ONCE DESIGN IS FINISHED, I should have specified in case it wasn’t clear.
A tank takes 10,000-70,000 man hours to be constructed; Battleships took 3,000,000-5,000,000 man hours to be constructed.
In the span a single Battleship was made, thousands of planes and tanks had been completed.
Oh sorry i forgot there are about 10.000 hours in a single day so indeed it only takes a couple days.
Are you familiar with the term: “MAN HOURS”?
Isn’t it sexist to say that nowadays : P
what’s your source that welding an MBT hull, building the engine, assembling the electronincs, etc. takes a couple days?
Not “a couple”, but a week, yeah. Which is way less than the 5 years it took a single Battleship to be made.
I am also taking older tanks into account for the average, as this is a Ground vs Naval debate. Modern MBTs may take longer than WW2 tanks, yes- which were built even faster than the average I mentioned.
Just think about this; 50,000 Sherman tanks were made in the same span 4 Iowa-Class Battleships were made.
80,000+ T-34s were made as well.
Later, around 100,000 T-54/55s.
It is obvious that it takes an insignificant fraction of the time and resources to build a tank compared to a Battleship.
Therefore, it is not the same for a tank not to even make out of the design table as a Battleship ceasing construction after 6 months of tireless work.
No.
H-41 was the last seriously designed ship; they had pretty complete blueprints for her, and her design phase was mostly complete. So I could see H41 being added later down the line. 42-44 are all design studies that were never seriously designed or considered. Alsace as a design, was never finished and was never finalized, so she’s out anyway. And A-150 is just an information black hole at the moment.
All that said, plans allegedly existed to 1:1 replace the 46cm guns on the Yamato with the twin 51cm guns. So there may be an avenue to get the 51cm gun in game a la Gneisenau.
sounds like a terminator name
a 4th Yamato-class was roughly 30% complete before it was scrapped so assuming they don’t do it to Musashi or Shinano it’s possible,
THIS is what im most worried about, just what will gaijin actually make up for sevastopol’s 380mm shells if the kron’s 305mm already perform better than some 14-15 inch shells? and better yet:
while im not sure this is still the case, but years ago a datamine found that russian 12 inch guns had much better accuracy than other nations’ 12 inch guns, with it (as per the dataminer’s comment) being comparable to US 5 inch guns.
will the russian 380mm guns be more accurate than the competition? firing a shell that is conveniently stronger than the competition? i just cant really trust the snail with that
Bismarck, Gneisenau and Sevastopol would all share the same gun and turrets and shells. It’s the same twin gun mounting.
Doesn’t the Sevastopol’s mounts lack the power assisted loading due to weight concerns? That would mean that she would get a longer firerate compared to the others.
But otherwise the same I believe
lets hope gaijin will adhere to that and not make up anything for the sevastopol gun handling.
i have this feeling they will either misconstrue or bend the stats in a way that will be most convenient for it like what they did with PK’s SAP shell (during when SAP was the meta)
I mean the Sevastopol lacked a lot of things… Not even a completed hull so who could say what loading mechanism could be used. 27s is the usual firing cycle.
Compare that to Scharnhorst 17s lol
Eh marketing lies
Yeah, should have 60 to 70 second reload rates
any predictions about where USS Iowa would be?
I’d guess lost like US mains usually are :P
