You think they came up with Turm 3 out of nothing?
True. Though 3 axis stabilizer on such a giant gun while in rough seas would look hilarious. Now pls leak blueprint of 15 of these on Kaneda’s 500 000 ton monstrosity and pictures and proof of that blueprint being laid down and im yours forever xD
Definitely: ground you can go as deep or wide as you feasibly need.
On a ship you’re vastly limited by space, ammunition placement and other such logistical issues to get the shells to the breaches.
My opinion is if there isn’t enough real world data and you’re stuck referencing solely proposed paper stats, it’s open season on balancing as necessary for the health of the game.
For example: Pr23 can stand to lose a decent chunk of explosive filler and a slight overall armor nerf and she’d still be extremely strong.
7 Likes
If we’re taking soyuz as a bare minimum for implementation…
Spoiler
Looks laid down to me
3 Likes
If that is one of those faulty rivets in the keel it could at least be replaced rather easily at this stage of the project^^
EDIT: Oh no, just saw now, this is the start of the laid down keel of IJN Zipang? Can it be? :-D
2 Likes
I was expecting a bed ngl
By gaijin’s qualification, what is a ship?
Is it an object that floats? Or is a mere idea of a ship makes one? Like friend-ship, you know.
For as long as we assume that soyuz has been able to be built with not a single compromise and design change due to how poor soviet engineering and building was, or how poor were their resources - we could safely assume that 1 more year into the war and Germany would’ve rolled out Ratte.
3 Likes
There was a lot more than one rivet laid.
In historical sense - it’s the same
It isn’t as a fair bit of work was put into the hull.
Basically every single country represented in the naval trees present in WT had a better naval industry compared to the USSR at the start of WW2 (yes, even Italy and France)
And it makes sense, russia does not have a lot of access to sea and when it does, it’s blocked by ice half the time (well used to anyway).
Cold war is where USSR’s shipyards got pretty good.
WW2 and modern days are/were more complicated though
3 Likes
Work? Soviets can’t do that.
Both were laid down around the same time roughly.
Yamato 1937
SovetSky 1939
An invasion does make a lot of changes to wartime doctrine depending on what kind of war it is.
I don’t know the full history of Soviet naval building off hand.
But constantly people say or have said during WW2 russia couldn’t do this or that. Couldn’t make good tanks etc etc.
But on practically a whim they shaped their production to fight a German invasion.
Counter point. Due to Japanese tanks being very poor in WW2 not only in design, but reliability, (mainly because most of its gdp was spent on naval and aircraft) should we too nerf and or chat about those?
Japan has a lot of fake tanks, and tanks that quite outperform their real life counterparts.
I wasn’t talking specifically in the sense of naval building. Rather it’s general capacity
But what does that have to do with naval industrial capabilities? Its not like you can build a battleship in a repurposed tractor factory. Shipbuilding especially military shipbuilding is a highly specalised industry even today.
5 Likes
How many capital ships did the Soviets build before the invasion? The Japanese had multiple fleet carriers and battleships. How many carriers and battleships did the Soviets field?
3 Likes
yeah but when discussing Soyuz’s potential capabilities that’s going to be the main factor
2 Likes
Tanks and planes are far, far simpler to set up production for than capital ships. If you take a tractor factory (Which the Soviets had a great many of, thanks to their efforts to crash mechanise their agricultural sector), you already have most of the expertise and tooling. All you need then is gun and armor production.
It’s also worth noting, the Soviets had severe issues with the quality of their tanks, especially early war. This ranged from simple issues like cut corners (Tanks would be shipped out missing sealant, optics, even chairs in some circumstances), to more systemic ones like their overhardening of armor, making it vulnerable to lethal spalling even on non-penetrating hits.
There was also their general lack of radios, and how every single tank they made until late war lacked a cupola, giving their tank crews simply appalling situation awareness. This is a large part of why their supposedly superior tanks had such awful combat records during the early war.
But that’s getting off topic. Just know that the “armoured might of the Red Army” didn’t come about from Stalin snapping his fingers. It took years and years of cut corners, design flaws, and massive losses on the front lines for enough combat experience to trickle back and produce an actually good tank.
They have two, the Ho-Ris, but that’s a separate argument. FWIW, I’d be OK with them replacing the “production”, as it is a historical abomination.
I’m sure you wouldn’t mind actually writing up some examples? As far as I know, all the Japanese tanks are performing as designed. Reliability is one issue that isn’t model, to the great relief of the entire late war German lineup (As well as the Soviets. T-34s were known to drive around with a spare transmission on their backs, so they could quickly and easily replace it when it inevitably destroyed itself due to the previously mentioned overhardening on the gears).
Either way, even if they were overperforming compared to their IRL counterparts, the difference is that they aren’t meta defining. Hell, most war time Japanese tanks aren’t even that good. The Chi-Nu in particular is actually pretty awful.
The only tank I’d say is particularly strong is the Ho-Ri Production, and again, I’d point to what I said above.
4 Likes