I am really on the fence about the “paper” ships which newer got to the laid down stage. Since it is very obvious that lot of nations will suffere since they never got past studies - France and Italy are the main ones which will not have top tier BBs but the are also considerable gaps in cruiser tiers.
So allowing design studies would greatly help but I really don´t like the idea of Gaijin inventing things which would be inevitable since for example in case of Italian 16" we have no data on them, in case of French cruiser (St. Louis) the armor design wasn´t completed and in case of the Admiral class CAs or B-65 there is a lot of unknowns.
I would say that the most reasonable place to cut of would be finalyzed and approved for construction designs and even then it leaves open a lot of space for interpretation of the designs.
I want more paper, everything, actually, opens a lot of windows for every nation, but maybe split the game modes to “Realistic” and “Alternative Reality”
That is simply untrue as others pointed out. But I will put it into more perspective the soviets managed to test the 406 mm B-37 which has very very simmilar performance on even more challenging caliber and after the war they manufactured the 305 mm SM-33 which has even better balistics and muzzle velocity.
So no the 305 mm B-50 isn´t dream gun because it is perfectly in line with soviet doctrine and development goals which simply were different from other navies which prefered the berrel-life.
When it comes to AP the 305 mm B-50 have almoast same weight of the bursting charge as have the US 12" on Wyoming. The Wyomings shells are smaller and have only slightly slower muzzle velocity and that is projectile from 1912 or so and originally it had basically the same muzzle velocity but USN decided to decrese it later on.
Or the German 305 mm APCs have even more filler and again in considerably smaller shell even the previous russian empire shells have simmilar amount of filler. Basically you are lying sice the amount of filler is actually substandard for 12 inch shell basically only the Alaska and Italians have considerably less HE filler.
So the shells on Kron are perfectly feasible since the second one (HE) actually existed.
The terrible AA on H-39 is BS it wont have AA madness of modern US BBs or late war refit of Yamato but it will be perfectly servicable in most encounters and I really wouldn´t say that Soyuz will have amazing AA. Plus the H-39 will have turtle back which will be amazing and I would expect it to perform better then the belt of Soyuz.
Honestly I’m not too sure how they’d go about non-finalized designs. I don’t know if there’s a way to do it without like… making some people upset that “oh it’s not close to the design it should actually be like this!” or something. Maybe they could hold them to votes? Like “we have this and this data, which would you rather see?” Or have a naval historian give their opinion on what they think the most “realistic” finalized design would’ve been? Something like that.
That’s the thing with design studies. By nature they just are unfinished. Yes some of them were close to finishing or even being laid down but still that would be room for odd interpretations of the data. Maybe what might be best is, if there isn’t enough data, something based on other contemporary ships? So like, for example, the Admiral-class CAs could have armor “based on” the Baltimores, as could the St. Louis’s, because they’re all supposed to be contemporaries. Not exactly the same, per say, but similar. A similar idea could be implemented for the B-65s if they’re ever added, since they were designed to counter the Alaska-class (which ironically were designed to counter a Japanese super cruiser that didn’t exist), so they would probably be roughly similar in performance.
As for the Italian 16" ships, not only were they design studies but to my knowledge Italy didn’t even have a 16" gun. Assuming they were actually to be armed with 16" guns, it would have been the guns from the Soyuzes.
That being said, I do still hope somehow something gets added there because otherwise Italy will kind of be left in the background.
Honestly thats precisely what I don’t want to see this kind of fantasy is something I really don’t like. While I am not opposed towards the completely paper designs the idea of Gaijin making up stuff really doesn’t sit well with me.
Maybe just use the last design study with all key parameters such as armament, armor and power train? That could maybe work, but the case of Italian BB is really bad situation, I am not well informed on that do we know if domestic armament was planned for that project/proposal? Or what were the general goals? Lets not kid ourselves France is in basically same situation.
At least the Italian guns have the pen but the issue will be the ROF will verz likely be just 1.3 meaning the Littorios will basically useless.
As I understand it, it was just a Littorio but with 16-inch guns. It was designated UP.41, and was designed for the USSR before they had decided to go with the Project 23s (the Soyuzes). Despite this, the design had supporters in Italy apparently insofar as plans to make a new dockyard specifically to build and maintain the ship, since it would be too big otherwise. ArmoredPatrol - WoWs TT Blog Naval-Encyclopedia - Littorio-class, UP.41
Work on the design would continue, slowly, until 1941, when budgetary constraints and a pressing need for more smaller vessels got the project canned. Among the replacements was apparently replacing all the Russian secondary armament with Italian ones, such as switching the 100mm for the 90mm. SecretProjects - UP.41 Thread
But it also leaves open the idea that if war had not broken out in 1939 and instead something around 1942 or 1943, the Italians would have been faced with looming construction from the French, Germans, and Soviets in terms of new capital ships. The H-class, while stated to be 40,000t, was more around 57,000t, and the Soyuzes were about the same. The French would have also had begun construction on the Alsace-class by this time, and Italy likely would have expanded the UP.41 design or the Littorio design to compete with the new ships.
However, at least according to Navweaps, the Italians did not have prototypes nor plans for a 16-inch gun. All that is known about the gun is broad performance characteristics. And even then, it may not have even been close to what the Italians would have had an actual 16-inch gun design been made. It is worth noting that the “Palla” shells, in design, were close to American and British Super Heavy shells. Had they gone with a “Palla” design for the 16-inch APC, if it existed, it would have had decent performance, probably on par or better than the American 16-inch. SecretProjects - UP.41 Thread (cont.)
So if they do it, Gaijin would have a few options. One is to estimate the performance of the Italian 16"(406mm)/50 assuming it had been built, the second would be to just put 15"(381mm)/50s on it (but how many, idk), and the third would be to just throw the Soviet 16"(406mm)/50 on them, which we would actually know about but would not be Italian at all (and probably lack the “Palla” shells).
France is somewhat better off on this department. The Alsaces were actually fully designed and ordered, but never laid down, as opposed to the UP.41 which is essentially just a design study. The French didn’t have designs for a 16-inch gun either but with France its a bit easier since they had three proposals for the Alsace-class and two of them involved the 380mm gun that already existed. There isn’t really a 16-inch gun to draw from either, like the Italians had with the Soviet gun, so France is kind of out of luck here. But, France also has the finalized Gascogne, never laid down as she had to wait for Jean Bart to be launched and clear the slipway; the war had started by then. Gascogne would’ve just been a Richelieu with one main turret fore and one aft, as opposed to the all forward arrangement, and while not really better it is at least another potential addition.
