Großer Kurfürst wrongly made.

[ravenfury2]

I am a WWII fan, and especially ships. and more importantly... The German battleships.

 

Bismarck always been my favorite ship by look and sheer example that says "I'm a battleship.

 

Which lead me to be interested in the H-class battleship project that the Bismarck was from.

 

Thus brings the H39, H41, H42, H43 and H44. (With the H45 being speculations )

 

In the game, the tier 9 is both the H39 and H41, all depending on the gun selection and the hull. I would say the Hull A is the H39 and Hull B being the H41. Technically, the H41 is longer than the H39. But it doesn't make such a huge difference that it is insignificant.

 

So the tier 9 is just fine. Looks pretty and menacing.

 

Then it brings me to the Großer Kurfürst, the tier 10. I've seen somewhere that in game it measures 282 meters long, making it now the longest battleship in the game. And what H class that fits that length? The H41... Now I see a problem here...

 

We already have a H41 version of the ship with the Friedrich at tier 9 with the 420mm guns. Since after all. the 420mm were the proposed guns for the said H41. While the H39 it was the 406mm.

 

But then we get the Großer Kurfürst, gets the exact same caliber choices... So technically the Friedrich should only stay the H39 with only the 406mm available, and the Großer Kurfürst to come by default with the 420mm. Making it the actual H41.

 

I would have honestly preferred to see the H42, being 305 meters long and have the 460mm guns, to compete the Yamato. ( same caliber )

 

I would say no to H43 and H44, would make the ships too OP compared to others... But anyway, I digress.

 

So while the Großer Kurfürst gets the 420 making it the true H41, and the good length... There is... One more major issue.

 

There was never been any plans to have triple guns on the H class!

 

Literally. They were ALL dual! The only triple guns that were ever made ( or proposed ) were the 283mm naval guns on the Scharnhorst class battleship, the Deutschland heavy cruiser pocket battleship. And there was indeed plans for triple 380mm, for the O-class project II battlecruiser.

 

No where else.

 

So that's why I'm weird out by the Großer Kurfürst with triple gun turrets... And it makes me sad on how Wargamming is not on point for this historical accuracy... They been far, until there. And it is such a huge disappointment...

 

Some would say... "But that's why it has triples... To compete with other tier 10 that has 406-460mm guns, nad has 9-12 of them!" And my counter argument for that would have been : "Exactly, make it the H42, with the 488 dual guns. Can compete the yamato! The yamato has 9 460 guns. The H42 would have 8 of them. Just one less. so it would perfectly fit in there...."

 

Here copy pastes for my claims, at least for the H class.

 

According to Gröner^[3]

Design	H-39	H-41	H-42	H-43	H-44
Displacement	56,444 t (55,553 long tons)	68,800 t (67,700 long tons)	90,000 t (89,000 long tons)	111,000 t (109,000 long tons)	131,000 t (129,000 long tons)
Length	277.8 m (911 ft 5 in)	282 m (925 ft 2 in)	305 m (1,000 ft 8 in)	330 m (1,082 ft 8 in)	345 m (1,131 ft 11 in)
Beam	37 m (121 ft 5 in)	39 m (127 ft 11 in)	42.8 m (140 ft 5 in)	48 m (157 ft 6 in)	51.5 m (169 ft 0 in)
Draft	10 m (32 ft 10 in)	11.1 m (36 ft 5 in)	11.8 m (38 ft 9 in)	12 m (39 ft 4 in)	12.7 m (41 ft 8 in)
Main	8 × 40.6 cm (16.0 in)	8 × 42 cm (17 in)	8 × 48 cm (19 in)	8 × 48 cm (19 in)	8 × 50.8 cm (20.0 in)
Secondary	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)
AA	16 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 12 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	32 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 12 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in)
Torpedoes	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)

 

(notice even that supposed to even have torpedo tubes )

 

The table comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_battleship_proposals

 

Sure it's wiki, but the references are there.

 

So honestly, I'd really love to see Wargamming correct that mistake and opt for the real H41 for the T10 or have the H42 for T10, but only with dual guns. Not triples.

 

-Edit.- Now someone pointed out how the Yamato only has 460mm. I've been reading it wrong this whole time in game. Damn you yellow number on bluesky background that makes it hard ( for me ) to read the 6 properly! Thus I would simpyl suggest 460mm to match the yamato, so they aren't bigger than the yamato.

[SunTzu71]

 

(notice even that supposed to even have torpedo tubes )

 

 

 

The torpedoes were submerged tubes in the bow... No ship has that, or ever will. That's WG's current stance on that matter.

[Stratego89]

Can't recall where... but I believe I saw Ard or the likes say they found blueprints for a triple turret... or that it was designed by one country, to be built by another and the other had triple turrets they were gonna put on it. Idk. Something. There's an explanation somewhere.

 

Furthermore... this is a ship that was never made. Are you telling me you want to nerf a ship that's already under performing greatly because of "historical accuracy"?

[Nuk_]

WG has already said they're not making ships with guns larger than Yamato's. And btw, Yamato only has 460mm guns.

[ravenfury2]

Can't recall where... but I believe I saw Ard or the likes say they found blueprints for a triple turret... or that it was designed by one country, to be built by another and the other had triple turrets they were gonna put on it. Idk. Something. There's an explanation somewhere.

 

Furthermore... this is a ship that was never made. Are you telling me you want to nerf a ship that's already under performing greatly because of "historical accuracy"?

 

Hence why I propose to give it the 460mm instead of the 420mm.

[Gyn_Steel]

+1 I was really disapointed when I realise how the german T9 et T10 were... Everything was fine until those came on... I agree with him saying that the T9 should just be the H39 with the hull upgrade to H41 and have the T10 be the actual H42.

 

This was a huge mistake from them.

[ravenfury2]

WG has already said they're not making ships with guns larger than Yamato's. And btw, Yamato only has 460mm guns.

 

Welp, I didn't even noticed it was 460. I kept misreading it as 480. I guess I could change the poll to say 460 instead. Just to keep the standing of WG.

[Macabe]

It's hard to be historically accurate on a ship that was supposedly designed by the Germans for the Russians. I've yet to see any actual blueprints or anythign other than Ard having a post about it somewhere and another forumite claims the tier 10 to be "H-40B"... whatever that is. Either way it doesn't really matter. A ship is a ship. H42 is a no-go so we get fantasy ship. It's not the first one in the game.

[Lampshade_M1A2]

I know one of the developers said they found blueprints for a triple turret but was it really for the German 16" (or 16.5") versus their 15" gun which the Soviets were going to purchase for battlecruisers at one point?

[Crucis]

I guess this whole thing doesn't bother me, because unless the GK has 8 18" guns, it pretty much NEEDS to have triple turrets for 16" guns for balance reasons.

 

Does it seem odd to see a German BB with triple turrets?  Perhaps.  But does anyone think that they only mounted dual turrets historically because they liked the look?  Hardly.  In its WW1 BB's they did for the same reason everyone else did....  either triple turrets weren't ready or their naval architects weren't ready to take the risk of losing 3 guns if a single turret was knocked out of action, preferring more dual turrets over fewer triple turrets.  By the time of the 1930's, most navies had gotten over their concerns about mounting more than 2 guns per turret, and it was only an issue of being able to construct a good triple turret, which apparently Germany hadn't been able to do by the time of the Bismarck class.  But I don't think that it's a major stretch to argue that they could have solved this problem in time for the GK class.

 

[Lampshade_M1A2]

Yeah but they would have certainly gone with fewer bigger guns over more 16". Hitler loved his big guns.

[ravenfury2]

I guess this whole thing doesn't bother me, because unless the GK has 8 18" guns, it pretty much NEEDS to have triple turrets for 16" guns for balance reasons.

 

Does it seem odd to see a German BB with triple turrets?  Perhaps.  But does anyone think that they only mounted dual turrets historically because they liked the look?  Hardly.  In its WW1 BB's they did for the same reason everyone else did....  either triple turrets weren't ready or their naval architects weren't ready to take the risk of losing 3 guns if a single turret was knocked out of action, preferring more dual turrets over fewer triple turrets.  By the time of the 1930's, most navies had gotten over their concerns about mounting more than 2 guns per turret, and it was only an issue of being able to construct a good triple turret, which apparently Germany hadn't been able to do by the time of the Bismarck class.  But I don't think that it's a major stretch to argue that they could have solved this problem in time for the GK class.

 

 

There was also another factor. The more guns in a turret, the more inaccurate each individual gun would become. Mostly because of the muzzle flash I'd believe. But don't quote me on that. I may be mistaken. (I do base myself a bit from Jingle in his review of the Dunkerque )

[ravenfury2]

I know one of the developers said they found blueprints for a triple turret but was it really for the German 16" (or 16.5") versus their 15" gun which the Soviets were going to purchase for battlecruisers at one point?

 

I do believe it was the triple 15 inches gun that I was pointing out for the O-class project II

[ravenfury2]

It's hard to be historically accurate on a ship that was supposedly designed by the Germans for the Russians. I've yet to see any actual blueprints or anythign other than Ard having a post about it somewhere and another forumite claims the tier 10 to be "H-40B"... whatever that is. Either way it doesn't really matter. A ship is a ship. H42 is a no-go so we get fantasy ship. It's not the first one in the game.

 

Pretty much all of the over bismarck are fantasy ships. All of the H class were actually. I do believe though, that the H39 hull was laid down, but later got scrapped for the metal, to make U-boats instead, when Hitler cancelled the Z-plan.

[WanderingGhost]

Actually, if I recall correctly, people looked at the size, namely compared to Yamato, and found that, where ever this 282m number came from seems to be wrong. If I recall correctly the tier ten is actually one of the ships that's H-42 - H-44. Especially makes sense when, although the game itself is not fully to scale, looking at Dseehafer's size comparisons, the size difference between Grosser and Tirpitz is greater than that between Yamato and Nagato. H-41, at 282m, would only be about 100 feet longer, Yamato is about 152 feet longer than Nagato. So it's very possible that the 282 measurement is wrong.

 

Now, even if we say it's H42, 43, or 44, the problem lies in it being gunned to 48 cm or higher. Wargaming doesn't want to add guns that big and honestly, I don't blame them. But in their own way - they are in fact sticking to historical accuracy in the regards that - outside the more insane things like the railway gun, Germany never made any artillery over 42 cm. And even then, aside from the 40.6 cm gun, the only 2 examples of 42 cm artillery I readily find are WW1 era land artillery. 46 cm gun would again, end up being a complete fabrication. So your just replacing one fake with another just as fake option.

 

And where Ard's post comes in is not the ship itself. Germany designed he triple turret for Russia. They found it in the archives and figured "Were not making 48 cm guns, we have the other H-class ships to choose from, biggest navel guns Germany had were 40.6 cm but we can play with 42 (maybe they found a design for one), and our idea is close range brawlers that are slightly undergunned - this could work great as a what if Germany decided to stick with the guns they had but use the triple turret they designed to have more of the smaller available guns then the larger ones that aren't" - similar to Scharnhorst where there were calls to arm it with the 38's before they were done but because of the availability of the 28.3 and other factors stuck with that.

 

Along with the fact that H-42-44 were basically study projects, kinda like this amalgamation of two ideas that is the tier ten.

 

 

TL;DR version - Your arguing that a ship that is likely one of 3 ships meant more as a study of a concept with no intention to actually be made and as such, never was, was made incorrectly. And are suggesting that regardless it still be made potentially incorrect with 46 cm guns.

 

 

I haven't gotten to the tier ten, so I can't judge how it plays, maybe it needs a buff, maybe it doesn't, I'm sure Wargaming will change things if it has to. For all I know those saying it's two weak are not playing to whatever it's strengths are, I know in low tiers I see whining on German BB's because they try and play them as snipers at range when they are close up brawlers. But to me, this turret set up, much as I would like to see these documents Wargaming found saying this turret was a thing, as well as whatever ones they must have found for the A8M, is the same as the long 8.8 on the Tiger I in tanks, or some of the other cases of "Well, it didn't quite happen, but balance and could have happened".

[TheOssifrage]

According to WG, balance > historical accuracy. Unfortunately for the Grosser Kurfurst, it's neither.

[Stratego89]

 

Hence why I propose to give it the 460mm instead of the 420mm.

 

You lose a HELL OF A LOT MORE by getting rid of 1/4 of your firepower than you gain by slightly increasing the caliber of the round. The grosser has issues, but your absolute lack of (real) care for balance due to the fixation on historical accuracy makes me happy you're not calling the shots... considering my opinion of many of WG's choices that's saying something...

[Lampshade_M1A2]

 

You lose a HELL OF A LOT MORE by getting rid of 1/4 of your firepower than you gain by slightly increasing the caliber of the round. The grosser has issues, but your absolute lack of (real) care for balance due to the fixation on historical accuracy makes me happy you're not calling the shots... considering my opinion of many of WG's choices that's saying something...

 

In reality perhaps but not in WoWS. Bigger is better even at the cost of 3 or 4 less guns. Compare the way Montana and Yamato work out in game.

[ravenfury2]

 

You lose a HELL OF A LOT MORE by getting rid of 1/4 of your firepower than you gain by slightly increasing the caliber of the round. The grosser has issues, but your absolute lack of (real) care for balance due to the fixation on historical accuracy makes me happy you're not calling the shots... considering my opinion of many of WG's choices that's saying something...

 

 

In reality perhaps but not in WoWS. Bigger is better even at the cost of 3 or 4 less guns. Compare the way Montana and Yamato work out in game.

 

And exactly, sometime, bigger in WoWs do means better. Needless to say, if needed of course some more adjustment would be needed just to be balanced with a bigger caliber. I didn't only thought about "less guns, make them bigger" and that's it. Like come on. i'm not that narrow minded. Sure the way I word it make it feel like it. But no... if I had to call the shots, I would make sure that all ships can compete at each other on their intended way since all ships plays very differently.

 

Again. The yamato and montana sure feels alright, isn't it?

 

The montana has 12 406mm guns.

 

The yamato has 9 460mm guns.

 

My suggestion would put the grosser at 8 460mm gun.

 

That's only ONE LESS than the yamato. Okay sure, that would mean if all shells manages to land a citadel at once, that's 14800 less damage than the yamato can deal with 9 citadel.

 

Plus right now the 420mm of the GK deals the exact damage of the Montana's 406mm, with AP. And reloads 2 second slower than the montana in that matter.

 

Namely, having 8 460mm could be closer to 14200 max damage ( or so ) per shell which would still be quite able to compete the Yamato and Montana.

 

In numbers...

A Yamato can deal up to 133200 damage in one volley. Again, if all are citadels.

A montana (as well of the GK currently ) can deal up to 162000 damage in one volley, again, if all citadels.

 

I can agree that if we put down to 8 guns ( instead of 12 ) with 460 ( for max damage like yamato, or close, for a reference I''d go with 14800 ) it would be a maximum potential damage of only 118400 damage. I concur, that is a lot weaker than the 162000 from it currently is.

 

I have yet to try the GK and on how it performs so I cannot tell how good or bad are the GK's stats...

 

Yet the montana's base accuracy is 297m dispersion.

The yamato, it's 276m dispersion.

The GK, it's 268m dispersion. On paper the thing should be more accurate than the other two, thus being able to land more shots, and still dish out a lot of damage, as it lands more hits. But that relies on the RNG there. Even so, if it would be dual, since the guns are more apart from each other, they aren't hindering the other guns, that should technically make them even ore accurate.

 

 

But again, it's all speculation on the way I see it.

[Stratego89]

 

 

And exactly, sometime, bigger in WoWs do means better. Needless to say, if needed of course some more adjustment would be needed just to be balanced with a bigger caliber. I didn't only thought about "less guns, make them bigger" and that's it. Like come on. i'm not that narrow minded. Sure the way I word it make it feel like it. But no... if I had to call the shots, I would make sure that all ships can compete at each other on their intended way since all ships plays very differently.

 

Again. The yamato and montana sure feels alright, isn't it?

 

The montana has 12 406mm guns.

 

The yamato has 9 460mm guns.

 

My suggestion would put the grosser at 8 460mm gun.

 

That's only ONE LESS than the yamato. Okay sure, that would mean if all shells manages to land a citadel at once, that's 14800 less damage than the yamato can deal with 9 citadel.

 

Plus right now the 420mm of the GK deals the exact damage of the Montana's 406mm, with AP. And reloads 2 second slower than the montana in that matter.

 

Namely, having 8 460mm could be closer to 14200 max damage ( or so ) per shell which would still be quite able to compete the Yamato and Montana.

 

In numbers...

A Yamato can deal up to 133200 damage in one volley. Again, if all are citadels.

A montana (as well of the GK currently ) can deal up to 162000 damage in one volley, again, if all citadels.

 

I can agree that if we put down to 8 guns ( instead of 12 ) with 460 ( for max damage like yamato, or close, for a reference I''d go with 14800 ) it would be a maximum potential damage of only 118400 damage. I concur, that is a lot weaker than the 162000 from it currently is.

 

I have yet to try the GK and on how it performs so I cannot tell how good or bad are the GK's stats...

 

Yet the montana's base accuracy is 297m dispersion.

The yamato, it's 276m dispersion.

The GK, it's 268m dispersion. On paper the thing should be more accurate than the other two, thus being able to land more shots, and still dish out a lot of damage, as it lands more hits. But that relies on the RNG there. Even so, if it would be dual, since the guns are more apart from each other, they aren't hindering the other guns, that should technically make them even ore accurate.

 

 

But again, it's all speculation on the way I see it.

 

Yamato and Montana are OP. You're saying you want to take a ship that is already inferior to them in almost every way and reduce it's amount of firepower to be even less than them as well.

 

You're acting like the slightly better dispersion means it's more accurate than the other ships. News flash- that's not how this works. That's the maximum dispersion at the MAXIMUM RANGE of the guns. Yamato's range and Montana's range beat Grosser's. Grosser's dispersion is HORRENDOUS compared to them.

 

I am avidly against the "suggestion" of this thread that would hurt something even more when it already needs help. Honestly- more than anything, the other two battleships need nerfs to bring it down more towards Grosser. It'd help out T8+ gameplay too since cruisers wouldn't have to worry about being lolpen'd 100% of their games at the very start and people might actually start participating in matches again.

[volkswagenenthusiast63]

I am a WWII fan, and especially ships. and more importantly... The German battleships.

 

Bismarck always been my favorite ship by look and sheer example that says "I'm a battleship.

 

Which lead me to be interested in the H-class battleship project that the Bismarck was from.

 

Thus brings the H39, H41, H42, H43 and H44. (With the H45 being speculations )

 

In the game, the tier 9 is both the H39 and H41, all depending on the gun selection and the hull. I would say the Hull A is the H39 and Hull B being the H41. Technically, the H41 is longer than the H39. But it doesn't make such a huge difference that it is insignificant.

 

So the tier 9 is just fine. Looks pretty and menacing.

 

Then it brings me to the Großer Kurfürst, the tier 10. I've seen somewhere that in game it measures 282 meters long, making it now the longest battleship in the game. And what H class that fits that length? The H41... Now I see a problem here...

 

We already have a H41 version of the ship with the Friedrich at tier 9 with the 420mm guns. Since after all. the 420mm were the proposed guns for the said H41. While the H39 it was the 406mm.

 

But then we get the Großer Kurfürst, gets the exact same caliber choices... So technically the Friedrich should only stay the H39 with only the 406mm available, and the Großer Kurfürst to come by default with the 420mm. Making it the actual H41.

 

I would have honestly preferred to see the H42, being 305 meters long and have the 460mm guns, to compete the Yamato. ( same caliber )

 

I would say no to H43 and H44, would make the ships too OP compared to others... But anyway, I digress.

 

So while the Großer Kurfürst gets the 420 making it the true H41, and the good length... There is... One more major issue.

 

There was never been any plans to have triple guns on the H class!

 

Literally. They were ALL dual! The only triple guns that were ever made ( or proposed ) were the 283mm naval guns on the Scharnhorst class battleship, the Deutschland heavy cruiser pocket battleship. And there was indeed plans for triple 380mm, for the O-class project II battlecruiser.

 

No where else.

 

So that's why I'm weird out by the Großer Kurfürst with triple gun turrets... And it makes me sad on how Wargamming is not on point for this historical accuracy... They been far, until there. And it is such a huge disappointment...

 

Some would say... "But that's why it has triples... To compete with other tier 10 that has 406-460mm guns, nad has 9-12 of them!" And my counter argument for that would have been : "Exactly, make it the H42, with the 488 dual guns. Can compete the yamato! The yamato has 9 460 guns. The H42 would have 8 of them. Just one less. so it would perfectly fit in there...."

 

Here copy pastes for my claims, at least for the H class.

 

According to Gröner^[3]

Design	H-39	H-41	H-42	H-43	H-44
Displacement	56,444 t (55,553 long tons)	68,800 t (67,700 long tons)	90,000 t (89,000 long tons)	111,000 t (109,000 long tons)	131,000 t (129,000 long tons)
Length	277.8 m (911 ft 5 in)	282 m (925 ft 2 in)	305 m (1,000 ft 8 in)	330 m (1,082 ft 8 in)	345 m (1,131 ft 11 in)
Beam	37 m (121 ft 5 in)	39 m (127 ft 11 in)	42.8 m (140 ft 5 in)	48 m (157 ft 6 in)	51.5 m (169 ft 0 in)
Draft	10 m (32 ft 10 in)	11.1 m (36 ft 5 in)	11.8 m (38 ft 9 in)	12 m (39 ft 4 in)	12.7 m (41 ft 8 in)
Main	8 × 40.6 cm (16.0 in)	8 × 42 cm (17 in)	8 × 48 cm (19 in)	8 × 48 cm (19 in)	8 × 50.8 cm (20.0 in)
Secondary	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)	12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) and 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in)
AA	16 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 12 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	32 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 12 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in)	28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in) and 40 × 2 cm (0.79 in)
Torpedoes	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)	6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in)

 

(notice even that supposed to even have torpedo tubes )

 

The table comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_battleship_proposals

 

Sure it's wiki, but the references are there.

 

So honestly, I'd really love to see Wargamming correct that mistake and opt for the real H41 for the T10 or have the H42 for T10, but only with dual guns. Not triples.

 

-Edit.- Now someone pointed out how the Yamato only has 460mm. I've been reading it wrong this whole time in game. Damn you yellow number on bluesky background that makes it hard ( for me ) to read the 6 properly! Thus I would simpyl suggest 460mm to match the yamato, so they aren't bigger than the yamato.

 

Seconded

[Crucis]

I guess this whole thing doesn't bother me, because unless the GK has 8 18" guns, it pretty much NEEDS to have triple turrets for 16" guns for balance reasons.

 

Does it seem odd to see a German BB with triple turrets?  Perhaps.  But does anyone think that they only mounted dual turrets historically because they liked the look?  Hardly.  In its WW1 BB's they did for the same reason everyone else did....  either triple turrets weren't ready or their naval architects weren't ready to take the risk of losing 3 guns if a single turret was knocked out of action, preferring more dual turrets over fewer triple turrets.  By the time of the 1930's, most navies had gotten over their concerns about mounting more than 2 guns per turret, and it was only an issue of being able to construct a good triple turret, which apparently Germany hadn't been able to do by the time of the Bismarck class.  But I don't think that it's a major stretch to argue that they could have solved this problem in time for the GK class.

 

 

There was also another factor. The more guns in a turret, the more inaccurate each individual gun would become. Mostly because of the muzzle flash I'd believe. But don't quote me on that. I may be mistaken. (I do base myself a bit from Jingle in his review of the Dunkerque )

 

Actually, from what I read somewhat recently, muzzle flash isn't that big a deal because navies learned to not fire all of the guns in the same turret at the EXACT same time.  if you do fire all guns at the same time, yes, the pressure wave of the muzzle flash will affect the neighboring shell as it exits the barrel.  But the solution was to have a tiny delay, between firing each of the guns in a turret.  The delay is so small that it's not really perceptible to the human eye, but it's enough to fix the problem.

 

 

[Crucis]

According to WG, balance > historical accuracy. Unfortunately for the Grosser Kurfurst, it's neither.

 

 

But like WanderingGhost said in his TLDR, you're arguing about a detail that was only in a design study, not a blueprint of an ordered ship or an actual ship.  So, how can one talk about historical accuracy in this case?

 

 

[byronicasian]

I doubt the devs are willing to spend time to create a balanced gun stat for an 18 gun that didn't exist for the Germans unless you want them to transplant the Yamato's guns over.

 

It's the reason they scrapped their original H-42/19in gun plan per their Q&A. Literally no information to plug into the game (which considering they were able to do so with what little is left on the 42cm guns and Zaou's 8"/55, says quite a bit).

[cmdr_raccoon]

Personally I don't mind the GK as she is, other than that ridiculous torpedo protection. I don't consider triple turrets bad or not nice etc.

 

But you know what, I do kind of like the idea of keeping German ship lines more or less uniformed with double turrets, and 18" or 18.1" (because Yamato is 18.1 and Germans dont always go for the ".1" thing) on a German BB would have been interesting, so ill vote for the H42 with 460mms.  ..though i doubt devs will agree...