Speculative Balance: The Not-Fact-Check Series

[fettsheir]

So I'm a history major looking to go along the professor track, and I'm between universities at the moment. What better way for me to try and stretch my skeptical-research-legs than trying to stack up the statistics of various in-game features, ships, etc. against their real-life counterparts? What I'm looking to do is simple: provide a compare-and-contrast-style article every so often on a ship, group of ships, weapon types, etc. Similarities need not be addressed unless they seem out of place. Differences can be analyzed and questioned (was balance a factor, are certain pieces of equipment actually pieces of educated speculation, etc.). The goal is NOT to shame Wargaming for any discrepancies or differences that are found, nor will I try and speak for them. Instead it can be interesting to speculate on why certain design decisions were made and perhaps compare such speculation to any existing statements from Wargaming.

 

Some things that will be excluded from these analyses (except maybe featuring in articles of their own):

-numerical stats such as hitpoints and detection ranges

-the performance of mechanics in-game (such as penetration mechanics)

-complicating real-life factors (may be incorporated, but not individually discussed)

 

Now, my first project is going to be the Tier IX and X German battleships (seriously, I'm going digging as deep as I can to figure out where on earth that T10 came from). Beyond that, I have a couple other ideas; if anyone has any ideas of their own (as I'm the one who is going to put my time where my mouth is, something that not all of you can do), go ahead and tell me. And, if I hadn't made it clear: this series will NOT be one that shames and badmouths Wargaming about certain decisions (getting that in before people tell me to figure out stuff about Russian projects in order to prove how paper-y they are and why they shouldn't be in game and so on and so forth).

[Amogussy]

The T10 German BB was made up by Wargaming, the T9 is a H39 in stock hull, H41-esque in maxed out hull

[fettsheir]

The T10 German BB was made up by Wargaming, the T9 is a H39 in stock hull, H41-esque in maxed out hull

 

Call me naive, but I have at least a little faith in the idea that Wargaming was influenced by something. I'm well aware that even the H-44 didn't have triple-gunned turrets, but I also refuse to believe outright that this design came from absolutely nowhere. Hence the reason for my series: obviously the ship is fictional, but it might be fun to figure out how they reached its design.

[YamatoA150]

Now, my first project is going to be the Tier IX and X German battleships (seriously, I'm going digging as deep as I can to figure out where on earth that T10 came from). Beyond that, I have a couple other ideas; if anyone has any ideas of their own (as I'm the one who is going to put my time where my mouth is, something that not all of you can do), go ahead and tell me. And, if I hadn't made it clear: this series will NOT be one that shames and badmouths Wargaming about certain decisions (getting that in before people tell me to figure out stuff about Russian projects in order to prove how paper-y they are and why they shouldn't be in game and so on and so forth).

 

First thing's first, FdG was the H-39 hull that partially upgrades with elements of H-41, according to a post from Ard.

 

Kurfurst is based on a "preliminary H-41" Hull, according to what Ard said, and someone else clarified as the H-40B hull.  The turrets themselves are based on a German design that was sold to Russia when Russia requested information on 16" guns from the Germans.  Notably, the development of the gun and turret delayed development of the Graf Zeppelin.  That one was found by another forumite.  Link here (and the following post).

 

Therefore, Kurfurst is a semi-fantasy hull of the H series with actual turrets and cannons that were based on actual historical designs.  The key part really is the main guns, which are based on actual designs found, and a hull sufficiently compatible with the guns.  They're likely going to do the same for France's T10, as they found a large caliber gun (450mm, or 17.7" rounded) but no ship hull, and may just conjure up an evolved Alsace plan for the gun to fit on (3 quad-45cm turrets on an Alsace variant would be pretty fun and devastating).

[TenguBlade]

The T10 German BB was made up by Wargaming, the T9 is a H39 in stock hull, H41-esque in maxed out hull

Typical American bias in your attitude.  Just because the West doesn't know it means that it must be a figment of the Russians' vodka-addled imaginations, right?

 

WarGaming stated that they dug up the Grosser Kurfurst's design plans in the Russian government's archives: they were a design blueprint known as H-40B that was confiscated by the Soviets.

[Lampshade_M1A2]

Supposedly the turret design existed and was found in Russian archives. The hull could possibly be based off the H-40 designs of which there is little available information but even those weren't intended to have three-gun turrets.

[TenguBlade]

Supposedly the turret design existed and was found in Russian archives. The hull could possibly be based off the H-40 designs of which there is little available information but even those weren't intended to have three-gun turrets.

The hull design was what was found in the archives.  The triple turret on Kurfurst is literally an upscaled version of Scharnhorst's triple turret in-game, and the differences between the two in reality would probably not be much greater.  The armor might scale out of proportion, but I can't see any reason why the designers wouldn't adapt similar interior layout and arrangement when clearly those didn't cause issues for the Scharnhorst sisters in combat.

[Sirus_Patton]

The hull design was what was found in the archives.  The triple turret on Kurfurst is literally an upscaled version of Scharnhorst's triple turret in-game, and the differences between the two in reality would probably not be much greater.  The armor might scale out of proportion, but I can't see any reason why the designers wouldn't adapt similar interior layout and arrangement when clearly those didn't cause issues for the Scharnhorst sisters in combat.

 

No Tengu, if you read Ard's post about it, the turrets were a design sitting in a Russian archive from where the Russians requested a design for a triple 16" main gun prior to war breaking out between Germany and Russia.  The hull has been identified as H-40B as well, which is not a Russian archive design.

[TenguBlade]

No Tengu, if you read Ard's post about it, the turrets were a design sitting in a Russian archive from where the Russians requested a design for a triple 16" main gun prior to war breaking out between Germany and Russia.  The hull has been identified as H-40B as well, which is not a Russian archive design.

Fair enough.  I stand corrected.

 

I was fairly sure Ard mentioned they'd found the H-40B design in the Russian archives because it was confiscated by the Soviets (a German design, just captured), but whatever.

[atPrick__]

Do Khabarovsk ....

 

DO IT!

[fettsheir]

I suppose I asked for it when I said I wondered where the T10 came from. I hadn't yet gotten around to looking into Wargaming staff comments, but I'm glad Ard has shed some light on the subject. There's still some things I'll be speculating about, but in the meantime any suggestions to add to the one that I've gotten so far that I was already thinking about?

[fettsheir]

Am I rezzing a post a little bit? Yes, but that's only because I lost the fire to do this between the comments above, difficulty of obtaining information, and an overall...interesting time in my life. I want to have another good go at it. Anyways, chances are I'll be posting one of these in a week or so. Not the one I was planning on doing; go figure, but apparently ballistics data and other such things for paper ships are hard to come by without the ability to travel to international archives. I'll post an initial draft here just for the sake of showing the direction I intend on going, but I don't think I'll be finishing that (warning: it's really rough, grammatical shenanigans abound, etc.). Anyways, yeah, new one coming, and, learning from last time, I won't be announcing ahead of time what it'll be. Aside from what I already have in mind, suggestions anyone?

[legoboy0401]

58 minutes ago, fettsheir said:

Am I rezzing a post a little bit? Yes, but that's only because I lost the fire to do this between the comments above, difficulty of obtaining information, and an overall...interesting time in my life. I want to have another good go at it. Anyways, chances are I'll be posting one of these in a week or so. Not the one I was planning on doing; go figure, but apparently ballistics data and other such things for paper ships are hard to come by without the ability to travel to international archives. I'll post an initial draft here just for the sake of showing the direction I intend on going, but I don't think I'll be finishing that (warning: it's really rough, grammatical shenanigans abound, etc.). Anyways, yeah, new one coming, and, learning from last time, I won't be announcing ahead of time what it'll be. Aside from what I already have in mind, suggestions anyone?

Conqueror, Dmitri Donskoi, Podvoisky, Hindenburg, and Henri IV.

[YamatoA150]

I second Conqueror, Hindenburg, and Henri IV.  Mainly Henri IV.

 

Henri IV.  Aside from the gun data; she's more or less a pure fantasy hull with a very loose basis on earlier French cruiser design plans (IIRC, mentioned by WG as having been brainstormed by their in-house Naval Architect based on French design philosophy of the time period).

 

Hindenburg would be interesting as there isn't much about her that WG has shared.  I believe WoWs Reddit did some research, but aside from the guns, all I remember was the majority concluding it was a considerably evolved O or P-class design to fit the tier.  A proper comparison of the designs vs Hindenburg would be worth reading.

 

Conqueror could be interesting as well, seeing as how she's a fusion of the 1920 L2 design with a few elements of Lion/Vanguard thrown in.  It'd be worthwhile reading the extent of changes and modernizations WG tossed at the L2 design to result in Conqueror.  The WoWs Reddit had some interesting stuff when Conqueror was first leaked, but it was a pain sorting through all those posts for the real interesting tidbits.  So if you're able to consolidate all that, it would be enlightening to see the extent of changes as a whole.

 

Zao might be fun as well; if only because there's little information on her aside from the fact that she was a fusion of an old Japanese ship magazine's "artist's rendition" of a supposed or planned design, and her unique 203 guns, which had been tested but later canceled/aborted for whatever reason (and the fact that the guns were intended to be retrofitted onto the Takao and Myoko-classes).  The guns themselves just have a lowly blurb on Wikipedia Japan, and in some obscure texts more seasoned researchers have found and mentioned on the forums.

 

I'd throw in Roon as well; if only because she seems to be an enlarged Nurnburg-class design.

 

Maybe Lion too, seeing as how she had several different design studies, and seeing if WG just hybridized them all or used a more specific design then refined it.

[AnatolyDyatlovDidNothing]

16 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

Conqueror could be interesting as well, seeing as how she's a fusion of the 1920 L2 design with a few elements of Lion/Vanguard thrown in.  It'd be worthwhile reading the extent of changes and modernizations WG tossed at the L2 design to result in Conqueror.  The WoWs Reddit had some interesting stuff when Conqueror was first leaked, but it was a pain sorting through all those posts for the real interesting tidbits.  So if you're able to consolidate all that, it would be enlightening to see the extent of changes as a whole.

 

16E38 or 16D38 Lion with guns from i don't know where. From what i have seen there is no L2 in Conquerer except in having a 4x2 457mm battery, and they are not the same guns as intended for L2 i believe. 

[YamatoA150]

2 minutes ago, grizzly95 said:

16E38 or 16D38 Lion with guns from i don't know where. From what i have seen there is no L2 in Conquerer except in having a 4x2 457mm battery, and they are not the same guns as intended for L2 i believe. 

 

Aren't Lion's and Conqueror's guns the same 16" MkII~IV and 18" (1920s) designs listed on Navweaps?

[AnatolyDyatlovDidNothing]

1 minute ago, YamatoA150 said:

 

Aren't Lion's and Conqueror's guns the same 16" MkII~IV and 18" (1920s) designs listed on Navweaps?

 

According to the dailybounce Conquerer does indeed have the MkII 18in guns, i had been under the impression myself that it was a different design gun so my bad.

 

Either way, most of what i have seen equates the actual hull design to the 16E38 or 16D38 based on dimensions, speed, funnels, stern design etc.

 

All i know is that i am looking forward to it currently.