Don’t forget the nice reload to go with it
And the amazing dispersion of this thorougly tested masterpiece of engineering
3 Likes
They probably use imagination power of Baki
You know that anime that imagination only can make you have strength of ten man
Soyuz spec probably came out of same imagination power.
1 Like
“it came to me in a dream”
the power of the A-IX-2
The power of imagination, to be more precise
3 Likes
This is quite realistic, with a projectile weight of 1108 kg and a high explosive mass of 2.3% = ~25.7 kg, and since our projectiles are from the latest batches, they use A-IX-2, which in terms of TNT equivalent = ~40 kg (Although it’s strange that the developer didn’t increase the semi-armor-piercing shell’s explosive capacity to 140 kg in TNT)
Ah yes the magic powder that was never actually tested in said gun
4 Likes
Were the guns tested against battleship armour?
Edit: this is what I found about the guns. Please let me know if it wrong.
“individual barrels of the Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship’s main guns were built and tested, with one being used during the Siege of Leningrad, but a fully assembled, multi-gun turret and a fully functional firing system were not tested or completed. The quality of the propellant and shells was also poor, leading to poor precision and high dispersion.”
This suggests it was only ever fired on land targets or maybe river boats but not actual armour. No way to test the actual capability of the shells and the accuracy in game doesn’t match the claims online.
6 Likes
Oh, so you have data on the explosives used in shells produced in 1944, considering that by 1943 almost all TNT had been replaced by A-IX-2
There is no information about this, or it is classified.
12 guns and 5 swinging parts were produced.
From August 29, 1941, the MP-10 experimental installation (with a lined barrel), located at NIMAP (Rzhevka), was effectively used to shell German and Finnish troops near Leningrad.
War changes plans (According to the information, the towers were partially completed)
Of course, the poor quality of the shells was considered the main reason, but after testing, it was determined that the main cause of inaccuracy was the poor quality of the propellant powder. A decision was also made to reduce the power of the propellant charges to improve the gun’s survivability. Information on firing accuracy from 1941 to 1945 is based solely on firing results against German positions.
1 Like
This is the issue though.
Land based accuracy tests for the British 15" guns would increase our accuracy in game by at least 4x. Reports were denied becuase they were using landbased tests.
If Soyuzs accuracy in game comes from land based tests, then it is extremely unfair.
Likewise, iirc, the reload rate is either a theoretical speed or from those land based tests. Which again, would be denied for anyone else under normal circumstances.
Or more likely. It was never done.
But it is then completely unknown what the fire rate actually would have been. Meaning using the “we hope it will acheive this fire rate” fire rate rather unfair, given most nations have a fire rate much higher than what they could achieve (and probably did achieve) for balancing reasons.
and what do we have ingame?
Full strength or reduced?
4 Likes
So there is no evidence to support the current performce of the guns. All we know is Accuracy was poor, quality was poor, never fitted to a turret so no evidence it could maintain its rate of fire in an inclosed turret or it would work at all.
I’ve personally got no issue with this ship being in game just the way it’s been implemented. Armour is unrealistic, guns untested and seemingly over performing and basicly all the stats are a designers fever dream and been implemented in their highest possible specs.
8 Likes
Well, the loading mechanism has already been sufficiently refined, so this rate of fire is quite realistic. As for loading the gun on the ground without the device’s loading mechanism (autoloader), that’s one shot every four minutes.
During the tests, about 170 shots were fired, we know of 0 results, the maximum being the commission’s conclusion, so it is foolish to say that there were no armor penetration tests.
Frankly, this is an almost imperceptible indicator: the projectile velocity has decreased from 870 m/s to 830 m/s, but this ensures the gun’s survivability of up to 300 shots with a possible survivability of up to 500 shots.
1 Like
So the historically accurate fire rate could be as high as 1 round per 4 minutes?
The current 28 second reload could be entirely inaccurate and given that most ships do not have their theoretical or actual reload for the sake of balance. Could easily be reduced to 40 seconds to maintain better balance.
Then please provide sources with the results.
It is unlikely that they would still be classified after 80 years and that records would be available if they had been done.
I can see in game that it is already 830m/s so that nerf has already been applied.
So that leaves:
- Decrease the reload rate (35-40 seconds)
- Remove the armour the soviets couldnt build
- Significantly increase shell dispersal (by a factor of 4)
2 Likes
there is many cases that show testing a gun mounted in the open vs in a turret greatly effect the potential of the weapon. eg, Nelson class 16 inch guns had to be modified a lot to become practical once mounted in a turret on an actual battleship.
who knows what they soyez gun systems would have actually looked like and performed to work in a turret.
This is speculation, without even a single scrap of evidence to support this then its just guessing. additionally without any evidence of testing the performace of the guns are impossible to know and are again pure fiction from the mind of a designer.
again, without any sources or evidence from trials this is just speculation.
3 Likes
lets not forget examples like Roma which for some reason have 15 inch guns at top tier with 60 second reloads. everything ive heard sauggests the guns were actually used at around 40 or 45 seconds per reload in action.
Being fair this is a stretch, we dont have hard sources to sxy how bad the dispersion was, just it was bad. x4 would make the ship unuseable even point blank. accuracy could be nerfed a little in ,y opinion but if issue of reload, and armour as you mentioned already were addressed then i would see the accuracy being passable. I would also personally have these armour penetration stats reconsidered, the SAP stock ammo is insane for untested ammo.
2 Likes
I just took the difference between British 15" guns from landbased tests to what we have set in game as a baseline of 4x greater dispersal.
If Soyuz is set to landbased tests, then the accuracy could be as much as 4x greater than it should be.
And those 15" guns were some of the most accurate ever built. So I dont think its a stretch that Soyuz’s guns (especially given it was the soviets and they had limited experience actually building large naval guns) could be far higher than what is in game.
and if they had a very large spread, it would go a long way to balance the fact it also has the best guns and shells in game if half the shells missed
2 Likes
And is currently best ingame too.
On 14+ km, didn’t mean much ingame.
1 Like
and yet 25-50% of every salvo misses due to shell dispersal.
Soyuzs shells all seem to land in the exact same spot
1 Like
Not actually in my experience
1 Like