Huh that ship looks like a singular turret in a field, must be the perspective
2 Likes
Perhaps because the original question was about the “reload mechanism.”
yes and the origianl question was pointed at a simple: no idea the soviets never built a modern battleship.
Third Reich
I’m not familiar with the types of loading on ships. what were the pros and cons of this design? What types of loading did other nations use and why?
Pros: most safest. You could station your shell into most well protected citadel under hull armor. Also, shell room is near waterline so no danger of direct hit or subsequent fire/fragment spread to magazine.
Cons: you hoist has to move little harder than those who store shells on barbette and propellant charges near waterline. Also, needs more displacement.
British(since Nelson), Imperial Russian design(after Imperatritsa Mariya), USSR design, Japan(except Yamato), France uses such design.
British(before Nelson)German and Italy uses similar, but which location of propellant charge and shell swapped, so magazine is near waterline and shells are below of it. This was used mostly on early 20st Century when naval designers worry about mine more than shell hitting.
US and Japan(only for Yamato) stores shells on barbette and propellant charge right below on waterline. This are extremely displacement-efficient, and can ensure safety when armor can withstand enemy shell, but not when armor penetrated, so not favored by European nations where North Sea and Mediterranean combat range is thought to be(and also in real combat too) shorter than Oceanic theatre.
2 Likes
I faced 4 Soyuz on the enemy team, it was a slaughter, the system does not balance at all 4 x 8.7 when we had one. The Soyuz is ridiculous and is a Gaijin sponsored cheat ship. What should be the toughest ship in the game the Yamato is a total glass cannon and explodes regularly from anything from a 155mm shell upwards and its an easy kill for anyone unless you can sail it backwards where it sometimes survives. Gaijin really screwed up on both these ships but the Soyuz is just criminally OP.
10 Likes
You will never convince anyone without a huge Russian bias that the Soyuz is anything but massively overpowered, It is a ridiculous fantasy ship due to Gaijin’s extreme Russian bias.
8 Likes
Russia could not have built the Soyuz no matter how many years they had. Not only were they unable to produce the Armour but the ship in game has zero trade offs which every ship that is really made has. Gaijin simply selected the best of everything without compromise and made a fantasy cheat ship and ruined Naval in the process.
13 Likes
The USSR had everything necessary to build 1-2 Project 23 ships. (The only thing the USSR did not have was nuclear weapons and missiles to destroy Germany in the first days of the invasion)
According to you, the Gaijin took the best of everything, namely
Displacement 66,000 tons → 82,000 tons
Armament
3x3-406mm → 4x4 456mm
6x2-152mm → 32-152mm
4x2-100mm → 12-130mm
Speed 28 → 33 knots.
1 Like
the ussr was literally unable to produce plating that thick so (the list goes on that’s just the most obvious) and their nuclear “program” was literally a joke lmao. read a book.
3 Likes
The USSR could not produce 400mm thick cemented armour plate, they could only produce a rolled plate of that thickness.
As their protection scheme was specified to use the cemented plate, which could not be produced by soviet industry, they would never be completed to specification unless this plate was switched in the design.
8 Likes
Production capability to produce 40cm KCA plates was not present in the USSR. It’s unknown if they ever built facilities later that could.
USSR also is benefiting from land mount dispersion when naval mounts (especially multi-gun mounts) have increased dispersion. We do not know if the triple turret would have had dispersion problems like some other ships.
7 Likes
i want that as an offical community userskin
1 Like
Not Nr.1 in K/D anymore, Sovetksy Soyuz is washed. /s
1 Like
Cringe
3 Likes
Ngl after playing the Soyuz a few games i gotta say its really strong but also shows how many unexperienced Naval players are somehow at top tier when they immediately start shooting at you when they cant pen you. Stuff like 2 kills in 25 mins in a Soyuz i feel like should be considered a bannable offense.
2 Likes
That’s not how this works.
Soyuz sat in construction hell for several years because of shifting war priorities after Germany decided to stab Russia in the back.
She existed as partially built with fully constructed, functional guns that were used in defense of Leningrad.
Just because Russia couldn’t make cemented steel plates that thick at the time doesn’t mean they wouldn’t substitute it. Yes, this would mean the overall armor capability would be less but it means Soyuz was fully capable of being built. Just like Kronshtadt.
Soyuz’s APCBC is overperforming… By 20mm of penetration. The guns are actually [underperforming] by nearly 3 to 4 seconds reload speed (Assuming this was low gun elevation. Yamato was stated to reload in as little as 28 seconds for comparison).
If anything about it needs a nerf is its absolutely ridiculous turning radius as there’s quite a few sources saying Soyuz - due to her design - would have a 940m turning circle.
It doesn’t help that the average arcade naval player is a lobotomite and this only skews the perception against Soyuz heavily. Yes, it’s strong but its section health is pretty damn bad. Not Rodney bad but it’s pretty bad.
1 Like
The Germans captured an unfinished hull in Ukraine so they could add the ship to Germany because they could’ve finished it given enough time if we use that logic. The Soviets didn’t have better 16inch guns/shells than the Americans a full 2 decades before them either lmao they’re vastly over performing and the dispersion is taken from static ground testing. And I’d love to see your reasoning for the reload as it was never fitted to a ship.
1 Like