@kosthar4uk
Maybe that is implication of ‘ready rack’ on capital ships, which were not so uncommon in 1910s ship design, but disappear after Jutland.
On the other hands, Yamato’s shell room in barbette(along with American battleships) were ‘ordinary’ shell room.
That seems reason of difference between those two.
Although Soyuz is indeed overpowered to an unholy degree, before I mothballed mine I did actually get oneshot on two different occasions by Yamato in RB.
What are you onto lmao? I did sink Soyuz with same ship and same torpedos like week ago no problem thats why its utter nonsence why it does no damage now. Surviving one long lance with Iowa sure with black sections and cripled but 7/9 that does nothing?
Type 93s irl cuts ships half nothing would survive 7 long lances + 2 smaller torpedos. They are never suposed to do “nothing”.
Oh yeah I have footage of that. Friend shot you. He was like what the hell they can get oneshot? Must have been extremly lucky to oneshot something gaijin given every possible nonsence buff that soviet enginered didnt dream off in their wettest dreams. Other than that its just no brain gameplay with soyuz. While buggy Yamato in my experience and many others experience gets one tapped every single time you get touched in ammo elevator or anything with ammo sinks whole 73 000 ship just like that.
So you don’t have any understanding of game and real life mechanism, and just saying ‘why I can’t damage’ all over again.
Torpedo hitting main belt that can’t penetrate, can’t give significant damage both in real life and in game. That’s why Bismarck’s sunk too long, and most of 1930s fast battleship have their main belt extended to deep underwater.
That time you’re not unlucky enough to get all those torpedoes in main belt, and able to occur unsunkability loss. Not this time. Well, similar, I survived three 93 with main belt in Iowa, isn’t it?
Plus, there are no ‘100%’ cutting ships half even with Type 93 torpedo. When USS North Carolina hits 3 Type 95 torpedo(which is only little weaker than Type 93) with anti-torpedo protection, not main belt, ship did lean, but never halved and sunk. USS North Carolina is still survive as floating museum.
I was on the North Carolina (museum, ofc), and they had photos of the damage she took from those torpedoes. They put holes the size of a large van in her, that’s a lot more than nothing. The lack of performance loss is more a commentary on the *excellent US damage control parties than it is the strength/weakness of battleships/torpedoes.
*Excellent damage control… that the Soviet union would never have.
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
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
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
Most of the big ships ignore torpedoes in current state of the game. That how it works.
