Afaik, the ship’s active career ended 1942 and it never had big guns?
Was ‘planned’ to modify as in-game Cavour
but they already made 11-inch modelling of Gneisenau, and will never change cause it cost money. So unless in the long future where nothing is left to come out, ‘planned’ 38 cm Gneisenau is not an option for War Thunder.
Besides, it is not 381 mm(15-inch), but 38 cm(14.96-inch)
You saw what the devs did with Togg’s tank, so why wouldn’t they do the same for the Gneisenau?:
3 Likes
Well don’t think so. TOG is recently new model, and were designed for both form. Gneisenau was modelling found more than two years ago.
Until it’s actually in game, then anything is on the table. Models get changed all the time and this isn’t even in the game yet.
The turrets and most of the other animated equipment are separate submodel and same turrets are often copypasted across different models (this applies mainly to the AA armament) so changing the model from the 283mm turrets to the 380mm turrets would be quite quick especially when they model the 380mm turrets. The ease of adjusting the model can be seen with the Gay Archer boat.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually get the 380 mm version of Scharnhorst/Gneisenau. But that is something which will come after Bismarck/Tirpitz and that will take a while.
I think that for WT purposes the battlecruiser designation is appropriate. With 283mm armament it will have no chance against contemporary BBs and if the maps would be bigger (25 - 35 km) it would be relatively matched with the other battlecruisers. So I think that it should stay.
If we get the 380 mm version then that should be classed as BB.
These in game classifications are really important for the spawns ect. So making it battleship could have unintended consequences.
Massive waste of an opportunity ngl.
Whats the point of a 1 to 1 copy paste ship ffs
1 Like
Actually I prefer this. Ship of similar characteristic and stats at same BR makes solid line up, and as Renown shows six 38 cm gun is not super-worthy than nine 28 cm gun in BR where we meet cruisers
There is more to do, than just swapping the turrets. You would need to 3D model a new, longer bow, a new tripod mast with superstructure changes to accommodate the new turrets, too.
1 Like
Thanks for the correction. But I think that even if we get Gneisenau with 283 it doesn’t dispute the 380 version. We can get the same ship twice in different versions.
And I think it would be missed opportunity, but it really isn’t relevant now since I am quite certain that we will get Bismarck/Tirpitz first.
1 Like
Spawning, I don’t think there’s a single map where BB and BC are different spawns. As for the repair costs, that’s mostly BR related as well as rank more than classification isn’t it?
No. even in the same BR battlecruisers are tiny bit cheaper than battleships. for spawn point, I said not practical in naval as all map has same spawn point for cruiser and battleship, and they don’t require practical spawn point for ships.
1 Like
Interesting, my USS Alaska is 310k SL to repair while my USS Arizona is only 300k. Same amount of modifications.
That’s because Arizona sucks at the past XD and was originally 6.7 battleship.
Alaska/Kronshtadt : 41,766 in RB with spaded
Scharnhorst : 41,754 in RB with spaded
Hood : 41,842 in RB with spaded
Parizhskaya Kommuna : 41,867 in RB with spaded
Bayern : 41,842 in RB with spaded
Saschen : 41,834 in RB with spaded
Marlborough : 41,867 in RB with spaded
Hyuga/Fuso : 41,867 in RB with spaded
Conte di Cavour : 41,867 with spaded
Ise : 41,766 in RB with spaded
except for Hood&Ise, battleships were usually having more expensive repair cost than battlecruisers. It’s last BR&Repair cost change that Arizona got up to 7.0. Soon her repair cost will also increase.
2 Likes
There’s no rule that two versions of the same ship can’t be in War Thunder.
And the 38cm version of Gneisenau was more than just planned, the conversion was actually begun and was more than halfway through when cancelled.
2 Likes
Officially no, but we also have yet to have a single duplicate ship.
1 Like
Because it hasn’t been necessary yet. For destroyers and cruisers there’s almost always enough sister ships that there’s no need for duplication. But that isn’t going to hold up forever, because most nations have really slim pickings when it comes to post-WW1 battleships. That includes Germany, which has 5 more after Scharnhorst that meet Gaijin’s standards for inclusion (Gneisenau, Bismarck, Tirpitz, and “H” and “J” of the H-class).
1 Like
Although it doesn’t give more WWII BBs, I could definitely see bluewater Germany getting an Austro-Hungarian subtree. It would be a perfect way to include a major WWI navy and give the German tree more options at the same time, as they have the second-lowest amount of WWII-era content, only above the Soviets.
1 Like
Would make sense and could take them all the way until 7.0.
It would also hopefully help to thin out some of the Scharnhorst and Bayern spam as these ships are very tough to crack in the majority of their peers.
1 Like
What difference does that make in game? Because if it’s historical so much of the tech tree is batshit nuts anyway (M109 alongside Sherman’s) (Maus vs. T54’s) and half the USSR cruiser fleet is after 1950 alongside USA WW1 dreadnoughts, etc.