Explain: Kronshtadt
8 Likes
What is wrong with Kronshtadt? The hull is partially complete; hence, it does not qualify as a paper or fictional vehicle.
11 Likes
Kronshtadt is an outlier, but it served a purpose as Russia is basically a non functional navy until the Cold War. So they needed something.
Not really as Germany and Italy both have ships in game that fall under that rule.
9 Likes
Ships follow a different rule set.
7 Likes
There are a few problems with the Kronshtadt as well. Only the hull was laid down, they didn’t have the ability to produce anything else, the designs were incomplete, and the design that they choose doesn’t even come close to what it would have been.
The problem is ultimately that the Russian Navy was so bad that they need to be hand held with a pretty much non existent ship.
If the German and Italian ships are anywhere close to how bad the Kronshtadt was then I’ll talk down on them as well, but if production was started to a considerable amount, they had the ability to produce it, and had well thought out plans for them, then they’re more viable.
2 Likes
They have said that the rules for naval are different to the rules for air and ground due to the smaller number of vehicles available for many nations .I think the requirement is only that construction started, not that hte ship entered service
- No major individual, vehicle-specific parts (i.e. guns, powerplants, etc.) of the vehicle were built
Looks like a rather major vehicle specific part to me.
As an additional note, these are suggestion rules. Not the game rules, hence why the F-16AJ was never opened up as a suggestion.
9 Likes
The rules for the Kronshtadt were basically they made it up just so they can add it.
By all accounts no one knew what they were doing with this ship. But it was one that unfortunately made the most sense. As people assume the WWII Soviet navy was capable of anything compared to their Cold War successors.
Yeah. I didnt mind the ship too much when it was added. But the made up shells that just happened to outclass anything and everything any other nation had though was very very annoying
1 Like
The Kron as depicted in game is inaccurate in a couple of ways.
Firstly, it’s using the wrong guns. In game, it has the 305mm guns as originally planned, however these guns and their triple turrets had significant issues during development, and they hadn’t even begun production when they were replaced, AFAIK. The designs were changed after the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact, where the Soviets got the 15 inch twin turret originally intended for the Scharnhorst class of the Kriegsmarine. This is the final revision of the design before it was cancelled after the end of the war (apart from some wacky conversion ideas right before cancellation, that is)
Secondly, it has inaccurate armor. The Soviets were technologically incapable of producing RHA of the required thickness for the design. The qouted max I’ve seen is 230mm, anything thicker would have needed to be the inferior FHA. This is also not reflected in game.
I understand the need for paper ships for Naval. Many nations lack enough classes of ships for balance with others, so in order to give them a decent selection you have to dip into the paper design. My main issue with Kron is that it could have been accurate. 6x15 inch guns and a 230mm belt would have put her into R-class Battlecruiser territory, totally reasonable in game and far more accurate to how she would have been completed had the Soviets completed her.
1 Like
I do not know much about ships; all I pointed out was that Kronshtadt had parts of itself built, so it is not a paper or fictional vehicle. On the other hand, I have no idea if the Kronshtadt is shown correctly.
1 Like
I mean, you did ask what’s wrong with Kronstadt.
1 Like
Different standards apply to naval for adding stuff. They’ve already confirmed that.
4 Likes
No major parts built…
I don’t know a lot about naval vessels, but I’d consider the Hull a pretty damn major part, you know, making the boat float and all…
Hopefully we see the KRV soon by the rules! (It is passed to devs anyway, hopefully it’s acted upon)
1 Like
Seems rather dumb. Since that’s called having double standards.
Makes more sense to apply the same standards for naval to Air and Ground as well and or make a WT community vote on it. But then I don’t make the rules. Sigh…
2 Likes
No it isn’t, ship development is completely different than tanks and planes.
1 Like
Ok, please post exactly where it says that. Thanks.
(So then in that case can we have the USS Montana?)
If part of it was layed down, yes
It had exactly the same naval rifles, turrets, superstructure cathedrals, 5" dual purpose mounts and power plants as Iowa class. So it satisfies: