Wrong and Missing Ships: How to correct them ALL

[Denkt]

You could tie a ships HP and visbility to the amount of Components it have so ships with more Components would be consider larger and thus have more HP and visbility. However that would make refit between ships with different Components make no sense.

This is one of the many "slanted statistics" when looking at the KM in WW2 that's often brought up, and is very misleading - the KM's losses often only count surface vessels, whereas the vast majority of the KM's build (and combat) efforts were in subs (while the Allies effort was much more in surface vessels). Adding the hundreds of thousands of tonnage of submarines lost during WW2 changes the picture substantially (but I'm not sure which side ends up on top in terms of tonnage lost, I can't recall that off the top of my head).

Submarines was also most effective in the early war if you consider tonage sunk per lost submarine but by around 1943 the allies countermessures had become so effective that the amount of sunk submarines greatly increased while also sinking alot less ships.

For every technological development germany made for the submarines the allies made a countermeasure that was more effective, for example to stop the acoustic torpedoes germany invested so much resources in, the allies could make cheap noise makers to counter it and the centimetric radar was particular nasty since it could detect even the periscope of a submarine.

While Germany developed new submarine types such as type XXI, their submarine fleet was still based on the type VII and IX in 1945 with some modifications from 1939. Thus germany failed to keep their submarine fleet relevant which is for example similar to the japanse zero Aircrafts. Germany needed the type XXI in 1943, not in 1945 and I don't know how quickly the allies would have countered it but the allies showed great ability in their development of countermeasures against the submarines.​

 

[MR2]

Man - I love the passion this game invokes. Thank you for contributing!

 

[Ketchup & friends]

This is a bit of a disingenuous response, as you've already noted that the slow engine modules aren't available in the vanilla game to get those British sloops in there without giving them even more ridiculous HP numbers than has been suggested for Eritrea (which also has light cruiser battery one for the same armament as a British A class destroyer - effectively overstating Eritrea's firepower by more than a factor of 2). The DD_4 hp (a similar tonnage to Eritrea, but built using more advanced techniques) is 60 - suggesting that Eritrea's should be 40-50, but instead she's given a HP of 100.

The stats suggested in your post do not in any way represent a historically plausible description of Eritrea's combat effectiveness - they more than double it. Eritrea was a good ship (if you're keen on her, there's a great feature article in Warship 2016, which gets into plenty of detail), but she had less combat effectiveness than an interwar destroyer, and was in no way, shape or form comparable in combat effectiveness to a light cruiser. It's also worth noting that while she was originally designed to have a seaplane, it was never embarked, so it's not entirely clear how effective her capacity to support aircraft was.

The last thing I want to do is to provide more ship templates that wildly distort the capabilities of ship's represented in the game, which is what I'd have to do (as has been done with Eritrea) if I was to provide suggestions.

Well, you see the problem. We proposed templates for ships that can be somewhat accurately represented (that includes the Eritrea and other ships included) in the game as it is (or with minor chaneges to allowed modules on coastal defense hulls). But there were many slow but small ships (DE, sloops, kaibokan etc.). They cannot be recreated in the game as a light hull makes them too fast. What this game needs is a sloop engine for light ships. It would cut down costs AND speed a lot, alowing to creat ships that are much slower but cheaper than standard DD.

But proposing such changes goes beyond the scope ot this thread.

I think you are are overthinking things a bit. The HP being wrong is something that will be true for most ships as the game doesn't make any diffrence between sizes of Cruisers. The guns isn't a problem as you can actually give Destroyer type Light Batteries to a Cruiser, wich is obviously a bad idea normally, but it works out this time to give Eritrea some weak guns. And quite frankly, the HP is only usefull for soaking hits for other ships as it wont be able to kill a kitten by itself.

Italian Cruiser Eritrea:
Guns slot: LB1

We added this proposal, but it will require allowing light guns on coastal defense ship hulls.

We also proposed to improve the hulls on Douro class (Portugal) Antioquia class (Columbia) Van Galen and Van Ghent classes (Netherlands) to tier II. They were all based on the British A-class prototypes and we propsed to upgrade that class to tier II. The same should apply to these classes as well.

 

[Znail]

We added this proposal, but it will require allowing light guns on coastal defense ship hulls.

My suggestion is to just use a standard Cruiser hull, making it a CL. Coastal Defence Ship would actually be a bad fit, despite the speed similarity as it was actually a ship made for long voyages making the short range of CDS rather bad fit.

 

[Snagletooth]

Depends on the nation.
For most of Europe, Coastal Defense Ships were just that. Meant to defend their own coast. Many of the biggest ones weren't even self propelled but had to be towed around by barge and were usually set to guard ports and inland waterways that were under perceived threats).
For the US, especially after the Monroe Doctrine and T Roosevelt, Coastal Defense Ships, ei Coastal battleships, were essentially massive gunboats (actually most of them were just outdated battleships and cruisers), used to patrol the Caribbean and South American coasts. This became essential when Chile managed to purchase a British Battleship (and countries like Argentina were shopping around for Battle Cruisers) during high tensions with South America.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

My suggestion is to just use a standard Cruiser hull, making it a CL. Coastal Defence Ship would actually be a bad fit, despite the speed similarity as it was actually a ship made for long voyages making the short range of CDS rather bad fit.

If you insist, we could change her to a Cruiser hull I.

Depends on the nation.
For most of Europe, Coastal Defense Ships were just that. Meant to defend their own coast. Many of the biggest ones weren't even self propelled but had to be towed around by barge and were usually set to guard ports and inland waterways that were under perceived threats).
For the US, especially after the Monroe Doctrine and T Roosevelt, Coastal Defense Ships, ei Coastal battleships, were essentially massive gunboats (actually most of them were just outdated battleships and cruisers), used to patrol the Caribbean and South American coasts. This became essential when Chile managed to purchase a British Battleship (and countries like Argentina were shopping around for Battle Cruisers) during high tensions with South America.

But these ships have already been scraped even by the 36 start date. The USS Oregon was the only one remaining, but she was a museum ship in Portland, Oregon. She was ultimately partially scrapped in 1942 to use her steel for new ships and her hull used as a transport. but there have been proposals to use her for coastal defence after Pearl Harbor. Perhaps a special event or decision like the one @valisk wrote for the HMS Iron Duke could simulate this.

 

[Znail]

The problem with using DD's (even with a slow engine) as Sloops is that DD's have Torpedo's as required item. Of course, that could perhaps also be changed when adding a slow engine, but else so is extra torps more jarring then any speed or other innaccuracy. What really is needed is some tech level -1 items. That way ships that were extra slow can get that by using the worse then standard engine, same with old torpedoes, really weak guns etc. It would help with making old ships that are still around more accurately represented.

 

[idmw]

... DD's have Torpedo's as required item.

No just the main gun is and of course an engine.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

The problem with using DD's (even with a slow engine) as Sloops is that DD's have Torpedo's as required item. Of course, that could perhaps also be changed when adding a slow engine, but else so is extra torps more jarring then any speed or other innaccuracy. What really is needed is some tech level -1 items. That way ships that were extra slow can get that by using the worse then standard engine, same with old torpedoes, really weak guns etc. It would help with making old ships that are still around more accurately represented.

No just the main gun is and of course an engine.

All the minelayer classes have light ship hulls but no tropedo launchers. And at least two classes of proper DD (Argentine Mendoza class and Soviet Gnevnyy class) lack torpedos, but this is a bug or oversight (these ships HAD torpedoes IRL and they should get them according to the guide)

 

[valisk]

If you insist, we could change her to a Cruiser hull I.


But these ships have already been scraped even by the 36 start date. The USS Oregon was the only one remaining, but she was a museum ship in Portland, Oregon. She was ultimately partially scrapped in 1942 to use her steel for new ships and her hull used as a transport. but there have been proposals to use her for coastal defence after Pearl Harbor. Perhaps a special event or decision like the one @valisk wrote for the HMS Iron Duke could simulate this.

Hmmm, Oregon was a very old pre-dreadnought, yes being used a museum piece, unlike Iron Duke (1st Generation Super Dreadnought) it's not very likely she would have been re-militarized even if every other ship in the US Navy had gone down. She'd have been around the same displacement as a heavy cruiser but it would have been suicidal to put her to sea in a combat role vs any conceivable Japanese surface vessel.
Her optimal gunnery range would have been around 5k-10k yards (if any ammunition was still around) using an Eyeball Mk. 1 as fire director, slow ROF, coal powered and no speed to speak of, then her brittle old armour, if much was still fitted. She would have been easy prey for a submarine, noisy and no protection from torpedos at all.

Being beached somewhere secure as a coastal defense platform, I can possibly see, but the US had quite a large number of 16/50 Mk I & II guns that were being used for this purpose historically and would have proven much more deadly than anything Oregon could have brought to the table. Maybe at the outside as a low grade monitor or as historically used to transport supplies with an eye to using her as a breakwater if needed.

If things were beginning to go in such a bad direction, and it seemed like a ship or two might just hold the line whilst the USA got its shipyards up to full tilt to make good her losses then it's a certainty the USA would have pushed much, much harder with Chile, Almirante Latorre was serviceable and semi-modernized supported by air power and screens she could still pose a genuine threat, Brazil and Argentina too might have been approached for their old scrap heaps (Though I do have my doubts, as their condition was known to be extremely bad due to not being maintained), hell the USA might even have offered to repair Iron Duke but most likely it would have been Latorre and ask the UK to secretly loan them a couple of ships for 6 months whilst they got new builds in the water (like with USS Robin/HMS Victorious) unless things were going similarly bad in the Atlantic.

But the USA historically seemed always to join wars with a fairly backwards looking attitude got her fingers burnt, and then learnt very, very quickly, if the ships were destroyed by Japanese Carriers, then no doubt at all they would have done much the same as they did historically and doubled down on long range bomber projects, then later build lots and lots of them, whilst also building hundreds of carriers, destroyers and cruisers. The window for them wanting to obtain a couple of old battleships, particularly if they had again been demonstrated to be obsolete in the Pacific, would have been quite small.

 

[egslim]

It would help to introduce a new engine module 'triple expansion engine' for light hulls, which gives max speed 20 knots and a 20% IC-discount.

 

[balmung60]

Just imagine the AI and its awful template design capabilities spamming those. Tens of thousands of virtually defenseless destroyer escorts that would all get eaten alive by ten meta light cruisers with no casualties.

 

[Axe99]

The HP being wrong is something that will be true for most ships as the game doesn't make any diffrence between sizes of Cruisers.

We proposed templates for ships that can be somewhat accurately represented (that includes the Eritrea and other ships included) in the game as it is (or with minor chaneges to allowed modules on coastal defense hulls).

I'm happy to agree to disagree here, and won't go on about it any more. I also feel the more than double the HP (or the low reliability of a coastal defense hull) isn't somewhat accurately representing it, but if it does go in, recommend LB1 instead of light cruiser battery 1. I won't suggest templates for the larger US cutters - they'd be marginally more accurately represented than Eritrea, but I'm still of the view that it's best to do sloops properly, or not at all. By all means add them yourself though.

But proposing such changes goes beyond the scope ot this thread.

I've tried to be well behaved and stay in-scope .

For most of Europe, Coastal Defense Ships were just that. Meant to defend their own coast. Many of the biggest ones weren't even self propelled but had to be towed around by barge and were usually set to guard ports and inland waterways that were under perceived threats).

Barges with guns, but without their own propulsion, were generally classified differently to coastal defence ships proper.

For the US, especially after the Monroe Doctrine and T Roosevelt, Coastal Defense Ships, ei Coastal battleships, were essentially massive gunboats (actually most of them were just outdated battleships and cruisers), used to patrol the Caribbean and South American coasts.

As others have said, it's drawing a bit of a long bow to include the US depot and museum ships that were still floating as vessels with any degree of combat effectiveness. That's just my 2 cents though, and by all means ignoreable.

And at least two classes of proper DD (Argentine Mendoza class and Soviet Gnevnyy class) lack torpedos, but this is a bug or oversight (these ships HAD torpedoes IRL and they should get them according to the guide)

Aye, these both had a decent torpedo capability, one module would be appropriate. Is it possibly a case of the hull not being able to fit it on?

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Just imagine the AI and its awful template design capabilities spamming those. Tens of thousands of virtually defenseless destroyer escorts that would all get eaten alive by ten meta light cruisers with no casualties.

Ideally, there should be a scissors rock parer situation. DE sink SS sink CL sink DE.

I've tried to be well behaved and stay in-scope .

You have contributed a lot.

Aye, these both had a decent torpedo capability, one module would be appropriate. Is it possibly a case of the hull not being able to fit it on?

In both cases the designated torpedo slot and at least 1 custom slot are empty. It's almost certainly a bug. Our guide tells the devs to give both clases the proper torpedo module (apparently we missed it for the Gnevnyy clas. Updated the guide to correct this).

 

[xtfoster]

No just the main gun is and of course an engine.

Correct, and that is typically what I build when I am trying to mass produce convoy escorts...the convoy raiders don't attack if I have 100% coverage, so a couple hundred Early DD with LB-1 and Eng-1 are all I need.

 

[Axe99]

For instance the UK type A destroyer guns fire about twice as fast a standard Light Cruiser gun, making up for the lighter shells, meaning they should do about as much damage as a Light Cruiser Battery, but with less penetration.

Sorry, I meant to provide some more concrete info on this yesterday. I calculated the throw weight/minute for all the guns I could in the game (based on sites like Navweaps, Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War Two, German Naval Guns 1939-1945 and other bits and pieces I'd read elsewhere). In that context, the British 4.7in QF Mk IX comes to 226.8kg/minute (at its max rate of fire, 10 rounds per minute multiplied by the 22.68kg projectile), while one barrel of the contemporary British cruiser gun, the 6in Mk XXIII, comes to 406.4kg/minute (a 50.8kg shell fired at 8 rpm).

However, given very few actions involved sustained fire at the maximum possible rate (for a whole bunch of reasons), when I was looking at the actual 'firepower' for a particular gun, I used a very rough average between the throw weight/minute and the throw weight/salvo, which as best as I could judge was a better approximation for the kind of firepower actually applied by those ships in battle.

In this context, I'd argue that the balance between the destroyer and light cruiser guns are pretty close to the mark, firepower-wise.

 

[Znail]

Sorry, I meant to provide some more concrete info on this yesterday. I calculated the throw weight/minute for all the guns I could in the game (based on sites like Navweaps, Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War Two, German Naval Guns 1939-1945 and other bits and pieces I'd read elsewhere). In that context, the British 4.7in QF Mk IX comes to 226.8kg/minute (at its max rate of fire, 10 rounds per minute multiplied by the 22.68kg projectile), while one barrel of the contemporary British cruiser gun, the 6in Mk XXIII, comes to 406.4kg/minute (a 50.8kg shell fired at 8 rpm).

However, given very few actions involved sustained fire at the maximum possible rate (for a whole bunch of reasons), when I was looking at the actual 'firepower' for a particular gun, I used a very rough average between the throw weight/minute and the throw weight/salvo, which as best as I could judge was a better approximation for the kind of firepower actually applied by those ships in battle.

In this context, I'd argue that the balance between the destroyer and light cruiser guns are pretty close to the mark, firepower-wise.

Your numbers actually supports my suggestion as the destroyer came in a bit above half the throw weight and with my suggestion so would the damages in the game be 5 vs 3 (right now 5 vs 1,5) .

As for sustained fire vs innitial volley so did most naval battles last for quite a while, some Destroyers even used up all their ammo. It would also take 25 salvos in the game for an early war Destroyer to sink another one, assuming all hit, taking over a day of combat. I simply suggest making the Destroyers guns a little less pitifull. It would still be a bad idea to research or put more guns on Destroyers then you need, but this way so will those pre-designed ones be less useless.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

@Riekopo
since you've asked about newer japanese ships a few days ago, here's what we

Spoiler: 1940s Japanese ship classes

Hiyo class CV: converted hull, 2x hangar. engine I. deck armor.

Unryu class CV: like Soryu but upgrade AA to Tier II.

Taiho class CV: Like Shokaku but replace 1x hangar with deck armor.

Super Taiho class CV: Tier IV hull. 4x hangar, armored deck.

Full conversion (Shinano, Ibuki, Chitose): convert these ships to CV. fill all slots with flight deck

Semi-conversions: (Ise class, Mogami): replace 1x battery with catapult.



Yamato class refit and 797 subclass: replace a secondaries module with AAII, upgrade all AA to tier II. Possibly upgrade engine to tier III.

Super Yamato class: like refit Yamato but with third super heavy battery and engine IV.


Super type A cruiser (Kongo class replacement): heavy hull II. 2x Tier I heavy battery. Fire control I. engine II. BC armor II. 2x dp secondaries. 2x AA II.


Ibuki class CA: like refit Mogami but upgrade AA and secondaries to tier II.

Agano class CL: tier III hull. 1x CL battery II. 1x AAII. 1x Fire control. Engine II. 1x dp secondaries. Armor II. 2x torpedo II. Minelaying rails. 1x catapult.

Oyodo class CL: tier III hull. 1x CL battery II. 2x AAII. 1x Fire control. Engine II. 2x dp secondaries. Armor II. 2x catapult.

Super Agano class CL: tier III hull. 2x CL battery I OR CL battery III. AAII. 1x Fire control I. Engine II. 1x dp secondaries. Armor II. 2x torpedo II. Minelaying rails. 1x catapult.


Yugumo class DD: like Kagero class but upgrade AA to tier II.

Akizuki class DD: like Yugumo, but replace light battery II and second torepdo II with 2x dp light battery.

Shimakaze class DD: Tier III hull. dp battery. AA II. Tier II engine. 3x tier II torpedo. depth charges.

Matsu/Tachibana class DD: Tier I hull. dp light battery. AA II. Fire control. Sonar. engine I. 1x Torpedo II. Depth charges

Super Shimakaze class DD: like Shimakaze but upgrade AA to tier III.

Super Akizuki class DD: like Akizuki but upgrade engine to tier III.


Japanese ships were upgraded with more AA and fire control durng the war. Install dp secondaries, better AA, FC and sonar on ships if you have researched it. Upgrade old ships accordingly.

There have been some discussions among us. Minority opinions are:
- Taiho class CV should be Tier IV not III.

- Asashio and Kagero classes (and Yugumo and Akizuki) should already be Tier III. (that would mean changing the guide accordingly)

What does the community think of this? Should we propose to upgrade the Asashio and Kagero classes?

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

@Riekopo
since you've asked about newer japanese ships a few days ago, here's what we

Spoiler: 1940s Japanese ship classes

Hiyo class CV: converted hull, 2x hangar. engine I. deck armor.

Unryu class CV: like Soryu but upgrade AA to Tier II.

Taiho class CV: Like Shokaku but replace 1x hangar with deck armor.

Super Taiho class CV: Tier IV hull. 4x hangar, armored deck.

Full conversion (Shinano, Ibuki, Chitose): convert these ships to CV. fill all slots with flight deck

Semi-conversions: (Ise class, Mogami): replace 1x battery with catapult.



Yamato class refit and 797 subclass: replace a secondaries module with AAII, upgrade all AA to tier II. Possibly upgrade engine to tier III.

Super Yamato class: like refit Yamato but with third super heavy battery and engine IV.


Super type A cruiser (Kongo class replacement): heavy hull II. 2x Tier I heavy battery. Fire control I. engine II. BC armor II. 2x dp secondaries. 2x AA II.


Ibuki class CA: like refit Mogami but upgrade AA and secondaries to tier II.

Agano class CL: tier III hull. 1x CL battery II. 1x AAII. 1x Fire control. Engine II. 1x dp secondaries. Armor II. 2x torpedo II. Minelaying rails. 1x catapult.

Oyodo class CL: tier III hull. 1x CL battery II. 2x AAII. 1x Fire control. Engine II. 2x dp secondaries. Armor II. 2x catapult.

Super Agano class CL: tier III hull. 2x CL battery I OR CL battery III. AAII. 1x Fire control I. Engine II. 1x dp secondaries. Armor II. 2x torpedo II. Minelaying rails. 1x catapult.


Yugumo class DD: like Kagero class but upgrade AA to tier II.

Akizuki class DD: like Yugumo, but replace light battery II and second torepdo II with 2x dp light battery.

Shimakaze class DD: Tier III hull. dp battery. AA II. Tier II engine. 3x tier II torpedo. depth charges.

Matsu/Tachibana class DD: Tier I hull. dp light battery. AA II. Fire control. Sonar. engine I. 1x Torpedo II. Depth charges

Super Shimakaze class DD: like Shimakaze but upgrade AA to tier III.

Super Akizuki class DD: like Akizuki but upgrade engine to tier III.


Japanese ships were upgraded with more AA and fire control durng the war. Install dp secondaries, better AA, FC and sonar on ships if you have researched it. Upgrade old ships accordingly.

There have been some discussions among us. Minority opinions are:
- Taiho class CV should be Tier IV not III.

- Asashio and Kagero classes (and Yugumo and Akizuki) should already be Tier III. (that would mean changing the guide accordingly)

What does the community think of this? Should we propose to upgrade the Asashio and Kagero classes?

1.) Japan never really passed the 1936 AA tech (the 25mm guns were added in large numbers, but technically they were awful; their real AA improvements came from the DP 4-inch guns they developed). I wouldn't give them AA tech past 1936.
2.) Japanese fire control did improve over the war, but again it was never very good in the first place (instead relying more on optics, as well as torpedoes and aircraft); Japan basically stagnated in everything but hull and doctrinal techs, and never really surpassed 1940s tech for the rest (hulls and aircraft were fine by comparison, but they didn't have time to build proper warships of 1944-tech besides destroyers).
3.) I don't like giving people 1944 tech just to represent historical ships better, since it results in two problems:

a. Players can't apply designers to that tech later
b. A lot of ship capabilities were already badly-represented due to the limited component differences available, BBs and CVs in particular (CV distinctions are practically-nonexistent).
c. More-specifically, the Taiho may have been big compared to the Shokaku-class, but wasn't at the level of the Midway-class or the proposed Malta-class (being on-par with the Essex or Implacable is far-more realistic).​

4.) The Asashio and Kagero should be at the same tech group as foreign ships of similar capabilities, meaning they should be categorized as one of the following:

a. Ships like the Benson-class, Mogador-class, or Somers-class were all relatively-large DDs that still fit in the 1936 category. If one goes up, the others do too.
b. Given that the ships had twin-gun turrets, the Asashio and Kagero could use 1940 guns but still field the same hull (although then the French superdestroyers and the 15cm Zerstörer 1936 ships should also get upgunned).​

5.) Asashio and later may have been bigger than preceding destroyers, but currently the game doesn't represent any distinction between the 1936 DDs of ~1,500 tons and those of 1,800+ tons.

Balancing carriers in particular is hard because one is always tempted to bump tech up to match historic capabilities, but increasingly it becomes obvious that most of the tech is in the wrong spot in this regard (the 1936 start is far-better balanced with 1940 tech, and the 1939 start with a little 1944 tech, but that basically breaks the ability of players to advance tech in a realistic manner and throws-off balance badly with starting ships). For instance, Shokaku should have a higher air capacity than the Soryu-class but not the Yorktown, so bumping it up technologically screws up its balance compared to similar American carriers. Similarly, Taiho shouldn't be any more advanced than its US compatriots (arguably the only 1940 hull carriers were the Taiho, Unryu, Implacable, Essex, and technically the Colossus-classes). 1944 tech really shouldn't be treated as a difficult-to-research 1940s tech, because the more we use tech by capabilities rather than its place in the tech tree, the more obvious it is that we are band-aiding a broken system.

In effect, the moment we start treating Taiho as a 1944 carrier hull and Asashio as a 1940 destroyer hull, we could just as easily call the Bf-109 a 1940 fighter or the B5N a 1940 torpedo bomber. The Bf-109 is currently matched against such illustrious and modern fighters as the Hawker Hurricane, the Soviet I-16, and the "Chinese" P-36 Hawk (which were all considerably-less advanced aircraft), while its historic matchup in the Spitfire actually is a 1940 fighter. The problem comes in that this makes Germany hopelessly-overpowered, as the 1940 aircraft tech may be named after its proper matchups but also represents the later tech evolutions of the advanced V-inline engines and alternately powerful radial engines (depending on whether your nation was producing its modern fighters like the Ki-61 and C.202, or the Fw 190 and La-5); the 109 may be better than the Hurricane but it shouldn't be equivalent to the Fw 190. The B5N similarly is completely wrong to be matched against the TBD Devastator and Fairey Swordfish, but nonetheless is also wrong to be bumped up to the far-superior capabilities of the TBF-Avenger or B6N (which simply wouldn't exist in this scenario). Sometimes the game requires us to take less-realism in the short run to avoid breaking the tech tree in the long run (like having end-game tech in the beginning of the game). At least with aircraft you can mod-in variants pretty-easily, while ships are locked in place.

 

[balmung60]

we could just as easily call the Bf-109 a 1940 fighter

The funny thing is we actually call it both a 1936 and 1944 fighter - the Czechoslovak 1944 fighter is literally just a license-built Bf-109