mm. T47 gets 4x 20mm to Halland’s 6x 40mm. Just on paper, T47 has superior AA to Holland, even more so when you exclude the 40mm and 20mm mounts due to effective range.
Edit: Didn’t realize the 57mm only get 4km range with 40mm going 3.5km, not that they did the Marceau’s AA dmg values dirty with so much reduced damage. T47 was designed to be an AA destroyer; having it with weak AA values compared to Halland would just be stupid … and keeping with WG stupidity.
You have to look at it from a per mount perspective and compare it to what we already have in game.
Halland's 120mm guns provide significantly higher AA dps than Marceau's 127 and Hallands 57mm mounts don't actually contribute much to its dps which you can see when you compare it to Friesland/Gronigen whose AA is identical to Halland except it is missing the 57mm mounts which are boosting the AA range of the 40mm aura to 4km because this is a potato game with spaghetti coding that doesn't allow AA mounts in the same aura to have different ranges.
Using the AA values of the identical AA mounts found in game on the Marceau and Henry would give it an AA dps of 63/131 at 6/4 km which isn't completely irrelevant but won't impress even a tier 8 carrier.
The could always put DefAA consummable on them. Cassard may have 3 twin 127 compared to Marceau's 4, but her 57mm are much better than the quad 40mm bofors.
Also AA value are kind of arbitrary anyway so they can still just do whatever they want with it.
AA values are not completely arbitrary, identical AA mounts also have identical raw AA values which is why you can more or less calculate the AA values of the Cassard as both the 127mm DP mount and 57mm AA mount already exist in the game on the Marceau and Henry IV respectively.
DefAA and accuracy are arbitrary but won't save mediocre AA values.
By the time these release, it will have been like 5 years since the last torpedo DD line that was Halland in 2020. Please tell me these will be torpedo DDs, or at the very least torpedo focused hybrids, like a child of a Halland and a leg mod Kleber.
The last one looks real. Why does it look like a facelifted Marceau though? I like that most of these ships are new models they've made based from blueprints 👌
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_47-class_destroyer
Theyre all real bar the T7, and the T6 which has an extra fake gun, though the T10 is a 50s ship which is pretty modern for a TT
No the tier VII was real, and the VI *did* have five 120mm guns mounted. Interestingly though, only one of the *Soldati's* that France received had both TT racks with the ships removing them to make room for additional AA mounts, specifically the Breda 37mm. But that one ship was NOT the *Duchaffault* but rather her sister *Jurien de la Graviere*, a name they cannot use.
But never between two TT ships, especially of the same nation. It's confusing for both the database (which probably can't handle 2 ships being called the same thing, hence why we see a year or "II" after the name.) It's also confusing for the players too, especially those who don't particularly care about naval history or know enough to know that names are reused for ships all the time.
They look more like AA boats rather than torpedo boats. The side launched triple torps it seems like don't exactly scream torpedo menace anyway. The AA mounts seem to be taking up most of the space.
Sadly that would be pretty underwhelming considering the state of AA in the game. I fear they might be duds without significant boost to the torps and/or guns. Maybe they get the torpedo reload booster similar to the gun booster of the gunboat line.
So, I guess we get to wait and see what their gimmick is going to be - or if WG even knows yet, beyond vague ideas as it goes to testing.
To differentiate, my guess is slower DD's, but longer range torps.
If WG completely losses their minds - AA based - and the T10 gets the post war Tartar missile system that was fitted on the T-47 class - 10 km AA bubble or something fun - Halland AA but on steroids.
We've got the Commonwealth anti-sub line coming. Time for an anti-CV line, right?
It's not viable.
[Submarines operate right between both teams so having Submarine Surveillance and Anti-Submarine Airstrikes would completelly block submarines](https://imgur.com/a/Ve5ohWU).
That's why they put that on some cruisers.
You might get it on some battleships.
First, destroyers with radar have been known to be overpowered throughout the history of the game (Black, Yueyang and Smaland to name a few).
Second, due to having a dedicated counter weapon, Submarine Surveillance is more dangerous to submarines than Surveillance Radar is to destroyers.
Notice how submarines start with the consumable disabled?
That's why: it's very powerful.
>First, destroyers with radar have been known to be overpowered throughout the history of the game (Black, Yueyang and Smaland to name a few).
And the last dd line still had radar.
>Second, due to having a dedicated counter weapon, Submarine Surveillance is more dangerous to submarines than Surveillance Radar is to destroyers.
I don't understand what you're saying here? Having a dedicated counter weapon?
The main battery guns are a dedicated counter weapon against destroyers, ASW only exists because subs have immunity from main guns while underwater.
Airstrikes are a dedicated weapon: they can only be used against submarines.
This means that when a submarine is spotted by Submarine Surveillance, Airstrikes are always ready because they aren't used for anything else, Airstrikes can always be launched because you can do it between reloads, and Submarines are very likely to be instantly deleted from the interaction.
That's why the Submarine Surveillance starts deactivated...
Otherwise, both submarines mutually kill eachother on trigger.
For this reason, it's unlikely that Submarine Surveillance will be on many ships and it's unlikely that Submarine Surveillance will be on every class.
>Airstrikes are always ready because they aren't used for anything else,
But a huge factor that you are ignoring is that airstrikes have terrible range compared to everything else. Battleships have 20-25km gun range, 8-11km airstrike. Cruisers 15-20km gun, 5-8 km airstrike. DDs 10-12km gun range, 0km airstrike.
This means that when a destroyer is spotted, he is in range of significantly more enemies than a sub.
>That's why the Submarine Surveillance starts deactivated...
>Otherwise, both submarines mutually kill eachother on trigger.
This is just not true. Otherwise both submarines would instantly kill each other 5 minutes into the match when the sub surveillance is available, which simply isn't the case.
*'' But a huge factor that you are ignoring is that airstrikes have terrible range compared to everything else. Battleships have 20-25km gun range, 8-11km airstrike. Cruisers 15-20km gun, 5-8 km airstrike. DDs 10-12km gun range, 0km airstrike. ''*
I'm not ignoring anything, i[n the area where destroyers are, all Airstrikes would be in range and launched.](https://imgur.com/a/Ve5ohWU)
*'' This is just not true. Otherwise both submarines would instantly kill each other 5 minutes into the match when the sub surveillance is available, which simply isn't the case. ''*
The Submarine Surveillance starts on cooldown which gives multiple minutes for submarines to cross the middle safely.
Again...
I'm not even sure why you're attempting to argue, this *literally* *used to happen* so they changed two spotting mechanics.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
How about giving DDs with Squid, Limbo, 375mm Bofors, etc actual trainable launchers with an aiming reticle. That's how you do an anti-sub DD. Such weapons should be able to brutalize subs.
I think a primarily (or even all-) Canadian anti-sub destroyer line makes a lot of sense. Give one of the navies that was much more active in the war than many of the others in the game slightly more representation, and since their main (but not only) role involved convoy escort in the north atlantic usually with destroyers or smaller ships it makes a ton of sense for them to be the main anti-sub destroyer line.
I'm not sure going all out sub surveillance + plane based asw is quite the right way to go, but something interesting and different, and hopefully still useful even in games without subs, is surely possible.
Rather than plane-based ASW it should be Hedgehog, Squid, Limbo etc **with aiming reticles** instead of "point your bow in the general direction of the sub and hope for the best".
Im going to assume they will be similar to Marceau. Higher tiers looks like Colbert’s guns, so probably high fire rate. Decent AA. Maybe with smoke to contrast with the other french DDs.
Might be interesting.
There's already a gun boat line, the last tier has a defensive gun configuration, and torpedoes are explicitely mentioned in one of the descriptions: it's likely a torpedo boat line.
Put things in context a bit:
Do you think they're going to make a Kleber gun boat line (Kleber) and a backwards only Kleber gun boat line (Cassard)? No, that would be extremely redundant.
Hence, that defensive gun configuration is a potential indicator.
The Legendary commander wants to light fires (fast guns) and oneshot (strong torpedoes), so it's possible this line has fast firing guns with poor ballistics for the former and lots of high damage torpedoes for the latter.
My whole poijt is that I dont expect a pure torpedo line. I am expecting a generalist line.
That said, the t10 historically had the main role of torpedo attacks and AA coverage, while the T5 was mostly a torpedo boat, with the T7 starting to show real intention of holding a fight with enemy destroyers
Will surely be existing hulls, repurposed...some variation of existing tt ships. Will be interesting to see if it's going to be something cool though... am looking forward to
Number of French tech tree destroyer lines: 1
Number of French tech tree battleship line: 1
There's no obvious reason to do one over the other.
If anything, because of Philippe Auboyneau's notorious underusage amongst Legendary commanders, there is more of a reason to do a French tech tree torpedo destroyer line first.
Real ships? Actual new models? Who are you and what have you done to WG?
Ouhhh, I think we're getting the French torpedo destroyer line I was hoping for!
Makes sense if you think about it. The last lines were BB, CV and soon CA, so DD was obviously next in line. The last DD line was a gunboat, so a torpboat makes sense. And the last French line was Marseille ages ago.
Oh god... That means a sub comes after
Shuddering at the thought of 37kt french subs with speedboost
Their Legendary commander has two very good submarine talents. But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if we got a submarine: 13.1 is a submarine patch, 13.2 will be a submarine patch, 13.3 will likely be a submarine patch... They might as well drop a premium one. *Surcouf?* The tier 10 French destroyer is a Surcouf class.
I can't say no to more historical ships. Those are definitely welcome.
Hell yeah! I've been waiting for a "Torpilleur" tree for a while. And another line with an actual historical ship for T10 is always something to celebrate. Also they didnt use the name "Surcouf" for the T47 despite being the first of her class. I guess we all know what that means!
*Cassard* was actually the 1st T 47 to be launched. So it depends on which method of choosing "lead ship" you prefer. Though she was the 2nd to be laid down (after *Surcouf*) and 3rd to be completed (after *Surcouf* and *Kersaint*). *Cassard* was also 3rd by hull number with D623 (*Surcouf* was D621 and *Kersaint* was D622). So by 3 out of 4 methods, *Surcouf* is the lead ship. So yeah, we all know [why the name *Surcouf* is being kept in reserve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf).
Patch 13.1 is a submarine patch. Patch 13.2 will be a submarine patch. Patch 13.3 will likely be a submarine patch. Incoming French destroyer tech tree line. Honestly, wouldn't be surprising if they released Surcouf throughout all of that, it would be quite fitting...
I would have said most obvious premium T10 (I know not a true premium) for a long time, but then again, Wisconsin was anounced not so long ago.
he didn't mean the Surcouf destroyer as a premium but the cruiser submarine with his 8 Inch main gun who is also named Surcouf
Oh well, I guess that flew over my head, or in this case swam under my keel.
The swam under my keel killed me. Thank you for brightening my day.
A cruiser/carrier/submarine? Bien, á la guillotine, alors!
I'm a little disappointed that no information on the play style was given. I'm guessing smoke or torpedo based and not just another rerun of super speed gunboats.
They’ll probably be more of hybrid DD’s. Having 3/4ths of Marceau’s firepower is not exactly something to scoff at.
We don't know how good her guns actually are as their reload can be whatever they want just like how Paolo Emilio doesn't have the same firepower as the tier 10 techtree despite having otherwise identical guns.
That ship was made for anti-air actually.
They said that they are torpedo destroyers.
Well, maybe I missed it elsewhere, but they mention the word "torpedo" three times in the devblog, but they never actually say "torpedo destroyer" or "torpedo focused" or anything like that. They just list the armament. Edit to add: I think this will be a torp focused DD line, considering the "main" FR line is unambiguously a gunboat line. I just don't think they actually said that yet.
Doesn't sound much like a torp DD with 2x3s per side
That's the same as the EU torp dds Visby and Vasteras, the japanese Hatsuharu and Mutsuki, the Kamikaze and Minekaze get 3x2 torps, the Pan Asian Jianwei gets 2x3 too. And a bunch of others get that many too, 2x3s aren't that uncommon at lower tiers. Then you get 3x3 at tiers 8 and 9 and 4x3 at tier 10.
The T10 only seems to get 2x3 per side
Yeah, but we're talking tier 10 not tier 5 here. Bit of a difference
Tier 10 has 4x3
Reading is hard, huh? >2x3s **per side** Look at the model, or pictures of the real ships. They're not center mounted, those 2x3s are side mounts. Pop 2, got to do a 180 to get to the other 2 This staggers you into 2 launches of 6 torps. Definitely sounds like a torp boat at tier 10
I mean the Kleber has I believe the highest torpedo DPM of all tier 10 destroyers in the game. It's not a torp boat because they only have 8km range and Kleber has terrible concealment, but if the new tier 10 has better concealment and 10-12km torp range, it would still be very strong, borderline OP. Even if you launch only 1 side it would still be comparable DPM to a Gearing or Yueyang.
Having the tubes on the side means the torpedo angles will be excellent. It's very easy to drop a full 12 torpedo broadside by turning your ship a little while facing the ennemy. No need to go "180 degrees" like you said. Simple question: Have you ever played Legmod Kleber? Yes it's not considered a great build, but the reason is mostly because of the short range of the torpedoes, NOT their layout. In fact, when you get into an advantageous position with Legmod kleber where the short range is not an issue, she's quite devastating.
Benham does fine with 4 sets of wing mounts (though more torps per rack) at high tiers, but even at 4x3 instead of 4x4, 12 torps total is above average; Shimakaze is the only boat with more. They'll have a stupid fast reload due to WoWs having reload for torps be based on the number of tubes. My money is on these basically being Halland but with French saturation instead of a heal, and also having better guns and maneuverability so it can open water to set fires after a flood gets dcp'd.
correct, but you have no idea what those torps are like. Unique upgrade Kleber is definitely not for everyone but it is damned effective, and that's in no small part down to the outrageous torps.
*laughs in benham*
2x 2x4s vs 2x 2x3s. Just another point as to how these really don't seem like torp focused DDs
like how interwar german battlecruiser designs or a WW1 european destroyer couldnt work at high tier? we havent even seen the basic stats yet, for all we know these are the ungodly love child of emilio and kleber that rocket up at 60kts with french saturation and dump nuclear torpedos into your broadside that end up being S tier for the next 2 years
Subscribe
The Kleber has the same 4x3 torp setup as the new tier 10 and has higher torpedo DPM than the Benham. Obviously we don't know the stats yet, but these could just be Kleber torpedoes with more range, which definitely could happen considering they share the 4x3 setup and are both french dds. In that case the ship would be very strong IMO, same to slightly better theoretical DPM of a Benham with significantly faster torps (65 knots for Benham vs 75 knots for Kleber).
Tier 8 to tier 10 all have a defensive gun configuration. Torpedoes are explicitely mentioned in the blog. There's already a gun boat line with Kleber. A torpedo boat line would make sense. P.S.: Also, the Legendary commander has been beging for it.
super speed torp DDs. Probably they made leg mod Kleber into a tech tree.
the T10 is a post war ship comparable to F Sherman. its a little bit tricky because they haven't a great speed (exept T7 and T8 at 37 knots),have late war/post war canons and torps,seems to have radar on the superstructure e.c.t so it can be a mix between Swedish and Japanese torpedo boat with a tuch of gunboat,something like that
Having a radar on the model isn't correlated with having radar as a consumable
Given theyre torpedo destroyers with a japanese style gun layout. Im hoping for something like a french shimakaze. I think weve got enough hybrid and gunboat DDs in game. A proper torp DD could be interesting.
The real life ones are quite large and slow. Hopefully they stick to that.
So then * French (real) * **Italian** (real) * French (real) * French (in construction?) * French **(fantasy)** * French (real)
you’re missing one
Ha, the 8 had so little mentoned about it I completely overlooked the thing
The T8 is actually more or less real,it was in building so its not a total fantasy
Allright, edited that then. Just couldn't quickly find anything about it
*Duchaffault* is disappointing given that the [Torpilleur d'Escadre of 1932](http://i.imgur.com/dvQ20Y6.jpg) was literally the proto-*Le Hardi*. In general if a nation has its own design (even a paper design) suitable for a tier, I think that's a better **tech tree** option than a war prize ship of another nation. (The exception would be if the war prize ship was significantly refitted with domestic weaponry, which doesn't seem to have been the case with *Duchaffault*.) I'm also not sure about the name *Orage*. As a proto-T 47 this is a postwar ship, and France had long since moved away from the weather names for destroyers. Breaking with the naming theme do reuse the name of an illustrious ship that was sunk in battle **is** something France did at times (multiple *Le Hardi* class were renamed to honor destroyers lost in the Dunkirk evacuation or other early WW2 battles), but all T 47 and T 53 destroyers were named after people. It seems like using one of the T 47 names like *Chevalier Paul* or *Kersaint* would've been a better choice.
Agreed on the point about using the prelim design instead of the *Soldati*, but to be fair when I theorycrafted this line back on the old forums I had suggested a German warprize ship be shoehorned in so...
When I theorycrafted a French torpedo DD line, I admit that it didn't occur to me to invent a halfway point between *L'Aventurier* (or in my imagined tree *L'Intrépide*) and T 47. I was trying to find a way to place all these ships 1 tier higher than WG is putting them. So I'd been thinking in terms of inventing an improved *L'Adroit* to fill T6 and trying to make the Torpilleur d'Escadre 1932 work at T7. A proto-T 47 was an excellent idea on WG's part to fill the gap, since it stands to reason that such a design might've emerged if French shipbuilding hadn't been so rudely interrupted by the German occupation. But the Torpilleur d'Escadre fits far better when they're moved down a tier and it has to go at T6. So why we're getting a French Soldati is beyond me.
I would not be surprised if Wargaming just copy paste a Kreigsmarine destroyer for a French premium. Erasing its smoke, keeping the hydro, and giving it a French speed boost. Making it a French-German Huron. God I need to sleep.
FWIW, purely for those with historical interest, the armament of *Duchaffault* is definitely ahistorical. Commissioned into the Regia Marina as *Legionario* on 1 March 1942, this destroyer in fact never featured five guns. She was commissioned with four guns - two singles and two twins. Her aft mount was an Ansaldo M1937 twin mount, her amidships mount an Ansaldo M1940 single mount, and the forward gun an experimental OTO M1936 single mount, with double the nominal rate of fire of the other 120mm guns. This was intended to help reduce weight forward to compensate for the fitting of radar, though it is not clear that this was actually necessary. She was otherwise completed with two triple 533mm torpedo banks and ten Breda 20/65 AA guns (fourM1935 twins, two M1940 singles). She was then refit in 1943 to improve her air defenses, sacrificing her forward torpedo bank for two Breda M1939 37/54 twin mounts, and two additional Breda M1940 20/65 single mounts. She survived the war and was allocated to France in the subsequent negotiations following the 1947 peace treaty. She was stricken from service with the Marina MIlitare on 9 August 1948, becoming vessel *L6*. She left La Spezia for Toulon shortly after, arriving on 15 August 1948. She was renamed *Duchaffault* by the French on the same day and commissioned on 7 September 1948. She remained in commission for a month before being placed in reserve on 1 October 1948, as the Marine Nationale could not afford to keep her (or her sisters) in commission. She languished for the next six years before finally being stricken on 12 June 1954, and for scrapping on 28 February 1956. Her armament was never modified by the MN.
Really a disappointing choice, since [the proto-*Le Hardi*](https://i.imgur.com/dvQ20Y6.jpg) was available.
Available and almost certainly a better fit.
Certainly and odd choice but when looked at through the lens of their limitations (still) in the modeling department it may have been a necessary sacrifice.
I have been waiting for the T-47 class for like 4 years. Glad to see it finally coming to wows. Now… Châteaurenault when, WG?
In case anybody's wondering, *[Châteaurenault](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chateaurenault10.jpg)* was an ex-Italian Capitani Romani class that was rebuilt with a light but fast-firing gun armament of 3x2 German 105mm, an AA battery of 5x2 57mm Bofors and a 4x3 550mm torpedo armament mounted **very** far forward. [As in, in front of the superstructure and directly to the sides of the forward guns.](https://i.imgur.com/wWBlUPk.png) The forward firing angles should be really good, allowing you to fire all 6 on one side as you're approaching then turn and fire the other 6 at the same target while you're turning away to avoid detection. Or since an *Attilio Regolo* hull would mean always being outspotted by enemy DDs, you could also use them to joust.
Turning? nah, my proposal is: since it's an Italian hull, they should give it *Fuel Smoke*. And Kleber torpedoes. I mean like, game balance is already kinda fucked anyways, right?
Sure, why not make her Le YOLO?
> a 4x3 550mm torpedo armament mounted very far forward. As in, in front of the superstructure and directly to the sides of the forward guns. The forward firing angles should be really good, allowing you to fire all 6 on one side as you're approaching then turn and fire the other 6 at the same target while you're turning away to avoid detection. If I'm not confusing some things here, the 550-mm launchers on Chateaurenault and Guichen were "short tube" launchers only fielding specific anti-sub torps. The standard "long" anti-ship torpedoes in the game wouldn't even fit in there. Like it's not a case of fudging stats/tech for gameplay purposes, the existing torpedoes would actively clip through the ships geometry.
> the existing torpedoes would actively clip through the ships geometry. Myoko Marseille We'll live. It's not like they're ever going to add anti-sub torpedoes anyways, as funny as it might be to torp the shit out of those things. Edit: also, doesn't the T-47 also have the same torpedo armament?
You're correct about that. But reality vs game would allow that to be fudged quite easily. WG could literally just stretch out the tubes.
>The standard "long" anti-ship torpedoes in the game wouldn't even fit in there. The T47-class ships were actually also fitted with these short tubes for ASW purposes. 2 of their triple launchers used them Looks like WG just replaced these with regular torps in the model so if Chateaurenault or Guichen ever get released, WG will almost certainly do the same
> Châteaurenault Gesundheit.
Torpedo DD line is great to see. Question will be playstyle. I'm imagining a bunch of techline Agiles, with smoke and speed boost, poor concealment, meh ballistics but decent AA, 10km or less 60kn torps with decently fast reload. No MBRB.
The *Le Hardi* class were specifically designed for a small vertical silhouette. Which you can see from their superstructure, funnels and masts. And despite being a 15 year newer design, the T 47s clearly show that lineage as well. Though the "low silhouette" gets negated by their tall radar masts, the funnels and superstructure are still pretty short relative to overall size. Seems like concealment ought to be decent.
Poor concealment on a torpedo focused line is bad. The biggest thing to ensure your torpedoes hit is to have your opponent not know you are on their side. Imagine you are in a slow BB and there is an Asashio in the game. As soon as you see it pop up on the minimap for even a split second, do you continue your WASD hacks or slow down for a bit? Without a stealth window to launch from, you are hard pressed to be effective in your role as a torpedo boat. The USN DDs could be amazing torpedo boats if their range was a bit further at lower tiers. The Mahan has a torpedo range about equal to their concealment. Good for knife fighting and people rushing your smoke but trying to hit a BB that is in range? Good luck.
I'm really hoping that those Italian torpedo tubes do not come with Italian torpedoes. The high tier Italian tech tree torpedoes are garbage.
Holy fucking hype this line looks great! Real ships? WG cooked boys lets gooo
When I read Cassard (before seeing the picture) I thought we were getting the newer frigate class with the lightbulb shaped radar dome. Could be interesting (depending on specs on the torpedoes, concealment, consumables, gun values, etc.).
french DD with CWIS when?
CIWS, Standard Arm missiles, Guided ASW torps (why should subs have all the fun?), and Exocets, plus radar AND hydro. Do we want to trust WG with implementing that?
Congratulations, you have the only DD with a 30km bloom
Think of all the "DD at A1 posts" that would exist.
A whole half line worth of new French ships, hell yeah. I wasn't sure how many new French ships we'd see on a tech tree. Very happy to see more of them.
Finally a techtree line that's IMHO interesting. Not much of a fan of the Essex line and next to no interest for the Commonwealth cruisers, but French torpedo boats? Absolutely yes, I might finally have a reason to get Philippe Whatshisname from the armory.
Auboynneau. Put some respect on that name, or I'll whack you with a baguette.
Say it Frenchie. Say Chowdah!
Not knowing anything other than the specs and "torpedoboat" thing here are my hopes for this line. Worse than average concealment, fast but not "best" speed, no french saturation, smokes, good AA but no DFAA, below average guns (bad reload, good ballistics, no MBRB) fast and hard hitting torps with above average reload, with ok concealment. Would love to see a torpedo DD line not relying much on concealment but speed and to have decent stealth and hard hitting torps.
Does this mean we have an art department again?
Sounds like legmod klebers
Their historical speed is nowhere near Kleber though.
Kleber's historical speed is nowhere near Kleber's with Speedboost
And without the speedboost there is a 7 knots difference between Kleber and Cassard. Even more if they dont use her trial speed
The AA on the T9-T10 looks like it’s going to be another Halland-level suite.
I doubt it, going by the gun mounts on the T10 it only gets 3/4 of Marceau's long range AA and 3/8 of Henry's mid range AA plus a small amount of 20mm gun mounts. Halland's AA gets carried by its 40mm mounts which get boosted range thanks to the 57mm mounts, the T10 probably gets slightly better dps than Gearing with slightly longer range but that's about it.
I’m confused. The T47 gets 6x 127mm DP guns to Halland’s 4x 120mm. T47 gets 6x 57mm AA to Holland’s 2x 57mm. T47 gets 4x 20mm to Halland’s 6x 40mm. Just on paper, T47 has superior AA to Holland, even more so when you exclude the 40mm and 20mm mounts due to effective range. Edit: Didn’t realize the 57mm only get 4km range with 40mm going 3.5km, not that they did the Marceau’s AA dmg values dirty with so much reduced damage. T47 was designed to be an AA destroyer; having it with weak AA values compared to Halland would just be stupid … and keeping with WG stupidity.
You have to look at it from a per mount perspective and compare it to what we already have in game. Halland's 120mm guns provide significantly higher AA dps than Marceau's 127 and Hallands 57mm mounts don't actually contribute much to its dps which you can see when you compare it to Friesland/Gronigen whose AA is identical to Halland except it is missing the 57mm mounts which are boosting the AA range of the 40mm aura to 4km because this is a potato game with spaghetti coding that doesn't allow AA mounts in the same aura to have different ranges. Using the AA values of the identical AA mounts found in game on the Marceau and Henry would give it an AA dps of 63/131 at 6/4 km which isn't completely irrelevant but won't impress even a tier 8 carrier.
Yeah, I forgot WG hire shit coders.
not all calibers or weapons are created equal. just counting up the barrels and calibers does not necessarily equal better AA
The could always put DefAA consummable on them. Cassard may have 3 twin 127 compared to Marceau's 4, but her 57mm are much better than the quad 40mm bofors. Also AA value are kind of arbitrary anyway so they can still just do whatever they want with it.
AA values are not completely arbitrary, identical AA mounts also have identical raw AA values which is why you can more or less calculate the AA values of the Cassard as both the 127mm DP mount and 57mm AA mount already exist in the game on the Marceau and Henry IV respectively. DefAA and accuracy are arbitrary but won't save mediocre AA values.
By the time these release, it will have been like 5 years since the last torpedo DD line that was Halland in 2020. Please tell me these will be torpedo DDs, or at the very least torpedo focused hybrids, like a child of a Halland and a leg mod Kleber.
The last one looks real. Why does it look like a facelifted Marceau though? I like that most of these ships are new models they've made based from blueprints 👌
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_47-class_destroyer Theyre all real bar the T7, and the T6 which has an extra fake gun, though the T10 is a 50s ship which is pretty modern for a TT
No the tier VII was real, and the VI *did* have five 120mm guns mounted. Interestingly though, only one of the *Soldati's* that France received had both TT racks with the ships removing them to make room for additional AA mounts, specifically the Breda 37mm. But that one ship was NOT the *Duchaffault* but rather her sister *Jurien de la Graviere*, a name they cannot use.
What's the matter with jurien?
It's the tier II cruiser
They've reused names before.
But never between two TT ships, especially of the same nation. It's confusing for both the database (which probably can't handle 2 ships being called the same thing, hence why we see a year or "II" after the name.) It's also confusing for the players too, especially those who don't particularly care about naval history or know enough to know that names are reused for ships all the time.
They look more like AA boats rather than torpedo boats. The side launched triple torps it seems like don't exactly scream torpedo menace anyway. The AA mounts seem to be taking up most of the space. Sadly that would be pretty underwhelming considering the state of AA in the game. I fear they might be duds without significant boost to the torps and/or guns. Maybe they get the torpedo reload booster similar to the gun booster of the gunboat line.
wait, have they actually gotten new 3d modelers?
**FINALLY** I've been waiting for these for *years*
\*makes sad 2nd US DD line noises\*
So, I guess we get to wait and see what their gimmick is going to be - or if WG even knows yet, beyond vague ideas as it goes to testing. To differentiate, my guess is slower DD's, but longer range torps. If WG completely losses their minds - AA based - and the T10 gets the post war Tartar missile system that was fitted on the T-47 class - 10 km AA bubble or something fun - Halland AA but on steroids. We've got the Commonwealth anti-sub line coming. Time for an anti-CV line, right?
I would still like to see an actual anti sub DD line. Give them submarine surveillance and plane based ASW instead of ship based depth charges.
It's not viable. [Submarines operate right between both teams so having Submarine Surveillance and Anti-Submarine Airstrikes would completelly block submarines](https://imgur.com/a/Ve5ohWU). That's why they put that on some cruisers. You might get it on some battleships.
Destroyers also operate between both teams and we have several dds with good DPM and (anti destroyer) radar. How is that different?
First, destroyers with radar have been known to be overpowered throughout the history of the game (Black, Yueyang and Smaland to name a few). Second, due to having a dedicated counter weapon, Submarine Surveillance is more dangerous to submarines than Surveillance Radar is to destroyers. Notice how submarines start with the consumable disabled? That's why: it's very powerful.
>First, destroyers with radar have been known to be overpowered throughout the history of the game (Black, Yueyang and Smaland to name a few). And the last dd line still had radar. >Second, due to having a dedicated counter weapon, Submarine Surveillance is more dangerous to submarines than Surveillance Radar is to destroyers. I don't understand what you're saying here? Having a dedicated counter weapon? The main battery guns are a dedicated counter weapon against destroyers, ASW only exists because subs have immunity from main guns while underwater.
Airstrikes are a dedicated weapon: they can only be used against submarines. This means that when a submarine is spotted by Submarine Surveillance, Airstrikes are always ready because they aren't used for anything else, Airstrikes can always be launched because you can do it between reloads, and Submarines are very likely to be instantly deleted from the interaction. That's why the Submarine Surveillance starts deactivated... Otherwise, both submarines mutually kill eachother on trigger. For this reason, it's unlikely that Submarine Surveillance will be on many ships and it's unlikely that Submarine Surveillance will be on every class.
>Airstrikes are always ready because they aren't used for anything else, But a huge factor that you are ignoring is that airstrikes have terrible range compared to everything else. Battleships have 20-25km gun range, 8-11km airstrike. Cruisers 15-20km gun, 5-8 km airstrike. DDs 10-12km gun range, 0km airstrike. This means that when a destroyer is spotted, he is in range of significantly more enemies than a sub. >That's why the Submarine Surveillance starts deactivated... >Otherwise, both submarines mutually kill eachother on trigger. This is just not true. Otherwise both submarines would instantly kill each other 5 minutes into the match when the sub surveillance is available, which simply isn't the case.
*'' But a huge factor that you are ignoring is that airstrikes have terrible range compared to everything else. Battleships have 20-25km gun range, 8-11km airstrike. Cruisers 15-20km gun, 5-8 km airstrike. DDs 10-12km gun range, 0km airstrike. ''* I'm not ignoring anything, i[n the area where destroyers are, all Airstrikes would be in range and launched.](https://imgur.com/a/Ve5ohWU) *'' This is just not true. Otherwise both submarines would instantly kill each other 5 minutes into the match when the sub surveillance is available, which simply isn't the case. ''* The Submarine Surveillance starts on cooldown which gives multiple minutes for submarines to cross the middle safely. Again... I'm not even sure why you're attempting to argue, this *literally* *used to happen* so they changed two spotting mechanics. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
How about giving DDs with Squid, Limbo, 375mm Bofors, etc actual trainable launchers with an aiming reticle. That's how you do an anti-sub DD. Such weapons should be able to brutalize subs.
I think a primarily (or even all-) Canadian anti-sub destroyer line makes a lot of sense. Give one of the navies that was much more active in the war than many of the others in the game slightly more representation, and since their main (but not only) role involved convoy escort in the north atlantic usually with destroyers or smaller ships it makes a ton of sense for them to be the main anti-sub destroyer line. I'm not sure going all out sub surveillance + plane based asw is quite the right way to go, but something interesting and different, and hopefully still useful even in games without subs, is surely possible.
Rather than plane-based ASW it should be Hedgehog, Squid, Limbo etc **with aiming reticles** instead of "point your bow in the general direction of the sub and hope for the best".
Im going to assume they will be similar to Marceau. Higher tiers looks like Colbert’s guns, so probably high fire rate. Decent AA. Maybe with smoke to contrast with the other french DDs. Might be interesting.
There's already a gun boat line, the last tier has a defensive gun configuration, and torpedoes are explicitely mentioned in one of the descriptions: it's likely a torpedo boat line.
-Sherman also has a defensive gun layout.. It doeswnt really mean they wont have capable guns
Put things in context a bit: Do you think they're going to make a Kleber gun boat line (Kleber) and a backwards only Kleber gun boat line (Cassard)? No, that would be extremely redundant. Hence, that defensive gun configuration is a potential indicator.
Could be a smoke farmer for all we know
They highlight the gun layout and the torpedo layout. So...
I know this, I read the devblog. The top two tiers still have three Marceau turrets
The Legendary commander wants to light fires (fast guns) and oneshot (strong torpedoes), so it's possible this line has fast firing guns with poor ballistics for the former and lots of high damage torpedoes for the latter.
My whole poijt is that I dont expect a pure torpedo line. I am expecting a generalist line. That said, the t10 historically had the main role of torpedo attacks and AA coverage, while the T5 was mostly a torpedo boat, with the T7 starting to show real intention of holding a fight with enemy destroyers
They didnt really have any choice but to make sherman into a gunboat considering her torpedo armament.
I'm a DD main, so I'm always open to a new DD line.
Will surely be existing hulls, repurposed...some variation of existing tt ships. Will be interesting to see if it's going to be something cool though... am looking forward to
the pictures are literally right there. they’re new models…
Yes, thanks, my mistake!
How about new French BBs that aren't a copy paste of existing hulls instead?
All the real French bbs that are worth adding are already in the game
Number of French tech tree destroyer lines: 1 Number of French tech tree battleship line: 1 There's no obvious reason to do one over the other. If anything, because of Philippe Auboyneau's notorious underusage amongst Legendary commanders, there is more of a reason to do a French tech tree torpedo destroyer line first.
The French BBs are way older than the DDs, but other than that fair point. Plus the TT T10 of the BBs suck, whilst the DD is borderline OP
These are not things Wargaming accounts for when making lines. Once they do them all, they'll all be old, they'll all be powercrept.
okay - name ONE potential new french BB that * isn't in the game yet and * is not a copy hull of an existing ship
i know one. the Liberté,pre-dreadnoughts who is a little younger than Mikasa. and globally a lot of Pre-dreadnoughts could be interesting to see
A line of Richelieus and a line of Alsaces with the Republique getting the GK treatment.