Widar_Thule

Hilarious.

That is what I also think.

GRAF ZEPPELIN in real life did not have them. And the question indeed is: what did the WOWS Developers put these Dark Grey squares there for. They also have reflections/lighting effects in WOWS so I more get the impression that they are intended to be Flight Deck lights and/or reflectors by the WOWS Developers. In any event, nothing like this can be seen in the 1/100 and 1/300 Kriegsmarine plans of the GRAF ZEPPELIN class that I have seen.

Hopefully I can get an answer to my question in the mod part of the NA forum. I would like to know what the Dark Grey square-shaped objects are supposed to be that cover roughly two-thirds of the GRAF ZEPPELIN Flight Deck on the default ("vanilla") WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN model/textures. Can WOWS Developers please clarify where these objects come from and what is their purpose? They seem to be an invention of the WOWS Developers that have no real world basis. Photographic evidence and the original GRAF ZEPPELIN plans do not show these objects. I need the data for my WOWS AUTHENTIC GRAF ZEPPELIN mod and for modelling purposes in general. My most recent AUTHENTIC GRAF ZEPPELIN mod can be found on www.nexusmods.com Some images to make clear to what I am referring to. In the image underneath the many Dark Grey square-shaped objects on the Flight Deck of the WOWS GRAF ZEPPELIN are clearly visible Square shaped objects were visible on the steel deck of the real world GRAF ZEPPELIN, but that was before the wooden planking had been fitted. Here are two images of the steel deck of the GRAF ZEPPELIN before the wooding planking was fitted. These square shaped objects were no longer visible when the wooden planking had been fitted on the real world GRAF ZEPPELIN however. Here are images of the Flight Deck of the real world GRAF ZEPPELIN after most of the wooden planking had been fitted. Flight Deck in front of the Bridge: Flight Deck looking from stern to stem: Flight Deck looking from stern to stem, starboardside: Flight Deck looking from stern to stem, portside: Flight Deck looking from stern to stem, portside: Here is a post war image with a member of the USSR military on the Flight Deck of the GRAF ZEPPELIN, looking from stern to stem:

So what effect is the intended armour penetration increase supposed to have then for SHOKAKU compared to ENTERPRISE in your opinion? I do not own ENTERPRISE so I cannot test her and compare her to SHOKAKU. I have a lot of experience with GRAF ZEPPELIN however and while 334 mm of penetration sounds all fine and nice the fact is that the AP bombs of GRAF ZEPPELIN will NEVER citadel the ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS, and either never or almost never citadel most Tier 8+ USA and French Battleships. For more details on that I refer to this post which I posted on the EU forum on the subject. https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/135961-graf-zeppelin-ta-152-c-1-with-rockets/?do=findComment&comment=3497181

From what I see the armour penetration of SHOKAKU bombs is INCREASED and not kept "as is". To me this looks like a "buff" of SHOKAKU and not a "nerf". As to GRAF ZEPPELIN, what exactly does this mean: "Aiming reticle reduction speed increased by 15%"? Is that supposed to be a "nerf" or a "buff"? The problem with the GRAF ZEPPELIN AP bombs is not the size of the reticle nor the speed with which the reticle shape/size changes as a result of speed and movement of the delivering aircraft. The first problem with GRAF ZEPPELIN AP bombs is that they do too little damage and basically are not worth using compared to the damage done by rocket and torpedo armed GZ aircraft. The GZ AP bombs either do 0, 700 or 7,000 damage, most of the time it is 0 or 700. Especially when used against most Tier 8+ ships. The second problem with the GRAF ZEPPELIN AP bombs is that they cannot be reliably put on target even with perfect aiming versus large stationary targets. The GZ AP bombs often even fall OUTSIDE of the aiming reticle. Anyone can test in the training room and see that GZ AP bombs can totally miss even the largest Tier 10 ship when it is fully stationary and when the GZ AP bomb aiming reticle FULLY covers the largest stationary Tier 10 target ship.  A "nerf" by any other name is still a "nerf". You cannot hide behind semantics. Calling the "nerf" of a premium ship not a "nerf" but a "global change" or "global nerf" or whatever is disingenuous. So the premium GRAF ZEPPELIN is going to be "nerfed" yet again. That is what, "nerf #5"? Funnily enough the ENTERPRISE currently drops significantly more AP bombs per attack run than GRAF ZEPPELIN and therefore inflicts significantly more damage with her AP bombs than GRAF ZEPPELIN. Yet the current two pitiful AP bombs that GRAF ZEPPELIN drops per attack run will be reduced in damage by 1200 (from 7000 to 5800) while the plentiful number of AP bombs that ENTERPRISE drops will be reduced by a mere 1000 (from 5900 to 4900). So the currently already underwhelming and pitiful AP bomb attack of GRAF ZEPPELIN is changed from being bad to being worse. If I remember correctly the GRAF ZEPPELIN torpedo damage values were "nerfed" 3 or 4 times in 2019. And the GRAF ZEPPELIN AP bomb aiming reticle was also "nerfed" at least once in 2019 as well. So GRAF ZEPPELIN remains the most "nerfed" premium ship in WOWS, even though she is the worst premium Tier 8 Carrier in terms of damage inflicted per match and together with ENTERPRISE the most expensive. The only other premium ship that has been "nerfed" more than once as well in WOWS is TIRPITZ, she had her main gun reload increased by 3 seconds in 2015/2016, her side armour decreased from 320 to 315 mm (but not parts of her horizontal armour increased like she had in real life) about a year later, and her turret traverse speed reduced somewhere around 2015/2016 if I remember correctly. I think it is high time to "buff" a USSR ship to set things "right" again in WOWS, well at least when following WOWS Mgt. "logic".

This new series is a nice initiative, although judging from the topics and posts on the WOWS NA and EU forum it seems that the majority of the WOWS player base is not that interested in history and more in the game WOWS. I suggest that those that have sent in questions for the upcoming episode post them here so we can see what sort of questions have been posed to the panel of three. The subject of the upcoming first episode of "Warship Stories" is "the decisive aircraft carrier battles of 1942". Regarding that topic I have asked several questions and sent them via the link to WOWS. These are my questions: QUESTION (1): Can you expand on the difference between British, USA and Japanese naval Doctrine in general and regarding the Carrier Doctrine of these three navies in particular? QUESTION (2): Can you expand on the importance of naval doctrine and why doctrine supersedes and dictates both the decisions of senior naval commanders and the naval tactics used in battle and why. QUESTION (3): Can you expand on why Japanese naval doctrine was of decisive influence on the outcome of the Battle of Midway? QUESTION (4): Can you explain why the Japanese naval doctrine allowed them to launch 108 Combat Aircraft in one single concentrated combat formation from four Japanese Carriers (AKAGI, KAGA, HIRYU, SORYU) against Midway in the morning of 4 June 1942 in only seven minutes, while the USA naval doctrine only allowed 117 Combat Aircraft to be launced from two USA Carriers (ENTERPRISE, HORNET) in the morning of 4 June 1942 in about 60+ minutes which was then sent in uncoordinated and piecemeal against the aforementioned four Japanese Carriers? Let us see if the panel of three are inclined to respond to these four questions and have the knowledge and aptitude to answer them.

Thanks. The USSR only inherited a few hopelessly obsolete Imperial Russian Battleships. The USSR however was NEVER able to build Battleships, they did not have the technology, the experts, the industry, the capacity. So yes to low Tier Imperial Russian Battleships, but no to USSR Battleships in WOWS. And that goes double for Imperial Russian Carriers and USSR Carriers. They simply were beyond the means of Imperial Russia and the USSR in the time frame of WOWS. Wanting to build something and being actually able to build something are two different things. A paper design study can be turned into something "superior", as long as you do not have to actually develop the technology to actually build it. In a paper design study one can calculate and state anything, a paper design study is never put to the test unless detailed blueprints and the technology required to actually build a Carrier is actually developed and produced. So a paper design can easily state having a propulsion with 300,000 horsepower, the key issue however is: does a country actually have the knowledge, industry and experts to create a reliable 300,000 horsepower propulsion of the size and dimensions listed in the paper design. If that is not the case then the paper design is anecdotal at best and utterly worthless at worst.  For example the 200,000 horsepower propulsion system for GRAF ZEPPELIN (then the most powerful in the world) was first built and housed ashore in a test environment that had the exact dimensions of the one aboard the Carrier. The actual propulsion system for GRAF ZEPPELIN was thereafter built and installed in the ship. Thus the German navy first actually built and tested the propulsion system ashore for the planned eight Carriers of the GZ class, additionally that test system would then be used to train the crews of the planned eight Carriers before their ships were actually finished. The same was done with the GZ hanger, elevators, catapults etc. To my knowledge the USSR never ever got that far with any of their paper Carrier designs, at least not before the 1960s.

Thanks. I agree. It is such a pity that WOWS has to a large degree resorted to "inventing" a lot of fantasy "stuff" for the upcoming German Carriers, their Carrier Aircraft and their ordnance in WOWS. Especially so because the data on what really would have been used and what was actually designed, developed, tested and built in the real world is sadly not included.

I have a lot more data like the data I posted above on the German Carriers and the German Carrier Aricraft designed, built and tested which makes clear that the direction taken in WOWS with representing them could be a lot less "paper" and a lot more authentic based on what actually existed or was ordered built. What is both a pity and amazing is that the best sources on German Carriers, German Carrier Aircraft and German Naval Aviation apparently have again not been used by those responsible for the German Carriers at WOWS. I had pointed the WOWS Developers to these sources in 2017/2018 but clearly that data has again not been used. If I can make the time available required to write and organize it decently I will then take your suggestion to heart and post it in a separate topic like I did in 2017/2018 on the EU forum during the so-called GZ "redesign". That 2017/2018 GZ topic should be massively re-written but that takes time. So I thought it would be a good idea to at least post some of the data in this topic now, before the German Carriers are released, than post it after they are released. Having said that I am of the impression that the data I posted above is actually spot on when looking at this image: The data that I posted in this topic I have also posted on the EU forum and someone responded to it by posting the image above. I do not know where he got that image from but, unless it is photoshopped/doctored, it shows a "Bomben Torpedo" (Bomb Torpedo) mounted under a Ta 152 C-1 (that would then technically be a Ta 152 C-1 / R-15). If that image is real then it is safe to assume that the "new" fast and short range torpedoes for the German Carriers that are mentioned in the ST Developer's Blog are going to be "Bomben Torpedoes".

Russian and USSR Aircraft Carrier Design Studies from 1900 till 1949 It goes without saying that WOWS will see several of the USSR Aircraft Carrier design studies introduced into the game, probably around May in either 2021 or 2022. This topic presents an overview of what little reliable data is available on Russian and USSR Aircraft Carrier design studies for the time frame of WOWS. Russia from 1900 up till 1922 had some Aircraft Carrier design studies. Russia from 1900 up till 1922 had not started actual construction of a single Aircraft Carrier or Aircraft Carrier conversion. The Soviet Union had Aircraft Carrier design studies dating from 1922 till the death of Stalin in 1953. The USSR regime had from 1922 till the death of Stalin in 1953 not started construction of a single Aircraft Carrier or Aircraft Carrier conversion. Reliable data on the USSR Aircraft Carriers is hard to come by and reliable plans are even more rare still. To my knowledge there is no reliable data on any USSR Carrier Aircraft designs. It would be a long time before the USSR commissioned her first Carrier. In 1967 the USSR Helicopter Carrier MOSKWA was commissioned, becoming the first Carrier of the USSR. During the time frame of WOWS, roughly from 1900 till 1953, there were various Russian and USSR Aircraft Carrier design studies, this topic will list those that have more or less reliably been identified. None of these seem to have been more than design studies, meaning none of them resulted in actual construction blueprints that were ever seriously considered for construction. The USSR up till 1953 did have one Aircraft Carrier though, but it was not designed or built in the USSR. Up till 1953 the only Aircraft Carrier that the USSR posessed was the German Aircraft Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN which had been completed up till 95% by January 1943. After WW2 key German naval aviation facilites and the Aircraft Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN, including her latest blueprints, fell into the hands of the USSR. The GRAF ZEPPELIN had however been thoroughly and severely sabotaged and subsequently scuttled by the German Navy. The USSR Navy at the direction of Admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov ordered the GRAF ZEPPELIN raised and rudimentary repaired so she could be towed to Leningrad where she was to be fully repaired and completed so she could be commissioned and become the first Aircraft Carrier in the service of the USSR. The USSR had at that time, other than some drawings, no Aircraft Carrier technology whatsoever unlike Germany which had developed, built and tested all technology required for the GRAF ZEPPELIN class and her aircraft even before WW2 had started. When USSR engineers had finally patched up and repainted the scuttled GRAF ZEPPELIN to the point that she could finally be towed to the USSR it was not to be because on Stalin's direct orders Admiral Kuznetsov was ignominiously removed from his post and in 1948 he, as well as several other USSR admirals were put on show trials by the USSR Naval Tribunal and all found "guilty". Admiral Kuznetsov was then criminalized, marginalized, demoted and ultimately humiliated, and the other USSR admirals received prison sentences of varying length. Kuznetsov's successor then had the only partially and rudimentary repaired GRAF ZEPPELIN towed to sea on Stalin's orders to be sunk by the USSR Air Force, Stalin's "Falcons". These however proved unable to do so after repeated air attacks and even aerial bombs pre-installed in the ship failed to do so, as a result the USSR Navy was finally ordered to sink her with torpedoes. As a result the USSR would have to wait until 1967 before she could commission her first Aircraft Carrier. Conversion Project ADMIRAL LAZAREV Design study date: 1909/1910 Displacement: 3,750 standard tons Length: 80.2 meters Beam: 12 meters Draught: 5 meters Propulsion: 1 expansion machine with 5 boilers Power of propulsion: 2,000 HP Speed: 10.5 knots knots/endurance: ? Complement: ? Armament: ? Number of Aircraft: 5-8 Catapults: 1 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 1 Armor: yes Building yard: the ironclad was built at Carr & Mac Pherson in Petrograd (present day Saint Petersburg) Laid down: as ironclad on 29 May 1867 Launched: as ironclad on 21 September 1867 Commissioned: as ironclad in 1872 Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out. Conversion of the ironclad ADMIRAL LAZAREV. The idea for conversion came from a Colonel in the Imperial Russian Army named Michael M. Konokotin. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Conversion Project IZMAIL Design study date: 1928 Displacement: 36,000 standard tons Length: 228 meters Beam: 29.9 meters Draught: 9.4 meters Propulsion: 4 sets of Franco-Russian turbines with 25 Yarrow boilers Power of propulsion: 66,000 HP Speed: 26.5 knots knots/endurance: ? Complement: ? Armament: 2x 76 mm (2x1), up to 10 other Flak guns and 4 Torpedo Tubes Number of Aircraft: 75 Catapults: - Hanger: 4 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: belt 238-100 mm, deck 38 mm Building yard: the Battlecruiser was laid down at the Baltic Yard in Petrograd (present day Saint Petersburg) Laid down: as Battlecruiser on 19 December 1912 Launched: as Battlecruiser on 22 June 1915 Commissioned: - Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out. Conversion of the incomplete Battlecruiser IZMAIL. Several variants were examined. One variant was a flush deck Carrier, another variant was a Carrier with an "island". This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Conversion Project POLTAVA Design study date: 1926 Displacement: 28,800 standard tons Length: 181 meters Beam: 26.8 meters Draught: 8.3 meters Propulsion: 4 sets of Parson turbines with 25 Yarrow boilers Power of propulsion: 42,000 HP Speed: 23 knots knots/endurance: 1800 nautical miles at 30 knots Complement: ? Armament: 2x 76 (2x1), up to 10 Flak guns and 4 Torpedo Tubes Number of Aircraft: 50 Catapults: - Hanger: 4 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: belt 250 mm, deck 100 mm Building yard: the Battleship was laid down at the Admiralty Yard in in Petrograd (present day Saint Petersburg) Laid down: as Battleship on 15 May 1912 Launched: as Battleship on 10 July 1911 Commissioned: as Battleship on 30 December 1914 (renamed FRUNZE on 7 January 1926) Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out. Conversion of the dreadnought POLTAVA. Several variants were examined. One variant was a flush deck Carrier, another variant was a Carrier with an "island". This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Conversion Project KOMSOMOLEC (ex-OKEAN) Design study date: 1927 Displacement: 11,680 standard tons Length: 149.9 meters Beam: 17.4 meters Draught: 7.6 meters Propulsion: 2 steam engines Power of propulsion: 1,100 HP Speed: 15 knots knots/endurance: ? Complement: as training ship 530 Armament: 16x 102 mm (8x2) Number of Aircraft: 42 Catapults: - Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: - Building yard: the training ship was laid down at the Howaldtswerke in Kiel (Germany) Laid down: as training ship in 1908 Launched: as training ship in 1908 Commissioned: as training ship in 1909 Conversion Project study, conversion not carried out. Conversion of the training ship KOMSOMOLEC (ex-OKEAN). This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Aircraft Carrier for the Shipbuilding Program Design study date: 1938+ Displacement: 11,000 standard tons Length: 180 meters Beam: 20 meters Draught: ? meters Propulsion: ? turbines Power of propulsion: ? Speed: 30 knots knots/endurance: 4,000 nautical miles at ? knots Complement: as training ship 530 Armament: 6-8x 130 mmm 8x 37 m Number of Aircraft: 40-50 Catapults: ? Hanger: yes Aircraft Elevators: yes Armor: ? Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, 2 were planned, none were laid down. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Project 1058.1 Gibbs & Cox Design A Design study date: November 1937 Displacement: 66,074 standard tons Length: 304.8 meters Beam: 36.7 meters Draught: 10.46 meters Propulsion: geared turbines with 13 boilers Power of propulsion: 300,000 HP Speed: 34 knots knots/endurance: 29,000 nautical miles at 12 knots Complement: ? Armament: 8x 457 mm (4x2), 28x 127 mm (14x2), 24x 28 mm, 10x 12.7 mm Number of Aircraft: 36 + 4 Flying Boats Catapults: 2 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: yes Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck. The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only. Project study, none were laid down. Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox. This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 4x2 457 mm guns. The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design. US government officials then vetoed the design because it was far beyond all regulations and limitations of the existing naval treaties. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Project 1058.2 Gibbs & Cox Design B Design study date: July 1938 Displacement: 71,850 standard tons Length: 306.32 meters Beam: 36.73 meters Draught: 10.46 meters Propulsion: geared turbines with 13 boilers Power of propulsion: 300,000 HP Speed: 34 knots knots/endurance: 29,000 nautical miles at 12 knots Complement: 2706 Armament: 12x 406 mm (4x3), 28x 12.7 mm (14x2), 32x 28 mm, 12x 12.7 mm Number of Aircraft: 36 + 4 Flying Boats Catapults: 2 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: yes Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck. The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only. Project study, none were laid down. Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox. This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 4x3 406 mm guns. The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design. US government officials then vetoed the design because it was far beyond all regulations and limitations of the existing naval treaties. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Project 1058.3 Gibbs & Cox Design C Design study date: July 1938 Displacement: 55,206 standard tons Length: 257.56 meters Beam: 35.05 meters Draught: 10.16 meters Propulsion: geared turbines with 8 boilers Power of propulsion: 200,000 HP Speed: 31 knots knots/endurance: 16,000 nautical miles at 15 knots Complement: ? Armament: 10x 406 mm (2x3 1x4), 20x 127 mm (10x2), 20x 28 mm, 20x 12.7 mm Number of Aircraft: 24 + 4 Flying Boats Catapults: 2 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 1 Armor: yes Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck. The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only. Project study, none were laid down. Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox. This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 2x3 + 1x4 406 mm guns. The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design. US government officials then vetoed the design because it was far beyond all regulations and limitations of the existing naval treaties. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Project 1058.4 Gibbs & Cox Design D Design study date: March 1939 Displacement: 45,000 standard tons Length: 257.56 meters Beam: 34.95 meters Draught: 10.16 meters Propulsion: geared turbines with 8 boilers Power of propulsion: 200,000 HP Speed: 31 knots knots/endurance: 16,000 nautical miles at 15 knots Complement: 2010 Armament: 10x 406 (2x3 1x4), 20x 127 mm (10x2), 16x 28 mm (4x4), 10x 12.7 mm (10x1) Number of Aircraft: 4 Catapults: 2 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: belt 330-178 mm, deck main 121+28, deck lower 44-32 Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - The Aircraft were to be launched from Catapults and they would land on the Flight Deck. The Flight Deck was intended to be used for landing Aircraft only. Project study, none were laid down. This is the FINAL Design by the USA naval design bureau Gibbs and Cox. This project was a hybrid battleship-carrier design with 2x3 + 1x4 406 mm guns. The USSR regime had refused to sign any naval limitations treaties and that was reflected in the design. US government officials finally also vetoed this design because the USSR had invaded and occupied more than half of Poland in 1939 (and also in 1919/1920 but were defeated then) and then also invaded Finland in 1939. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Icebreaker-Carrier KIROV Design study date: 1936 Displacement: 8,300 standard tons Length: 110 meters Beam: 21 meters Draught: ? meters Propulsion: ? Power of propulsion: ? Speed: ? knots knots/endurance: ? Complement: ? Armament: ? Number of Aircraft: 4 Catapults: 2 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 1 Armor: ? Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, none were laid down. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Project 71a Design study date: 1936 Displacement: 13,000 standard tons Length: 191 meters Beam: 17.7 meters Draught: 6.3 meters Propulsion: 2 sets of geared turbines with 6 boilers Power of propulsion: 130,000 HP Speed: 34 knots knots/endurance: ? Complement: ? Armament: 8x 130 mm (4x2) initial design replaced in final design by 8x 100 mm (8x1), 16x 37 mm (4x4), ?x 12.2 mm Number of Aircraft: 30-45 Catapults: 2 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: yes Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, none were laid down. Based on the hull of the Light Cruiser Project 68, better known as the CHAPAEV-class. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Project 71b Design study date: 1937 Displacement: 38,600 standard tons Length: 248 meters Beam: 31.4 meters Draught: 9.1 meters Propulsion: 4 sets of geared turbines with 6 boilers Power of propulsion: 231,000 HP Speed: 33 knots knots/endurance: ? Complement: ? Armament: 8x 130 mm (4x2), 32x 37 mm (8x4), ?x 12.2 mm Number of Aircraft: 70 Catapults: 2 Hanger: 2 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: belt 225 mm, deck 87.5 mm, flight deck 30 mm, hangar 20 mm Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, none were laid down. This was a conversion that would use the hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT After WWII the idea of converting the unfinished hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT was again revived as Project 69-19 / 69AV / 69AB This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Project 72 Design study date: 1942/1943 Displacement: 28,800 standard tons Length: 224 meters Beam: 27.9 meters Draught: 8.4 meters Propulsion: 4 sets of turbines Power of propulsion: 144,000 HP Speed: 30 knots knots/endurance: ? Complement: 2,000 Armament: 8x 130 mm (4x2), 16x 87 mm (8x2), 24x 37 mm (12x2), 48x 23 mm (24x2) Number of Aircraft: 60 Catapults: 2 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: ? Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, none were laid down. The design has some superficial similarities with the USA Carrier YORKTOWN. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: ZKB-17 Design study date: November 1944+ Displacement: 51,000 standard tons Length: 280 meters Beam: 32 meters Draught: ? meters Propulsion: ? Power of propulsion: ? Speed: 32 knots knots/endurance: 10,000 nautical miles at ? knots Complement: ? Armament: 8x 152 mm (4x2), 24x100 mm (12x2), ?x 23 mm Number of Aircraft: 100 Catapults: 2 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: ? Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, none were laid down. The design made use of the 1936 blueprints of the German Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN. The Project was a study made by Lieutenant Kostromitinov, a student of naval architechture at the Soviet Naval Academy. The Soviet Naval Academy during WWII had been moved from Leningrad (present day Saint Petersburg) to Samarkand in Asia. The USSR had requested and received the plans of the GRAF ZEPPELIN as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty. This Carrier design study is mostly based on the GRAF ZEPPELIN design. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Project 72 II-B Design study date: 1945+ Displacement: 34,400 standard tons Length: 273 meters Beam: 35.5 meters Draught: 8.7 meters Propulsion: ? Power of propulsion: ? Speed: 30 knots knots/endurance: 10,000 nautical miles at ? knots Complement: 2300 Armament: 24x130 mm (12x2), 16x 85 mm (8x2), 24x 37mm (12x2), 48x 23mm (24x2) Number of Aircraft: 62 Catapults: 2 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: belt 90 mm, deck 50 mm, flight deck 30 mm, hangar 30 mm Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, none were laid down. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Project 72-III-M Design study date: 1945+ Displacement: 28,800 standard tons Length: 242 meters Beam: 32.5 meters Draught: 7.5 meters Propulsion: ? Power of propulsion: ? Speed: 30 knots knots/endurance: 10,000 nautical miles at ? knots Complement: 2000 Armament: 16x130 mm (8x2), 16x 85 mm (8x2), 24x 37mm (12x2), 48x 23mm (24x2) Number of Aircraft: 30 Catapults: 2 Hanger: 1 Aircraft Elevators: 2 Armor: belt 90 mm, deck 50 mm, flight deck 30 mm, hangar 30 mm Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, none were laid down. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: "Squadron Carrier" Design study date: 1945+ Displacement: ? standard tons Length: ? meters Beam: ? meters Draught: ? meters Propulsion: ? Power of propulsion: ? Speed: ? knots knots/endurance: 3,000 nautical miles at 18 knots Complement: ? Armament: ? Number of Aircraft: 30-35 Catapults: ? Hanger: ? Aircraft Elevators: ? Armor: belt ? Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, none were laid down. After the cancellation of Project 72 that design was used as a basis for a new design called "Squadron Carrier". Little if any reliable data is available on this design study. Purportedly the main role of the "Squadron Carrier" would have been to support amphibious operations. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: Project 69-19 / 69AV / 69AB Design study date: 1945+ Displacement: 33,800 standard tons Length: 260 meters Beam: 30 meters Draught: ? meters Propulsion: ? Power of propulsion: ? Speed: 32 knots knots/endurance: 6,900 nautical miles at 18 knots Complement: ? Armament: 16x130 mm (8x2), 32x 45 mm (8x4), 32x 25mm (16x2) Number of Aircraft: 76 Catapults: 2 Hanger: 2 Aircraft Elevators: 3 Armor: belt 120 mm, flight deck 50 mm, hangar deck 50 mm, armoured deck 90 mm Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, none were laid down. This was a conversion that would use the hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT The KRONSHTADT was just over 10% complete at the start of the German-USSR war in 1941. After WWII the idea of converting the unfinished hull of the Battlecruiser KRONSHTADT was again revived as Project 69-19 / 69AV. This post-1945 design used the post-1936 plans of the German Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN which were purloined when the USSR occupied Germany. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built: "24,000 tons Carrier" Design study date: 1945+ Displacement: 24,000 standard tons Length: 240 meters Beam: 22.5 meters Draught: ? meters Propulsion: ? Power of propulsion: ? Speed: ? knots knots/endurance: ? nautical miles at ? knots Complement: ? Armament: ? Number of Aircraft: 50 Catapults: ? Hanger: ? Aircraft Elevators: ? Armor: ? Building yard: - Laid down: - Launched: - Commissioned: - Project study, none were laid down. This is what the Carrier might have looked like if it ever had been built:

I see "GG" mostly used in random matches by someone in the fleet I am in when "we" are on the "winning" side after having inflicted a particularly fast and humiliating defeat on the "enemy" fleet. As such "GG" is usually not a sign of respect for the "enemy" fleet, but an indirect derogatory, pejorative, mocking remark. Rarely do I see "GG" being used when players actually mean it, like for example in a tense close-run match where the opposing fleets were evenly matched. But when "GG" is used in a tense close-run match it really means "Good Game" and then it is appropriate.

Hmmm... This is hilarious... OK let us break down what you just wrote here, you wrote: "your opinion is wrong", meaning that you consider my opinion "wrong", presumably when it comes to USSR ships in WOWS and the USSR: Ipso facto that means that you consider that "your opinion is right" when it comes to USSR ships in WOWS and the USSR. Mind you I did not actually post "my opinion" about the USSR and/or USSR ships in this topic. And you write that while at the same time - by your own admission - more or less suggesting but not actually admitting that you could be a USSR Apologist when you write: Whether you are or are not is of no interest to me, mind you. And then pass your opinion off as a "fact" without actually providing any facts whatsoever when you write: You specifically mention: Next to that you ask if there is something wrong with being a USSR Apologist: You are totally free to love and/or hate whatever and whomever you want as far as I am concerned. Having said that I might be of service on the subject of facts, help and the USSR to assist you in answering your question on whether or not there might be something "wrong with that". Here is a challenge for you to wrap your mind around, I will leave it up to you to formulate the answer to your own question by yourself after reading this:

Apologist spotted!

Even in the unlikely event that all of that would be true, it still beats being an Apologist for the USSR and OP USSR ships in WOWS every day of the week and twice on Sunday.