Ha, I had June stats selected when I took those screenshots.
So SS with July stats comes to…
8.58 kills per death for realistic
and
8.14 kills per death for arcade.
The second best ship in regards to kills per spawn, Iowa, gets 6.77 kill per death for realistic and 4.93 kill per death for arcade.
Cheffs kiss.
hopefully.
i mean in the end those stats are kind of doodoo anyhow since im quite sure the kills are players and bots combined. Still that speaks miles for the soyuz survivability and the fact you would need to have an absolute deathwish to target a soyuz in anything but a soyuz or at least an iowa when hes not shooting at you and theres tons of bots you can kill. But the combination of 8.6 K/D and a 58% win rate (remember, soyuz are also facing each other but the winrate is still that high) speaks for itself. While Yamato stats are mainly influenced by how easy it goes boom in these stupid sub 10 km engagemnet range maps (about 50%) where its armor is just dogwater. So everyone and their mom target you instantly to take your guns out. While avoiding to target soyuz players because why target something that is unkillable as long as it leaves you alone.
My whole yamato stats (which arent too bad imo) are credited to the fact that i was left alone to shoot at bots or sometimes players even had merci and asked if they could shoot at me. If i had actually tried to influence matches by targeting players i would have died 2 times as much. That’s the state of top tier naval. half the stuff so bad in comparison that some non-sweatlords are actually empathic enough (probably pityful is the better word actually) to just let you shoot at bots. Awesome game environment. Only playable for 80% of the ships that are getting thrown into top tier if the people playing the op stuff are aware of it and are chill enough to also let others play.
Permanent Naval EC RB when??? Fk RB
But thanks for the book link Joeseph, I love that stuff so I’ll check it out 😁👍
“a very large navy”
This is a semantic argument. In no way, shape, or form did Russia have a meaningful navy until the height of the cold war. You could argue, pre Tsushima, that the Russian navy was meaningful in the late 19th century, but based on the utter destruction of that fleet at Tsushima, it wasn’t meaningful.
Russia did not have a NEED for a large navy. They were a continental power with no overseas colonial holdings. The USSR did not have the technical or industrial capacity to build a meaningful Navy. Thus limiting them to a small number of blue water vessels that were mostly foreign designs.
Whilst one could argue that at the height of the cold war the Soviet Navy was a powerful and influential navy historically Russia has never been a naval power, nor have they influenced the diplomatic/political landscape with their navy.
In the scope of War Thunder their capital ships are mostly foreign or ships that were never completed in real life. Their cruisers are in a similar, though not as dire, state. It’s understandable. Gaijin cannot make a historically accurate game. IF they did Russia would not have a navy worth playing. Russia is one of the most popular nations to play in War Thunder. Thus we get a bunch of “fake” and foreign ships to keep it competitive.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Bismarck has a ground kill. What scenario would allow it?
No idea.
I have some ground kills on three of my ships according to my Service Record. I have no idea where they come from.
so it does, lmao.
I think both Roma and Yamato having positive KD is kinda impressive given how handicaped their current implementations are.
These days, only airfield AAA defences are counted as ground kills.
Back in the day, we also had naval bases that counted as ground targets, but they were removed from the game fairly quickly.
BTW, I made some more tables on top-tier battleship performance for July. Maybe someone will be interested in them:
Remember, AI ships count. Only way it happens.
AA guns on airfields that are particularly close to the battle area, if a plane is landing/taking off your own AA might try to kill them but hit the AA guns protecting the airfield instead
had it happen once or twice myself when i got all the way up amidst the convoy on Norway and i killed an AA
So the premium that people buy to try to rush-grind top tier plays significantly worse than the tech tree version that people had to have the skill and time in to grind out themselves? I don’t know if we’ve ever seen that before in War Thunder, have we?
Kind of irrelevant in comparing between high-tier tech tree vehicles, tho, tbh.
Also its really wierd Marlborough being mentioned at all. Ive one shot the Marlborough so many times Ive never been bothered to do the stock grind for her. With the new BRs that might actually change as a lineup somewhere around 6.0-7.0 might actually be fun, but prior to the decompress, I considered her one of the weakest rank VI ships Britain had up until maybe Repulse was added
That, but also there’s still a lot more human players at the “food” level relative to the number of top tier. July was a transitional month post-decompression, as we see that top tier bow wave (with nobody staying at 7.7 if they can help it for long) solidify again, Yamato’s performance will likely worsen further.
Updated the battleship survivability-lethality graph with July data: https://forum.warthunder.com/t/data-analysis-4-pushing-past-a-simple-kd-using-statshark-data/250503/49
Also proof there’s not currently a “bow wave” in naval due to decompression: https://forum.warthunder.com/t/data-analysis-3-the-arrival-of-statshark-answers-some-old-questions/238314/160
That wasn’t he point I was arguing against - the statement was that the USSR had NO navy.
Sure it was not very effective - but there’s no need to make up the rubbish that guy was posting to make that point.
Also FYI the Soviet Navy was actually “meaningful” in many circumstances - for example they did about 1500 amphibious landing throughout the war, including into Crimea in December 1941 and again in November 1943.
The 1943 Kerch-Eltigen operation was 1 of the scenario’s for World War -
https://old-wiki.warthunder.com/Kerch-Eltigen_operation
It wasn’t a blue water navy like the “more meaningful” ones, but it did a job in it’s circumstances.
This is also true - but again not the point I was replying to.
1/ Soviet, not Russian
2/ not fantasy - the constant repetition of this is willfull nonsense.
In order for it to not be fantasy it would be in the 20% completed state it achieved IRL.
THere was no real way for Russia to complete the ship. They lacked basically all the infrastructure needed to complete the ship as designed. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the Soyuz to exist in real life as it does in game.
Impossible = fantasy.
wdym? as it was about 20% completed in 3 years I’m sure if they continued building for another 12 years they would have finished it in (1941 + 12) 1953. Ha! Easy. And only if they wouldnt have encountered any problems delaying it even further (which Im fairly certain any other ship of that size of other nations with far more advanced shipbuilding industry also had, so youd have to go to quite some lengths assuming and believing the russian shipbuilding industry with their vast experience in building up to date battleships/cruisers wouldn’t).
And then, in 1953, she would have certainly been as amazing as it is in game (/s). No drawbacks through financial or construction problems, just all in all perfect. (like my blueprints would have been too, if i could make blueprints for ships, because why plan something thats not at least absolutely amazing in all aspects) Well, only at a time were battleships were long outdated and everyone else had already scrapped theirs (but the crazy americans). That would have been a bummer ngl. 15 years of building such an ambitious project just to see it basically useless because any cruiser (or plane?) with big missli can sink it from way out its effective range.
Not denying that maybe, possibly they could/would have finished it. Couldnt care less. Maybe they would have. Just a tad bit late. And most certainly not as the mothership of all bbs ever constructed.
To be clear here. Obviously people love to discuss the historical aspect of the project. I myself at max am interested in that but thats it. For the game itself it doesnt matter since gaijin has clearly stated their stance on which ships can be added and it is good that russia can also play in top tier naval. Now if top tier naval would actually be fun, worth playing and somewhat balanced that would be cool and is my only concern. If no one or even less people play it because the gamemode just isnt good how does that help anyone? Won’t be good for the players, won’t be good for the snail and also not good for soyuz players, which can basically play pve forever since everyone thats not in a soyuz or iowa can just leave pointless 15 min waste-of-time matches won by invincible ships.
According to what you’re saying, the Tiger King 105, Panther 2, and flak341 should also have been produced, even including the E-25, E-50, and E-75.
hdym produced? If you wanna sit in the turret of a king tiger 105 getting absolutely smashed by a breech with every shot that then rams into the back of the turret you can (or actually can’t, but maybe wouldn’t want to, i imagine that being a quite unpleasant experience). panther 2 (same small turret problem tho) and flak 341 possibly. But I’m not gonna repeat gaijins statments on introduction of tanks vs different stance on ships for you. They are around somewhere. And that was their decision. They develop the game they have the last say. You, me and no one here can change that they decided for this (which at least in case for ships somewhat makes sense otherwise there really would be only iowa and maybe yamato in 8.7)