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.
BUT
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.
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.
The questions is more complex now, what is the naval ship project threshold to be acceptable to be added to the game?
- Project final design got a designation?
- Hull number been assigned?
- Construction authorized?
- Construction started?
The problem is that with the announcement of Sovetsky Soyuz project a door was opened for the Final generation of battleships projects, that contains: Alsace-class, Design A-150, H-class, Lion-class and Montana-class.
Gaijin also stated: “Although only the best battleships in the game (including those we’ll announce later 😃) can pose a real threat to the Sovetsky Soyuz…”.
The rule has always been “laid down”. Nothing new to see here.
The rule is the same as for other suggestions in terms of it must be laid down and or have had a significant unique component built (hence why the Montana’s aren’t suggested).
But for additions fully in a deleted dovbleg they said that finished designs that weren’t built for political or otherwise reasons were also considered for addition, as ships have some barriers that things like prototype jets don’t. Manpower, resources, costs etc.
That’s exacly my question. Some of the projects I mentioned had finished designs and weren’t built for otherwise reasons. Example, the Montana had final design, construction approved, hull number assigned and as far as I know it’s construction not started because Pearl Harbour attack just happened and the military shifted resources to more critical constructions.
Edit1:
I looked up in wiki and got more info:
Laid down: Lion-class and H-class.
Design finished and scheduled to be laid down: Alsace-class and Montana-class.
Design incomplete: A-150 (Super Yamato-class).
The A-150 had gun barrels produced.
Montana had her 5"/54 batteries build and said batteries would go on to be used on the Midway class carriers, meanwhile her main battery had a number of guns built. Saind guns were to eventually be used on USS Kentucky, but due to Kentucky never coming fruition, they were instead used in the HARP program.
Not to mention that Illinois and Kentucky’s hulls were originally slated to be Montanas, but were then laid back down into fast battleships due to need.
Cant speak to Alsace, but the above two had major components constructed.
Given the overall lack of French vessels I would like Alsace to come primally due to the French naval tree being vastly smaller without it and Alsace as a whole was a very interesting design concept, same with the Royal Navy’s G3 class battlecruisers.
Thinking about it as well, since Amagi was added to the game, whats stopping Gaijin from adding the Lexington class battlecruisers as well? A number of them had their keels laid down, Saratoga and Lexington were well along into construction and are far more real than Soyuz.
One thing I’m curious about is, is it okay under current rule to make non-comissioned ship in fictional(or in good word, could be) armament.
We have Z47, which is with not a historically projected AA armament, already in game. If this is intentional by Gaijin, we could have multiple design of non-comissioned ship in same class, but I don’t know its just casual Gaijin’s mistake of insufficient research or intentional addition.
When it comes to Alsace, there isn’t any finished design. According to recent archives known as the “Potsdam archives”, which gives us the last mail and communications from Darlan regarding the Alsace in 1940, a project was finally approved for construction hastily and taking a maximum from the Richelieu class to simplify construction. It was to be, most likely, a 3x3 design, not a 3x4. Reason for that being the difficulty with dispersion encountered at the time. In any case, wether or not there was a finished design is not certain, since everything regarding this ship was destroyed along with the rest of the documents during the invasion in 1940.
No historically accurate Alsace would be feasible in War Thunder. There would need to be guesswork. And I’m personally against it. For this one or any other ship that was never built. And no, one one dude gathering bolts in a hangar or hammering at a piece of metal for a week before it being cancelled isn’t what I would call 'built".
With the trailer for the Leviathans update I’ve seen many ppl calling the Sovetsky Soyuz a “what if” ship, and looking for info about it, more than one place states that the Soviet Union lacked the technology to make the ship and most certain it would be canceled/re-designed. So never mind the questions I made, this is in fact a what if ship, so anything is on the table.
Forget being laid down, did it not even leave the drawing board? Fuck… At least we now know incomparable is a possibility.