JennyTheBelgian

I updated the chart! Scroll up to the first message to read it! (I also believe this will be the last revision in a long time since between subs, CVs, Ranked, CBs and various weegee shenanigans the game went even further downhill than the gloomiest expectations and I don't think I'll ever return)

SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2021 UPDATE: Here we are, almost 1 year after the original post: during this time, Wargaming added 33 (!) premium ships and 26 silver ships. The unique ones are: 1 EU/Pan-Am/Commonwealth/Italian ship (with Giuseppe Verdi simply being a Marco Polo 1:1 copy), 3 French & Japanese respectively, 6 Pan-Asian, Russian & American, 7 British, and SEVENTEEN German ships, overtaking both Japan and the UK in total number. That none dares to claim that Wargaming hates the German fanbase. The amount of fake/heavily modified hulls also skyrocketed: Germany now almost matches the Soviet record, while both the Dutch and Pan-Asian cruiser branches implement absurd design choices (Sanglune made an extremely well detailed post about them here). All in all, the game is steering more and more away from realism and straight up into fantasy territory (if Superbattleships and Soviet CVs were not already more than obvious signals). Here's a more detailed chart and one without the Built, Commissioned ships (Russia and Germany are in a league of their own). While here are the ships not included into the main chart (plus all the submarines announced a long time ago). October 29th, 2020 original post This is an updated version of a previous chart I posted on Reddit 5 months ago: while the image above cannot be edited and'll be out of date in a while, here's a link to the original spreadsheet that I'll try to revise whenever possible. Main sources for ships and dates are here and here respectively. Here's an updated list of clarifications from the other post: A great Thank You goes to Phoenix_jz for allowing me to use his awesome thread and distribution method, as his historical knowledge is far above mine. If you are interested in these kind of things, you should definitely check it out (especially you have questions about the GK designation), and another great chart used for many designations was made by Trainspite on the NA forum, so please go through it as well. 37 ships (and 13 Submarines) are excluded from this chart, as either duplicates or simple reskins: Tachibana Lima, Marblehead Lima, Diana Lima, Kamikaze R, Fujin, Southern and Eastern Dragon, all Black Friday and Arpeggio ships, both WH40K ships, Alabama ST, HSF Admiral Graf Spee, V.I. Lenin, Wukong and Bajie; with the exception of the pan-asian ones, Lenin, WH40K and Graf Zeppelin B, all vessels supposedly entered service in real life. I didn't remove Iwaki Alpha or HSF Harekaze II as they are not duplicates, contrary to the Spee. For the Hakuryu criteria please check this chart by HarunaKai There's a reason both Belfast and Belfast '43 are in the list, even if the hull is basically cloned; many other older ships fall into the same category, just with unrelated names. These are Svetlana and Krasny Krym, Gangut and Okt. Revolutsya, Benson and Lo Yang, Boise and Nueve de Julio, Nürnberg and Adm. Makarov, Albany and Almirante Abreu, Giulio Cesare and Novorossiysk, Huang He and Chung King. Exactly the same ships, serving in different times. Odin classification, albeit dicey, is based on this great post by Son_Of_The_Empire, as for the USN and the complicated situation of Bayard. Regarding Florida, as pointed out by aforementioned Kingpin6100, Friedman states that North Carolina was laid down as Florida, even though the escalator clause was invoked and the ship was redesigned before her formal laying down. However, the change was not communicated to the builders until after the ship was laid down. Kansas, albeit a refitted South Dakota 1920 design, was nonetheless laid down and built to a degree, so I prioritized this fact over giving her a red tag. Minnesota, however, differs far too much from the original, including what WG used for the main guns. Even worse with Vermont, as the model is just loosely inspired to Tillman's Maximum Battleships concept (more precisely Tillman I, not IV, as you can read here and here. Monarch falls in the Modified-by-Lesta class as, quoting the "WoWs Wiki" page, "In World of Warships, Monarch is a very loose interpretation of Design 15C of 1935, one of the designs that was put forward alongside those that would later develop into the King George V-class battleships. It is arguable that Monarch doesn't represent design 15C at all due to the numerous major historical inaccuracies and differences from the actual design." More info in this thread. Huang He classification might seem arbitrary too: previously known as HMS Aurora and sunk in 1949 serving the PLAN, is nonetheless depicted in WoWs with a fantasy Soviet refit as the conversion project got cancelled. Now, for the controversial stuff: in the case of Kremlin, while 3 of the 14 pre-drafts contemplated 457mm guns for Project 24 in 1949, there's absolutely not a single chance the Soviet steel/naval industry could have been able to manufacture them (if I'm wrong, please tell me everything you know). And since even Stalin, of all people, basically looked at the proposal and said "what the [edited]are you smoking" at his designers, completely shutting down their deranged fantasies, this variant isn't worth any more than other idiotic plans like the Ferrati's 1915 D-series battleships (3x4 381mm guns on a 1914 hull). As this is already a third, upgraded version of this first chart, if anyone finds more inaccuracies or oversights (because there are some as it's obviously not perfect or definitive) about the aforementioned ships or the graph in general I'll be eager to read their opinions!

For both ARP and AL collabs I can understand why they copied the ships 1:1, since models are never actually touched and are just clones, but with V.V. representing the class as a whole, it's another story. Just imagine the outcry if Tirpitz and Bismarck had the exact same 3D model!

Shame. Shame shame shame. You had more than 4 (four) months to make two simple adjustments to Vittorio Veneto's model, but you did absolutely nothing. Also, it's not like getting the actual plans is really THAT difficult (contrary to what you always said about having an hard time accessing the archives, you didn't even try) And not only that, but instead of making simple but amazing camos like last year's Grigio-azzurro chiaro you created the undoubtedly worst permacamos in the entire game. How could you even miss the chance to add rostra to those confused heaps of junk, they would've at the very least made them slightly more bearable

At the cost of sounding like a broken record... You had more than 4 (four) months to make two simple adjustments to Vittorio Veneto's model, but you did absolutely nothing. Just... wow Also, it's not like getting the actual plans is really THAT difficult (contrary to what you always said about having an hard time accessing the archives, you didn't even try)

I would like to know this as well

A small premise: as I wrote on the DevBlog post, since Tech-tree ships are idealistic views of the class as a whole, they may present differences both in specifications and appearance even if based on real ships, so it's okay to have some minor inaccuracies. BUT, since the odd one in the class is actually Roma, while both Littorio and Vittorio Veneto were strikingly similar, it should be the logical choice to model the Tech Tree ship on those two, and not Roma as in game. The collective image should especially reflect those two, not the totally unique subclass which Roma represents. Moreover, it should be clear to everyone that the Art Department has been under constant pressure for the entire year, steadily churning out ship after ship without brakes. Even with the ongoing global pandemic, I understand that this branch was (ironically) announced earlier than expected, and this could be one of the reasons why we don't have Cuniberti's proposal at T3 or that three ships are yet to be fully modeled. Nonetheless, I seriously hope Lesta will read this and, when the time comes, they'll correct the glaring oversights I'm about to list, as they did with countless ships like Kitakami's (lack of) AA suite, Slava's bridge, Småland's AA, Zara's red/white stripes etc. First of all, the most important one, the Bridge. What really tells apart Littorio and V.V. from her sistership is how both rows of windows are positioned at extremely different angles; not only that, but also all the lower small rangefinders of Roma were in different places, as you can clearly see on these renders from Carlo Cestra (many more ships on his website here) This is Littorio, notice how even unfinished (and with the original bow, more on that later) the peculiar shape of the superstructure is radically different from Roma's. First two pics are from 1938 And here is a look at Vittorio Veneto, third pic dated 1941 Now, the second main point: the Bow. While the first two ships had a modification after sea trials to enhance seakeeping, Roma not only was made 3 meters longer during construction, but got a far higher bow with only 2 anchors, not 3 like both her sisters. The appearance of Littorio and V.V. (shown together in 1941 in the last pic) would look completely different with the correct bow (in the second picture B is an arrow pointing to Roma's flared bow. On her sisters (whos bows are identical) the bow is much more straight compared to the heavy curve on Roma's bow, you can find more infos on this post) Other minor inaccuracies: for example, the starting point of the red/white air-reconnaissance stripes. There are multiple sources, usually in conflict over each other, but what's certain is that V.V. and Roma weren't the same in this regard. Morevoer, both Littorio and V.V. had a different optical equipment between the funnels and different secondary fire directors.

Yes, I also found that kind of answer pretty sketchy, just like the recent "V. Veneto is simply based on Roma because it should represent a collective image of a type, with borrowings from different ships", which is just a blatant lie since their Veneto is literally a 100% copy.

That's what we thought for the longest time, but WG mentioned in this Q&A how "Odin was designed as one of the possible preliminary variants of a Scharnhorst type battleship (or battlecruiser). The hull is almost the same as of Scharnhorst type battleships, but main guns have a higher caliber, diesel engines and different secondaries. All in all, Odin is a pre-Scharnhorst with diesel engines and 305 mm guns. As for detailed blueprints or schemes we used, unfortunately, we cannot share them with you". Though to be honest, even I found this official response pretty unreliable.

While Cristoforo Colombo for the T10 is a pretty inappropriate name (especially considering the concurrent existence of an Italian training vessel of the same name, sistership of the famous Vespucci from 1926 to 1963), Marco Polo is unfortunately even worse. For a start, the only warship ever named after him was an armored cruiser laid down in distant 1890, not even reaching 5.000 tons of displacement. As many others have pointed out, it would be like naming a Japanese battleship Suzutsuki, a H-39 Prinz Heinrich or another Montana-class USS Chicago. And in the 1930/40s, as you can see in this official 1931 document for RM Naming Conventions, capital ships' names were starting to steer towards figures of the Risorgimento, Admirals, new Provinces, fundamental concepts of the Nation, the Savoy dinasty or great victories. You put an exceptional amount of logic into the addition of Alighieri, original Cavour, Andrea Doria and Caracciolo (albeit with terrible gun mounts), but then something happened and what we got is a second Roma copy-paste (please, please Lesta, use a bit of the time saved from modeling a T3 to make those two simple changes), a questionable T9 and an absurd T10. We all know how much you care about "consistency" in the progression of Tech Tree branches: so, just like last year's correction of Verona/Torino/Milano in the far better and more appropriate Amalfi/Brindisi/Venezia (for which you have my most sincere gratitude), the T8 Italian Battleship is named after the notorious battle of Vittorio Veneto, and you did the same with Lepanto and the 1571 naval engagement: why not change a totally incongrous name such as Marco Polo into something like Piave? Other options, as noted by Phoenix_jz, would be Patria, Unità, Costituzione, Re (or Re d'Italia), Isonzo, Enrico Dandolo, Francesco Morosini, Giuseppe Mazzini, Vittorio Emanuele II and Regina Elena. There are just so many other choices that would fit late Regia Marina naming conventions.

So, I forgot to share this yesterday, but as said many times before, this reasoning is basically nonsense. Roma is the single member of her subclass. The "collective image of a type" represented by silver ships should be based on Littorio or Veneto herself, almost identical, definitely not the unique third ship. Nothing was borrowed or inspired from other vessels, as Veneto's model as it is now is simply 100% Roma's. If Veneto in game is the epitome of the entire class why would it have the exact same model of the ship that was the only one of the class to have those differences?

Exactly, which is why I understand they just copied Roma again. The VV model we have now is good for the most part, it just needs these two minor adjustments to be the perfect embodiment of the whole Littorio-class

This is the second time Roma's model is copied 1:1 to represent her sisters, like AL Littorio. I understand that, with AL collabs, models are never actually touched and are just clones, but with V.V. representing the class as a whole, it's another story. We're not asking for a complete remodel of the ship, but simple corrections to both Bow and Conning Tower. Lesta did an awesome job tiering from T4 to T8, they shouldn't fall to lazyness regarding these important details.

Lepanto is actually a very fit name for a major unit of the Regia Marina. If you want, this is the 1931 book for naming conventions of the RM

Okay, I'm terribly sorry to start with a complaint, because you did a great job tiering from T4 to T8 (No T3 though? Very strange), but this can't go unnoticed. Just like what happened to AL Littorio, Vittorio Veneto's model is simply a total copy of Roma's. I know that Tech-tree ships are idealistic views of the class as a whole, so while real they may present differences both in specifications and appearance, but there are just 2 main inaccuracies that must be solved by your Art Department. The flag bridge you modeled is exclusive to Roma, both Littorio and VV had a very different design with angled windows, as shown here. The bow is another main inconsistency: while the first two ships had a modification after sea trials to enhance seakeeping, Roma not only was made 3 METERS longer, but got a far higher bow with only 2 anchors, not 3. While there may be other minor mistakes to the model presented today (like how far the red/white stripes reached the deck, as shown at the end), please, please I beg you to modify just these glaring mistakes, as you did with Zara's bow stripes or Slava's bridge.

These side effects of Server Migration are probably the worst thing that happened to this game in recent time. On behalf of (I hope) the entire community, many thanks for finally taking action on the matter. They'll presumably outright buy another semi-inactive clan and restart everything in a week-time, just like the SEA clan you disbanded not too long ago for the same reasons, but it's a good sign nonetheless.

ROKA I've been a big fan of your works for so long I didn't realize you had an EU account too! So, while unable to thank you directly on the other forums, please know that you've done an utterly great job with your voice mods! What a great addition to this game and what a service you've provided to this community. Thanks again, the amount of lines is truly staggering

The stronkest in the world! Always has been!

If the sailors on deck are included with the War Paint camos, meaning they are not just render-exclusive and will be present in port (just like the ones of the Puerto Rico), it'll be more a great plus to justify the grind. What a wonderful addition. Please, make them available for every ship, even just one would be enough. (I made this image for the subreddit a couple of months ago, look how easy is to grasp ship sizes now)

Oof! Yeah you are definitely right. Our Akula-class naming refers to the Shchuka-B, while theirs refers to the one we in the West name Typhoon. Pretty convoluted, but this is totally my bad.

Ehm, Wargaming, that silouhette is not an Akula, but represents the much bigger Typhoon. Such an obvious mistake on an article specifically meant for submarines is considerably worrisome...

These ships need substantial buffs, the SAP one announced one week ago is not enough! Give them a Main Battery Reload Booster as their damage is pitiful, the only strength they should have!

Thank you, from the very bottom of my heart, for your understanding. I couldn't be happier for these new names, they really mean something to all of us naval enthusiasts. Now, I'm truly satisfied with these top tier cruisers, hope they'll perform as good as they all look! But remember, when the time of Italian Battleships and Destroyers will come, that they had different onomastic conventions from cruisers, so cities will not be the best naming choice!

Trento, Fiume, Zara, Pola, Gorizia and Bolzano were chosen, like you said, for propaganda reasons (they were the most preminent cities in the newly North-East territories gained after WW1)… … aside that, the problem seen is not about naming the cruisers to cities, but to cities with NO SEA CONNECTION: Taranto (already used in the past) is a city on the sea and one of the Italian Naval Bases Pisa is one of the 4 old Italian Maritime Republic (together with Genova, Venezia and Amalfi) so it has its own history related to the sea Bari: another city by the sea Milano, Torino and Verona are well known cities but WITHOUT ANY REAL sea history!!! Ideas about more fitting names: - Pisa or Amalfi (like said, the 2 remaining old historical italian Maritime Republic, as Genova is already choosen and Venezia reserved for future ships) - La Spezia (home of one of the italian naval bases) - Napoli (pretty well known city, and ON THE SEA) - Livorno (another, even if small, city-port, very well known for the connection to the shipping routes to Sardegna… maybe fitting for the smallest t.8 cruiser at most) That said, the best idea could be to use “Pisa”, “Amalfi” and “La Spezia”: 2 named after the remaining Italian Marine Republics (their flags, together with those from Genova and Venezia, are still placed in the center of the Italian Navy — both commercial and military — flag), the third after the remaining (after Taranto, already choosen) main Italian Naval Military Base.

The ships look amazing, even because T8 and T9 comes for about an 80% from Ansaldo's projects for Spain. The main, gigantic problem, are names. They are totally out of place, except Genova, because they completely destroy Regia Marina naming conventions. It just seems that WG saw many botes were named after cities and went along those lines, except from the fact that Torino, Verona or Milano are stupid names for RM ships and have NEVER EVER been used.