9- 10 mile maps are completely fine as hits beyond 10 miles where rare in combat what we need is redesign of naval maps not these stupid circle maps range would just make the problem worse for naval
for example IJN kirishima was sunk at roughly 5 miles by uss washington
What’s funny about people all here crying about is, while they saying Soyuz is OP, they want further spawn point which only makes Soyuz better.
Soyuz’s bow armor is OP not because it’s super thick, or it’s RCA, but because interval between two bow bulkhead plates are very big that shell explodes before reaching second bulkhead. Making spawn range further only makes this characteristic strengthened as further the range gets, shells got slower and explode earlier.
Meanwhile, Soyuz’s ammo placement is not the best among newely added battleships. Don’t lured by its visual model, the shell room’s own DM is actually placed around waterline like Kronshtadt. The weakpoint of Soyuz is when it cannot angle anymore because range is too close, like when Kronshtadt face Scharnhorst detour the islands in the old age.
Making spawn range further will only makes Soyuz stronger. The answer to weaken Soyuz is on the opposite side, making spawn range closer to put Soyuz in a cqb.
yes CQB balances game alot maps just need reworks cause range engaugments just who has best boat
That’s not true AFAIK - they couldn’t CEMENT them - but they apparently could face-harden them.
The difference being cemented armour has its carbon content increased, face hardened armour does not.
Why is it called cemented armor if there is no cement in it, if you know?
Cementation or cementing is apparently an alternative term for carburizing.
I think i this context it is used in the sense of “making something stronger” - like you can “cement” a relationship
It is a term from the 19th century - compound armour was originally created by joining hard steel plates to softer iron backing by pouring molten metal into a gap between the 2 plates.
This was then replaced by homogenous nickel-steel alloys from 1889.
An American engineer called Harvey improved on this nickel-steel plate by carburizing one side of it - the plate would be heated red hot and charcoal or other carbon bearing compounds placed on one side for 2-3 weeks. The carbon would then seep into that face increasing the carbon content down to about 1 inch depth.
According to Wiki 13" (about 330mm) of Harveyised plate was equivalent to 15.5 in (390 mm) of nickel-steel armor
Krupp improved on it by adding chromium to the alloy for extra hardness, and using carbon-rich gasses to do the cementing - which gave better contact and allowed a greater depth of cementation.
But the original Krupp armour was just called “Krupp armour” even tho it was cemented.
Krupp Cemented Armour (KCA) changed the alloy composition of the steel to give better elasticity and less fractures when hit.
Again according to Wiki 10.2 inches (25.9 cm) of Krupp armour offered the same protection as 12 inches (30.4 cm) of Harvey armour.
The 2 wiki articles are pretty informative and have good links:
I have no idea why Russia needed an 8.7 BB. They easily could’ve made this ship 8.3 or even 8.0 if they spent a decent amount of time in thinking what this ship realistically could’ve been.
Seeing this fake ship single handedly take down titans from each nation is so disheartening.
Realistically it could’ve been even better, more like pr. 24.
The same as the USSR should have been in 1945-47 without the war
Soyuz needs to have her armor around her magazines nerfed. Not only is it unrealistic because the Soviets absolutely cannot make quality armor at that thickness but right now she’s almost impossible to kill.
All Gaijin needs to do is to nerf her armor quality, that way when she’s caught broadside the slightest angle doesnt give her almost 800mm+ of protection. She’ll still have that bullshit bow armor design thats good against every single AP shell in the game.
You’re correct. And I must also say the explanation of mention vs face hardening you posted a few days ago was very very good, concise, clear and easy to understand. Felt like sharing credit where it’s due.
Also there’s something to be said about the depth of their face hardening also. From what I’ve read it’s deep, quite deep and closer to US Class A (?) face hardened armour, so it’s effectiveness is additionally reduced owing to scaling effects.
Good for cruisers though.
Not only is overpowered, it never existed, if so it’s would be nice to give Germans H class with 406mm gun.
Also Gaijin doesn’t care if Bismark penetration numbers are WRONG,
penetration numbers for 38cm AP shell penetration is wrong.
check Page 497.
should be 742mm penetration instead of 701mm in 0 Meters
Hi , there is enough information about being 742mm penetration at 0meters
This gun had a lot of pressure
Book: Battleships : axis and neutral battleships in World War II : Garzke, William H : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Title: Battleships : axis and neutral battleships in World War II
Page: 497
publication date: 1985
ISBN: 0870211013
Author or organisation: Garzke, William H
Battleships : axis and neutral battleships in World War II
Confirmed by other sources Like here:
Germany 38 cm/52 (14.96") SK C/34 → 742mm
and here: (this link has multiple references and ISBN)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php
As someone else pointed out it’s Cemented Armour that the Soviets weren’t capable of making that thick, but they were capable of hardening plates that thick, however, the main reason I chose Hardened Armour as the solution is that Navel Hardened Armour has a lower quality multiplier in game than Cast Armour does which if used would lead to the Sovetsky Soyuz’s armour being on par with Yamato, Iowa and Bismarck rather than just being blatantly better.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Except it’s not and they could make armor to that thickness, it’s just labeled incorrectly as cemented, this was also addressed directly by a tech mod.
God, noooooooooooooo pls not more of the stupid sub 10 km engagement range maps where both teams spawn in plain view of every other enemy ship. You can’t turn or maneuver at all because you either block or run into allies, also you will unangle towards all the enemies, you have 0 time to avoid enemy shots, ships that dont have sojuz or other top tier lvl armor like the paper amagi and mutsu get penned by every enemy ai ship randomly shooting at them, sometimes getting set on fire by every single hit. The dumbest thing thats ever put into (top tier) naval rb. Even the giant circle maps are better because even though you have no island cover you can at least maneuver to angle or kite away if you’re getting hard focussed by multiple enemies. (you can’t make it to the circle then but you can at least hope or ask allies to help you out and target the guys shooting at you)
Less distance goes both ways. And all of that because balancing the soyuz is not an option? wtf it’s not the only ship in the game. What are you planning to do vs a sojuz in a roma sub 10 km? It’s basically your BR, its crazy op so players will flock to it, it spawns in your face. It has way better armor, it has twice your reload speed, its ap shells have 4 (!!!) times the he equivalent and its sap has almost 9 times. The not-so-good armor (sry pizza enjoyers) your roma has will be even worse, even to all the 7.7 ships that will pop up not even 10 km away from you. Will you kite away and maneuver to make him miss shots, get annoyed and target someone else or waste his time so your allies can focus him? Good luck with that, you have no space to turn away, let alone maneuver at all and the short shell flight time in short distances will make sure he probably won’t miss a lot of his shots.
I prefer the multiple spawn option in that case that someone brought up. Ships that do better at longer ranges can spawn in the back and support, improving their armor and ships or players that do better at or prefer brawling can do that also, without being put in that stupid cluster having to fight in highly disadvantaged positions with no way of getting out. Or in general, every player can then spawn and play in the way or playstyle that he/she prefers.
Since the match result is basically random anyhow and most matches theres not much of a point in caring about the outcome (random funi guy in pt boat can easily cap 2 to 3 caps and drain tickets to 0 before enemy bbs even have a chance to make it even close to the caps, ai wandering onto caps randomly), ships that arent meant for brawling (basically everything except the german turtleback ships) might as well sit in the back, refrain from suiciding into 5 enemies full broadside in a desparate attempt to get onto a cap and watch the tickets drain down for one side from 15 km away. Really awesome and active way of playing naval rb i know, but it is what it is i guess. it has to be 3 caps in the middle of the map. Does that make sense for naval gameplay? Not really, or in most cases not, but anyways, 3 caps it is (btw 3 cap gamemode for air when?)
Very doubtful. They were running into severe problems even before the war. In 1939, they only recieved about 10% of the total armored plate they were supposed to for that year, of which half was rejected for not being up to standard. They never sucessfully built a single turbine for the engines domestically, the had to buy three from the Swiss. Same with the propeller shafts, which were bought from Germany and the Netherlands. Hell, the prototype of the boilers was only completed early 1941. There were similar problems with the turrets.
Hell, just look at Sovetskaya Belorussiya, who was ordered scrapped pre-war in 1940 when it was discovered that 70,000 rivets used in her hull plating were substandard.
In short, the Soviet industrial capacity was just nowhere near the level required to build ships of this size.
Maybe, if given exceptionally generous time, money, international support and no short amount of luck that no serious teething issues were found during construction/shakedown, they might have had something somewhat resembling these ships in the early 50s, had there been no war.
Except for bow, no
because Roma has pre 1942 reload speed for now.
The smartest choice mad by was short distance as we can see how WOWs were ruined. Circle map, the most idiot desin in war thunder naval.
does it matter what years reference they took for the roma’s reload? they knew its specs before introducing it and they knew the sojuz’s. Yet thats what they went with. Still Roma is 8.3 and soyuz 8.7. Would you bet on them buffing the roma before doing anything about the sojuz situation? An italian ship? I don’t think so. And all of that still doesnt change the massive difference in shell capabilities. Even if they had the same reload, cuz, yk the sojuz guns were only tested on a fixed mount and never at sea and the guns were even struggling then, simply the difference in he equivalent gives the sojuz 4 times the damage (to crew and hull) potential and yk, because its sap also has quite notable pen even more with the sap.
And the circle maps, yeah thats why i said “Even”. Its not the most exciting map setup, but even thats better then 8 km engaggement range african gulf (pls dont maneuver or you will show your side to the whole enemy team spawning 8 km away from you) or franz josef land (bettter sail straight onto c together with your whole team and pray the bots dont have different ideas, otherwise everyone will shoot into your side from 8 km out)
Yes because that was the year when Littorio classes’ faulty rammer has been modified.
Except for disperson at 14~21 km, no. It end test well, and fired addtional rounds during Siege of Leningrad. Though fired little less than designed 300 rounds, it was because during the test engineers shot some rounds with faster velocity than they originally designed.
It is problem of those map’s design, not problem of combat range. Norway encounter or Mediterranean Ports having better experience although their combat distance are similar to African gulf or Franz Josef.