Complaining and venting won’t help the situation. With the current implementation, it’s pretty clear that the Sovetsky Soyuz will outperform any other ship by a wide margin, but there are always some soft balancing factors that can be discussed, like armor quality, RoF, etc. Additionally if you can find a reliable source to prove that the armour scheme (which seems pretty unrealistic and suspicious to me) is wrong somewhere, you’re welcome to file a bug report. However, it’s a shame that I haven’t seen many useful bug reports submitted while you guys are complaining here.
Another players had found that the AP model is too early for the A-IX-2 powder and it should be using normal TNT filler. So its filler should be reduced to 25.7kg. Large but not ridiculous.
Though someone really needs to look at her armored scheme and that ridiculous armored section on her bow. Its a nonsensical feature more useful to War Thunder Naval damage models than irl applications and highly suspicious. Just having it removed would do wonders in making her less invincible.
Final note is to move most of her crew to her machinery spaces because them hiding in her most armored sections in the magazines is bullshit. That, she’ll be more vulnerable to crew death.
Sovetsky Soyuz reminds me of a Battleship I “designed” when I was a teenager for random fun knowing full well that it would never have been feasible at all; just a fantasy that does not take into account any of the factors that would determine viability.
Just a kid going “hey, I’m going to draw coolest thing ever in the universe!” while having an afternoon snack after school.
And, as it has been pointed out, there’s sadly nothing that can be done for a more realistic and grounded implementation, since the only sources for this ship are the optimistic and idealistic theorical designs.
Have you tested the ship already ?
You cannot sunk it !
Its not only ammo rack, this is in overall a russian bias joke.
Nothing in completed. 3 or more compartments in black ? Do no sunk.
I’m bored to make bug repport to TRY to correct things to listen this : Developers don’t plan to add these shells to HMS Warspite. https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lDNtGtaJVmYl
Or : Thank you for your interest in improving the game. 1st generation naval radars were not very advanced and due to their technological limitations were not always able to maintain a reliable target lock. This is depicted in the game as well. https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/NfOPBg9Kqrn0
It happen on every radar in the naval. Not only “first” ones.
Did you made a bug report for that in Community Bug Reporting System ?
If not, that won’t be fixed. And having these issues addressed would go a long, long way with addressing the balance in the new top tier. 😍
I have little to no experience in naval history. Can you explain why this ship is inaccurate?
From my understanding the hull wall partially completed and the gun was tested on a ground platform so what from this is unrealistic?
Is it a “clear marketing lie” issue? Or is it Gaijin’s vision (how it’ll perform if it was completed) that’s the issue? Not sure if that makes sense.
Also how is possible to build a shell, that is 110kg lighter than the Iowa’s, has nearly around the same pen as the Iowa’s yet has double (21kg more) the explosive mass?
Was Russia’s Navy really that advanced and ahead of it’s time?
The largest warship the soviets built until the nuclear cruiser/aircraft carrier were the sverdlov class ‘light’ cruisers (16k ton displacement). compare that to the sovetsky soyuz’ supposed 70k tons.
A “on ground” test really dope the performance of the gun for different reasons:
No alteration from sea induced conditions (no waves, changin course, ship oscillations)
No problems or delays derivated from the mechanical operations of the elevators (everything is in the casemate with the gun or just below it)
Only a single gun a.k.a. no delays waiting the other guns to be ready and full operational space for the testers (way bigger than the one in the turret)
Oversized casemate for the gun ( no need for rangefinders or space for the crew in the back as all instruments were on the ground and againg full space for operations inside it).
For a simple comparison is like bringing a F1 car to a Go-Kart race and then tell everyone that was a difficul race after overlapping everyone multiple times.
We have the same situation with Kirov in game that use the ground tested gun 11 seconds while documents states that that turret was so cramped that a 30s reload was a good performance.
