Previous projects, present projects and past projects. The caveat here is that the Soviet Union didnt build any major capital ships whatsoever. Why would you give a country that never built anything remotely close to Soyuz the benefit of the doubt if every project had major issues during construction and in the end nothing was ever finished.
I mean its pretty clear what i meant by that but we can happily compare general industrial capabilites. I just doubt that the USSR would look a lot better tho
Name your sources, I am yet to see a source that ‘debunks’ the claim the the USSR was unable to produce 400mm thick cemented armour.
The difference being that the US and Japan had built large shipbuilding industry, comprising of not just shipyards, drydocks, etc, but also an experienced pool of shipbuilders and naval architects who were used to building such large designs on a (relatively) regular basis to a high quality.
During the interwar period (1918-1939) the US built and commissioned six BBs, with a further six laid down and canceled with ~ 20% completion. The soviets in comparison commissioned none and only laid down the four Sovetsky Soyuz class.
In shipbuilding experience matters, you cannot expect a fast building time without massive faults with an unexperineced workforce. For goodness sake they had to scrap Sovetskaya Belorussiya because of poor quality rivets, that is not a good sign of a healthy naval industry.
Just because it was started, doesn’t mean it could be finished either.
Exactly and since all we can do is speculate Gaijin could implement Soyuz in a balanced state but they didnt which is the single reason why this discussion even exists in the first place
Exactly. If Soyuz had non cemented armour for the parts over 230mm (or whatever the thickness they could achieve), a slower reload rate and higher shell dispersion she might be balanced. And neither of those changes would be un-historical as the current values are guesswork anyway. But then the Developers wouldn’t get their Russian Cope Super Ship, which is clearly what they wanted Soyuz to be.
Problem with those who so against Soyuz that, if there was no Soyuz in game or even if Soyuz was interior to Iowa, so Iowa stats were similar or even higher than Soyuz have, cause there is no competitor, will all those people been fighting for Iowa nerf then or they been contented with it state?(Iowa have a good planes, Souyz still didn’t get right one, best speed and better setup different panes and ships)
Other problem with those who for “SU can’t build big ships” is that, SU either couldn’t send man to space, until it could or could build atomic submarines or ICBM and suddenly it is. Planned economy is such thing, where you could concentrate resources(include industrial, scientific and engineering) in a spheres where you mostly needed. So that SU is not concentrated on naval warfare during the WW2 is cause obvious reasons, it was a land war for SU so all resources been there and considering lost of shipbuilding regions in the start of the war not helped either. But all of that is nothing to do with developed industrial country which modernized even further during the war in inability to build such project as modern battleship, which could compete with other nations one.
Naval gameplay have way bigger problems than good ship been good in our game reality. You better be concentrated on them.
Iowa should have been replaced by North/South Carolina class battleships and the Soviets should have gotten nothing. Not the fault of other nations that the Soviets had and have a terrible navy
How do you damage, not sink, not kill, even damage a Soyuz in most ships, especially those that are not in either Iowa or a Soyuz?
I’ve laid into a Soyuz with Rodney and barely scratched the paint
To claim Soyuz is “fine” and “just a skill issue” shows a clear lack of understanding of the issue
Compared to Soyuz. Its no where near as tanky, and if they’ve forgotten to run 50% ammo, they are quite easy to kill, Let alone the fact that you can actually disable the turrets with direct hits.
Though you have yet to answer how a 7.7-8.3 ship is meant to actually be able to take on a 9.7 ship like Soyuz
Maybe you should start playing something more than just Brits to see that Soyuz isn’t that of an issue. Besides that Soyz guns have slightly lower armor than Iowa ones.
If your ONLY answer is “dont play X nation” doesnt prove that the Soyuz is fine, if anything, it proves its a problem if multiple nations are DOA from 7.7+ because of poor balance between nations.
Oh no, Soviets suffer, quick buff them…
Yeah, I dont really care, because whilst it might have a few mm less pen (a grand total of 5mm less pen)… it has a much larger explosive filler
My answer is play all nations not just struggling 8.0-7.7 ship vs 8.7 in NRB where there is you and 3 Soyz/Iowas gangbanging you cause matchmaking create match where three 8.7 + 1 7.7 fighting against team of 4 8.0 .