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.
Both the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were supposed to be fitted with 38cm (15inch) guns.
For various political reasons (to my understanding) and on the basis the 38cm gun turrets weren’t ready, they were fitted with the 283mm (11inch) guns until they could be refitted. Scharnhorst never was, and Gneisenau was only part way through fitting when iirc they just stopped fitting her.
2 Likes
As I saids earlier, repair cost standard and spawn point(though having no usual meaning in casual AB and RB) is cheaper on battlecruiser.
Will there be any possibility that the Pr. 206 when operated by AI bots be reclassified as a Battleship? 
3 Likes