Its not “fake” it was layed down hull without any belt armour, turrets anything really.
Just the way it is in game is impossible. If they actually went with finishing it then every armour above 200 mm would be cast or face hardened at best. Shells would use normal TNT. Gun propelant would be set for lower velocity not the maximum possible it has in game that it had for testing otherwise it would have insane gun wear. Reload is straight up made up. With such absurd ammo layout it would not have such good reload. But again none of the turrets or ammo elevators were made, none of the loading tested. It was simply tested as 1 gun turret on the ground that behaves completly differently from turret on ship with ammo elevators and everything. It simply had absurd ammo layoud and very low reload that of battleships with normal ammo layout. Simply best of both worlds in every section.
Its not “fake ship” but the way its implemented was that of lit puting every very best possible option that soviets could only dream of.
Not a “realistic completly doable unfinished ship” like IJN Amagi or Gneisenau.
While yes Iowa togeder with Soyuz are the most capable top tier ships. And both have working armor.
Its at least not because of some fantasy like with soyuz but mostly that it wasn’t neglected like Yamato.
While Yamato is just buggy mess, with many artificial nerfs and extremly low survivability that just melts second it gets attacked. Also noticed Yamato has less sections than Iowa for some reason. Unlike iowa it doesnt have modeled most of its little armours for its secondary turrets and internal decks and sections. Every ammo explosion results in sinking in matter of seconds with no way of fixing hole in time even if it doesnt get one tapped (unlike pretty much every other ship that usally can survive single ammo rack or fix holes at time with soyuz reliably being absolutely fine after 2/3 ammoracks). Even with empty main gun ammo it can still get reliably ammoracked due to massive AA shell ammoracks that still make the exact same unrepairable hole as full ammo ammorack. And even if Yamato doesnt get penetrated at extreme ranges - the few sections have such low survivability it just melts. (Only way I was surviving with Yamato was doing 360° at the start of the match and get the hell out of there and if luck was on my side not get focused for the rest of the game as I was the furtherest target to shoot at)
Same goes for Musashi as it was lit just copy pasted togeder every bug and ammoracks. Even tho it has different secondaries and AA it kept same ammorack with only changed numbers. XDD
Yamato can get reliably one tapped with bigger bombs near its mid section. 73 000 of steel alongside with 3332 crew just poof. While same bomb does not sink Soyuz nor Iowa.
Its really sad that something that took so much punishment to take down Irl is quite frankly a absolute joke when it comes to survivability in game.
Its not “fake ship” but the way its implemented was that of lit puting every very best possible option that soviets could only dream of.
Agreed, I don’t have a problem with this ship being in game, I have a problem with how this ship is represented.
As most of you guys are aware, the US is planning to build a “battleship” and most likely it will either be delayed into oblivion or it only be partially built.
If this becomes partially built (similar to the Soyuz), I’m curious on how the devs will model it and I have a feeling that they won’t be as generous as they were with the soyuz
dude that is complete and utter delusion and cope lmao, h39 was laid down in 1938 and the Germans COULD ACTUALLY MANUFACTURER ARMOR THICK ENOUGH FOR OT UNLIKE THE USSR, as well as the guns existing and being used as coastal fortifications, yadada aaa ofc existed for it. lil bro how is that more paper than being unable to complete the ship as is the case with the ussr
Russia would have imported the plates from Germany if 1941 didn’t happen. Since Germany invaded Russia, they would have just used different armor plates that would have led to worse (but still fairly good) armor protection.
H39 was a partial keel. That is literally more paper than Soyuz ever was. This is some astronomically wehraboo levels of copium to think H39 and H40 existed in more capacity than Soyuz ever was.
Edit
The biggest killer of Soyuz and the Kronshtadt sisters in real life was mostly the fact Russia was fighting a ground war. There was literally no need for capital ships and that steel and manpower was better spent building tanks and rifles which was by far the more pragmatic choice.
The difference is that Germany actually had the capacity to build every single part of the ship since they are essentially just enlarged Bismarck classes and other than the russians they actually proved that they were capable of building big, modern bbs. Acting like Soyuz was a lot more than what H39 was is delulu
bismarck is also has similar nerfs which make little sense for example how does the fire get into the magazine room from barbette thats walled off so it cant ??
like the magazine is under the turtle back and has a armored bulkhead between the barbette and magazine shown in this photo and its marked as a door way in the blueprint and you cant damage this bulkhead unless you pen the turtle back and main belt
clearer photo
Spoiler
find the magazine deck and youll see it in the drawings marked as a doorway with bulk head
The entire point of the conversation was Soyuz had more completed for her than H39 ever had. So yes, Soyuz was much more complete in comparison.
H39 had a partial keel and guns (Guns were used as coast defense).
Edit
Russia had zero reason to continue building Soyuz or the Kronshtadt sisters after the war because of the sheer dominance aircraft carriers proved during WW2. Not to mention this was also a time where many nations downsized their fleets.
As for Soyuz being good in real life? Don’t know. Her poor maneuverability, inferior mobility and worse armor protection in comparison to Iowa class would be an uphill battle at the best of times.
Assuming a battleship vs battleship action even happened in the first place.
Number of hull section doesn’t increase survivability ingame, as every battleships needs three hull section destroyed(except the last one in bow and stern) to make unsinkability loss.
The reason of Yamato got unsinkability much faster than Iowa is because she is more ‘all or nothing’ than Iowa, which was actually the reason why British navy and Imperial Russian navy hesitated implementing it on their battleships.
Probably because that link is a .php If you download the pic yourself then upload to the reply it should work. If it is still a .php, just change it to .png
Oh yeah when you click the download buttons it makes them .jpg’s That will work.
