It’s been a hot minute since I fought it and I apologize for the brutish response earlier.
Soyuz’s issue is Iowa’s magnified; it has a three tier deck armor layout in warthunder which makes it resistant - but not immune - to plunging fire at around 13 to 15km with japanese No 5 APCBC can get through these decks and set fires fairly deep in the elevators. But again; it’s one hell of an uphill battle despite similar firerate as Soyuz.
Turret 3, while still fairly well defended, isn’t protected nearly as consistently as turrets 1 and 2.
The secondary issue is there’s not enough equivalent era ships to fight it barring Iowa, SoDak, Yamato and Musashi. Two of those are practically signing their death warrant in a slugging match.
(Added in edit) The fact Japan’s the only nation with any sort (read: highly inconsistent) counter if up-tiered is just as much an issue.
Roma and Italia could have been somewhat decent options but their reload is a baffling 45 seconds plus despite all the proof saying 30.6 seconds was possible.
Nobody knowing how to fight it and it needing to be toned down isn’t mutually exclusive.
People don’t know how to fight british 5.3 cruisers and constantly aim empty space to try and explode ammunition they can’t hit. A similar situation is happening here except they’re aiming an obnoxiously well armored battleship’s bow and belt armor.
The difference with the above example is British cruisers aren’t a 60k ton behemoth that many ships struggle to even penetrate. Soyuz is a three fold problem and ‘not knowing how to fight Soyuz’ is simply one of them.
The only time I defended Soyuz - period - was my initial stance when Soyuz was first released was ‘it was strong’ as I refused to kneejerk until I had more experience against it and other people’s opinions. My initial posts in this thread reflect it.
My stance also changed (although not any time recently) with experience and hearing others: Does it need to be toned down (read: nerfed)? Yes.
Don’t worry i didnt take your answer as being brutish (at least not towards me). Especially since i really was genuinely asking out of interest and in no way misunderstood your arguments as defending the state of the sojuz’ implementation in game as well as its subpar counters (maybe apart from the iowa)
Yeah this is kinda what i said with the aft turret, but if we consider the whole ship to be angled somewhat well then the aft section is even more angled than the bow section so that brings both areas to comparable armor levels. Considering blacking out sections sometimes seemingly takes ages (even with the yamatos 46 cm guns), Engine room being about as well armored as the magazines through the main armor belt that basically leaves no other options than shoot at around waterline or barbettes and pray for something to happen there quicker than something happens to you. which is unlikely if he shoots you at all. My point being, how should the average person or anyone know how to fight it when there is no actual way if the sojuz simply angles and all you can do is just evade, get into cover or not play naval at top tier? Sure you can also just evade it if you don’t launch wt in the first place but i mean…i know you don’t fight it especially not in rb, is that the right way? I think, yes
Then youve got the issue of somehow simply disappearing barbette and ammo elevator fires that just vanish way quicker than ive ever extinguished any fire on any ship myself (as i said might be a bug/malfunction of the impact indicator window top right), ammo elevator fire seemingly taking ages to reach its magazines (which are somewhere and nowhere since in game model in module view doesnt represent the actual damage and/or cdk model at all and are just c&p from the khronshtadt afaik) WHILE still running ammo through those on fire barbettes and ammo elevators through invisible bulkheads and fire proof doors or whatever since no ammo storage inside the barbettes, which is weird in itself. (If i had to theoretically operate such a ship i would do anything but run ammo and propellant bags through an on fire ammo elevator, but thats just me, maybe in the russian navy fires burn at a cozy 30° and are no problem whatsoever).
BUT EVEN if all of this fails and its magazines explode, The insane tnt equivalent of the same number of primary ammo shells like on the iowa and the yamato per each magazine plus the propellant bags which speed its 1100 kg shells up to an insane 830 m/s (Iowa: 1225 kg, 760 m/s and Yamato 1460 kg and 780 m/s) simply never seem to explode or sink the ship as a whole. Id really love to understand how that works. More TNT more boom, id at least trust the almighty snail to have that somehow modelled somewhat accurately. But maybe magical sovjet he filler just bigger boom if boom inside enemy ship or what? Yet the yamato seems to explode when one of its sailors accidentaly drops a cigarette on the deck, or just loses 80% of its crew by a hit into the engine room (similar to the amagi which according to gaijin seems to have 600 sailors inside its engine room in a combat scenario, which can be set on fire and explode if you hit its exhaust funnels with sap or he :-D) and 2200 rounds of 12.7 mm aa ammo going poof midships. (while not being able to empty its main or secondary magazines afaik). I mean its just been 7 months, how long can it take them to realize something is way off? TF is that supposed to be?
Of course if an enemy takes evasive action the shells won’t hit, but i never said that, i said that, in arcade, the shells will land where you aim, at the spot on the ocean that you (or more precisely the game) was targetting.
Now, about the paper ship, laying thing steel plates on a dry dock is a world’s difference from actually finishing a battleship worthy of the name. When you say it you forget that the soviets didn’t have the armor, never tested the turrets, never put the power plant through any sort of trials, even though they had the necessary parts for years before discarding them, the fact that they couldn’t make rivetting of good enough quality to hold the thing together, the fact that they studied building battleships for nearly 10 years after the end of the war and didn’t get anywhere, the fact that they couldn’t build a heavy cruiser that performed well, or that when armor plates became obsolete, they tried with the kirovs and still came up with an absolute mess. Honestly, giving the soviet/russian navy’s recordbelieving they could do anything close to the size of the soyuz is like believing the kid who’s got low grades from kindergarten to highschool is gonna suddenly get into harvard. Now if you honestly believe that, you can’t accuse anyone of having any sort of bias.
I don’t really get why you seem so angry? And im quite sure the dissing is also rather unnecessary unless you want to stir trouble where there is none?
No one here said that he/she truly believes that (i think)? Unfortunately that doesnt matter (what we believe/think we know/what our stance toward that whole historical aspect is or might be) since its the snails decision what and how to put into the game and they put it into the game in the state it’s in now and with the peers that we’re all very happy about (/s in case that wasnt obvious)? Theres nothing we can do about it now being in the game despite voicing our discontent about the state of gameplay in that BR area and pointing towards inaccuracies (bit hard with a ship that was 20% finished 80, almost 90 years ago and most probably rather secret even back then) and towards stuff that just doesnt work for the game to even be slightly fair or balanced (not that i think the snail cares about such trivialities a lot :-D)
ERGO we are most likely just wasting precious lifetime. At least its fun bashing a metal husk that had its best days sitting in a drydock that is now clowning on (almost) every other battleship that ever sailed the seas in a “semirealistic” pcgame
I’m not angry, sorry if it sounded that way, just discussing it. Got at little aggressive at the beginning because they got patronizing while claiming i said something i didn’t
Thats better, feel free to edit your post and delete the offensive parts and its all cool. I just think you really misunderstood the person you replied to and theres no need for this wacky passive agressiveness and dissing people thats flooding social media anyhow (not sure if that describes it accurately in english)
I for myself am struggling way more with hitting maneuvering targets in arcade than i do in rb. i cant stand the arcade aiming. But maybe it just takes more time getting used to (which i dont wanna invest since for myself rb aiming feels way more convenient than guessing where and at what point the autoaim is autocorrecting for course/speed changes and when it doesnt, while in rb you have those infos: range and speed update and you can aim for the distance you want your guns to shoot at and not randomize the whole thing)
Same, i feel it’s because of 2 reasons, 1. players change directions more frequently, which doesn’t happen in realistic because if the ship is not level the shells will land somewhere else other than where you aim so moving too much sacrifices your offensive capability and that means less scoring. 2. When you move your mouse, you’re actually changing the position relative to the target where you want your shells to land, so it’s much harder to predict and moving your mouse might simply not do what you think it is doing, while in realistic, if you move your mouse up it makes the shells land a bit farther, in arcade they may go diagonally depending on the target’s speed and direction
Would have been imported from Germany but 1941 happened. Had Russia chose to waste steel, time and manpower to finish it, the plates would have been improvised.
Guns and turrets were tested. Test results were allegedly poor but they served in defense of Leningrad.
This was a quality control issue. Not all rivets were like this.
Project A140 took nearly a decade of research. Constant redesigns and research of various aspects.
The writing was on the wall for battleships during the war. Russia simply chose not to finish the project out of pragmatism.
The Kirovs were a shitshow of constant changes and requests. The fact they were even finished with the constant changing is nothing short of surprising.
Soyuz and her sisters simply provided no strategic advantage against an enemy spamming mostly U-boats and smaller ships. They would have suffered what happened to Tirpitz or what happened to Shinano: Bombed in port or torp’d in transit.
As for whether or not Soyuz would have actually been good in real life is a different story. And an answer I don’t have.
Edit
Where is this inappropriate? Please fix the auto mod
Fine, the soviets could build it, it would have the armor performance of a US standard battleship, the guns would be ww1 standard, the rivetting would be good enough to hold some parts of the ship from falling apart. Seems like a good ship to me, meanwhile in-game the US and UK are not gonna get the battleships that they could actually build simply because they’re not gonna threaten gaijin with gulag and therefore, japan gets their unfortunate messy giant battleship, every other nation gets ships 20k tons lighter, and finally the soviet union gets a paper ship that ignores all failures in it’s design and testing.
Yeah, unfortunately gaijin (or at least the forum mods) won’t accept the montana class’s power plant, armor belt and secondaries being produced because the US didn’t bother to start construction, so i guess above the iowa we’ll have an iowa sister ship but with missiles lol.
Coastal spawn for CIWS and tomahawk equipped late refit Iowa being unable to move when xD
Also: let me beach my yamato the way the emperor intended and most importantly.
Gib ship horns and russian monitor novgorod
I’ll look into it, what i know for sure is that the secondaries ended up going to the midway class carriers, as those were originally planned to have 5in/38, there were speculations of putting those in kentucky and illinois but those never got completed and shell storage would hold too few shells to please doctrine at the time.