Like how soviet navy building tech was totally able to build mutiple Tashkent-class destroyers on their own without Italy help?
Like how they were able to build a cruiser with functional main guns with the Kirovs?
I really doubt in a navy who cant even mass produce a modern DD or a modern CL with CA guns being able to build a modern BB or even a BC without being heavily flawed in the end result despite the blueprint saying it will totally overperform all similar designs in everyother navy
Im sorry but if the soviets managed to pull it off somehow, it surely would had been one of the weakest modern BBs ever, just like Bismarck and Scharnhost, BBs from the other nation who had very serious difficulties building modern DD and CL, but well, they managed to finished building them, so they get some extra credibility points over the soviets
Without USA logistic help and UK diverting german troops to Africa on the first two years when germany needed to capture Moscow and its railway hub, yeah, the soviets would had a very hard time winning the war and steamrolling the germans like they did, and the war will most surely have lasted 3-4 years longer until the soviets finally won by numerical superiority and soviet commanders finally acquiring enough experiencie for their modern warfare tactics like they did in 43-44 after the trial and error phase of 41-42
Yeah, turns out when missile tech is on the table, you magically dont need big guns and good armour to have a great navy since missile outranges and outdamages artillery irl, what a surprise. But with soviets shups being filled to the brim with missiles silos, wouldnt they workt out like Yamato ingame and always explode when you look at them wrong?
Yeah no. Soviet naval engineering and industry was absolutely incapable of completing Soyuz as designed.
Kirov-class were incapable of meeting their design specs despite being far more modest in scale than something like Soyuz.
They couldn’t produce any of the Tashkent-class with the only ship of its class having been built by Italy.
They had to use 2 plates of face hardened armor because they were unable of producing single plates with a thickness of more than 230mm, which resulted in lower protection than its total thickness. Sovetskaya Belorussiya had to be scrapped in place after only 6 months of building due to tens of thousands of faulty rivets. Sovetskaya Ukraina was studied by Italian naval engineers of Ansaldo and found the design to have some noticeable flaws.
Even if it had been completed (and that’s a massive if), it would’ve been far from being “one of the best in the world” because reality would’ve caught up to it.
And yet despite this shortcoming, Bismarck is still the best 8.3 BB and Scharnhorst is still stupidly powerful.
I can understand that this mechanic can be frustrating to deal with, but it’s the only thing that keeps them somewhat in line at the moment. And hell, both Richelieu and Roma needs to get some significant buff to get to Bismarck’s level with the current elevator fire weakness. If you remove it the balance will be even worse.
I don’t inherently like or endorse the whole barbette fire mechanic so I’m not fundamentally opposed to remove it from them, but if that were to happen then they would need to get some very serious nerfs (and I’m not talking just BR raise here) to avoid getting back to the absurd days of pre nerf Scharnhorst.
No way, u can ignore u flooding and just let it to submerge the mag!
For u opinion, some player will immediately submerge their mag at beginning, as while they submerge their mag when shooting and emerge their mag when reloading, that’s unacceptable in game!
So, why not just make the flooding to your advantage.
No, players destroy Yamato at game beginning is reasonable, when the game begin every ship respawns with showing their broadside to enemy in Most maps, that is the biggest weakness for everyship include Soyuz and Iowa. So your best choice is kill Yamato as soon as possible and don’t let her survive too long time and cause damage on your mag.
Not to mention the fact that cold war soviet ships were filled to the brim with missile everywhere (special mention to the inclined side launchers), which doesn’t bold too well when an enemy missile hits
As it saids, it is 1938 variant when Sovetsky Soyuz and Sovetskaya Urkaina first laid down, but design changed just after those two laid down.
Meanwhile current Soyuz’s version is almost 1939 version, actually this version also impact Soyuz in game, as torpedo protection and number of rudder follows this one(legit 1939 version has no Pugliese system on middle of hull and rudder increased to 3)
People here, not quite understand reality of current ingame DM, which work in favor of some ships, but you can vote for changes for it here, don’t be shy. This proposed changes for sure will shift the balance and make it more realistic:
how do you mean? that guy asked if i did complain about the scharnhorst at a time when the ship was literally broken and i replied, linking a post of mine from time when it still was that, yes, i did.
? you spawn bow in on all maps and that is the yamatos biggest weakness. when everything can shoot its angled bulkhead thats got something between 350 and 270 mm of armor. with the biggest magazines of any ship in game right behind it. you cant miss…
side on showing broadside is where the yamato is “safest” i put that highlighted because i got oneshot yesterday of a salvo of 6 yamato main gun aphe shells of which 5 only hit my superstructures and one hit my engine. all of the shells hit mid ships and only one hit the hull and turned one engine red. the 5 other shells went straight through the superstructures and only damaged some rangefinders, the smoke funnel and some aa → dead with full crew, previously completely undamaged. The yamato is an absolute shipshow and buggy af atm in the game and literally blows up whenever she wants. And trust me she wants to blow up all the time. Most of my matches I’m busy with calming her down, telling her and praying that she doesnt just spontaneously combust in a giant fireball (Bug report is out btw)
Richelieu isn’t supposed to carry HE anyway. I’m almost tempted to make a bug report when i have some time, but i have to clarify the subject first (they apparently gave it a 1949 shells, making the name of the ship unclear, as it’s supposed to be Richelieu 1943)
While it’s true the 50mm plate could in theory be penetrated by a 380-460mm HE shell, it would have to hit it first, which may not be possible due to the hidden 420mm plate on your screenshot, and i also think there’s a thinner plate underneeth which may stop splinter from the main shell (remains to be seen)
I think the british shell is from 1945 (at least its integration on Richelieu), although don’t quote me on that
Richelieu is like Iowa (although with less difference of course), the post war vehicle is nothing like the war time vehicle
Reload was changed, Accuracy was changed, the shells were different, etc…
Should be 2 ships foldered, one at 7.7 or 8.0 with the unfinished stuff and one at 8.3 with all the bells and whistles, but the removal of the 20 mm oerlikons
Even if it was AP, it would be blocked by the 420mm plate before encountering the 50mm plate, so it wouldn’t blow up the ammo rack. From afar it could work, but you’d have to get all planets aligned to hit such a shot, as well as maps that allow such ranges in the first place
At 10-15km you ain’t penning an angled Soyuz, especially in the main belt
From closer it may be so, but then it’s the Soyuz problem for getting there in the first place.
Hell even a weak plate such as the one on Dunkerque’s belt is surprisingly survivable if angled properly at decent ranges, i can only imagine how it gets when the plate is almost twice as thick.
