Trainspite

Based on what I know of the designs that lead up to Belfast/Edinburgh, yes. Unless things about it change, which I am not hopeful about. I'll post my full list of issues with Plymouth upon it's release if they haven't been amended. It's remarkable inconsistency to correctly remove the bulges but then leave the rest of the hull as is from Edinburgh. But that sums up a lot of the models in game. They look excellent these days, and details and easter eggs can be very detailed, and yet silly mistakes creep in.

Provided an update (again). Adding things like Hizen, Plymouth, Z44, the 40K Amagi near-clones, and updated descriptions for the new USN BBs. Also updated a few Russian ships like Donskoi and Bagration.

It's between Viribus Unitis and Bretagne for worst T5 Battleship. I'd love to pick it up, but it's simply too bad for me to consider it. That's the kind of problem you have when you have 6-7k less HP than the next T5 BB (and circa 19,000 less than the highest T5/most T6s), and in return you get nothing too exceptional because of the ships other disadvantages. The rudder shift/turning circle is great, except that it is still awkward to use the other 50% of the firepower in a situation where you need to turn. The firepower is not exceptional for a 20-21 knot dreadnought when at T5. Effectively if you can give up 1.2km of concealment, 2s of reload and some of the maneuverability, you get a bigger, faster and just as well armed ship in Oktyabryskaya Revolutsiya. Which also has AA. The ship would be far better suited to being a T4 premium (comparisons with Nikolai were over-exaggerated), but what can be done now. It's bad and I have a feeling it's going to remain bad.

I be the triggered. Thunderer/Conqueror as originally designed is a fake / fictional WG design that only shares the turret arrangement and individual guns with L2. Everything else, including the hull and turrets is part of WG's own design, which is best described as a 'mega-Vanguard'. The other examples are fine, although I could poke holes in them, mainly with armament/detail differences. Buffalo is CA-B, Puerto Rico is CA2-D with different 127mm secondaries for reference. It also doesn't help when WG get the things wrong (intentionally or not), like calling Shikishima A150 as a relevant example. Using the names of the designs also means WG would have to find ways to describe their inventions, which they usually seem averse to publishing, especially in the game client itself. It's far simpler for them to hide it behind an appropriate/ sometimes inappropriate name.

Given three of the responses above, it would probably a good time to point out that Shikishima is not A150 per se. The in game description is being misleading about it again, far from the first time. Shikishima is a cloned Yamato-hull with the same armour values, and same 155mm that would likely be dropped for ships beyond the Yamato-class. The differences being the triple 46cm being replaced by twin 51cm and a 100mm DP battery instead of 127s. This means that Shikishima is far more likely (almost certain) to be one of the follow on Yamato-class (111, 797 etc.) which has been re-armed with 51cm (but for some reason still has a 410mm belt instead of a 400mm one). The specifics of A150 are a sketchy topic though, and I'd consider Shikishima as close to getting A150 as this game is going to get.

I've forgotten what that looked like in all honesty, but it would be a reasonable guess.

Interesting to know, I was doubtful of Tallinn having 180mm guns of the same turrets as Projekt 26. Might be time to apply a fictional tag to it. Nice to see another cyrillic captioned plan view too. I have slacked off updating the historical sections of the RN ships as of recent, so I don't think I could help regarding the wiki.

I can certainly dispense some of the images I have. I haven't been as thorough with the Soviet ships in finding differencess between the designs, usually because I can't read Cyrillic and don't have many resources on the matter. Hence I glean from what I come across while scrolling. I don't have anything on Orlan, other than that it is purportedly Projekt 37, and might be a mix of several versions into one (which would make it fictional if it differed significantly from the original designs). Mikoyan is a 1933/34 Kirov-preliminary; Kotovsky uses the same hull as Mikoyan, but swaps out the 6x 180mm for 8x 152mm among other minor superstructure details. I'm unsure if this was meant to be on the same hull dimensions or not, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt for now. Budyonny is a version of Projekt 94 with 9x 152mm guns that apparently was little known about. There are some detail differences but this is the closest I have seen so far. Shchors is Projekt 28, one of the designs that lead into the Chapayev-class / Projekt 68 Lazo is one of the planned Chapayev-class / Projekt 68, the original pre-war design, as opposed to how Chapayev was completed post-war. Tallinn is the former Admiral Hipper-class Lutzow, originally renamed Petropavlovsk. It's received 180mm and 100mm guns to 'Projekt 83K', presumably a potential way of completing the ship postwar, but I have no evidence of this. Ochakov is MЛK Design 8-152. I'm not sure if it shares the same hull as Smolensk, since I believe it is meant to be a few metres shorter. Pyotr Bagration is reported to be a 1950 version of Projekt 65, with 9x 180mm. I have my suspicions however, since the hull is awfully similar to Projekt 68bis (Sverdlov/Kutuzov) in game. I'm not entirely familiar with Projekt 65, but the version below at least has a significantly different bow. Dimitri Donskoi is a combination of Projekt 65 variants apparently, again I don't know too much. Probably a mix of the 12x 152mm version but instead with 180mm instead. That is something I need to update in the list however. Will be fixed soon(TM). Riga is meant to be a 1943/1944 version of Projekt 82. Not much info, but it would probably be one of the designs mentioned in this passage from Rohwer and Monakov's 'Stalin's Ocean-Going Fleet'. Petropavlovsk is meant to be the 1945 version of Projekt 82. Again, not much info, no drawings or stats that can definitively say what Petropavlovsk is. Moskva is Projekt 66. Alexander Nevsky is Projekt 84, but Nevsky has 2x 5 torpedoes in game, whereas Projekt 84 didn't have them from what I have seen. The secondaries have also been replaced, twin 45mm replaced by twin 57mm. Also might be faster than intended by 3 knots. Smolensk is MЛK Design 16-130. Not much to be said here.

I have rather specifically excluded torpedoes from cruisers and battleships. I don't really see them as a main armament unlike with destroyers (or Kitakami), however it is worth noting those ships that have had torpedoes added, removed or edited, not counting ships where the torpedoes are anachronistic to the ship's model otherwise. Zara's model is actually just Gorizia with Zara's rangefinders and the torpedoes on it anyway, so it definitely not a good representation of the class. - Taranto B-hull - Svietlana - Karlsruhe B-hull - Furutaka A & B-hulls - Hawkins - Omaha A & B-hulls - Trento - Zara - Myoko - Mogami All of those have an incorrect number or outfit of torpedoes, be it more, less or switching fixed in hull tubes for on deck traverseable launchers.

I took my sweet time updating this, but I have. A small changelog; - Real ships with fictional armaments* have been classified as 'Semi-Fictional' (Chengan, Hashidate, Tachibana, Chester, Nino Bixio, Romulus, Visby, Ostergotland, Halland). - Zao and Drake have been classed as 'Semi-Fictional' to better represent their respective designs. - Changed Yashima's name to Shikishima. - Added Ludendorff, Rhein, Weser, Loewenhardt, Parseval and Richthofen for Germany. - Added Champagne for France, Zarya Svobody and Mikoyan for Russia. - Removed Gryf. - Updated descriptions for Storozhevoi, Podvoisky, Khabarovsk, Kotovsky, Ochakov, Pyotr Bagration, Knyaz Suvorov, Vasteras and Genova. *= Fictional armaments would be changing the main armament of the ship significantly; number and/or type of the main armament differs. Torpedoes/Guns for DDs, Guns for Cruisers and BBs. Mainz & the Pan-Asian DDs are the exception for now but that will change when I next update it in all likeliness.

Perhaps it was the superior rate of fire that made it better for me, lord knows it needed it. I'd probably rate Cheshire over Albemarle on that aspect, though I dislike both. Not to the extent of my dislike for London though. The range was pathetic and got on my nerves even in T6 games. True it's more effort, but at least it's good to state where they come from.

Ironically I enjoyed the completely fake Cheshire more than the historical in steel London. Not fun enough to give it a pass, but more fun that the absolutely horrible experience that was London. I can't buy either of the two recent RN CA premiums on principle, London for being garbage and not being a T7, and Cheshire because everything about it is fake/21st Century invention (Wrong guns, wrong shells, wrong hull, wrong turrets, wrong name - there was an existing HMS Cheshire throughout the 1940s to boot). I'm not sure if the Russian cruisers get an A grade for effort. Pyotr Bagration seems to share it's hull with Kutuzov (Combining Projekt 68 hull with Projekt 65 armament?) and Ochakov might share it's hull with with Smolensk (MLK 16-130 to MLK 8-152; same design series, so might be applicable, but I'm not sure). Someone with gamemodels3d could probably compare the models size. The RN CAs get two same hull premiums, or rather one lazy turret swap and a deeply disappointing historical sister ship. The Italian CAs would probably get the best mark since even if Zara is actually Gorizia's model with a few tweaks, at least there isn't a fictional accompanying premium, while Gorizia looks quite accurate. Though I would still prefer her to be a T8 faster firing alternative to Amalfi.

If I am recalling correctly from Innes McCartney's book on the Jutland wrecks the most likely broad indication of Queen Mary's sinking was thus, most eyewitness and survivors accounts recall two explosions; salvos striking the amidships Q-turret and causing a fire, a delay, then an explosion that broke the ships back. A few seconds later the A/B magazines exploded, the cause of that being difficult to determine, either being another salvo scoring hits or a chain reaction from the earlier explosion. I believe the same book also stated that the timeline for Indefatigable's sinking was that the ship had been hit aft (X-turret), hauled out of line to starboard, and was rolling over when A magazine exploded (either from shellfire from Von der Tann or ammunition coming loose). The photo from New Zealand backs this up at least, with Indefatigable rolling onto her port side, while the wreck is near completely obliterated forward (https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205086935). I'd say it is probable that a flash fire then explosion is the probable cause of this damage to the stern that sent Indefatigable into her death throes, but it's hard to ascertain that.

And yet Illustrious survived where an equivalent carrier could have easily ended up incapacitated and scuttled/sunk after failing to leave the combat area. Not many carriers were subjected to that amount of bomb damage, and there aren't many good comparisons to be made (Franklin or Kaga perhaps?). With no Essex-spam to make up for any losses taken, I'm quite sure that surviving to fight again a year later is preferable to the Admiralty than the option that has far more risk of the ship being lost for good. Given the aforementioned relative ineffectiveness of the RN's CAP and the theater of operations, it's the right call to have 3+1 Illustrious' instead of 4 more Ark Royals or Yorktown type carriers.

Smallest calibre, but more main guns overall. There is something to be said for that. Prince of Wales landed the first hits at Denmark Strait, she was performing reasonably before the quadruple turrets started having troubles. On a very fresh ship, it may not be unexpected, though there is something to be said for the drill and mechanical errors persisting in the quadruple turrets for some time. They effected the performance of KGV against Bismarck and DoY against Scharnhorst somewhat too. At the same time, you can find faults with the other contemporary battleships that hamper combat performance. Richelieu's dispersion, or the vibration issues on North Carolina. Design-wise, the KGV's accomplished a decent enough result while being closest to being treaty compliant with displacement. The DNC reportedly wrote to the First Lord of the Admiralty that given the facilities and displacement that Bismarck had, he could have designed a better ship. Though that point is more about Bismarck being overweight. I have made the case for KGV at T8 for ages. Since WoWs is an arcade game with an increasingly dilapidated historical facade, there isn't any reason why KGV should be replaced with the fake-bastard-schiffe Mongrel, which makes little effective difference in game. The challenges that the game throws at a 356mm armed ship at T8 can be worked around to create balance, I've seen and experienced enough to know that.