[JR-IT] Flavio1997 Alpha Tester 720 posts 7,134 battles Report post #1 Posted January 21 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[WG-EU] Commander_Cornflakes [WG-EU] WG Team, WoWs Wiki Team 3,497 posts 11,569 battles Report post #2 Posted January 22 Yes, that part is historical. The armor was used as counterweight for the guns. 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[HOME] GarrusBrutus Players 791 posts 8,308 battles Report post #3 Posted January 22 So if you want to save your turrets from being knocked out, just point them the other way. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[JR-IT] Flavio1997 Alpha Tester 720 posts 7,134 battles Report post #4 Posted January 22 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
[SOR] MortenTardo Players 1,515 posts 13,285 battles Report post #5 Posted January 22 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. You mean the counterweight is accurate to the drawings? 1 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[TTT] Tyrendian89 [TTT] Players 3,920 posts 7,767 battles Report post #6 Posted January 22 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] DJ_Die Players 783 posts 7,636 battles Report post #7 Posted January 22 12 minutes ago, MortenTardo said: Can't help but laugh a bit when someone combines Russian paperships with history. 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[WG-EU] Commander_Cornflakes [WG-EU] WG Team, WoWs Wiki Team 3,497 posts 11,569 battles Report post #8 Posted January 22 Vor 13 Minuten, MortenTardo sagte: You mean the counterweight is accurate to the drawings? Yes, historical drawings 1 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[ADRIA] wilkatis_LV Players 4,563 posts 6,874 battles Report post #9 Posted January 22 Concrete counterweights, that 617 is it's "equivalent" in armour 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SCRUB] Aotearas Players 7,540 posts 9,768 battles Report post #10 Posted January 22 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! 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[_OC_] Sturmtiger_304 Beta Tester 571 posts 3,735 battles Report post #11 Posted January 22 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] Reaper_JackGBR [SCRUB] Players 978 posts 7,801 battles Report post #12 Posted January 22 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] Animalul2012 Players 335 posts 5,310 battles Report post #13 Posted January 22 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] wilkatis_LV Players 4,563 posts 6,874 battles Report post #14 Posted January 22 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 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] DJ_Die Players 783 posts 7,636 battles Report post #15 Posted January 23 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. 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] Sigimundus [T-N-T] Weekend Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters 4,031 posts 9,370 battles Report post #16 Posted January 23 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. 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). 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[ADRIA] wilkatis_LV Players 4,563 posts 6,874 battles Report post #17 Posted January 23 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 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[10GO] The_Reichtangle Players 419 posts 9,616 battles Report post #18 Posted January 23 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... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[HOME] DJ_Die Players 783 posts 7,636 battles Report post #19 Posted January 23 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 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
[HOME] GarrusBrutus Players 791 posts 8,308 battles Report post #20 Posted January 23 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. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SCRUB] Reaper_JackGBR [SCRUB] Players 978 posts 7,801 battles Report post #21 Posted January 23 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
[NWP] ForlornSailor Players 3,777 posts 6,004 battles Report post #22 Posted January 23 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] Reaper_JackGBR [SCRUB] Players 978 posts 7,801 battles Report post #23 Posted January 23 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] WolfGewehr Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters 2,024 posts 7,342 battles Report post #24 Posted January 23 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. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[TOXIC] fumtu Players 1,240 posts 16,870 battles Report post #25 Posted January 23 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