Actually only 30% of armor plates in 1939 were defected, and even those which ones rejected were better quality than Krupp standards of quality armor plates.
Or … Constellation, Montana, Kansas … Guess they don’t count cuz they are USN maaaybe ? 🙄
There’s a lot to unpack here.
Firstly Iowa is the second best ship in the game after Soyuz, the US doesn’t actually need anything better unless you want your own BR where Montana’s slog it out against eachother.
Secondly, the Montana class is completely in violation of current game addition rules as nothing unique was constructed, so I discredited it, almost all of what I named were laid down the exception being Littorio UP.41 and I don’t believe the laid-down rule should apply to Italy and France.
Thirdly, I was talking about upgrade’s to the equipment of current nations, the Lexington class (would help if you used class names and not WoWs ship names) is literally a very poor attempt at replicating the doctrine of HMS Hood and, and that’s not me just being insulting, that’s because the US had to hire a British Designer who worked on Hood to fix the poor metrics of Lexington, and his conclusion was still that Hood was better. Even without that bit of trivia, Lexington isn’t an upgrade over Iowa in any way shape or form.
Kansas, (I mean it would help if again we used class names) is a SoDak 1920 class, which would be a mixed bag, enjoy your 1 minute reload and no credible AA to lob shells not even better than Iowa’s, but sure feel free, oh and enjoy the uninclined 13.5" armour belt also found similarly on the Iron Duke class… It’s really a US standard with 16" guns, and Colorado is not good…
I mean to conclude I’m not even biased against the USN, 2 of those ships you named are non-factors (Montana as N/A and Lexington as just being an insulting copy of Hood) and the SoDak 1920 isn’t really an upgrade either, and frankly, if you nerfed Soyuz, Iowa would be on top probably irrespective of what you add to the other nations.
2 Likes
I have 3 Russian Language sources stating the Soviet Union couldn’t produce Cemented armour of the required thickness of more than 9.1" and therefore for plates thicker than 9.1" Face Hardened armour was substituted. I don’t really view it as a debate this is widely sourced and acknowledged, the argument on the engines and other things I think are fair enough with historical imports from Switzerland being the fix, but we know that firstly the USSR couldn’t produce the bolts to the required purity to hold the ships together, and that the armour was Face Hardened for any plate above 9.1" as a result they should add Face Hardened and have it be a 1 and done piece, so it will crack after a salvo or two. Keep the guns the same and SS is now a balanced ship.
Rather than take pictures of my books for the next 10 minutes, I’ll just attach this nicely researched comment by another community member:
7 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Because they were never laid down - nothing more or less - it’s been mentioned about 20 times - be nice if all the folks on here could get over it.
some total ignorance here… the USSR had a very large navy - almost entirely smaller ships of course, but at least 3000 of them.
You can improve your knowledge with this book - pretty cheap at upwards of UKL4 for a copyu…
That’s a complete pile. More like 1000 and mostly subs and destroyers. Except for 3 ancient battleships from 1909 of the Gangut class. Where do you get the other 2000? If you’re counting patrol boats and pre-dreadnought ironclad monitors then just oh please. Why don’t you ask Gaijin to model the Admiral Lazarev? At least that would have a shred of historical accuracy. You also cherry picked around the point which is Soyez and Kronshtadt NEVER EXISTED
Because here is one of your ‘3000’ Ships Joeseph 😑 —> Russian monitor Admiral Lazarev - Wikipedia
Scrapped before USSR took first breath how is that on of the “3000” ships ?
Does this book mention the Stalingrad class battlecruiser? I’ve been waiting for that one to be added.
Get the book - I have it - feel free to stop making stuff ip.
So they did have a navy after all then - please make up your mind.
And not even close to 1000 DD’s and subs - even in your condescension you are wrong.
Of course patrol boats count - they were part of the navy - saying otherwise is deliberate obsfucation.
Except they did exist - albeit uncompleted
No, is isn’t one of the 3000 - it sank in 1912 - it says so right on the page for the ship that you would have read - why are you punting up such nonsense??
Your post is pretty typical of the ignorance most westerners have about the USSR navy.
The Soviet navy certainly wasn’t a power house, but here’s no need to make up nonsense about it.
It is not one of the WW2 ships in the book - Zap is just making shirt up 'cos he doesn’t like the facts.
And still doesn’t like them
No - it includes the SS’s and Krondstats and their fates, with some photos we haven’t seen here - but the subject matter is ships that existed or were being built in WW2 - the Stalingrads don’t fit that.
Oh, I thought maybe it included some post war. Alright thanks.
1 Like
HMS Marlborough and HMS Iron Duke are the same class of ship, with the same fit. Zero difference between the two, but one has 8.30 Kills per death, the other ‘only’ has 3.65 kills per death.
This is a player issue, not a ship one.
2 Likes
I have next to no clue what is this lame attempt at derailing the thread (and your comment was reported for being offtopic) but stats pretty much still show SS being miles ahead of other battleships be it winrate for 8.7 BR ships:
or kills per death:
.jpg){kind=link}
Not to mention one ship performing exceedingly well at entirely different BR alltogether does not mean that SS is no longer OP. Of course different BR ranges (which Marlborough certainly sits at as it cant see SS even in full uptier, unless Naval works differently in BR department) have vehicles that can perform exceedingly well. No one says Leopard 2A7V is no longer the best MBT just because theres a WW2 tank that does just as well.
7 Likes
Yeah, i also dont understand how some other select examples of ships that are doing well negate the fact that the soyuz is implemented in a way that basically no other ship that is lower than 8.7 can do meaningful damage to it (when its properly angled). Does it make the soyuz less oppressive that some ships at 7.0 are also quite strong (they couldn’t get other stats, armor, shells besides reload, but they could go up in BR since, they were actually completed)? The soyuz going up for 0.3 or 0.7 wouldnt change a whole lot cause all the outclassed 8.3s and 8.0s would still face it.
Besides. In the July stats for RB the Iowa is actually pretty close with a K/D of 6.8 to Soyuz 8.6. Maybe model changes and finally fixing the bugs on the Yamato, which is the most played ship at that BR range (not with a big lead tho) but by far the worst, to make it somewhat competitive (maybe also by adding a second spawn option further back to spawn at a distance that doesnt turn yamatos survivability into something worse than any 5.0 cruiser would help). That wont help it in winning matches, since we all know those are decided by pt boats or past-times-scharnhorst survivability bbs just beelining to the caps and hoping they can make it there (hilarious gamemode idea for naval rb…get closer to the whole enemy team or try to stay save in your paper ship but lose) but it could at least be somewhat more survivable and function as a sniper/support
1 Like
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.
3 Likes