41cm type 0 common.
Granted this is 1914.
Soyuz was built during the very start of WW2. With this in mind, the shells shouldn’t have such a monstrous bursting charge compared to other nations’ 40.6cm equivalents.
1 Like
you can’t see WW2? Japan doesn’t have HE shell for main combatant ships until 1940, why old armored cruisers restored and took into Sino-Japanese war in 1937.
British CPC with higher filler rate XD
The guns were built in 1914. I should have made that clearer.
All I can see from this is an 880kg shell.
Doesn’t matter. Japan only use AP shell for their 16’’ gun until 1940(not weird as US navy also use only AP for their fast battleships until they develop HC shell in 1942)
Under there, 65 kg of explosive and 7.4%. Marginally less than 7.9% of Soyuz’s SAP shell.
Actually, Soyuz’s SAP shell were made and fired during Great Patriotic war, although in small quantity. I can’t understand why you call it fake shell.
Nowhere did I say it was a fake shell.
I said it shouldn’t have such a massive payload. Because it shouldn’t.
1 Like
Again you’re making assumption with no clue.
Imperial Russians made 14’’ SAPCBC(although it’s name is HE, it has only base fuze and cap/ballistic cap) with 75 kg of tnt burst inside 747.8kg shell at ww1 (and also at WW2 as Soviet Army use it on their railway gun)
Royal navy operates 18’’ CPC with 110 kg filler on their monitors.
Why 88 kg is ‘shouldn’t’ payload? There are already shells that massively overload on percentage or purre amount of filler in old days than Soviet 16’’
It is a 1108kg mass SAPCBC shell with a capped ballistic cap.
The APCBC is a 1108kg shell. With a capped ballistic cap.
When the SAPBC has more filler than a purpose built HE of larger caliber with a shell that weighs nearly 300kg more, there is a fundamental balance problem.
Edit
Something has to give.
The 34.3cm HE from britain is exactly that: 88kg of explosive filler with no penetration.
Edit 2
All of the shells on the british side? Yeah, they have no penetration in comparison.
Soyuz however doesn’t have this weakness.
2 Likes
Pre Yamato buff id agree.
Post its buff it’s quite good. Far more survivable than it was.
Also. It’s always been able to one tap the SovetSky.
That’s the largest killer of mine. Is the Yamato, followed by the Iowa.
According to stat shark, the 2nd best vessel in the game right now is the USS South Dakota.
If you have ‘problem’ with it, then blame Japanese navy.
Even Iowa’s high explosive that weighs 600 kg less have more filler than Yamato’s.
And its very historical.
You want to compare 635 kg no base fuze, no ballistic cap shell to 1108 kg base fuze, ballistic cap shell?
British 15’’ CPC was good penetraton in game once. Gaijin just nerf as others cry about it.
1 Like
There is a point where historical accuracy has to go out the window for fun and/or game balance. Which has been the entire crux of my argument since the beginning.
Both have 88kg of explosive filler. The point is one doesn’t have the penetration to instantly kill a same tier battleship from 20km away.
Let’s not forget the power creep, among other things.
1 Like
Imo, that is the point of battle rating though.
If vehicles are balanced via other traits, then BR becomes irrelevant.
You could have HMS Invincible buffed to be the same performance as Yamato, and that would just be wierd
The issue though, is the paper ships, like Soyuz, they should be balanced where they are so clearly overperforming
1 Like
Clearly, it doesn’t work when you got 5.3 cruisers that are straight up in a better position than many 5.7s or even 6.0s.
Or specific 8.0s (Tosa) that make anything up to 8.3 borderline irrelevant.
I have no issue with incomplete ships in the game - More ships is always good. I have an issue when something straight up overpowers an entire bracket into being unfun.
2 Likes
yeah, your not wrong, naval balance has failed too date, but I dont think the solution is to fake model stuff.
Besides, we know how that would end. Soviet stuff would inexplicably become exceedingly OP
4 Likes
Maybe it’s not Soyz/Iowa overpowered, but others underpowered against each other and waste to much time on killing even weaker targets due to problems in current damage system, maps and gameplay overall?
Sure
Holy moly we have a true and honest intellectual powerhouse here, you’re right the sussy soysus isn’t op, everything else is just underpowered! how we missed this key insight I’m not sure but thank you for pointing it out for the rest of us!
6 Likes
Show us where Soyz touched you on this doll.
1 Like
The Soyuz has 3x Triple 16" guns, 6x Twin 6" guns and a host of AA weapons. If you cannot take out what looks to be a destroyer, then that is a major skill issue and one of the worst excuses I’ve ever heard.
Even in battleships with weak close in protection and dreadful maneuverability, it would still be a major skill issue, as why the hell are you getting into that position in the first place. Clearly you simply overextended
If you are really that worried about encountering a destroyer in a Soyuz, stay at range, simple not a lot it can really do with its guns and dont sail constantly in a straight line, if a torp hits you, its random chance
1 Like
Were did you get all of that from about destroyer vs Soyz?
My first intrepretation of what you wrote, sounded like you were saying the Soyuz couldnt touch the destroyer shown, but its been a long day and I now see what you were trying to say.
Yep, have a rest.
btw. Shimakaze or something similar with good torps probably one of the best options vs Soyz in AB.