Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Dareios

Kurfurst inspiration?

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

848
[WOOKY]
Beta Testers
1,743 posts

hey guys

(sorry if this is old news, tried searching, didn't come up with much.)

So, me not being a career ship person or historian, I am curious as to where WG might have got their ideas for the Groser Kurfurst (TX OKM BB)?

It seems that the FDG is a take on the barely started H series, probably a H40/41 based on the main guns and secondary configurations, but if one looks at the concepts going up through to 44, there is no mention of any plans for triple turrets (at least that I found with very limited research), and that the plans were for bigger floating islands that stuck with the 4x2 with 20" upgrades. Is there any mention from Raeder, Fuchs or similar that they were considering triple turrets or is this purely a WG fabrication for lols and balance?

 

cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,145
[NDA]
Supertester
3,926 posts
2,279 battles

According to a devblog I read somewhere, the triple turrets came from some plans that the Russians had, for a triple turret that Germany had planned for sale to them.  This would have been around when they sold the uncompleted Lutzow to the Soviets.  So it isn't a complete fabrication but it is certainly only paper and conjecture.

Edited by kerensky914

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,944 posts
2,492 battles

I remember there being a discussion somewhere on the forums where a consensus on the H series designs closest to the Groszer Kurfurst, it was two H series models which I don't remember. But I'm sure the H40 was one of them. During the discussion much of the talks were around the propeller layout and funnel shape rather than armament. 

 

The forum's search feature is wonky and I can't locate the thread anymore, sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
848
[WOOKY]
Beta Testers
1,743 posts
3 hours ago, kerensky914 said:

According to a devblog I read somewhere, the triple turrets came from some plans that the Russians had, for a triple turret that Germany had planned for sale to them.  This would have been around when they sold the uncompleted Lutzow to the Soviets.  So it isn't a complete fabrication but it is certainly only paper and conjecture.

interesting.

possibly more an argument for 'why moskva' if we take the lutzow as inspiration for stalingrad (which did have 3x3 305/58 I think).

The Sovetsky? (somethingorother) class design predates this sale (3x3 406mm) so the russians certainly had the size and configuration in mind. Not that they built any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,763
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

FDG is H-39, GK is H-41 with triple turrets designed for Russia. It was originally thought that Gk was H-40(B) with Russian triple turrets but a simple comparison of blueprints reveals that she is indeed based off of H-41 and not H-40(B).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
883 battles

The GK is far too large to be the H-41 design. The H-41 would've still had the diesel propulsion of the H-39. In fact, the GK as a whole is rather cartoonish to me, with laughably low freeboard, and the same speed as FDG (H-39) despite the same propulsive power. As far as I can tell, the GK is a "what-if" ship made by WG that combines design aspects from various different post-H-39 design studies. Check out the updated GK on WG wiki, which I recently updated.

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Großer_Kurfürst

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,763
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
2 hours ago, DeliciousFart said:

The GK is far to large to be the H-41 design. The H-41 would've still had the diesel propulsion of the H-39. In fact, the GK as a whole is rather cartoonish to me, with laughably low freeboard, and the same speed as FDG (H-39) despite the same propulsive power. As far as I can tell, the GK is a "what-if" ship made by WG that combines design aspects from various different post-H-39 design studies. Check out the updated GK on WG wiki, which I recently updated.

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Großer_Kurfürst

 

Well her model is based on H-41's blueprints.

 

ZoSwfCC.png

[ img ]

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
883 battles
2 hours ago, dseehafer said:

 

Well her model is based on H-41's blueprints.

 

ZoSwfCC.png

[ img ]

 

No, not entirely. The H-41 is 925 ft, or 282 m, while the GK in game exceeds 300 m, I believe. Furthermore, the funnels of the GK in game indicates that it doesn't use the same diesel propulsion system as on the H-39. If you look at the FDG's (H-39) funnels in game, you're note that both funnels have a cluster of 6 exhaust pipes, one for each of the 12 MAN diesel engines. On the other hand, the GK funnels are more similar to the Bismarck's, which uses steam turbines.

 

While the H-41 may have contributed the most to the appearance of the GK in game, the GK is clearly very different from the finalized H-41 design. In contrast, the FDG's hull is faithfully modeled from the H-39 blueprints.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,763
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
2 hours ago, DeliciousFart said:

No, not entirely. The H-41 is 925 ft, or 282 m, while the GK in game exceeds 300 m, I believe. Furthermore, the funnels of the GK in game indicates that it doesn't use the same diesel propulsion system as on the H-39. If you look at the FDG's (H-39) funnels in game, you're note that both funnels have a cluster of 6 exhaust pipes, one for each of the 12 MAN diesel engines. On the other hand, the GK funnels are more similar to the Bismarck's, which uses steam turbines.

 

While the H-41 may have contributed the most to the appearance of the GK in game, the GK is clearly very different from the finalized H-41 design. In contrast, the FDG's hull is faithfully modeled from the H-39 blueprints.

 

You completely missed the point... I said the MODEL, is based on H-41's blueprints (though yes, she has been enlarged slightly).

 

Everyone used to think she was H-40B, but her in-game model does not match this...

 

[ img ]

 

 

Notice that the forward mast points straight up, our GK's forward mast is slanted. Notice the rearmost mast is all by itself between C turret and the rearmost funnel, our GK's rearmost mast is just behind the rearmost funnel and the distance between the rearmost funnel and C turret is noticeably less. Notice that the H40B has 4 propellers, our GK only has 3. Finally, notice that H40B has dual rudders, like the Bismarck class, our GK has triple rudders. 

 

 

It matches H-41...

 

[ img ]

 

Notice that the forward mast is sloped, just like our GK's. Notice that the rearmost mast is right up against the rearmost funnel, juts like our GK's. Notice that the size of the rear superstructure and the distance between the C turret and the rearmost funnel matches that of our GK's. She has 3 propellers, just like our GK. Finally, notice that she has triple rudders, just like our GK.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
883 battles
15 hours ago, dseehafer said:

 

You completely missed the point... I said the MODEL, is based on H-41's blueprints (though yes, she has been enlarged slightly).

 

Everyone used to think she was H-40B, but her in-game model does not match this...

 

Notice that the forward mast points straight up, our GK's forward mast is slanted. Notice the rearmost mast is all by itself between C turret and the rearmost funnel, our GK's rearmost mast is just behind the rearmost funnel and the distance between the rearmost funnel and C turret is noticeably less. Notice that the H40B has 4 propellers, our GK only has 3. Finally, notice that H40B has dual rudders, like the Bismarck class, our GK has triple rudders. 

 

 

It matches H-41...

 

Notice that the forward mast is sloped, just like our GK's. Notice that the rearmost mast is right up against the rearmost funnel, juts like our GK's. Notice that the size of the rear superstructure and the distance between the C turret and the rearmost funnel matches that of our GK's. She has 3 propellers, just like our GK. Finally, notice that she has triple rudders, just like our GK.

 

I'm saying the GK is not representative of any single H class design, not the H-41, not the H-40 variants. If it's actually based on the H-41, then the funnels would look much more like the FDG's (H-39) than the Bismarck's because the H-41 design still uses the diesel propulsion system. GK is really an amalgamation of various different H class design studies that WG decided to put together.

 

In summary, the FDG is clearly the H-39, the GK is not any single H design; the GK's hull is an "original" design from WG.

 

You can clearly see that the FDG is the H-39, and WG frankly did an incredibly good job accurately bringing the blueprints to life.

 

[ img ]

FDG H-39.PNG

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,841
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,775 posts
2,137 battles

Because of my Steel-Paper-Ficiton series, I acutually got PM's by ArdRaeiss about this. Kurfurst's hull is indeed a WG concept, to quote;

 

Quote

The ship hull is more or less the "upscaled" H battleship hull as there were no other actual projects found so far.

It's somewhat similar to the well known "drawings" of "H-42/43/44" as they are also the "upscaled speculations" at best - it seems that the actual works on them haven't made it to the drawings stage or they were lost. So, no matter if it is the "upscaled H" or "H-42, as-it's-known" hull - they both are fantasy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
3,125 battles

I guess I have to finally come into here.

GK Is a mix of H-41 and H-42.

She uses the H-42 engineering arrangement, H-42's hull dimensions with H-41's tonnage (not sure how that works), but H-41's design layout as past H-41 there weren't to my knowledge any actual mock-ups designed outside of the engineering layout, the 3,4,5 screw setup, and the 4 rudder design.

Going off Erich Groner's work on this, the GK literally fits the above. My big thing is, why? If I had to guess, like a lot of hulls in game some are adjusted in size for balance reasons aka DD's, so they blew up the hull in size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
883 battles
On 11/14/2017 at 2:19 PM, Azumazi said:

I guess I have to finally come into here.

GK Is a mix of H-41 and H-42.

She uses the H-42 engineering arrangement, H-42's hull dimensions with H-41's tonnage (not sure how that works), but H-41's design layout as past H-41 there weren't to my knowledge any actual mock-ups designed outside of the engineering layout, the 3,4,5 screw setup, and the 4 rudder design.

Going off Erich Groner's work on this, the GK literally fits the above. My big thing is, why? If I had to guess, like a lot of hulls in game some are adjusted in size for balance reasons aka DD's, so they blew up the hull in size.

I'm not familiar with the H-42 to 44 "designs" (I frankly don't even think they even qualify as designs), but did they decide to ditch the diesel propulsion arrangement of the H-39 and H-41? As I said, the funnels of the GK alone screams a different propulsion system from the H-39 (FDG in game) and H-41.

 

I think the concern was that the H-41 design itself was not competitive by tier 10 standards (I recall ArdReiss or some other WG developer even stating as much). To give an idea of what an H-41 would actually have been like in game, simply imagine the FDG (faithfully created H-39 design) with 420 mm guns and ~92,000 HP (H-41 full load was 68,800 metric tons, I believe) and more deck armor. That literally would have been it, so WG was understandably unwilling to have something like this compete against the likes of Yamato and Montana.

 

I think this is why I tend to like tier 9 more than tier 10 from a historical perspective. Tier 9 seems to be the place for many historically finalized designs (i.e. 1938 Lion, H-39, Z-46) whereas tier 10 tends to have more WG-made designs.

 

What did you mean by your last sentence though?

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
3,125 battles
7 hours ago, DeliciousFart said:

I'm not familiar with the H-42 to 44 "designs", but did they decide to ditch the diesel propulsion arrangement of the H-39 and H-41? As I said, the funnels of the GK alone screams a different propulsion system from the H-39 (FDG in game) and H-41.

 

I think the concern was that the H-41 design itself was not competitive by tier 10 standards (I recall ArdReiss or some other WG developer even stating as much). To give an idea of what an H-41 would actually have been like in game, simply imagine the FDG (faithfully created H-39 design) with 420 mm guns and ~92,000 HP (H-41 full load was 68,800 metric tons, I believe) and more deck armor. That literally would have been it, so WG was understandably unwilling to have something like this compete against the likes of Yamato and Montana.

 

I think this is why I tend to like tier 9 more than tier 10 from a historical perspective. Tier 9 seems to be the place for many historically finalized designs (i.e. 1938 Lion, H-39, Z-46) whereas tier 10 tends to have more WG-made designs.

 

What did you mean by your last sentence though?

1. Yes, they actually had multiple designs or engineering setup's including pure Diesel, hybrid with a mix of diesel's and turbines and all turbines. There was a lot of debate if a full set of diesel's was entirely worth it due to the added weight. MAN had designed and produced Aluminum and even Magnesium block diesel engines but it seems aluminum was at a premium so cast iron would have to be used. Due to the shift in how the surface war was going, the need for long endurance vessels was pulling away so a more tried and true turbine with boiler approach much akin to the Bismarck/Tirpitz was seriously considered for all future designs.

2. As for my last sentence, it was the fact that they blew up the size of the ship to a 98000t vessel but kept the 70000t vessel armoring, hull design, hull lines, and everything else including scaling it's HP off the 70000t vessel. My only guess is that they increased it's size to make it unique vs the H-39 design at tier 9 and played with the armoring a bit taking a few concepts of the H-42's increased armoring and the turret setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×