Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Flavio1997

stalingrad armour bug? ( back turrets)

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[JR-IT]
Alpha Tester
720 posts
7,134 battles

Does stalingrad really had 617mm armour AT THE BACK of the turrets? it doesn't make sense to me, especially when the front of the turrets have "only" 240mm of armour

shot-19_01.21_22_49.05-0127.thumb.jpg.a0ea7e1003a0d1c52f1293965ae56f32.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Team, WoWs Wiki Team
3,497 posts
11,569 battles

Yes, that part is historical. The armor was used as counterweight for the guns.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
791 posts
8,308 battles

So if you want to save your turrets from being knocked out, just point them the other way. :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JR-IT]
Alpha Tester
720 posts
7,134 battles
1 hour ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

Yes, that part is historical. The armor was used as counterweight for the guns.

thx

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,515 posts
13,285 battles
2 hours ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

Yes, that part is historical. The armor was used as counterweight for the guns.

Can't help but laugh a bit when someone combines Russian paperships with history. :Smile_facepalm:

 

You mean the counterweight is accurate to the drawings?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
3,920 posts
7,767 battles

I like the concept though - probably meant as protection from the Commissar shooting them in the back of the head gun when they bring shame to Glorious Staliniumgrad by missing filthy capitalist swine...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Players
783 posts
7,636 battles
12 minutes ago, MortenTardo said:

Can't help but laugh a bit when someone combines Russian paperships with history. :Smile_facepalm:

 

You mean the counterweight is accurate to the drawings?

They were a lot less paper than most T10 shps in the game. I mean they even started building them and Stalingrad was quite close to being launched by the time Stalin died. 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Team, WoWs Wiki Team
3,497 posts
11,569 battles
Vor 13 Minuten, MortenTardo sagte:

You mean the counterweight is accurate to the drawings?

Yes, historical drawings :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,563 posts
6,874 battles

 Concrete counterweights, that 617 is it's "equivalent" in armour

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,540 posts
9,768 battles

That's a bug alright, should be 1945mm to commemorate the glorious victory of Mother Russia against fascist invaders. And the plate is made of welded-together nametags of each unsung Hero of the Soviet Union that died during the Great Patriotic War.

 

It's also why the Stalingrad was never finished, not enough people died. Cowards!

  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
571 posts
3,735 battles

Wait, what historical drawings?

Did WG dig out 2 pieces of krayon drawn blueprintships in A4 paper sheets out of the sekrit KGB document folders again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
978 posts
7,801 battles
6 hours ago, DJ_Die said:

They were a lot less paper than most T10 shps in the game. I mean they even started building them and Stalingrad was quite close to being launched by the time Stalin died. 

 

 

She was never close to being launched, none of the three ships were beyond 30% completion over several years being in the dockyards. The USSR simply did not have the technical skill or facilities to ever properly finish large ships in the 50's, which contributed to their scrapping as much as Stalin's death did. Stalingrad herself had her keel finished, and one half of her upper hull (the stern I believe) and that was it, she was still years away from being launched at best. The other two ships had their keel finished and half finished respectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RO-RN]
Players
335 posts
5,310 battles

eh there are more ships that have better back turret armor than on the sides and in the front. 

but did anyone saw that 128mm HE penetration on secondary turrets on kurfurst? it says armor penetration of an HE shell 30mm but in reality the shell can penetrate up to and including 31 mm of armor because 128 divided by 4 equals 32. but you need a number closer to 33 in order to pen 32 mm armor, but with  exactly 32 mm of pen on the HE shells can let you pen 31mm of armor so why it does say 30mm? maybe because there are no ships with 31 mm of armor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,563 posts
6,874 battles
33 minutes ago, Animalul2012 said:

eh there are more ships that have better back turret armor than on the sides and in the front. 

but did anyone saw that 128mm HE penetration on secondary turrets on kurfurst? it says armor penetration of an HE shell 30mm but in reality the shell can penetrate up to and including 31 mm of armor because 128 divided by 4 equals 32. but you need a number closer to 33 in order to pen 32 mm armor, but with  exactly 32 mm of pen on the HE shells can let you pen 31mm of armor so why it does say 30mm? maybe because there are no ships with 31 mm of armor?

Hmm, it should be 31 there :cap_hmm: Report it as a bug, most likely it's just incorrect text in port

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Players
783 posts
7,636 battles
19 hours ago, Reaper_JackGBR said:

She was never close to being launched, none of the three ships were beyond 30% completion over several years being in the dockyards. The USSR simply did not have the technical skill or facilities to ever properly finish large ships in the 50's, which contributed to their scrapping as much as Stalin's death did. Stalingrad herself had her keel finished, and one half of her upper hull (the stern I believe) and that was it, she was still years away from being launched at best. The other two ships had their keel finished and half finished respectively.

From what i read she was 70% ready for launching when they towed her out as a target. Of course, they screwed up and she beached.  :Smile_trollface:That however still means she was much much more developed than the majority of other T10s, the nonamerican ones that is. They could have finished her it just wasnt worth it, stuff like the GK? Not even close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
[T-N-T]
Weekend Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,031 posts
9,370 battles
20 minutes ago, DJ_Die said:

From what i read she was 70% ready for launching when they towed her out as a target. Of course, they screwed up and she beached.  :Smile_trollface:That however still means she was much much more developed than the majority of other T10s, the nonamerican ones that is. They could have finished her it just wasnt worth it, stuff like the GK? Not even close. 

If I correctly understood the text of wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad-class_battlecruiser only the hull was completed from 70% but the ship as whole was far less completed.
But I agree with you that Stalingrad is faaar less "paper ship" then some other t10 ships (even Montana is more papership then Stalingrad).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,563 posts
6,874 battles
26 minutes ago, DJ_Die said:

she was much much more developed than the majority of other T10s, the nonamerican ones that is

Yamato and Shimakaze would like to have a word with you :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
419 posts
9,616 battles
6 minutes ago, Sigimundus said:

But I agree with you that Stalingrad is faaar less "paper ship" then some other t10 ships (even Montana is more papership then Stalingrad).

I find this whole thing funny... Stalingrad gets hated for beeing a paper ship....

Ships like , Moskva, Henry, Zao, Kurfurst, Z-52, Hindenburg, Republique, Minotaur, Khaba, Harugumo, Montana, Conquerer, Hakuryu  never even saw a building slip... but hey the 70% Build Hull definitly should be condemed for beeing paper design X_x

 

edit : Bourgonne and Brennus... same... thing but eh.... EVIL Stalingrad...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Players
783 posts
7,636 battles
38 minutes ago, Sigimundus said:

If I correctly understood the text of wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad-class_battlecruiser only the hull was completed from 70% but the ship as whole was far less completed.
But I agree with you that Stalingrad is faaar less "paper ship" then some other t10 ships (even Montana is more papership then Stalingrad).

Hence why i said 70% ready to be launched. The only reason why Montana is a papership is because USN decided... ah what the hell, lets build more carriers instead... It was well within they industrial and technological capabilities. 

As for the Stalin, would Soviets have problems with the final ship? Quite likely but was it completely impossible? Not really. 

35 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Yamato and Shimakaze would like to have a word with you :Smile_trollface:

Yup, those are the minority of nonamerican T10s that were actually built. But then, you had one Shima vs... what, a hundred Gearings?  :) 

33 minutes ago, The_Reichtangle said:

I find this whole thing funny... Stalingrad gets hated for beeing a paper ship....

Ships like , Moskva, Henry, Zao, Kurfurst, Z-52, Hindenburg, Republique, Minotaur, Khaba, Harugumo, Montana, Conquerer, Hakuryu  never even saw a building slip... but hey the 70% Build Hull definitly should be condemed for beeing paper design X_x

 

edit : Bourgonne and Brennus... same... thing but eh.... EVIL Stalingrad...

Hell, most of those ships are just someones wet dreams or basic ideas. I understand why Lesta/WG created or used those designs. What i dont understand is why people are fine with most of those but are so much against a ship that came closer to actually being finished than the rest of them combined... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
791 posts
8,308 battles
3 hours ago, The_Reichtangle said:

I find this whole thing funny... Stalingrad gets hated for beeing a paper ship....

Ships like , Moskva, Henry, Zao, Kurfurst, Z-52, Hindenburg, Republique, Minotaur, Khaba, Harugumo, Montana, Conquerer, Hakuryu  never even saw a building slip... but hey the 70% Build Hull definitly should be condemed for beeing paper design X_x

 

edit : Bourgonne and Brennus... same... thing but eh.... EVIL Stalingrad...

Yes but those weren't designed to be OP. :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
978 posts
7,801 battles
3 hours ago, The_Reichtangle said:

I find this whole thing funny... Stalingrad gets hated for beeing a paper ship....

Ships like , Moskva, Henry, Zao, Kurfurst, Z-52, Hindenburg, Republique, Minotaur, Khaba, Harugumo, Montana, Conquerer, Hakuryu  never even saw a building slip... but hey the 70% Build Hull definitly should be condemed for beeing paper design X_x

 

edit : Bourgonne and Brennus... same... thing but eh.... EVIL Stalingrad...

 

The irl Stalingrads are not the same ones as the one we have in game however. The armour especially isn't to the same specs as those real hulls. The irl hulls were; Stalingrad, Kronstadt, Moskva (the ship names) in game we have three entire different classes based on the three irl Stalingrads; that should tell anyone something about how Wargaming has used the design in game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,777 posts
6,004 battles
16 minutes ago, Reaper_JackGBR said:

The irl hulls were; Stalingrad, Kronstadt, Moskva (the ship names) in game we have three entire different classes based on the three irl Stalingrads; that should tell anyone something about how Wargaming has used the design in game.

 

They were all entirely different ships/projects. Moskva project 66, Kronshtadt project 69 and Stalingrad project 82. They are projected ingame the way they have been / were planned / partially build in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
978 posts
7,801 battles
53 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

They were all entirely different ships/projects. Moskva project 66, Kronshtadt project 69 and Stalingrad project 82. They are projected ingame the way they have been / were planned / partially build in reality.

You're sure? Wiki gives the three as all part of the Stalingrad class. 

Ship hull number builder Laid down (official) Launched Scheduled completion
Stalingrad (Russian: Сталинград) 0–400 Marti Yard, Nikolayev 31 December 1951 16 March 1954 1954
Moskva (Russian: Москва) 0–406 Baltic Yard, Leningrad September 1952 n/a 1955
Kronshtadt (Russian: Кронштадт) 0–401 Molotovsk October 1952 n/a ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,024 posts
7,342 battles
2 minutes ago, Reaper_JackGBR said:

You're sure? Wiki gives the three as all part of the Stalingrad class. 

Ship hull number builder Laid down (official) Launched Scheduled completion
Stalingrad (Russian: Сталинград) 0–400 Marti Yard, Nikolayev 31 December 1951 16 March 1954 1954
Moskva (Russian: Москва) 0–406 Baltic Yard, Leningrad September 1952 n/a 1955
Kronshtadt (Russian: Кронштадт) 0–401 Molotovsk October 1952 n/a ?

 

Ingame Moskva is project 66

Ingame Kronshtadt is project 69

Ingame Stalingrad is project 82.

 

Same names being reused, wholly different ship projects. Also the name Moskva for project 66 cruiser is stupid by "WG's own video" as that name was already planned for the 2nd ship of project 82, so thus the name Moskva wouldn't have been used for project 66.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
1,240 posts
16,870 battles

Only three lines in the game are composed of ships that were actually build, USN CVs, RN DDs and IJN DDs (classic torpedo line). Majority of T10 and T9 ships were either laid down but never finished, project never started or simple concepts for future ships. T9 is especially bad with Iowa/Missouri and Jean Bart as only RL BBs. Not a single T9 cruiser ever existed, Ibuki was laid down but later converted to CV which was itself never finished. Kronshtadt, being laid down, was actually more real than all other T9 cruisers except Ibuki. DDs are somewhat better as only Z-46, Udaloi and Kitakaze being paper ships. Without paper ships lot of lines would have gaps, some of then quite significant.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×