I think the problem would be the same as we have now. The Soyuz blueprints called for things that were literally impossible for them to build. The U.S. could have built the Montana. It had the industrial, design, and material capabilities to do so. If we start allowing “as designed” Soviet ships, we will get more fantasy BS that never had a hope of ever being completed.
2 Likes
could you define reasonably build would you consider not having resources to build said ships or not having the capabilitys such as dry docks factorys etc
Certainly.
https://www.navalgazing.net/Soviet-Battleships-Part-2
https://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_16-50_m1937.php
“These are consistent across Western and Russian-derived accounts. The industrial limitations were structural (metallurgy, quality control, skilled labor, plant capacity) rather than temporary wartime disruptions alone.”
1 Like
so the requirement should be just having industrial capability to build large ships? finances and resources don’t matter ? as most country’s in game meet that requirement for their blueprint ships ? the only one that cant make that is russia cause they cant make armor
i wouldnt mind seeing H41 just a uparmored H39 with 16.5s germany could build it but it wouldve been a big waste of resources
No. Read my sources. They couldn’t produce the armor or the shells needed, as well as other critical systems. They couldn’t produce the propellers needed. The guns didn’t work right. The vast majority of the rivets were faulty. They simply couldn’t build it. It has nothing to do with the financial resources or whether or not it was needed or practical. I’m. It entertaining ideas about paper only ships. This is about in game ships that had at least been started.
1 Like