It’s a shame you went through that just to have the bug report closed, but I predicted that would be the case as soon as I saw this bug report. The x-ray model is just to make the game look more complex and fancy. They could easily just show the actual hitboxes and have it be more accurate, but it wouldn’t look as cool.
Right after the update people started complaining because the magazines on the Soyuz are tiny in the x-ray, but their hitbox is slightly bigger in reality. In fact, I think the model is copied from the Kronshtadt’s 12" guns. People reported it, but afaik when these things happen, the devs just consider it acceptable. They don’t put in any more effort than necessary if it involves the ship’s model.
And its most certainly not necessary to put in more effort if that wouldnt benefit the glorious soviet navy ;-) jokes aside, that still doesnt explain why the soyuz doesnt die to shell room explosions with ammo charges that hold 2 times as much tnt equiv filler like the next follow up, while the yamatos whole bow is ammo, and it also has auxilliary (aa ammo though it says 1200 rounds which just cant be true but whatever) and every single ammo rack going off (doesnt matter if thats secondary, shell room, magazine or the auxilliary ammo midships) just explodes the whole thing. I wonder i wonder if just slapping an imaginary mostly blueprint ship into the game without downsides is a unfair competition to ships that irl existed, especially if you let them manifest out of thin air 10 km away from each other rendering armor of one of them basically nonexistent in critical areas. guess which one it is.
I also have never seen a soyuz explode to barbette fire, they either have ages to extinguish or they just dont have to care about any other damage control and can always extinguish in time because no one even bothers shooting at them. Really top tier naval RB is just an absolute abysmal disappointment at the moment and average player numbers of 6 per match sort of prove that.
Good that the snail isnt in a real hurry fixing any of the critical bugs and gameplay flaws of naval tho, rly isnt worth it with these player numbers. Could be kind of a death loop here like heli pvp was, but why fix the actual flaws of a gamemode if you can just add 7 new ships and 4 80 dollar premiums amr? those make the money not a working game…man im tired of that bs
Barbette fire exploding shell room affected by how far from where fire started in barbette to shell room. Thus, ships who have shell room or magazine inside barbette(Iowa, Yamato, Bismarck and Scharnhorst) got their shell room/magazine affected by fire faster than those who aren’t(Soyuz, Vanguard, Richelieu)
Although barbette fire mechanism itself is little distorted, it is not set to make Soyuz superior to others(Acutally, this mechanism exist before Soyuz introduced, to nerf Scharnhorst’s mega survivability at the times)
I’m aware of how it works with the distance to the magazine (gives less time to ships with short ammo elevators like scharn for example) and the point where the fire starts. Also yeah, it was kinda needed like two years ago to sort of keep invincible scharnhorst in check. Well now it came like a couple of months before a patch that added tons of ships that have and wouldnt have any problems dealing with it anyhow or at least be almost invincible to its struggling guns at longer ranges. Together with a completely overtuned (for some time after the patch) hull compartment destruction mechanic on top.
Im not arguing against that mechanic in general, but its weird that now a couple of ships are suffering from it more than others, as if there wouldnt be any bulkheads and fire/blast doors between the ammo elevator and magazines (which also apparently could have been flooded in such cases rather quickly as people here argued).
Now, a couple of months after that mechanic got introduced to sort of keep the most annoying ship to deal with pre patch somewhat in check, theres a ship in game which doesnt suffer that much from this mechanic (especially in comparison to the other 2 8.7 competitors which as you said have shell rooms in the barbettes) but on top outshines every other ship in every other metric as well (well maybe besides pure speed, aa and maneuverability, but that doesnt matter much when every ship around u has aa and you can just sit in place well angled and be unkillable unless at least 2 other 8.7 ships invest 5 minutes to sink you). Whether thats a coincidence or intended doesnt matter at this point, it just adds to how overtuned the soyuz is atm or not?
Btw, if the soyuz has no shell room in the barbette (because not on blueprints or sth, idk, maybe someone can explain) how do they get the shells and propellant into the guns that fast? Im genuinely curious? And if thats possible with the same speed, why did a lot of other navies not think about doing it the same way? Are both, shells and propellant bags just continuously transported directly from the magazines to the turrets? which are also seemingly much further away from the turrets so it takes fires from the elevators much longer to reach the magazines? Im kinda struggling here to make it make sense. if its possible to keep all of that explosives and the dangers that come with storing it that far away from where its needed deep underwater behind the strongest armor without any downsides, why did a lot of other designers not get that idea? Beats me rly
Also, how does it make sense that some ships instantly die from these shell room explosions (maybe depending on how much explosives are in those rooms?) and others (fuso for example) just blows up the shell room (the one in the barbette, not the magazine i guess?), some water intake, crew loss but you generally need to explode every single shell room to make them sink if you cant hit the magazines directly? And then theres the yamato, which blows up by explosion of “1200” aa shells mid ships and secondary ammo that you cant reduce, while already being by far the worst 8.7 ship?
Id also be interested if anyone knows what the intention or advantage would have been to plan and build the yamato with that angled bulkhead? is that supposed to be an advantage when going full bow in? But then you would need to increase the thickness of the middle plate of the bulkhead which then would be unangled? Because as i would think, overall this construction (at least as it is in game making it impossible to angle) only has downsides? And that with it needing more metal and by that also more weight added to the ship? It would have required less metal plates to just build an unangled bulkhead and by that it would have also made it possible to angle the ship (and not put one of the angled bulkhead sides at 90 or close to 90 degree angle). So what did they think or would have been the benefit of this (unique?) type of construction?
In game thats the main weakness to the ships massive magazines while being more complicated to build and needing more material? Isnt that kinda counterintuitive? Or am i overlooking something? Is it so you can have a shorter main belt while then having an angled bulkhead at the magazines so you save material there when full broadside?
Making motor for hoists more powerful could be another way of making reload faster, which not also Soviets, but British also attempts when they design improved Lion class at 1944. For USA/Japan/Italy, fast reload is not too big of an issue as they assume their combat range would be very far(acutally in real battle, quite not), and spotting time will be longer than their reload. On the other hand, British/Soviet/German navies expect their combat range to be rather short, and try to enhance their reload speed as possible in design. Even British 15’', one of deepest loaded magazine and shell room, can make 25 seconds reload per turret in manual, and some claims that in Renown and Repulse the time was shorter.
You have to know that while Yamato is heaviest battleship in real world, it is also one of the most compact design IJN has designed for 18.1’’ ships. Japanese ports and dockyard cannot bear anything heavier than that, and even with ‘compact’ Yamato design, they still have to modernize dockyards and ports to bear her. Angled bulkhead is one of such attempt to make her compact, to shorten main belt and save weight.
If Yamato is built in normal armor shpae, it would be at least 80,000 + tons.
i see thx a lot, the idea of the possibility to maybe then shorten the main belt came when i almost had finished the post. So thats the reason why. Still doesnt that only help when being unangled and full broadside trusting in your armor can withstand unangled impacts?
And then somehow on the soyuz they “designed” the main armor belt half way to the bow (with nothing important behind it? well unless youre heavily angled and 30 m behind it theres the ammo mag) AND dont run into weight and resource/draft problems by putting not one but two massive bulkheads in the bow (and stern?? as counterweight?? cant check in game atm?) that seems weird ngl
Yamato was built to fight on the world’s largest ocean during a time when the battleship was becoming obsolete. She had the best radar and optical systems the Japanese could muster. Much like the Iowa, if a ship could get close enough to shoot the ammo through her bow like that, she had already failed. Not to mention, you’d have to get a pretty bad powder magazine fire to actually blow the thing up in real life. Hitting 152mm and 25mm shells would not rip the ship in half, as they’re largely inert. Therefore, the weight savings is worth it.
Soyuz was the dream of a dictator who was simply jealous of everyone else’s toys, so he told the engineers to make the numbers go up. They understood battleship design in principle, so they did the math and drew up the plans, but they didn’t have the EXPERIENCE to know what worked. That’s something that takes years if not decades to figure out, and nobody had built a battleship since before the purge. Even their best destroyer (Tashkent) was a single hull designed by the Italians.
So, you wind up with an inefficient design that relies solely on having big numbers on paper. Big belt, big gun, big pen, big filler. The ship is massively overweight, the gun barrels would need to be replaced after every engagement, there’s two different torpedo defense systems stuck together, and it would have taken them a few years to learn how to build plates thick enough for the belt. Had they not been invaded, perhaps they would have learned from the Soyuz hull they had and revised things as they learned what did and didn’t work.
You see this with the Kriegsmarine where they’re told “we MUST have a super battleship,” but their only experience is in building WW1 dreadnoughts and they haven’t built anything that big in over a decade. So, you get the gross inefficiency of the Bismarck design compared to its contemporaries. Sure it worked well enough to get a lucky shot on the HMS Hood, but is it really a good use of resources?
The idea of mssive bulkheads in the bow is originated from Italian, not the USSR creative one. Although much thinner in thickness and shorter in distance, you could see same structure on RN Roma ingame(and although not as good as soviet one, this structure atleast could stop short fuze AP)
For the draft and weight, thanks to Russian Empire, who has too much dream of great navy considering their economy, USSR has enough size of harbor and dockyard on Baltic and Black Sea to bear them. Meanwhile, their condition for survivability is much harsher than those of Yamato. Project 23 class battleship must survive attack of German 15’’ from any angle at 15 km, considering battle situations of both seas.
Even with the help of Italian, British and French who help designing the ship, actually goal was not met, as Project 23 class’ main belt seems unable to stop German 15’’ without angling at 15 km. This actually cause the ultimate cancellation of Project 23 class development in 1943(don’t confuse with its construction cancellation in 1941), and eventually leds to Project 24. And as survivability condition arise from German 15’’ to US 16’’ which ship has to withstand at 15 km, when designing of Project 24 almost ended in 1950, ship ended 88,100 ton even with six 16’’ gun. And that time, Stalin was definitely opposer of battleship(contrary to usual belief, he actually doesn’t like heavy, money consuming weapon, such as heavy tank, destroyer leader and battleship), and Soviet Navy’s goal went from battleship to Project 82 cruiser.
Definitely not. Project 23 was considered by Navy, not Stalin himself. Stalin is not a Hitler type who interfere with every weapon development.
Especially number was not what he want up, as he prefer economic way than heavy thing in weapons if he has chance of interfre with it.
Project 23 is not entirely indigenous design with soviet engineers. It’s basic hull design comes from Italy(although original Italian design is not accepted as Italians put magazine around waterline, which is outdated type and Soviet navy hates it), transmission layout comes from Germany, Main gun designed with help of France, and other armament with Bofors 25 mm oriented or help with British. Fire control system is mixture of Italian and German doctrine. Nothing is completely new, but on the basis of what existing navies did and have. Thanks to 1930s money shortcoming of most nations, USSR was quite easy to gain technologies with enough paying.
Not so uncommon in European theatre. Gun barrel doesn’t need to withstand multiple engagement if port is near and it is easy to reorganize. France, Germany, Italy also designed their guns on those principle.
Thanks for the added information. I know the USSR was heavily reliant on the experience of their partners in getting to this stage of development, but I learned a few things there.
My point stands though, that it was something that Stalin really wanted done to the point that they didn’t cancel the project until after he died. The actual use case of Soyuz was dubious for a nation mostly focused on land combat and defense for its three massive, separate coastlines. There’s value in a deterrent, as seen in the case of the Littorio / Vittorio Veneto class, but I think that would be its main purpose. It could of course go toe to toe with the Tirpitz, but I wouldn’t want to bet on that horse because so many things can go wrong in naval combat. The chances of these beasts even committing to a fight with each other appears slim.
As for the barrel wear, I’m referring to the design emphasis on muzzle velocity and lack of chromium plating. After wearing in the barrels with the first few salvos, the accuracy should gradually decrease, which might eventually put it into a situation where it’s unable to do its job because it’s sitting in port where it can be bombed.
I think my main point is that it would have many more problems that might weaken it in War Thunder had it actually been completed. Therefore, it’s not the unsinkable design it appears to be. Assuming they solved the belt issue, I think the reload would be different, for one. The only reload numbers we have on it are from static trials with single mount coastal defense weapons. As you know, this is nowhere near as complicated as reloading a triple turret at sea.
Not actually. Last discussion of Project 24 was in 1950, and no more discussion of battleship ever happened till death of Stalin. Stalin also presents negative about battleship in late 1940s, but Kuznestov persuaded him as battleships are needed for convoy of aircraft carrier.
Acutally, mostly two, Baltic and Black Seas. Pacific was secondary consideration for them, and North Sea just gets strateic value at WW2. And those two seas, although narrow, are critical for USSR’s survival. Calling Russia as nation mostly focused on land combat is a British attempt to deter their foucs on navy, which didn’t went well. Nation situated in Russia always put the best effort they can on defending those two seas, and USSR was not an exception.
Actually 23 seconds reload is for ‘designed’ triple turret. Single mount on Leningrad is not dedicated coastal defense mount. It’s just mount for gun testing which got armor cover in wartime. It’s reload number is not inside minute as there are no automated ammunition supply system.
I think most of them have appeared on actual vessels, but they were usually just merchant vessels or other auxiliaries. There are a few of the camos in game that did appear on the ships that actually used them though.