First German BB Leak - STOP THIS PAPER "WHAT-IF" UPGRADE IDIOCY!

[RamirezKurita]

All this random conversation about hypothetical German refits if they had kept their fleet and naval budget intact between wars makes me wonder if eventually we will see a Royal Navy 1930s refit of SMS Baden from an alternate history if they had kept her as a war prize and retained her into WWII.

 

 

Ishizuchi is a stock 1909 battlecruiser design including the AP shells. Arkansas Beta is a hybrid and Imperator Nikolai I is.... Russian.

 

 

 

​Those are premiums that represent a particular ship from a particular moment in history, and can't really be compared to generalised classes of ships like the regular tech tree ships.

[Francois424]

I'm more annoyed at the KAISER's armor nerf from 350 to 285mm personally.

For WG announced that German ships would have survivability as their main traits.  Weaker armor isn't what I had in mind.

This is just leak on possible outcomes tho.

 

 

[Gojuadorai]

I'm more annoyed at the KAISER's armor nerf from 350 to 285mm personally.

 

 as posted multiple times it looks like its only the average of side armor 

 

[Francois424]

 

 as posted multiple times it looks like its only the average of side armor

 

 

Thanks, I did not keep 100% up-to-date with what was going on, that one just stroke me.

Good to know.

[daki]

First of all, I understand that as a non German I am not able to understand the reason for such amount of rage.

If my national tree was so close to being released (which will never happen since I am in a continental country ), I would be happy.

No matter the visual/historical deficiencies which get sometimes fixed overtime (as in WoT).

[Tuccy]

Gentlemen, settle down, you ain't seen nothing yet 

 

Bear in mind, that in navies that survived WWI, dreadnoughts of generations translating to Tier IV-V in our game served often throughout WWII - often with substantial modernizations. These were all driven by WWI lessons, already waaay before air threat gained any credibility. If you compare, say, New York class as bult twith Texas of 1945 (or, for that matter, first and last form of USS Wyoming or say West Virginia), you will not ice very serious changes, and that is even without going full Pagoda. Why did this happen?

 

1. Range. Longer combat distances. WW I showed that even back then, the practical engagement range was longer than envisioned (this among others killed broadside torpedos on battleships). Hence improved fire control was needed (get tem powerful rangefinders and spotting stations as high as possible!) and, at the same time, often a turret redesign was called for, improving elevation angles to get longer range. This resulted in, among others, pagoda masts (Soviet Navy went the same way in their modernisation of old dreadnoughts, though the result was less appealing than with IJN) and, in German case, robust monopod masts (making cruisers a lot uglier ;))

2. Survivability. WWI shown the danger presented by torpedos, plunging fire and all that. Most navies, when rebuilding their dreadnoughts, opted for additional torpedo defence systems - jsut compare Fuso as built with Fuso in WWII, or already beefy US Standard battleships getting even beefier with new bulges.

3. AA. Heavy AA became a thing and spawned a lot of different designs, however all of them needed good arcs of fire, good position of fire directors and substantial topweight, leading often to elimination of parts of standard secondary battery and so on. Fields of fire required a substantial redesign of superstructure, as mentioned already by other posters.

 

There were more factors in play, but these were the main motivators. Now, it is true that these upgrades are not documented on German battleships - however that is for one very simple reason: There were none left. Kriegsmarine was eviscerated and basically with no ships worth upgrading. Their design teams also suffered and when rebuilding started, quite a lot of obsolete solutions was picked, including straight bows, because the design teams were filled, apart from few experienced people, with officers not too well versed in the details of ship constructions. 

However... Already WWI designs (for example design L 20) showed a slanted bow - not really Atlantic bow, but going that direction. At the same time Germans showed to be not too hesitant about replacing straight bows when the full scale of error was realised. And without the Versailles interruption, I have little doubt the old guard of the designer  bureaus would continue in implementing WWI lessons much like other countries did. To suggest that German ships would remain frozen in WWI is kinda doubting their abilities and they do not deserve that.

 

The point is: German battle fleet of WWI would not stay untouched, if she was not scuttled at Scapa. The only alternative would be Germany completely ignoring world trends - as everyone and their dog was upgrading their old dreadnoughts, at least as far as major powers go. Including such oldies as the Arkansas class. It is not only about carriers - just imagine being stuck with stock Myogi or stock Kongo throughout the progress through them, without ability to upgrade to the late hulls. At the same time, WWII designs show a lot how such upgrades might turn up - after all, even Bismarck design was heavily influenced by the late WWI philosophy (arguably lacking the "just after WWI" shifts most naval nations processed) - so the torpedo defence systems would get better, superstructures larger and bristling with weapons and other changes. How large? Well... Why won't you just wait and see, when the German battleships pop up?  I am fairly confident you will like 'em 

[ColonelPete]

We would like more pictures. Maybe some teasers?

[Vogel]

We would like more pictures. Maybe some teasers?

 

Here you go, German BB and CA alongside each other:

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Just to be clear: I have no idea how the German BB line will be at all.

[creamgravy]

^ Very funny  Here's an actual WOWS port shot of one of the ships Tuccy mentioned.

 

 

A stock Myogi 

 

[Unintentional_submarine]

Gentlemen, settle down, you ain't seen nothing yet 

 

Bear in mind, that in navies that survived WWI, dreadnoughts of generations translating to Tier IV-V in our game served often throughout WWII - often with substantial modernizations. These were all driven by WWI lessons, already waaay before air threat gained any credibility. If you compare, say, New York class as bult twith Texas of 1945 (or, for that matter, first and last form of USS Wyoming or say West Virginia), you will not ice very serious changes, and that is even without going full Pagoda. Why did this happen?

 

1. Range. Longer combat distances. WW I showed that even back then, the practical engagement range was longer than envisioned (this among others killed broadside torpedos on battleships). Hence improved fire control was needed (get tem powerful rangefinders and spotting stations as high as possible!) and, at the same time, often a turret redesign was called for, improving elevation angles to get longer range. This resulted in, among others, pagoda masts (Soviet Navy went the same way in their modernisation of old dreadnoughts, though the result was less appealing than with IJN) and, in German case, robust monopod masts (making cruisers a lot uglier ;))

2. Survivability. WWI shown the danger presented by torpedos, plunging fire and all that. Most navies, when rebuilding their dreadnoughts, opted for additional torpedo defence systems - jsut compare Fuso as built with Fuso in WWII, or already beefy US Standard battleships getting even beefier with new bulges.

3. AA. Heavy AA became a thing and spawned a lot of different designs, however all of them needed good arcs of fire, good position of fire directors and substantial topweight, leading often to elimination of parts of standard secondary battery and so on. Fields of fire required a substantial redesign of superstructure, as mentioned already by other posters.

 

There were more factors in play, but these were the main motivators. Now, it is true that these upgrades are not documented on German battleships - however that is for one very simple reason: There were none left. Kriegsmarine was eviscerated and basically with no ships worth upgrading. Their design teams also suffered and when rebuilding started, quite a lot of obsolete solutions was picked, including straight bows, because the design teams were filled, apart from few experienced people, with officers not too well versed in the details of ship constructions. 

However... Already WWI designs (for example design L 20) showed a slanted bow - not really Atlantic bow, but going that direction. At the same time Germans showed to be not too hesitant about replacing straight bows when the full scale of error was realised. And without the Versailles interruption, I have little doubt the old guard of the designer  bureaus would continue in implementing WWI lessons much like other countries did. To suggest that German ships would remain frozen in WWI is kinda doubting their abilities and they do not deserve that.

 

The point is: German battle fleet of WWI would not stay untouched, if she was not scuttled at Scapa. The only alternative would be Germany completely ignoring world trends - as everyone and their dog was upgrading their old dreadnoughts, at least as far as major powers go. Including such oldies as the Arkansas class. It is not only about carriers - just imagine being stuck with stock Myogi or stock Kongo throughout the progress through them, without ability to upgrade to the late hulls. At the same time, WWII designs show a lot how such upgrades might turn up - after all, even Bismarck design was heavily influenced by the late WWI philosophy (arguably lacking the "just after WWI" shifts most naval nations processed) - so the torpedo defence systems would get better, superstructures larger and bristling with weapons and other changes. How large? Well... Why won't you just wait and see, when the German battleships pop up?  I am fairly confident you will like 'em 

 

Very nice... very nice indeed... But without pictures, screenshots or images of the new ships I would have to say everything is invalidated. I expect a new post in the morning with at least 10 pictures.

*shush guys, let him post 'em up then we can tell him it was not serious*

 

Seriously though, very nice post.

[Trainspite]

 

 

The point is: German battle fleet of WWI would not stay untouched, if she was not scuttled at Scapa. The only alternative would be Germany completely ignoring world trends - as everyone and their dog was upgrading their old dreadnoughts, at least as far as major powers go. Including such oldies as the Arkansas class. It is not only about carriers - just imagine being stuck with stock Myogi or stock Kongo throughout the progress through them, without ability to upgrade to the late hulls. At the same time, WWII designs show a lot how such upgrades might turn up - after all, even Bismarck design was heavily influenced by the late WWI philosophy (arguably lacking the "just after WWI" shifts most naval nations processed) - so the torpedo defence systems would get better, superstructures larger and bristling with weapons and other changes. How large? Well... Why won't you just wait and see, when the German battleships pop up?  I am fairly confident you will like 'em 

 

 

Does this apply to the Orion as well? I can imagine that Iron Duke would recieve a Queen Anne's Mansion, but I would doubt Orion would get one really. Maybe a few AA mounts stapled on, but a full rebuild seems a little unlikely. 

 

I did not expect Kaiser to also get a substantial rebuild, I would have thought that he was adequate enough without one, with just a few added extra AA guns. 

 

 

 

[Adwaenyth]

We would like more pictures. Maybe some teasers?

 

Just look at my avatar and identify the ship.

[von_chom]

EDIT: Just to be clear: I have no idea how the German BB line will be at all.

 

T7 - small Bismarck

T8 - Bismarck

T9 - slightly bigger Bismarck

T10- the biggest Bismarck

 

am I right ? 

 

[fnord_disc]

 

T7 - small Bismarck

T8 - Bismarck

T9 - slightly bigger Bismarck

T10- the biggest Bismarck

 

am I right ? 

 

 

T8 Cruiser: Anorexic Bismarck

[1MajorKoenig]

Tucci,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

I understand the reasons behind your decision and you documented them clearly in your post.

 

However reading through it the underlying problem is a different expectation here. Your assumption is that the game's timeline is 40s for all tiers regardless of the ships (maybe except from T2/3). The logical consequence is that all tiers need to be looking like if they could be used in WW2.

 

I am not subscribing to this assumption however. Why wouldn't be T4 for example be set in a late WW1 or maybe 20s timeframe? The ships of that tier had their stellar moments during that time not WW2.

 

It comes down to the frame you are setting and the story you want to tell. Personally I see a huge opportunity wasted by shoehorning every Tier into a WW2 setting and not have the era prior to this war represented in the game. Thus the great disappointment.

[RamirezKurita]

Tucci,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

I understand the reasons behind your decision and you documented them clearly in your post.

 

However reading through it the underlying problem is a different expectation here. Your assumption is that the game's timeline is 40s for all tiers regardless of the ships (maybe except from T2/3). The logical consequence is that all tiers need to be looking like if they could be used in WW2.

 

I am not subscribing to this assumption however. Why wouldn't be T4 for example be set in a late WW1 or maybe 20s timeframe? The ships of that tier had their stellar moments during that time not WW2.

 

It comes down to the frame you are setting and the story you want to tell. Personally I see a huge opportunity wasted by shoehorning every Tier into a WW2 setting and not have the era prior to this war represented in the game. Thus the great disappointment.

 

​It's not that they are making all ships into a WWII setting, it's just that currently all T4-5 ships had refits in the 1920-1930s that made them suited for WWII (the Myogi obviously being a hypothetical one consider how they were paper ships to begin with). It was only the oldest dreadnoughts and most of the RN dreadnoughts that were scrapped during the interwar period. With this in mind, to keep up with the USN and IJN ships they will have to make some hypothetical refits to make the ships work, as otherwise their final hulls will be pretty terrible. T4 capital ships are very much about 1910 in terms of timeframe for stock hulls, but the later hulls take it up to about late 20s. T5 on the other hand is slightly later for stock hulls, but the later hulls currently take them up to late 30s. Why should the German Navy be any different in this regard?

[fnord_disc]

Besides, you can always play through the Imperial dreadnoughts using only their A hull if you prefer it, and König Albert appears to be in her WW1 configuration. The premium ship certainly looks accurate historically.

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with refits that make sense from an engineering point of view, even if they're hypothetical. What offends me are improbable fantasy ships like Roon.

[mr3awsome]

Does this apply to the Orion as well? I can imagine that Iron Duke would recieve a Queen Anne's Mansion, but I would doubt Orion would get one really. Maybe a few AA mounts stapled on, but a full rebuild seems a little unlikely. 

 

I did not expect Kaiser to also get a substantial rebuild, I would have thought that he was adequate enough without one, with just a few added extra AA guns. 

I'd expect something along the lines of the Rs for Orion (and Lion)

[Walther_K_Nehring]

@ Tuccy

 

That sounds all logical. But if you use some fictive interwar-upgrades, why don´t you built them compared to German interwar-projects, like the Könisgberg and Nürnberg, or even the Deutschland-Class? There you have rangefinders for mainbattery and heavy AA that would fit better, than the ball-rangefinders from Scharnhorst- and Bismarck-Class.

 

As I said earlier, in the end we have to wait untill the first leaks will appear and than we can discuss further things. But I hope, that some of the devs studied some books and blueprints to understand the German way of naval thinking and of course what was usual in those days in terms of weaponry, technical designs and of course possible engineering.

[CaptainThunderWalker]

Gentlemen, settle down, you ain't seen nothing yet 

 

Bear in mind, that in navies that survived WWI, dreadnoughts of generations translating to Tier IV-V in our game served often throughout WWII - often with substantial modernizations. These were all driven by WWI lessons, already waaay before air threat gained any credibility. If you compare, say, New York class as bult twith Texas of 1945 (or, for that matter, first and last form of USS Wyoming or say West Virginia), you will not ice very serious changes, and that is even without going full Pagoda. Why did this happen?

 

1. Range. Longer combat distances. WW I showed that even back then, the practical engagement range was longer than envisioned (this among others killed broadside torpedos on battleships). Hence improved fire control was needed (get tem powerful rangefinders and spotting stations as high as possible!) and, at the same time, often a turret redesign was called for, improving elevation angles to get longer range. This resulted in, among others, pagoda masts (Soviet Navy went the same way in their modernisation of old dreadnoughts, though the result was less appealing than with IJN) and, in German case, robust monopod masts (making cruisers a lot uglier ;))

2. Survivability. WWI shown the danger presented by torpedos, plunging fire and all that. Most navies, when rebuilding their dreadnoughts, opted for additional torpedo defence systems - jsut compare Fuso as built with Fuso in WWII, or already beefy US Standard battleships getting even beefier with new bulges.

3. AA. Heavy AA became a thing and spawned a lot of different designs, however all of them needed good arcs of fire, good position of fire directors and substantial topweight, leading often to elimination of parts of standard secondary battery and so on. Fields of fire required a substantial redesign of superstructure, as mentioned already by other posters.

 

There were more factors in play, but these were the main motivators. Now, it is true that these upgrades are not documented on German battleships - however that is for one very simple reason: There were none left. Kriegsmarine was eviscerated and basically with no ships worth upgrading. Their design teams also suffered and when rebuilding started, quite a lot of obsolete solutions was picked, including straight bows, because the design teams were filled, apart from few experienced people, with officers not too well versed in the details of ship constructions. 

However... Already WWI designs (for example design L 20) showed a slanted bow - not really Atlantic bow, but going that direction. At the same time Germans showed to be not too hesitant about replacing straight bows when the full scale of error was realised. And without the Versailles interruption, I have little doubt the old guard of the designer  bureaus would continue in implementing WWI lessons much like other countries did. To suggest that German ships would remain frozen in WWI is kinda doubting their abilities and they do not deserve that.

 

The point is: German battle fleet of WWI would not stay untouched, if she was not scuttled at Scapa. The only alternative would be Germany completely ignoring world trends - as everyone and their dog was upgrading their old dreadnoughts, at least as far as major powers go. Including such oldies as the Arkansas class. It is not only about carriers - just imagine being stuck with stock Myogi or stock Kongo throughout the progress through them, without ability to upgrade to the late hulls. At the same time, WWII designs show a lot how such upgrades might turn up - after all, even Bismarck design was heavily influenced by the late WWI philosophy (arguably lacking the "just after WWI" shifts most naval nations processed) - so the torpedo defence systems would get better, superstructures larger and bristling with weapons and other changes. How large? Well... Why won't you just wait and see, when the German battleships pop up?  I am fairly confident you will like 'em 

 

Amazing post.

 

Btw, does the first sentence mean we can design our own ships in the future?

 

Edit: Like this? Few details are still missing (portholes because I can't make textures to save my life, but also AA guns, screws, the rudder, rangefinders, etc... probably also need a mast to attach some signal flags to )

 

 

[Tuccy]

Nope, designing napkin projects is our prerogative!  At a glance, your project looks awfully top heavy, recommend wider beam and either lower forecastle or giving up on the superfiring turret. Or reducing tubes per turret and adding instead another turret aft.

 

 

 

[CaptainThunderWalker]

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it!

 

It looks taller here than it is though, the superstructure should be lower than that of the Russian DDs. I think unless the deck height is a lot lower IRL than it is here, which I doubt. The superstructure, looking from the main deck (not the raised forecastle) is 9 meters tall. If that's too tall that obviously needs fixing but I doubt it looking at the Russian DDs which have the same number of stories on their superstructures, or even one more. I still need to fit rangefinders for the forward guns on the superstructure so it might be you are right, though, because those things need space.

It's roughly 113 meter long and 10m wide ^ .

 

About the turrets... There has no triple turret for guns of this low caliber been built ever (76, 85, 88 or 90mm), so I have no real clue what such a turret would weigh. It might indeed be pushing it (on a 1600-ish ton ship?), though, even if just 76mm. However, since I completely donked the guns (no, do not try to see what I did wrong on the image, it is almost invisible) I need to remake them anyway. Maybe 100mm twin mounts with a single gun superfiring would be a better idea. Or even no superfiring mount but a quad 40mm AA mount?

[puxflacet]

i have no problem with paper ships refits and so - myogi come to my mind since she is one of the most beautiful hypothetical refits in the game, but i think this should not be applied on real ships - surely not at this extent - drastically changing ships appearance. but german bbs are understandable problem.

 

i am afraid what they will do with scharnhorst...please no 380mm!

this could end up like in World of Tanks where you barely recognize the famous vehicles like Panther becouse they put tons of hypthetical upgrades on them for whatever reason...wg should just find them place in the game as they are/were and don't turn them into weirdos

[Meltion]

As the rumours are atm, Scharnhost will be Premium with 28cm, but Gneisenau will get the refit, as she was already in port, stripped from the 28´s and waiting for completing..

Sadly for her, war was to quick and workers to slow, so she never sailed again..

[avenger121]

puxflacet, on 21 June 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

this could end up like in World of Tanks where you barely recognize the famous vehicles like Panther becouse they put tons of hypthetical upgrades on them for whatever reason...wg should just find them place in the game as they are/were and don't turn them into weirdos

 

7,5 cm KwK L/100 and 8,8cm KwK L/100 agree.