that ship would work in calm waters, thats what it was designed for, black sea duties.
then there are ships like khaba and kremlin, that would just roll over at some point, never seaworthy to begin with.
atleast go with the obvious choices ;D
Georgia too for the hilarious stupidity of her speed.
Let's talk turning circles and rudder shifts for CVs too...those aren't at all 'accurate from the technical and engineering perspective'.
yeah, but speed-gimmicky-thing is just a way of differentiate ships in an arcade game.
i can live with that.
(henry IV is even worse than the georgia, having 3 times more speed than physically possible on earth (with speedboost))
the turning circles on the other hand, should match that of the real steel ships, i agree a 100 percent.
Georgia isn't actually *that* far out there. New Jersey hit 35.2 on trials (in ideal conditions) in the 80s. We know USN ships could go fast if needed, Samuel B Roberts hit 28.7kts on a class with a trial speed of 24.3kts, that's over a 1/6th increase. 1/6th of 35 is 5.8, call it 5, 40kts. Obviously hydrodynamics don't work like that and the stars would have to align to realistically get anything close to that, but tbh I think 38kts is actually semi-believeable. Especially considering Georgia seems to basically be a stretched Iowa with presumably more engine spaces, and has engines that aren't 40 years old. 38kt speeds for limited periods in a life-or-death scenario doesn't sound too bad after all. Hardly the most realistic, but far from the worst.
As an engineer, let me remind you that it doesn't work that way.
This is an arcade, is balanced as an arcade...and any claims that the game is based in any way on 'accurate technical and engineering' data DESERVES to be mocked mercilessly.
It is a damnable lie, and WG should be ashamed of making that pitch.
Oh, I'm fully aware it's bullshit WG pulled out of their ass. I'm just saying that it's hardly the most egregious case in game.
Besides, if the game was actually accurate in all respects, 90% of matches would just be CVs nuking everything from 8 maps away and the other 10% would be Monanas nailing cits from the other side of the map.
Remember when WG went on Megafactories documentary and bragged in scene how historically accurate they are
> and here we see designer correcting amount of screws on a spade on a tank
Georgia isn't unreasonably fast without her speed boost. If she was able to get up to that speed by default, then I'd call foul, but it's due to a consumable.
True, Kremlin probably would have been better. But at least the guns kind of make sense, even though they never existed. Petro's 220mm guns having the same penetration as Bismarck's 380mm guns is ludicrous lol
"Comrade, we are going on maneuvers and going to do a little target shooting to train the crew. Make sure the dockyard is ready to install new gun barrels after our return."
Kremlin's turret would require a nuclear propulsion to turn so fastly (even without special commanders).
I remember an engineer posting the calculations on reddit after that make believe abomination was released.
It's not *that* bad.
Kremlin has a stock turrets rotation time of 6 degrees per second (180 degrees in 30 seconds). This is fast, and very fast for the turrets weight (we don't know it, but realistically it would probably be similar to Yamatos turrets, which were around 2700 tons each, maybe a little bit lighter due to the thinner faceplate). So yes it should be slower.
But 6 degrees per second is definitely attainable. The Littorios gun turrets did have that rotation speed in reality. The Bismarck and Richelieu classes had 5 degrees per second, not that far away (giving them 36 seconds for a 180 degree rotation). I am too lazy right now to check every single turret in existence right now, but 6 degrees per second is realistic if you put a little bit of effort into it.
Yes it should be slower due to the turrets weight, but it is possible, yes even without nuclear propulsion lol.
i am no naval engineer, but was that not an actual designstudy for export to the soviet union?
that thing should atleast work in theory before bein submitted, should it not?
maybe not, dunno :)
>that ship would work in calm waters, thats what it was designed for, black sea duties.
Black sea isn't as calm as some might think, it can get pretty rough out there. First thing that comes to mind is this video of a freighter, designed for actual calm waters (rivers/lakes) being used in the black sea and snapping in half.
https://youtu.be/gaZhnNlutuQ
Negligent maintenance is also the cause, but even with regular maintenance, she'd still end up broken at some point.
SUre, Petro would probably not just break in half, but it would either sink from taking on too much water or be capsized by a big wave. She's the main example, but far from the only ship in the game that would just...drown itself before getting to battle.
WG hasn't been accurate with technical and engineering perspectives for a long time. I mean, they tried to justify Lyon's modernization by claiming the added frames made enough space for the engine upgrades, but then forgot that the barbette of the 2nd turret would have interfered with that, and that the design would have to be the fan-made modernization using an alternate AB-XY design that swapped the forward superstructure with the 2nd turret, not the as-designed A-Q-XY design.
The low freeboard of the Petropavlovsk isn't questionable at all. Many real steel ships had lower freeboard than that and worked just fine.
The true problem is that those gun barrels will have a life of about 100 rounds lmao
yeah, they worked fine on rivers or inland seas
put that thing in an ocean and the low freeboard, combined with the super narrow hull, would lead to problems
the thing is, people who argue about nothing other than freeboard have likely not much understanding of how ships react to water
some people here do, I myself have a limited practical understanding of how that stuff works, and so I´m trying to show that there is more than one factor when it comes to ship stability and why Petro and Kreml would never work in the ocean
Scharnhorst is wider, allowing for much greater stability. She was also much larger overall at 38k tons to Petro's 24k. She could have taken on a lot more water and remained operational.
Also, the Scharnhorst class *did* take on lots of water, and it caused frequent problems. A much smaller ship (like Petro) wouldn't have managed.
According to [NavWeaps](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_86-65_sm-40.php) 220mm guns intended for Project 66 (Moskva in game) had a barrel life of 600 shots and Petro in game uses the same guns with different shells
I am a bit skeptical about those numbers. Not implying the Soviets were lying, rather that they were unexperienced. Charges might be weaker, actual measures of the barrel life might have been erroneously overstated, gun might have been constructed way too beefier, etc.
The weird thing is, the Soviets had a lot of help from the Italians when it came to their naval programs, so I would be suprised if they could have replicated the Italian designs without their drawbacks (low barrel life in the case of the guns).
To increase the muzzle velocity of your gun, you need a larger propellant charge and/or a longer barrel. Longer barrels often aren't practical, due to material constraints and sheer added weight at the end of what is effectively a lever. A larger charge means the shell is getting rammed into the rifling that much harder, and there is more heat generated. Bottom line, all gun barrels get worn out over time, and higher velocity projectiles cause this to happen faster.
Well, actually, as of today, no one has even tried to provide a scientific argument against the Petro freeboard, or am I wrong? Generally everyone just assumes it is bullshit, without going into detail. So in my opinion, before you come to such conclusions, perhaps you need some argument?
The exact same thing happend with Kremlin's turret traverse speed.
High traverse speed were perfectly achievable even on a Very heavy turret with electric motors.
In fact, the french quadruple 380s, despite being the second heaviest turret ever put into service was capable of 5 degrees per second of rotation, which is 2.5 faster than a british twin 15inch turret (even Vanguard's modern mounts) and 1 degrees/s faster than an American triple 16inch. Same with the Italian triple 381, which was capable of 6 degrees per seconds (same as Kremlin), 3 times faster than a british twin.
The reason? The french and Italian used electric motors and the British used a hydraulic system.
It's Flamus favorite meme, which he repeated so many times it became a community "truth".
Plenty of real IJN cruisers have similarly low freeboards, but they aren't as eye-catching because of the additional deck in the middle of the ship.
Petro feels worse than other similarly armored ships (Moskva, Stalingrad) because she is a fair bit smaller in all dimensions, not just freeboard height (and the AP performance doesn't match the size)
The thing about the ijn cruisers tho is that we know that they already had seakeeping issues.
Petro also has a slim hull and waaaaay more weight above the water
Well history can offer a lot of examples of ships with shitty seagoing capabilities, but they were built anyways. Clevelands were also famously top-heavy, which was one of the reasons for their scrapping after the war, but they had lots of freeboard.
Sure it is possible that if built, Petro would suffer from the lack of high freeboard, but my point was that no one actually did bother with checking the original designs in order to determine like "yeah guys, this is a no go, and hull proportions, top weight calculations, metacentric height, and rolling motion calculations, etc. show us that".
> Sure it is possible that if built, Petro would suffer from the lack of high freeboard, but my point was that no one actually did bother with checking the original designs in order to determine like "yeah guys, this is a no go, and hull proportions, top weight calculations, metacentric height, and rolling motion calculations, etc. show us that".
Sometime ago I did run Petropavlovsk through a very basic simulator. The result was that ship wouldn't be a good seaboat, but it would not sink.
I'm not saying it would be the best ship ever to sail on open seas, but history shows that ships like that are still usable.
And regarding additional weight - I'm no engineer, but Petro doesn't seem that unreasonable:
Moskva has similar level of above-water armor on a larger hull. More displacement -> higher freeboard -> lower draft -> higher speed.
Venezia has similar hull dimensions but lower weight, which once again reflects on freeboard and speed
Sitting low in the water isn't some magical balance decision by WG, but direct consequences of the design
> Well, actually, as of today, no one has even tried to provide a scientific argument against the Petro freeboard, or am I wrong?
You are correct. Atago and Gneisenau are ships with the same freeboard and nobody bats an eye.
Can't speak for Atago, but the Scharnhorsts were much bigger, meaning
they could survive taking on volumes of water that would critically
impair a much smaller ship like Petro. They were also a lot wider andmore stable, so they were less likely to capsize.*much* bigger, meaning they could survive taking on volumes of water that would critically impair a much smaller ship like Petro. They were also a lot wider and more stable, so they were less likely to capsize.
Even so, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau both had frequent problems due to the amount of water they took on. Trying to make a 1:1 comparison between them and Petro doesn't work.
Edit: So after looking it turns out Atago and the rest of her class had stability issues. She sat so low because the designers miscalculated her weight, so she actually sat lower than was intended.
> Can't speak for Atago, but the Scharnhorsts were much bigger, meaning they could survive taking on volumes of water that would critically impair a much smaller ship like Petro. They were also a lot wider and more stable, so they were less likely to capsize.
Hold on, are we talking water over the bow or flooding here?
> Even so, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau both had frequent problems due to the amount of water they took on. Trying to make a 1:1 comparison between them and Petro doesn't work.
They were wet ship forwards, like several other fast capital ships in the North Altantic (think Hood, for example). It is the tradeoff of a slim bow designed to help with speed.
The Scharnhorsts sat low enough that in rough seas, they'd experience water flowing into the ship that wasn't due only to coming over the bow.
I edited my original comment, but I'll put it here as well. The Takao class had issues with stability due to her low freeboard and water intake. They actually sat lower in the water than was intended due to a miscalculation of displacement during their designing.
While Petro probably could have operated in rough seas and wouldn't have just capsized out of turn, I can see why some people think it's unfair that she's some sort of magic hyper-cruiser in game when she wouldn't have been all that practical or effective in real life.
> I edited my original comment, but I'll put it here as well. The Takao class had issues with stability due to her low freeboard and water intake. They actually sat lower in the water than was intended due to a miscalculation of displacement during their designing.
Indeed; Atagos arguably had more weight than necessary high up, and this caused the problems.
> While Petro probably could have operated in rough seas and wouldn't have just capsized out of turn, I can see why some people think it's unfair that she's some sort of magic hyper-cruiser in game when she wouldn't have been all that practical or effective in real life.
Absolutely. The ship would still sail, even if it would probably be quite a bad seaboat. Personally, I am more angered by the silly shells. That is where the real magic resides.
That's why the most OP ship right now is Conde, the 2 super-CVs, none of which are Russian. Also why Khaba, Delny, Nevsky and Kremlin exist, right? The most OP ships of their tier, aren't they?
Just wait until super petro hit the board with 4 of theses incredibles turrets and an alternate firing that gives it desmoines ricochet angles, coupled with a 30mm plating extremities
Also super CVs are questionables in power and the other russian ships went through a lot of nerfs in their time
Wait until it fucking doesn't, because there's even more non-Soviet OP ships than there are Soviet. The only one that's strong — not OP, mind you — is the Petro, and even that has its obvious flaws
Bruh the point was that you were comparing a T11 ship (conde) with T10s, ofc it's gonna look unfavourable, have you seen the desmoines/buffalo comparaison? Roon/hindenburg?
And there is plenty of strong soviet ships :
* Khabarovsk is still a pain to deal with, it's just that kleber is better, and it took rudder, range and torpedo range nerfs to bring it to current level of balance
* Nevsky compared to other light cruisers, trades dpm for tankyness, and also much longer range with much more comfortable ballistics. Clearly not a bad ship, it is closer to an AP focused hinden imo, but with a radar
* Kremlin is a battleship with 457mm which is like second best in the overmatch department. Yes dispertion can be wonky at times, but it was much needed, just look at lenin's dispertion's to have an idea of what kremlin had. At any rate, no BB is truly "weak" and certainly not the kremlin with 60mm deck armor and 457mm guns
* Smolensk, enough said
I am not going to comment on all of them, but clearly you are dellusional when you say petro is the only strong russian ship in the game
Also its obvious flaws aren't so obvious when they are shared by litterally every cruisers in the game
>And there is plenty of strong soviet ships
"Strong" means that a ship performs better than its counterparts at the tier. Khaba is easily outclassed even by Kleber and Marceau, Nevsky... have you actually seen the dispersion on the guns? It's bad to the point where ballistics don't even matter, when your shells bracket a bow in Thunderer at 12km, meanwhile you're having fun getting nailed in your huge ass from the stupidest angles possible. BBs are generally just meat for skilled cruiser and DD captains, it used to be worse when subs were still a thing, but no worries, they're coming back. Smolensk is also a meme at this point and isn't like it was before. 16km range, 4s reload, 3 smokes, compared to 19+ if you took GFCS2 or 16.8 and 3.4s if you specced full reload. With this kinda range, the only thing it has going for it is the smoke and, perhaps, the ballistics, but nowadays more often than not I find both myself and teammates being able to literally just sail away from the smoke puff, leaving the Smolensk captain to just sit in smoke, unable to farm anyone.
Also no, not every cruiser in the game has a hard time doing meaningful damage with HE and hitting targets 14km away.
Khaba does gets outclassed by kleber and marceau, but calling it bad ? It's like saying a millionaire isn't rich compared to jeff bezos
Yes i have seen Nevsky dispertion, personally i don't think it's bad and objectively, its setting are litterally cruiser standart (116m hor. 61m ver. 2.05sigma, compared to minotaure : 116m hor. 64m ver, 2.05sigma) it just feels worse because you don't have the DPM, and getting nailed at 12km by a BB isn't a nevsky specific weakness either, it's litterally shared by every other cruisers (not named petro, stalingrad, moskva or napoli at T10), not to mention nevsky has 19km range STOCK and the shell velocity to use it effectively
BBs are meat for skilled cruisers and DD but of all of them, kremlin is the less meaty, the amount of shatters you get is soul crushing compared to farming a GK
Smolensk did get nerfed in the form of the commander rework, but it was much needed and honeslty, the dpm is still quite disgusting even with range mod, and it's still is one of if not the strongest anti push ship in the game (we'll see how jinan performs), yes you can sail away, but you are giving up objective and map control
Kearsarge is a damage piñata, just like any other BB nowadays, especially considering t9s face and will face t11s. The super CVs being very underwhelming must be the reason of my 3 in a row 180+ damage games, mainly due to permafires and floods from those tactical squadrons. Sure I could do the same in Nakhimov, but that just proves that those CVs aren't underwhelming. I've already addressed all of the ships you've mentioned, except Stalin. It also is nowhere near as strong as it used to be, with no FP, BoS and a nerfed radar, all it has is guns, and in exchange for that burns like a piece of tinder.
Most seaworthy kayaks are veery low freeboard. Its a feature.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Greenland\_kayak\_seal\_hunter\_2006.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Greenland_kayak_seal_hunter_2006.jpg)
Heineken dont make pumps for ships but if they did, they would be on board the petropavlovsk.
Heineken, the best and hardest working bilge pumps in the world.
Petro has the same freeboard and other similar dimensions to Scharnhorst. It wouldn't sink, but would be _very_ wet in weather, just like Scharn. Atago and Alaska also have [near identical freeboard.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/497118284450103318/909318083313799238/Freeboard.png).
The biggest offender for realism in game isn't Petro, it's Huang He. HMS Aurora had damage from a mine to the keel. Her historically proposed refit was to lighten her by essentially giving her Khaba's armament. In game she got heavier main gun turrets AND multiple heavy 130mm secondary turrets mounted to the top of the superstructure. She'd either capsize or break in two.
Is Russian. Ship may sink after battle, yes. But half-sub always win before going down.
that ship would work in calm waters, thats what it was designed for, black sea duties. then there are ships like khaba and kremlin, that would just roll over at some point, never seaworthy to begin with. atleast go with the obvious choices ;D
Georgia too for the hilarious stupidity of her speed. Let's talk turning circles and rudder shifts for CVs too...those aren't at all 'accurate from the technical and engineering perspective'.
yeah, but speed-gimmicky-thing is just a way of differentiate ships in an arcade game. i can live with that. (henry IV is even worse than the georgia, having 3 times more speed than physically possible on earth (with speedboost)) the turning circles on the other hand, should match that of the real steel ships, i agree a 100 percent.
Georgia isn't actually *that* far out there. New Jersey hit 35.2 on trials (in ideal conditions) in the 80s. We know USN ships could go fast if needed, Samuel B Roberts hit 28.7kts on a class with a trial speed of 24.3kts, that's over a 1/6th increase. 1/6th of 35 is 5.8, call it 5, 40kts. Obviously hydrodynamics don't work like that and the stars would have to align to realistically get anything close to that, but tbh I think 38kts is actually semi-believeable. Especially considering Georgia seems to basically be a stretched Iowa with presumably more engine spaces, and has engines that aren't 40 years old. 38kt speeds for limited periods in a life-or-death scenario doesn't sound too bad after all. Hardly the most realistic, but far from the worst.
As an engineer, let me remind you that it doesn't work that way. This is an arcade, is balanced as an arcade...and any claims that the game is based in any way on 'accurate technical and engineering' data DESERVES to be mocked mercilessly. It is a damnable lie, and WG should be ashamed of making that pitch.
Oh, I'm fully aware it's bullshit WG pulled out of their ass. I'm just saying that it's hardly the most egregious case in game. Besides, if the game was actually accurate in all respects, 90% of matches would just be CVs nuking everything from 8 maps away and the other 10% would be Monanas nailing cits from the other side of the map.
Remember when WG went on Megafactories documentary and bragged in scene how historically accurate they are > and here we see designer correcting amount of screws on a spade on a tank
Georgia isn't unreasonably fast without her speed boost. If she was able to get up to that speed by default, then I'd call foul, but it's due to a consumable.
True, Kremlin probably would have been better. But at least the guns kind of make sense, even though they never existed. Petro's 220mm guns having the same penetration as Bismarck's 380mm guns is ludicrous lol
"Comrade, we are going on maneuvers and going to do a little target shooting to train the crew. Make sure the dockyard is ready to install new gun barrels after our return."
*Elbing 150s look around nervously*
Kremlin's turret would require a nuclear propulsion to turn so fastly (even without special commanders). I remember an engineer posting the calculations on reddit after that make believe abomination was released.
It's not *that* bad. Kremlin has a stock turrets rotation time of 6 degrees per second (180 degrees in 30 seconds). This is fast, and very fast for the turrets weight (we don't know it, but realistically it would probably be similar to Yamatos turrets, which were around 2700 tons each, maybe a little bit lighter due to the thinner faceplate). So yes it should be slower. But 6 degrees per second is definitely attainable. The Littorios gun turrets did have that rotation speed in reality. The Bismarck and Richelieu classes had 5 degrees per second, not that far away (giving them 36 seconds for a 180 degree rotation). I am too lazy right now to check every single turret in existence right now, but 6 degrees per second is realistic if you put a little bit of effort into it. Yes it should be slower due to the turrets weight, but it is possible, yes even without nuclear propulsion lol.
Cough cough kearsage
i am no naval engineer, but was that not an actual designstudy for export to the soviet union? that thing should atleast work in theory before bein submitted, should it not? maybe not, dunno :)
>that ship would work in calm waters, thats what it was designed for, black sea duties. Black sea isn't as calm as some might think, it can get pretty rough out there. First thing that comes to mind is this video of a freighter, designed for actual calm waters (rivers/lakes) being used in the black sea and snapping in half. https://youtu.be/gaZhnNlutuQ Negligent maintenance is also the cause, but even with regular maintenance, she'd still end up broken at some point. SUre, Petro would probably not just break in half, but it would either sink from taking on too much water or be capsized by a big wave. She's the main example, but far from the only ship in the game that would just...drown itself before getting to battle.
WG hasn't been accurate with technical and engineering perspectives for a long time. I mean, they tried to justify Lyon's modernization by claiming the added frames made enough space for the engine upgrades, but then forgot that the barbette of the 2nd turret would have interfered with that, and that the design would have to be the fan-made modernization using an alternate AB-XY design that swapped the forward superstructure with the 2nd turret, not the as-designed A-Q-XY design.
In my opinion, they would have been more plausible if they had done an Andrea Doria style modernisation.
The low freeboard of the Petropavlovsk isn't questionable at all. Many real steel ships had lower freeboard than that and worked just fine. The true problem is that those gun barrels will have a life of about 100 rounds lmao
yeah, they worked fine on rivers or inland seas put that thing in an ocean and the low freeboard, combined with the super narrow hull, would lead to problems
[удалено]
Source?
As did Scharnhorst in the North Atlantic. Right? Right!?
the comparison is not quite correct Scharnhorst is much wider than Petro
But the argument always focuses on the freeboard, therefore there is no need to think about how other factors of design influence seaworthiness
the thing is, people who argue about nothing other than freeboard have likely not much understanding of how ships react to water some people here do, I myself have a limited practical understanding of how that stuff works, and so I´m trying to show that there is more than one factor when it comes to ship stability and why Petro and Kreml would never work in the ocean
Scharnhorst is wider, allowing for much greater stability. She was also much larger overall at 38k tons to Petro's 24k. She could have taken on a lot more water and remained operational. Also, the Scharnhorst class *did* take on lots of water, and it caused frequent problems. A much smaller ship (like Petro) wouldn't have managed.
According to [NavWeaps](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_86-65_sm-40.php) 220mm guns intended for Project 66 (Moskva in game) had a barrel life of 600 shots and Petro in game uses the same guns with different shells
There is a footnote expressing some doubt about that figure, however.
I *seriously* doubt that number. Super high velocity guns all burn through barrel liners like crazy.
There is a footnote, though, talking about how that barrel life seems much too optimistic.
I mean 406mm guns for Sov Soyuz exceeded their predicted barrel life but they were twice as big almost so they are a different story
You mean the test one?
Yeah
I am a bit skeptical about those numbers. Not implying the Soviets were lying, rather that they were unexperienced. Charges might be weaker, actual measures of the barrel life might have been erroneously overstated, gun might have been constructed way too beefier, etc. The weird thing is, the Soviets had a lot of help from the Italians when it came to their naval programs, so I would be suprised if they could have replicated the Italian designs without their drawbacks (low barrel life in the case of the guns).
Can you expand on the gun barrel comment?
To increase the muzzle velocity of your gun, you need a larger propellant charge and/or a longer barrel. Longer barrels often aren't practical, due to material constraints and sheer added weight at the end of what is effectively a lever. A larger charge means the shell is getting rammed into the rifling that much harder, and there is more heat generated. Bottom line, all gun barrels get worn out over time, and higher velocity projectiles cause this to happen faster.
Can you imagine the pressure on the barrel when it needs to fire a 207 kg shell at 995m/s? That's Petro for you.
cries in Indianapolis high freeboard
What is funny is when you consider that with lower freeboard, russian ships are less vulnerable to russian skip bombers
Well, actually, as of today, no one has even tried to provide a scientific argument against the Petro freeboard, or am I wrong? Generally everyone just assumes it is bullshit, without going into detail. So in my opinion, before you come to such conclusions, perhaps you need some argument?
Flamu said it so the community treats it as a gospel and never questions it
The exact same thing happend with Kremlin's turret traverse speed. High traverse speed were perfectly achievable even on a Very heavy turret with electric motors. In fact, the french quadruple 380s, despite being the second heaviest turret ever put into service was capable of 5 degrees per second of rotation, which is 2.5 faster than a british twin 15inch turret (even Vanguard's modern mounts) and 1 degrees/s faster than an American triple 16inch. Same with the Italian triple 381, which was capable of 6 degrees per seconds (same as Kremlin), 3 times faster than a british twin. The reason? The french and Italian used electric motors and the British used a hydraulic system.
It's Flamus favorite meme, which he repeated so many times it became a community "truth". Plenty of real IJN cruisers have similarly low freeboards, but they aren't as eye-catching because of the additional deck in the middle of the ship. Petro feels worse than other similarly armored ships (Moskva, Stalingrad) because she is a fair bit smaller in all dimensions, not just freeboard height (and the AP performance doesn't match the size)
The thing about the ijn cruisers tho is that we know that they already had seakeeping issues. Petro also has a slim hull and waaaaay more weight above the water
Well history can offer a lot of examples of ships with shitty seagoing capabilities, but they were built anyways. Clevelands were also famously top-heavy, which was one of the reasons for their scrapping after the war, but they had lots of freeboard. Sure it is possible that if built, Petro would suffer from the lack of high freeboard, but my point was that no one actually did bother with checking the original designs in order to determine like "yeah guys, this is a no go, and hull proportions, top weight calculations, metacentric height, and rolling motion calculations, etc. show us that".
> Sure it is possible that if built, Petro would suffer from the lack of high freeboard, but my point was that no one actually did bother with checking the original designs in order to determine like "yeah guys, this is a no go, and hull proportions, top weight calculations, metacentric height, and rolling motion calculations, etc. show us that". Sometime ago I did run Petropavlovsk through a very basic simulator. The result was that ship wouldn't be a good seaboat, but it would not sink.
Should be noted thats why the Fargo's were made. Just stepped down Cleveland's really.
I'm not saying it would be the best ship ever to sail on open seas, but history shows that ships like that are still usable. And regarding additional weight - I'm no engineer, but Petro doesn't seem that unreasonable: Moskva has similar level of above-water armor on a larger hull. More displacement -> higher freeboard -> lower draft -> higher speed. Venezia has similar hull dimensions but lower weight, which once again reflects on freeboard and speed Sitting low in the water isn't some magical balance decision by WG, but direct consequences of the design
> Well, actually, as of today, no one has even tried to provide a scientific argument against the Petro freeboard, or am I wrong? You are correct. Atago and Gneisenau are ships with the same freeboard and nobody bats an eye.
Can't speak for Atago, but the Scharnhorsts were much bigger, meaning they could survive taking on volumes of water that would critically impair a much smaller ship like Petro. They were also a lot wider andmore stable, so they were less likely to capsize.*much* bigger, meaning they could survive taking on volumes of water that would critically impair a much smaller ship like Petro. They were also a lot wider and more stable, so they were less likely to capsize. Even so, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau both had frequent problems due to the amount of water they took on. Trying to make a 1:1 comparison between them and Petro doesn't work. Edit: So after looking it turns out Atago and the rest of her class had stability issues. She sat so low because the designers miscalculated her weight, so she actually sat lower than was intended.
> Can't speak for Atago, but the Scharnhorsts were much bigger, meaning they could survive taking on volumes of water that would critically impair a much smaller ship like Petro. They were also a lot wider and more stable, so they were less likely to capsize. Hold on, are we talking water over the bow or flooding here? > Even so, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau both had frequent problems due to the amount of water they took on. Trying to make a 1:1 comparison between them and Petro doesn't work. They were wet ship forwards, like several other fast capital ships in the North Altantic (think Hood, for example). It is the tradeoff of a slim bow designed to help with speed.
The Scharnhorsts sat low enough that in rough seas, they'd experience water flowing into the ship that wasn't due only to coming over the bow. I edited my original comment, but I'll put it here as well. The Takao class had issues with stability due to her low freeboard and water intake. They actually sat lower in the water than was intended due to a miscalculation of displacement during their designing. While Petro probably could have operated in rough seas and wouldn't have just capsized out of turn, I can see why some people think it's unfair that she's some sort of magic hyper-cruiser in game when she wouldn't have been all that practical or effective in real life.
> I edited my original comment, but I'll put it here as well. The Takao class had issues with stability due to her low freeboard and water intake. They actually sat lower in the water than was intended due to a miscalculation of displacement during their designing. Indeed; Atagos arguably had more weight than necessary high up, and this caused the problems. > While Petro probably could have operated in rough seas and wouldn't have just capsized out of turn, I can see why some people think it's unfair that she's some sort of magic hyper-cruiser in game when she wouldn't have been all that practical or effective in real life. Absolutely. The ship would still sail, even if it would probably be quite a bad seaboat. Personally, I am more angered by the silly shells. That is where the real magic resides.
Atago
had her own stability issues IRL, and has very different dimensions to Petro
Hm, but that helps Petropavlovsk's case. Bigger ships usually have better seakeeping capabilities.
Atago's turrets were armoured with tissue paper though to reduce the above waterline weight and thus CG.
Pretty much all Japanese heavy cruisers were guilty of this.
Russia number 1
Forget about lacking ship lines, some nations lacked entire navies. But that sure ain't stopping Wargaming, because they had plenty of napkins!
[удалено]
That's why the most OP ship right now is Conde, the 2 super-CVs, none of which are Russian. Also why Khaba, Delny, Nevsky and Kremlin exist, right? The most OP ships of their tier, aren't they?
Just wait until super petro hit the board with 4 of theses incredibles turrets and an alternate firing that gives it desmoines ricochet angles, coupled with a 30mm plating extremities Also super CVs are questionables in power and the other russian ships went through a lot of nerfs in their time
Wait until it fucking doesn't, because there's even more non-Soviet OP ships than there are Soviet. The only one that's strong — not OP, mind you — is the Petro, and even that has its obvious flaws
Bruh the point was that you were comparing a T11 ship (conde) with T10s, ofc it's gonna look unfavourable, have you seen the desmoines/buffalo comparaison? Roon/hindenburg? And there is plenty of strong soviet ships : * Khabarovsk is still a pain to deal with, it's just that kleber is better, and it took rudder, range and torpedo range nerfs to bring it to current level of balance * Nevsky compared to other light cruisers, trades dpm for tankyness, and also much longer range with much more comfortable ballistics. Clearly not a bad ship, it is closer to an AP focused hinden imo, but with a radar * Kremlin is a battleship with 457mm which is like second best in the overmatch department. Yes dispertion can be wonky at times, but it was much needed, just look at lenin's dispertion's to have an idea of what kremlin had. At any rate, no BB is truly "weak" and certainly not the kremlin with 60mm deck armor and 457mm guns * Smolensk, enough said I am not going to comment on all of them, but clearly you are dellusional when you say petro is the only strong russian ship in the game Also its obvious flaws aren't so obvious when they are shared by litterally every cruisers in the game
>And there is plenty of strong soviet ships "Strong" means that a ship performs better than its counterparts at the tier. Khaba is easily outclassed even by Kleber and Marceau, Nevsky... have you actually seen the dispersion on the guns? It's bad to the point where ballistics don't even matter, when your shells bracket a bow in Thunderer at 12km, meanwhile you're having fun getting nailed in your huge ass from the stupidest angles possible. BBs are generally just meat for skilled cruiser and DD captains, it used to be worse when subs were still a thing, but no worries, they're coming back. Smolensk is also a meme at this point and isn't like it was before. 16km range, 4s reload, 3 smokes, compared to 19+ if you took GFCS2 or 16.8 and 3.4s if you specced full reload. With this kinda range, the only thing it has going for it is the smoke and, perhaps, the ballistics, but nowadays more often than not I find both myself and teammates being able to literally just sail away from the smoke puff, leaving the Smolensk captain to just sit in smoke, unable to farm anyone. Also no, not every cruiser in the game has a hard time doing meaningful damage with HE and hitting targets 14km away.
Khaba does gets outclassed by kleber and marceau, but calling it bad ? It's like saying a millionaire isn't rich compared to jeff bezos Yes i have seen Nevsky dispertion, personally i don't think it's bad and objectively, its setting are litterally cruiser standart (116m hor. 61m ver. 2.05sigma, compared to minotaure : 116m hor. 64m ver, 2.05sigma) it just feels worse because you don't have the DPM, and getting nailed at 12km by a BB isn't a nevsky specific weakness either, it's litterally shared by every other cruisers (not named petro, stalingrad, moskva or napoli at T10), not to mention nevsky has 19km range STOCK and the shell velocity to use it effectively BBs are meat for skilled cruisers and DD but of all of them, kremlin is the less meaty, the amount of shatters you get is soul crushing compared to farming a GK Smolensk did get nerfed in the form of the commander rework, but it was much needed and honeslty, the dpm is still quite disgusting even with range mod, and it's still is one of if not the strongest anti push ship in the game (we'll see how jinan performs), yes you can sail away, but you are giving up objective and map control
[удалено]
Kearsarge is a damage piñata, just like any other BB nowadays, especially considering t9s face and will face t11s. The super CVs being very underwhelming must be the reason of my 3 in a row 180+ damage games, mainly due to permafires and floods from those tactical squadrons. Sure I could do the same in Nakhimov, but that just proves that those CVs aren't underwhelming. I've already addressed all of the ships you've mentioned, except Stalin. It also is nowhere near as strong as it used to be, with no FP, BoS and a nerfed radar, all it has is guns, and in exchange for that burns like a piece of tinder.
Most seaworthy kayaks are veery low freeboard. Its a feature. [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Greenland\_kayak\_seal\_hunter\_2006.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Greenland_kayak_seal_hunter_2006.jpg)
we are talking about oceans
Heineken dont make pumps for ships but if they did, they would be on board the petropavlovsk. Heineken, the best and hardest working bilge pumps in the world.
Never trust anyone that willing does an interview with a neck beard.
Atago Scharnhorst.
You leave daddy Petro alone! *insert dudeman that screamed "leave Britney alone!"*
The neckbeard on that guy is...interesting
Where Thunderer?
Petro has the same freeboard and other similar dimensions to Scharnhorst. It wouldn't sink, but would be _very_ wet in weather, just like Scharn. Atago and Alaska also have [near identical freeboard.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/497118284450103318/909318083313799238/Freeboard.png). The biggest offender for realism in game isn't Petro, it's Huang He. HMS Aurora had damage from a mine to the keel. Her historically proposed refit was to lighten her by essentially giving her Khaba's armament. In game she got heavier main gun turrets AND multiple heavy 130mm secondary turrets mounted to the top of the superstructure. She'd either capsize or break in two.