Project Ships and Modernizations

I was thinking about project ships that were cancelled/never laid down due to the Naval Treaties or other factors. I wanted to know if you guys think that, if added, Gaijin should try and make a “best approximation” of if the ships were modernized, or leave them as designed? I know WoWs did it with a few ships that actually existed, like the Ersatz York (in WoWs named Prinz Heinrich) and I’m not really sure what the consensus is on if that should be done here too.
For example, if ships like the Borodino-class, G3-class, Normandie-class, or Francesco Caracciolo-class are eventually added, would you want a version that is an approximation on how they would’ve been modernized during the interwar years/WW2? This would also include ships like the O-class, M-class, Lion-class, the Unnamed Yamato-class ship, or in general any ship laid down/under construction during WW2 that may have had armament/equipment changes between the final design and what would actually end up in service. For example, when the USN’s Baltimore-class was laid down, they were planned to use .50 cals and 1.1in guns, but obviously that was scrapped for Bofors and Oerlikons. Should Gaijin make a “modernized” version for WW2 era project ships, like these, as well?
Things like new fire control systems, radar, dual purpose mounts, more small AA, etc. were added to a lot of ships leading up to, and during, WW2, and if any of the project ships were actually finished and commissioned, they probably would have been similarly modified. If our project ships were finished, and allowed to be “modernized,” would wartime modernizations like more DP guns or AA like the Bofors and Oerlikon be on the table for addition?
There would obviously exist no plans for such modernizations, as if the ship is cancelled/unfinished it cannot be modernized. So that would make any such modernizations somewhat “up to interpretation,” ideally depending on and referencing actual modernizations for other ships as inspiration. Maybe trends of modernizations, like ships overall receiving more AA guns, multiple ships of a class modified with radars, changes to secondary armament, etc. Or, for ships that were under construction during WW2, looking at the equipment in use around the ship’s planned fitting-out date, and taking inspiration from there. But there would still be the possibility of whoever is making the ship to throw such trends and inspirations out the window.

If you do want to see something like this, what would be the limit? Would you want them to make an “approximation” for more or less a specific year, such as 1941, across the board? Or would/should it be dependent on specific ships? Should multiple project ships of the same class be added to reflect both the initial design and the potential modernizations, or should it be limited to the original design only? Should such additions of multiple ships of a class be limited to the WW1/early interwar ships, or extend to the WW2 era ships as well?

1 Like

I think there’s a difference to be made between warships that were mostly complete like the ww1 ones you mention and the ones that barely left the drawing board like the WW2 ones. Beyond that, well. Since the Kronshtadt was added, anything’s possible… That said, no, I’m personally against it. Ship building, especially at that time is filled with roadblocks and engineers ideas that end up being impractical when it’s implemented. At least with the WW1 ships, their armament is pretty straightforward and they were mostly built so we know exactly the results. The WW2 projects are already blurrier. And speculating on a modernization is like doing alternate history. There are way too many parameters beyond our reach to consider any possibility as a serious historical result. Fits for WoWs, not so much for War Thunder IMO.

First thanks for linking my post.

Second, me personally I am completely blueprint accurate. If ships get added on mass with refits they never had then that just opens up a door I would want to stay closed. I think blueprint design ships are cool the way they are, because if you think about it they are also quite limiting, where you don’t get any refit options and you are just stuck to one design.

Around the interwar era a lot of nations made some very powerfull battleship and battlecruiser designs. Let’s say they get added into the game, they can easily be at the top BR’s of naval forces since most of them were designed before the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.
Because they are from before WW2 they lack powerfull anti-air weaponry. So that way it balances them. And you might even prefer a weaker WW2 era design due to the fact that it has better secondairy weaponry.

If all those interwar era designs get added with made up WW2 refits then what is the point of all those actual WW2 ships. The blueprint designs are always more powerfull, again due to the fact most of them were designed before the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.

1 Like

I think this would create a too much room for wannabe historians and naval experts to fight to the death of what would be possible and what would not be. It would also be easy for them to claim there is bias or not if their favorite ship got less impressive AA refit than another.

Current policy of accepting only laid down designs is best of both worlds: we are gonna see more never buid ships, but their design is within reason.


Well let’s explore a little.

HMS Tiger (C20) is in game at 5.7 as a gift in its original build.

The refit version would remove 1 6 inch turret and 4 3 inch turrets, replacing them with two seacat SAM launchers and a deck for 4 helicopters for primarily anti-submarine operations.

If added in the current state of the mode it would be Britain’s only SAM equipped vessel.

In a future state of the game where submarines are present, she’d be alot more useful although I do not know if 5.7 is an appropriate BR but then again the current ways in which BR’s are done takes displacement more into account than capability.

Personally, I’d be cautiously optimistic, upgraded/converted/refitted ships could fill some gaps in trees where gaijin wants to add a new technology but does not want a re-run of the T2 situation when that was first added. I’d say judge it on a case by case basis and that the vessel must have at least been launched.

the thing is…

you are describing actual refit that was designed, planned, carried out and implemented. And as a matter of fact we can still get this variant as HMS Blake (C99) underwent similar conversion as HMS Tiger.

op is describing fictional, not even drawn, nor planned versions of never finished ships with pure hypothetical refits based on what different ships got refitted in the same era.

Francesco Caracciolo for example was never finished project from WW1. Now if it was completed, survived 20 years of peace, wasnt converted into an aircraft carrier, wasn’t sunk by any accident, wasn’t put in reserve, wasn’t sunk as target or blockship, wasn’t deemed to expensive or old to be refitted, it could possibly get a wide array of italian secondaries and AA guns. Which placement, amount and combination is up to anybody right now.

there is bit too much "if"s for a game that wants to simulate most realistic vehicle environment.

I’ll be okay for non-comissioned ship with ‘modification project’ such as 16-inch conversion for third and fourth ship of Izmail class battlecruiser or SCB-19 on USS Kentucky or USS Illionois. But approximation seems too far away.

Ah I see. I’ll say what I’ve said about paper ships in other threads.
As funny as HMS Incomparable would be, for any ship to be added in game, I think it should have been laid down if not launched at the very least.

Yeah as others have said just leave it at the actually approved plans for the ships. As I said in other threads I am really not a fan of Gaijin just inventing things.

But I also need to point out that we already have speculative/imaginery refit in game. The Z-47 and Z-46 are both unbuild DDs of the same class but the premium Z-47 in game has considerably more powerful AA refit even if such configuration didn´t exist.

Besides, I’m really confused by this picture, called as ‘modernization plan of Izmail class’
It can make sense as this so-called modernization plan resembles superstructure of Marat, which rebuilt just after rebuilt plan of Izmail class failed. But cannot find official or reliable second source on my ability.

If this plan is real, it could be in game as ‘modification plan for unfinished ship’

At least for G3 thats not necessary and I’d rather not bend the rules.

G3 already tests the rules to the limits particularly if it ends up with the 16.5" guns which im lead to believe it should do as opposed to the 16"s that I included in my post (getting a book on this).

You’d have an already good battleship. And the G3 was designed with a very advanced AA complement for the time, with 4 octuple pom-poms, 6 dedicated 4.7" AA guns and albeit poor, 8 twin 6" DP guns but they’re best for anti-surface.

It is drawn plan to modernise Ismail in 1916 based on experiences from the war. Never greenlighted and vaguely mentioned.

I dont see why not add Ismail in its original design, new one doesnt add anything of value that could be backed up by documents.