Opinions on "Paper" Ships

Hello, I was thinking recently about making a few suggestions for naval regarding some “paper-ish” designs, where only one part of the ships (usually the gun) was created and tested but no hulls were laid down. Do you think that would qualify under the somewhat more relaxed rules for naval suggestions/additions? Or would you prefer not to see them at all?
I personally would like to see them specifically for variety, but only in the long-long term if proper ships run out.

For example, an interpretation of a Final Design for a Modern RN Heavy Cruiser, according to a data sheet (probably from a book). According to the person who interpreted the data and made a design, they even had names; the Admiral-class, consisting of Albemarle, Blake, Cornwallis, and Hawke.

Data Sheet

From what I could find, a single prototype BL 8-inch Mk IX was made, which was intended for this type of cruiser, would that qualify?

Another example for something like this would be the Japanese Design B-65 super-cruisers, of which two were planned, but not ordered. Ironically, these were drawn up as a counter to the Alaska-class, and those were drawn up due to mistaken intelligence saying that Japan was creating a “super-cruiser” - in essence they became self perpetuating. As I could find, no guns were started, but the ships were given hull numbers, 795 and 796 respectively. But because nothing for the ships was made, I don’t think even the engines were made, I don’t think these would qualify.

As a final example, the (preliminary) design for a Myoukou-class with three triple turrets. In essence a Japanese Baltimore-class, just on like 5,000t less displacement (they were still maybe half trying to comply with the treaty system), so it may be closer to Wichita than Baltimore. Link to original documents, which survived. No drawings (from what I could tell) but I think design specs were there. Because these would become the Myoukou-class, in technicality specific things were made for these ships. But since it was a scrapped design, I could also make an easy point for them not qualifying for addition, since the design was not the final one.
There was supposedly a 1941-type design, but I’m fairly certain that these were fabricated and not actually real, and due to the documents being burned at the end of the war, there’s no way to confirm if a design like this was actually planned.

But yeah, I want to know general thoughts on this kind of stuff. It would also extend to designs like the Montanas, the various German Plan Z proposals, the P- and D-classes, the modified Richelieu-class Gascogne, the Alsace-class, the N3/G3 type, the designs for an Italian ship with 406mm guns, and probably some others. Would these be viable for inclusion in the game? Should they even be included?

1 Like

I think where these is no reasonable alternative, like the RN heavy cruiser. They should be added.

If they are unreasonably OP, and there is a perfectly reasonable real-world addition that could be added in their place, then they shouldn’t be added straight away.

But yes, I’d have no issue with “paper ships” so long as there was sufficient material to model them properly


That’s kind of what I was thinking, for example, for Italy concerning modern battleships - past the Littorios, there’s nothing, and they’d be left behind.
But the issue would be finding enough sources that agree on the details or a common design to actually model.

1 Like

Yep, unlike air and ground, naval gets far more limited on options

@Rileyy3437 has a good thread some additions

1 Like

I think the problem with preliminary designs is thet there is a lot of them for every ship, like for the myouko ther are 4x2 with and without torpedoes etc…
I would only add ships that were laid down and ships that were ordered but ultimetly cancelled becouse of the loondon- or washington naval treaty.

I hold a positive opinion on paper ships, mainly cause otherwise top tier Sweden would be maybe two ships. As the rules stand right now, launched but incomplete is allowed which is fine, i would say they could loosen up the restrictions a bit but that would leave the option for down right unreasonable ships open.

Since War Thunder does not have a single paper ship, they should continue to be avoided.
I like their “must be laid down” rule that’s currently the maximum allowed non-operational vessel.


Thanks for the tag.

On the overall, I believe completed designs should be considered.

As for the Royal Navy cruiser line of interest. I have looked into it and asked a Naval Historian, this year there should be a book discussing these cruisers and I have been told it may include the first completed public plans for these ships as well as the ships selected from the 9.2" and 8" variants.

We will have to see what that yields but as a gun was built might give Britain a much needed decent CH.

I would like to see the Italians get the UP.41 variant of the Littorio class also and the French the Alsace in whichever configuration is better.

Would also point out that G3 was laid down so fits the current criteria even if it gets the 16.5" superheavy which I have also been led to believe was always planned rather than the 16" (getting a hold of a book which confirms this).


So in essence, only finalized designs? That makes sense, when I mentioned the prelim. Myoukou it was because I specifically was trying to find a “Japanese Baltimore” with the triple turrets, since the 1941-type one that I also mentioned was faked.
But yeah that makes sense, thinking about it now, I think if they ever do preliminary designs it should only be the ones that were intended for construction and then got changed. On the other hand, in the really long term, preliminary designs would allow a wealth of ships to be added since there was typically multiple preliminaries per completed ship.

I think a major issue that exists is gaijins rule about ships needing to have been laid down to be added to the game. This rule was VERY obviously put in place to favour the russians, as theyu generally had a pretty horrid navy EXCEPT for magical paper ships they laid down and then subsequently abandonned because they could not finish them. This has lead to the much despised Kronshdadt in-game, which wasnt even added in its real final configuration that was more realistic, instead opting for the original config with the magic soviet 305mm dream guns that have incredible pen, flat arcs, and higher bursting charges than significantly larger guns of other navies. This will also lead to other superships like the Stalingrad class, and eventually lead to the russians getting the single best BB in-game with the Sovetsky Soyuz class, while other nations are largely relegated to using ships that were actually built and sailed.

The one exception i can think of outside of the soviet dreamboats is the H-39 for Germany, but unlike the soviet dreamboats, its a considerably older design, and has some significant downsides, being in effect a upsized Bismark class with 406mm guns and terrible terrible AA for a ship its size.

This “laid down only” rule also means ships that very much COULD have been built, such as the Montana class, will not be added.


Yeah, unfortunately very true. The future in which Britain mayh ave a competitive heavy cruiser is pretty slim unfortunately

1 Like

And once again someone claiming NATO is Russia…
Kronshdadt is not despised, and was never the best Battlecruiser to begin with.

1 Like

Sorry, I don’t want to deconstruct this post but. I feel like I need to

I wouldn’t say to favor the Russians specifically, since that also entails ships like the Amagis, Tosas, Lexingtons, South Dakotas (the 1920 version), the Francesco Caracciolos, the Lions, and I think the Kiis, along with probably some that I’m missing. Russia didn’t even try to build new capital ships between Imperator Nikolai I and the Soyuzes, so that’s a huge gap there.

Both were “realistic,” it’s just that the 305s just… physically didn’t work in time. So they had to buy the 38cms because they couldn’t figure out how to make a new 305 - they hadn’t made new guns since the 1910s.

This was because those guns were actually really insanely good. Being based on the original Russian Empire 12-inchers means that they inherited the incredible performance of those guns. The only competent Russian naval equipment was their 12-inch guns for some reason.
See here for a table on the original 1911 12-inch performance. It’s actually kind of insane. The same website says that,

The battleships armed with these guns were known for their excellent shooting during World War I. During her engagement with the German/Turkish battlecruiser Goeben/Yavuz on 8 January 1916, Imperatrica Ekaterina II (which the Germans incorrectly identified as sister-ship Imperatritsa Maria ), firing into the sun at a range of about 20,000 meters, landed her first three salvos at 500, 100 and 50 meters short of the Turkish ship. As this distance was outside of her range, Yavuz was forced to run for home, pursued by the Russian dreadnought.

so just imagine what they’d be able to do for a modern 12-inch gun. Modeled after the 1911 version, it would be insane. And yes the Russians did stuff 12kg of HE into their 12-inch AP. Idk how. They just did.

The Stalingrads are just a worse Kronshtadt, with less armor but more radar. The problem with that is that the Russian radars just… aren’t good. They’re nowhere near the FC radars of the Americans and British of the period, and so it would basically be a Kronshtadt but can take less hits.
As for the Sovetsky Soyuzes, they’re really not all that good. The armor is comprised of multiple plates overlaid (less overall effective armor) because the Soviet industry couldn’t make armor thicker than 230mm. So despite the armor being a stated ~430mm thick, the effectiveness of the armor is negated by the spacing of the armor. Which means that in a fight with a contemporary, it would get rocked. It is the size of a Yamato but without the armor or firepower to match, and would probably get swept by a North Carolina-class, not to mention an Iowa or Yamato, as those ships actually have the firepower to match - even if the Iowas have less armor, they have FAR more effective guns. This is also leaving out the Pugliese System the Soyuzes had that was stolen from the Italians through espionage - which didn’t work specifically because of that, or the particularly unpredictable shell dispersion of the 16-inch guns.

The H-39s were not good either.
As envisioned, their designed belts were not inclined like typical period battleships, which means it would be far less effective at the longer ranges that newer battleships would fight at. At significant combat distances their belts will be butter to any remotely powerful shell, such as an American 16-inch super heavy or the Japanese Type 91s (of battleship caliber).

The “laid down only” rule is pretty good because it removes the possibility for some ridiculous designs like the Tillmann battleships. But it also means that some countries just can’t get anything because of other circumstances. Personally, I think there needs to be a distinction for ships that COULD have been built, such as those stopped by the Washington or London Naval Treaties, or the end of war removing their reason for existing, etc. A lot of things were cancelled and just… never started, despite ships and material being ordered, dockyards allocated, designs finalized, and stuff like that.

By all respects, right now Kronshtadt is THE best battlecruiser in the game. Its two “competitors” are not battlecruisers. One of them, the Alaska, is just an enlarged cruiser (hence the designation LARGE Cruiser) without the armor to match its size, and the other one, Scharnhorst, is just a battleship with small guns; only called a battlecruiser because people don’t know that battleships can have small guns. There’s a reason it has as much armor as the Arizona, and that’s because it was a battleship. The only modern battlecruisers, that are actually battlecruisers, other than Kronshtadt right now are Hood and Renown, and both are comparatively way worse.


To clarify, the Sovetsky Soyuz classes are 406mm armed ships, they’re about equal to the American North Carolinas, Japanese Kaga class (laid down), French Richelieus, and British KGVs at best, for sure no match for Iowas, Yamatos, or other proper modern battleships.
The Stalingrads are lighter Kronshtads, by no means overpowered as all hell. While the Krons 305s are basically magic, these days they aren’t as egregious as they used to be. The Krons are the best battlecruiser in game, but thats partly because the Krons are basically the only battlecruisers save the Hood and Renown. Alaska is a large cruiser, with cruiser armor on a large frame, and the Scharnorst is a battleship with small guns.

Honestly, the rule of “only laid down” seems to benefit everyone almost evenly, as it qualifies the British Lion class battleships, the Japanese Amagi class and Kaga class, the American Lexingtons, the French Clemenceau, the Soviet Sovetskys, and various other laid down ships. I see no issue with it


“Paper” ships would be nice for filling holes, and for adding ships that don’t have a real non-peper equivalent. Things like the British Baltimore equivalents you provided as an example are perfect. The German H-39s could be good too, as the Germans don’t have a proper 16-inch battleship equivalent otherwise. In this way using paper ships to fill holes could be good, but they’d have to be careful not to go overboard.

I’m okay with current ‘laid-down’ principle but expect it would be changed to ‘finalized design’ someday as US players, one of biggest fandom, will eventually call for Montana class as Iowa class will suffer.

1 Like

As funny as HMS Incomparable would be, I think WT naval should have ships that were at least laid down, if not launched.

1 Like

Excellent post, good to see all of this covered so thoroughly!

While some documentation was burnt we still have a large amount that still exists however those documents only exist to people who are approved to look into it so certain historians and advisors

I forgot about Incomparable. God please no