Still it is far from ‘half’ what he believes, and her torpedo hit was mainly on torpedo bulge, which would give actual damage ingame too.
Again, hitting torpedo on torpedo bulge and main belt gives whole different effect both in real life and in game.
The way torpedoes work in this game is that they have to penetrate the raw armour that they hit in order to do any damage. You can roughly check how much pen a torpedo has by looking at the high explosive penetration of an equivalent payload HE bomb.
The largest payload long lance in game has almost 1 ton of TNTe, Which should, if you look at the german 1800kg bomb with its 1000kg TNT, have just a little more than 151 mm of armour pen.
As you might be able to tell, this is not nearly enough to pen most battleships main armour belt. This is the whole reason why we got a 4 meter depth setting for torpedoes, to go under these belts. Though it seems that on some of these later BB’s the belt goes down even that deep.
if even that long lance hits armour more than 150 mm, it simply will not do any damage.
Just as an example, here’s a 1m depth 1 ton long lance against a North Dakota
1 Like
Most of the torps in game have TNT instead of what explosives it had IRL(usually analogue of Torpex) FYI.
why does this matter exactly?
okay, I was just providing the explanation as to why the current long lances are unreliable against Soyuz.
By the way, to penetrate the main belt of Soyuz with the current way torps work, you’d need a TNT equivalent greater than that of the 12000lb bomb of the lancaster. Its 6357.6 kg of TNTe payload has a maximum pen of 365 mm. The minimum main belt armour of Soyuz being around 400mm effectivly
1 Like
Cause 1 m depth is not enough you hitting armor. And maybe 4 is not enough too it’s a big ship. Beside that it has good anti torp protection by design.
Either you are purposefully misunderstanding me, or you should read my previous messages carefully.
I’m saying that Soyuz’s armour might extend further than 4m deep, and thus completely negates the long lance even at 4m depth, as its raw armour thickness is too much. It’s difficult to really be sure how deep the armour on Soyuz goes, but I’m pretty sure it goes beyond 4m depth
As an example I showed how a long lance can do no damage, even against a target you’d think it can defeat, just because it hits armour thick enough to completely defeat it
To do this I showed it against a test sail target with a 1m depth, because that’s what I had on hand to showcase it.
Another point after your edit. Torpedo protection is not really a thing in WT, Torpedo belts are modelled as just a single homogeneous plate that “absorbs” a certain amount of TNTe. this includes shellfire and is often shot off. you can tell if a ship has an anti torpedo belt modeled on the statcard
1 Like
Most of the big ships ignore torpedoes in current state of the game. That how it works.
1 Like
Shouldn’t a torpedo hitting the side belt have the same effect as a HESH shell? As with HMS Prince of Wales. The first burst of Japanese torpedoes hit her side belt without penetrating it, but the force of the explosion bent the propeller shaft, which later caused partial flooding.
1 Like
In real life it could yes, but in game it doesn’t
3 Likes
That’s how Soyuz got it stats on SS, just take it to 9.0 and farm bots and Yamatos, now with Su-7 and Yak-28 in setup in NRB.
I agree that ships should get their historical torpedo protection values on the bulges rather than 250kg, since hitting the belt with one does next to nothing in the game.
But to get back on topic, there are many ways to nerf the Soyuz without compromising the original vision, any one or combination of which should be tested internally by Gaijin.
- Change belt material - set this to RHA or face-hardened
- Decrease belt HP dramatically - so each plate can be broken and have less protection after 1-2 salvos
- Decrease accuracy - High mV and lack of barrel liners quickly caused the barrels to lose accuracy IRL
- Increase reload time - Current reload numbers are from coastal batteries without any ship-board trials
You can also indirectly nerf it via buffs to underperforming vehicles around the same BR. For example, increasing Roma’s reload speed, decreasing shell room volatility, and making AA ammo stores inert (besides causing a fire). This would buff US standards and the Iowa, but would especially improve Yamato so it might be able to survive more than one salvo.
2 Likes
Yep, agreed. Good options there
Vanguard can get a reload buff (should be 25 seconds) and improved FCS to add to your list
3 Likes
Aren’t secondary (and AA ammo by extension) ammo stores already impossible or highly unlikely to detonate?
I remember slamming the secondaries of multiple light cruisers and the like with AP that penetrated their magazine and all they did was cause fires. The Bravy’s SA-N-1 missiles are counted as secondaries too, so whenever I blast them with enough HE to destroy them nothing happens.
Depends on the ship I think. Some yes but I don’t think it’s all
Arbitrary
Not actually in War Thunder’s combat range of inside 14 km. Soivet 16’’ gun showed extreme dispersion increase between 14~21 km on trial but expected reason is on powder side, which utilize 14’’ railway gun’s one.
No. It is designed rate of turret, not coastal battery. Coastal battery is originally opened testing mount for ballistic test, so no mechanical loading assist mechanisms were installed on ship.
Totally inacurrate, again another forum’s ‘I don’t have source but it’s Soviets so it is rational’ claim.
Let’s focus more on buffing other ships with rational and historical way.
For example, simple method of eliminating barbette fire would make Iowa near or superior to Soyuz.
Shortening combat range and moving islands to force Soyuz to show her side more would help battleships with low pen like Bismarck/Richelieu/Vanguard to have better chance against Soyuz.
If you have a primary source for the fire of rate of Soyuzs guns. Mounted on a ship and test fired at sea. We would all be very interested to see that
5 Likes
I somewhat disagree with your rebuttals on the previous points.
But I do agree that maps and map design could be a big balancing method too. Many of the naval maps were simply not designed for these ships and just extending spawn to spawn distance doesn’t help.
2 Likes