Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

I would have preferred Omaha, Emden (new)/Koln/Nurnberg, Leander/Emerald and Kirov. Warrior and Trento are just way too old for my taste.

Pretty sure emden was in the patch notes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 381
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Admirals, We would like to share information about the upcoming major update of Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. Here is what is included: Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts Alpha-5 SPECIAL

Tomorrow we release! Sorry for waiting so long captains!

Guys, the team needs a little more time for testing. We want to make sure that the new damage system is not containing any bugs. Thank you a lot for your patience!

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

Imagine weegees rage when they see kremlin getting smashed by german bb's lol.

 

EDIT: forgot the word see whoops.

What!? you do realize that Project 23 (soviet union) class battleships designed and laid down in the 1930s were to rival the Yamato right?  The Yamato out class the Bismark by miles, Bismarck doesn't even come close to even Project 23 let alone some Russian ship designed in the 1950s. people need to stop mystifying the German.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, uwu said:

What!? you do realize that Project 23 (soviet union) class battleships designed and laid down in the 1930s were to rival the Yamato right?  The Yamato out class the Bismark by miles, Bismarck doesn't even come close to even Project 23 let alone some Russian ship designed in the 1950s. people need to stop mystifying the German.

Talking about miss kremlin not the soyuz class.

Also was a joke but nevermind...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, uwu said:

What!? you do realize that Project 23 (soviet union) class battleships designed and laid down in the 1930s were to rival the Yamato right?  The Yamato out class the Bismark by miles, Bismarck doesn't even come close to even Project 23 let alone some Russian ship designed in the 1950s. people need to stop mystifying the German.

Few things fail to outclass Bismarck. But the Project 23-class battleships (Sovetskii Soyuz) happen to be on the list of the things which that German battleship could defeat. They're amazing on paper - most Soviet designs are. But much like the Imperial Japanese Navy, the technology simply isn't there - and furthermore, in the Soviet case, the infrastructure and experience to build and maintain ships of that size is simply nonexistent in the prewar era. The technology to run their turbines at the desired output and the propeller design to withstand that (+70,000 CV per shaft, and the Soviets practiced German three-shaft shenanigans with the Project 23 type) simple isn't available in the 1930s and 1940s.

Of course, there's also the fact that the glorious 40.6-cm/50 B-37 gun was able to penetrate calibre-thickness plate at ~13,500 m, in official firing reports. For reference, the contemporary /45-cal rifles of the North Carolina and South Dakota-class battleships can do the same thing at about 20,000 m, the German 38-cm can penetrate at ~18,000 m and the Italian gun does it at ~23,000 m - nearly twice the range of the Soviet weapon. This is leaving aside the Yamato's rifles, which aren't even a fair comparison.

To cut a long-winded ramble short: don't believe everything you hear about Project 23. Especially not a certain Russian gaming company's propaganda about it beating the 'cream of the world's shipbuilding' and 'had it been completed, it would have been the third-most powerful battleship in the world'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shiki said:

To cut a long-winded ramble short: don't believe everything you hear about Project 23. Especially not a certain Russian gaming company's propaganda about it beating the 'cream of the world's shipbuilding' and 'had it been completed, it would have been the third-most powerful battleship in the world'.

1. Belarusian company with head office in Cyprus is not a "Russian company". But one of its many offices is located in Russia, yes... yet 4 offices are in the USA. So, the very notion of "Russian propaganda" is utterly absurd. But I suppose in WoWs community, to which you obviously belong, it doesn't matter - so long as it can be used as a justification for "Russian bias" as a reason for the game's flawed balance and questionable content. 

2. Notion of "pre war technology not being up to the task" mat sound reasonable, but at its core it is also absurd. The ships were in very early stages in 1940 (and changed several times throughout development), and once the war started - they were essentially frozen. After the war ended, they were cancelled due to objective lack of need in them. This means that there is no way you, a forum user from 2020, could possibly be aware of Soviet procurement strategy and design plans - you cannot claim "facts" that didn't happen. The ships you're arguing "were shit" simply did not exist in anywhere near-completed state in order to sustain your claims. So, while you may strongly disagree with their representation in WoWs, you would do well by understanding the difference between it, and the real thing.

3. On this forum, people like proofs. I mean, look at them... they're naval strategy nerds. So, as nice as your story may sound, you're gonna need more than that in order to validate your points. Otherwise, you just waste time typing.  

P.S. Personally, I don't really care for Pr.23, your objectivity, etc. But I am finding your insinuations pretty amusing. 

Edited by Shaftoe
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The studio that is in charge of World of Warships is not in Belorussia, it is Lesta studios in St. Petersburg. Almost all the people involved are Russian. 

2. As somebody who has been among the top players in world of Warships I can tell you the RU bias is real. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, uwu said:

What!? you do realize that Project 23 (soviet union) class battleships designed and laid down in the 1930s were to rival the Yamato right?  The Yamato out class the Bismark by miles, Bismarck doesn't even come close to even Project 23 let alone some Russian ship designed in the 1950s. people need to stop mystifying the German.

Is mystifying even the right word? Think what you were going for is "making the German proposed designs mythical". To which I agree. They were paper designs that were not really achievable. Exactly like your Project 23. As for it rivaling a Yamato, not really, Yamato was actually built and sailed. What year was the last Soviet BB built? Even its concept was lacking as from what I read, they could not build armor of sufficient quality and thickness. And 9 16in guns of the type the other reply mentioned don't rival Yamatos 18.1s even on paper it seems. 

Edited by madham82
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, madham82 said:

Is mystifying even the right word? Think what you were going for is "making the German proposed designs mythical". To which I agree. They were paper designs that were not really achievable. Exactly like your Project 23. As for it rivaling a Yamato, no Yamato was actually built and sailed. What year was the last Soviet BB built? Even its concept was lacking as from what I read, they could not build armor of sufficient quality and thickness. And 9 16in guns of the type the other reply mentioned don't rival Yamatos 18.1s even on paper it seems. 

uh what? there were 2 Yamato class battleships built, IJN Yamato and IJN Musashi with a third converted to a carrier iirc

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

uh what? there were 2 Yamato class battleships built, IJN Yamato and IJN Musashi with a third converted to a carrier iirc

Think you misread my post. My point was Yamato was actually built and sailed. Project 23 never really left paper. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah ok, the way you worded it seemed like you said, there was no Yamato built or sailed. Should prolly double check your sentese, "As for it rivaling a Yamato, no Yamato was actually built and sailed." this one specifically.

either that or my english is failing me lol

Edited by Bluishdoor76
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

ah ok, the way you worded it seemed like you said, there was no Yamato built or sailed. Should prolly double check your sentese, "As for it rivaling a Yamato, no Yamato was actually built and sailed." this one specifically.

either that or my english is failing me lol

Yep poor phrasing. No worries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

Yeah they're the same guys. Nick = Darth

Hence his forum picture haha

HOLY CRAP. 

I just want to say THANK YOU.

 

You guys made the TW series bearable. I am SO GLAD that I bought this game now, at least I was able to repay you a bit for all the great work you did for free in TW.

 

You guys ROCK 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

1. Belarusian company with head office in Cyprus is not a "Russian company". But one of its many offices is located in Russia, yes... yet 4 offices are in the USA. So, the very notion of "Russian propaganda" is utterly absurd. But I suppose in WoWs community, to which you obviously belong, it doesn't matter - so long as it can be used as a justification for "Russian bias" as a reason for the game's flawed balance and questionable content. 

2. Notion of "pre war technology not being up to the task" mat sound reasonable, but at its core it is also absurd. The ships were in very early stages in 1940 (and changed several times throughout development), and once the war started - they were essentially frozen. After the war ended, they were cancelled due to objective lack of need in them. This means that there is no way you, a forum user from 2020, could possibly be aware of Soviet procurement strategy and design plans - you cannot claim "facts" that didn't happen. The ships you're arguing "were shit" simply did not exist in anywhere near-completed state in order to sustain your claims. So, while you may strongly disagree with their representation in WoWs, you would do well by understanding the difference between it, and the real thing.

3. On this forum, people like proofs. I mean, look at them... they're naval strategy nerds. So, as nice as your story may sound, you're gonna need more than that in order to validate your points. Otherwise, you just waste time typing.  

P.S. Personally, I don't really care for Pr.23, your objectivity, etc. But I am finding your insinuations pretty amusing. 

I really don't care to bat around accusations about WG's level of Russia bias around, I'm sure that conversation's been had exhaustively around the internet, but in regards to your second and third points...

There is plenty of information available as to what the VMF and Soviet government were intending to achieve pre-war, and how those actually turned out. The idea that someone writing in 2020 wouldn't possibly have read about that and couldn't possibly know what they were talking about is very presumptive, especially given the number of books that have been published on the subject.  I will not speak for another user - they have more than enough agency to defend themselves on their own. However, I can very much vouch for the fact they're not factually wrong with what they're saying.

Like many of the pre-war Soviet designs, the Projekt 23 battleships were the fruit of excessively optimistic assumptions based on likewise overly optimistic economic plans. The success of the first five year plans lead the Soviet Union to believe their economic output would be much more in the late 1930s than it actually was, and this likewise applied to the level of technology that was available to them. One of the best examples of this is the fact that the Soviets expected, in 1937, to be able to build and commission fifteen Projekt 23 battleships by 1947 - which was simply impossible, given the limitations of Soviet production, and the percent of production that was actually usable due to wildly varying quality. The fate of one of the four battleships - Sovetskaya Belorussiya - is a golden example, as the entire ship had to be scrapped after six months of construction, thanks to the fact a whopping 70,000 faulty rivets were found in the design. The soviet naval industry was simply not up to the task of building such large warships, nevermind four at once - and fifteen by 1947 was a pipe dream.

The point of the above user on the machinery isn't off at all, either. In this era, shaft loading generally did not exceed 55,000 shp on full normal power, and even on overload going past 60,000 shp was generally a no-go, since even the best 1930s and 1940s propeller technology would start to suffer heavily from cavitation at these loadings. At 70,000 shp this would be extreme. But the Projekt 23's? They wanted to get up to 77,000 shaft horsepower per shaft in order to hit 28 knots (231,000 shp total). All, keep in mind, on six boilers. This is far beyond the best turbines and propeller designs of the era. 

The designs are highly questionable on paper, considering what was possible in the period, and this is made worse by the material conditions of the ships and the Soviet naval infrastructure of the era. Their list of issues is fairly extensive, and there are numerous sources that can back this up. Stephen McLaughlin's Russian and Soviet Battleships is probably the best English-language source on Russian capital ships of the big-gun era, and Jurgen Rohwer's Stalin's Ocean-Going Fleet is an excellent look at Soviet naval policy during his reign.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

1. Belarusian company with head office in Cyprus is not a "Russian company". But one of its many offices is located in Russia, yes... yet 4 offices are in the USA. So, the very notion of "Russian propaganda" is utterly absurd. But I suppose in WoWs community, to which you obviously belong, it doesn't matter - so long as it can be used as a justification for "Russian bias" as a reason for the game's flawed balance and questionable content. 

2. Notion of "pre war technology not being up to the task" mat sound reasonable, but at its core it is also absurd. The ships were in very early stages in 1940 (and changed several times throughout development), and once the war started - they were essentially frozen. After the war ended, they were cancelled due to objective lack of need in them. This means that there is no way you, a forum user from 2020, could possibly be aware of Soviet procurement strategy and design plans - you cannot claim "facts" that didn't happen. The ships you're arguing "were shit" simply did not exist in anywhere near-completed state in order to sustain your claims. So, while you may strongly disagree with their representation in WoWs, you would do well by understanding the difference between it, and the real thing.

3. On this forum, people like proofs. I mean, look at them... they're naval strategy nerds. So, as nice as your story may sound, you're gonna need more than that in order to validate your points. Otherwise, you just waste time typing.  

P.S. Personally, I don't really care for Pr.23, your objectivity, etc. But I am finding your insinuations pretty amusing. 

This is bait. Not only is it bait, but it's prime bait. Whether I play World of Warships or not shouldn't particularly matter, and it doesn't to me - but, you made the insinuation that I wasn't a naval nerd. Now, I'm no naval strategy nerd like you types - I focus on the technical aspects. But that point stands, and so I'm going to accept.

On to your points.

In answer to 1. - I invite you to view their video on the Project 23-type battleship Sovetskii Soyuz, which is what I was referencing when I spoke of 'Russian propaganda', which could more correctly be termed 'Soviet propaganda'. As for my belonging to the World of Warships community, sure. This is a niche market and it's one of the only games for it - but that's not to do with the matter at hand, which is their real-life technical characteristics.

For 2. and 3., this one's gonna take a while. Let's start at the beginning, hm?

Issue A - This is less to do with the ships, and more the industry expected to support those ships - the disconnect between the realities of what the Soviets were capable of, and what a certain famous leader assumed it was capable of. In order to understand why Pr.23 was quite so bad, we must look at the history of the Russian navy. As you're an informed individual, I'll assume you know that the Russian Revolution, resultant Civil War, stagnation under the Soviet naval policies (or lack thereof) and eventually the Great Purge thoroughly picked the Russian naval design teams clean of all those bright, talented individuals who had led the Russian post-1905 naval renaissance until 1917. Our certain famous leader expected, and overestimated, that his 5-year-plans would remedy this.

Now, the best way for Russia to breath life back into its stagnant naval policy was foreign aid - of course, you, being an informed individual, know how that turned out. Italy was brought in and the Project 26-class light cruisers (Kirov class) were built with their technical aid, based on the characteristics of the Italian Montecuccoli-class cruisers of about 7,500 tons. I have to mention these since this is where you first see the Soviets setting themselves up for the inevitable issues to follow - Ansaldo had designed the original Project 26 hull on the basis that the artillery was to be three twin turrets, using 180-mm calibre guns. The Soviets decided they wanted to use three triple turrets of 180-mm calibre, with the guns mounted in a single slide - being an informed individual, I'm sure you know how that turned out. Additionally, they opted for the machinery of the Duca d'Aosta class which had succeeded the Montecuccolis, and accordingly had to redesign the hull slightly and sacrifice vertical armour protection, which they gained back in horizontal protection and protective plating for the gunhouse walls and roof - as an informed individual, I'm sure you couldn't call a 50-mm-plated tin can a 'turret' either.

In 1936, Ansaldo returned to the Soviet Union - this time, including in their sales plans for a 41,000-t battleship project, which as an informed individual you would know is UP.41. This was an adaptation of an Italian project that began in 1935, the genesis of the Littorio class, really, as the Italian designers ultimately opted to go for 38.1-cm artillery in order to reduce weight and improve the other characteristics of the vessel on the desired Treaty displacement of 35,560 (metric) tons, corresponding to 35,000 (long) tons standard. These designs were not the predecessors to the Pr.23 battleships - the Italian ships were armed with 3x3 406mm guns, but that was where the design's similarities largely ended, with 32 kts speed on eight boilers and four shafts. The secondary armament, as the informed individual must already know, was also superior - at four triple 180-mm-gun turrets and twelve twin 100-mm HA gun mounts.

As you're an informed individual, you already know that while the Russians didn't use UP.41 as a basis for what would eventually become Pr.23, it did influence Soviet naval thinking - but, as with Kirov, what the designers arrived at for the pleasure of their superiors wasn't necessarily based in the reality of what the fledgling Russian industrial base was capable of. The heavy industries developed in the Imperial era were nonexistent and had to be rebuilt from scratch, and the Soviet-born industry was in no way ready to build large battleships of nearly 60,000 tons - they had struggled on the 8,000-ton ships of the Pr.26 type, remember. This would have been a massive undertaking for any nation, even the dominant naval powers of Britain, America and Japan during this time period - and Russian naval industry, as the informed individual must be aware, was in no way able to support the herculean effort of building even one battleship of such dimensions at the time, let alone four at once (with fifteen planned for service by 1947). An informed individual like yourself is more than aware that, even during the height of their war effort, the Americans only produced the South Dakotas and Iowas - the Montanas were cancelled before ever being laid down due to the 'carrier spam' of 1944-45 and the steel shortages due to the large numbers of ships already produced. Build times were on the order of seven years, or more - and the informed individual must, in light of our recent trip through history, assume more.

Now we return to the issue we touched on a bit earlier - quality control and supply. Quite simply put, they were terrible. Each ship required on the order of around 23,000 tons of armour-grade steel, and of this quantity, almost none was delivered - 10,000 tons of armour steel was ordered in 1939, but only 1,800 tons was actually delivered and of that almost half had to be rejected due to being below acceptable limits for ballistic impact. About 1,000 tons of armour steel was accepted for use - just ten percent of the value originally ordered. If you multiplied the delivery rate of useable armour steel tenfold in 1940, you still would not meet the specified delivery dates of the nine ships that were actually ordered by 1947. Armour steel wasn't the only area suffering, either - machinery castings could take anywhere from fifteen to twenty tries to create usable examples. And, of course, you have the Sovetskaya Belorussiya, which had upwards of 70,000 faulty rivets found within 6 months of beginning construction, was suspended, deemed a total write-off, and promptly scrapped for metal.

Issue B - We'll start with the technical issues here. Cavitation. As you're no doubt aware, the Pr.23-class battleships were designed for 231,000 shaft horsepower (hereafter 'shp') divided among three shafts. Basic arithmetic yields 77,000 shp per shaft, right? No problems so far - wait, no, there it is. That's about 10,000 more shp per shaft than any warship of the Second World War era was capable of sustaining for any length of time. Propeller and shaft design aren't sufficiently advanced at the time of their design (the late 1930s, with an expected completion date by 1945 - seven years is a long time to be building a battleship), so you get cavitation - little bubbles that implode and release a lot of heat. That's not bad, is it? Well, yes, yes it is. Ask the French how cavitation was going for them when they had to replace not only the propellers on most of their cruisers and destroyers in the 30s (see Jordan & Moulin's French Cruisers 1922-1956 & French Destroyers 1922-1956), but even some of the belt armour for the earlier Treaty ships like Duquesne. But then again, this is a merit towards Sovetskii Soyuz - after all, once her propellers disintegrate, they can get all the shp they want! They won't be going anywhere, but that's a minor issue, eh?

Issue C - Protection. Soviet armour inferiority's been beaten on enough that the informed individual such as yourself should be more than aware of their inability to make cemented plates above 230-mm thickness. The main armour belt and all vertical protective thicknesses above this, then, would have had to use face-hardened plate, reducing effectiveness against large-calibre shell.

Issue D - Main artillery. I touched on this before, but we'll visit it again. As you're an informed individual, you should already know: official Soviet estimates - and internal reports would try to upsell this gun, bear in mind, due to the ongoing purges - credited the 406mm/50 B-37 with penetration of calibre thickness (406mm thick) plate at about 13,500 m, with an angle of fall of 25 degrees or so. Not only that, but it took a year to make a single gun, which was also credited with uneven performance (by Russian-language sources such as the Encyclopedia of the Fatherland's Artillery by Shirokorad) due to low-quality powder and shell characteristics. Flat on, that's around 45-cm of penetration - which is what you would expect from guns like the Italian 32-cm/44 against Japanese VH.

Issue E - Auxiliary battery. We'll ignore the 152-mm guns, which were actually 'not bad' for their calibre (despite, ultimately, being wasted tonnage for the 'future' these ships were designed to fight in), and focus on the 6x twin 100-mm mountings expected to provide heavy AA defense. Obviously, for a ship expected to complete in 1945, this is utterly inadequate - and that's not calling the technical ability of the guns into question, as by all accounts I can find the model used for Pr.26 (the ones planned for the Pr.23-class ships) were quite literally inoperable as delivered, and only gave very poor service even after they could be rendered 'usable' in 1946. Well, at least they're not the French 138.6-mm/50, right? Shells don't fall back down the hoists - oh wait, they're worse. They fall out of the gun breech instead

Sources

McLaughlin's Russian and Soviet Battleships. Undoubtedly the best work of its type in the English language, as while you're an informed individual you may not speak Russian.

Rowher's Stalin's Ocean-Going Fleet. Again, a good English-language source, this time for the motives and ideas behind Soviet naval planning.

Thank you for being a part of this short study on the flaws of the Pr.23-class battleships. While we didn't touch on but the barest of lists - we didn't mention her flawed underwater protective system, faulty welding, lack of some basic measures and so on and so forth - I hope this has been a little informative.

And now, for an alt history scenario created by a friend of mine:

image0.jpg

Edited by Shiki
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Guys, the team needs a little more time for testing. We want to make sure that the new damage system is not containing any bugs. Thank you a lot for your patience!

 

tenor.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

One of the best examples of this is the fact that the Soviets expected, in 1937, to be able to build and commission fifteen Projekt 23 battleships by 1947...

As it actually looked in the eyes of the soviet admirals of that time:

War has begun

Stalin: ... and now let's talk about why the Soviet fleet is not defending Motherland properly. What can you say in your defense, comrade admiral?

Soviet admiral: Well, Comrade Stalin, because we don’t have fifteen battleships, of course! The fleet speaks of the need for these ships all the thirtieth years, look at these documents (transfers papers to Stalin)!

Stalin (studying documents): Are you sure that you cannot protect the working people of the Soviet Union without fifteen battleships?

Soviet admiral: Comrade Stalin, the Soviet fleet is ready to defend the gains of the revolution even without ships at all, and we are all ready to fight to the last drop of blood on land! (army generals grin). But for the proper defense of the socialist shores, without fifteen battleships can not be achieved for sure. We have scientifically based calculations! (transfers more documents to Stalin)

Stalin: That sounds convincing enough. And it seems that we cannot shoot or send you to the Gulag today, Comrade Admiral. But each catastrophe has a name, surname and place of residence! And someone must pay for the failure of the Red Fleet!

Soviet admiral:  Well, how good that you asked, Comrade Stalin! Just look at these documents! (A large sailor enters the room. He carries a gigantic folder weighing several tens of kilograms. The sailor puts it on the table in front of Stalin and leaves the room).

Stalin (completely invisible behind a huge number of reports, lists, complaints and so on): WHAT IS IT

Soviet admiral:  This is how citizen commissar of Industry betrayed our Motherland! The industry thwarted all the deadlines, their construction quality is terrible, in addition, they ignore all our proposals for improving and completing battleships! This is all their fault! Wait, we have more paper...

Stalin: Enough papers! Shoot the commissar of Industry immediately!

(KGB officers appear and drag away screaming in horror commissar of Industry at the door with the inscription "Daily executions of enemies of the people")

Stalin: Now to other questions...

Soviet admiral: exhales relieved

P.S. Shiki  you are so wrong that it’s even funny.

Edited by TAKTCOM
*
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we really need to start heading into potentially nationalist waters?

I've never seen any such discussions achieve anything useful, yet have seen loads of them get very toxic.

Regardless, what have they to do with this upcoming release?

Not singling anyone out, just curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

Do we really need to start heading into potentially nationalist waters?

I've never seen any such discussions achieve anything useful, yet have seen loads of them get very toxic.

Regardless, what have they to do with this upcoming release?

Not singling anyone out, just curious.

I made a smoll joke about the tier 10 bb kremlin which is the project 28 (i think) battleship in world of warships.

Then forum explodes LOL.

Whoopies. 'w'

ill avoid that in the near future although im not sure if we can prevent others from doing so but eh.

I wish i played nicks darth mod in total war (not sure which total war it was, was it empire?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Then forum explodes LOL.

Whoopies. 'w'

I wouldn't call insinuations of a couple passive-aggressive nerds an "explosion". Boys just like their documents very much - I understand. Perhaps, a little too much to take a moment and look back on Soviet military development of the era and realize that what paper-evidence they have means very little. Particularly aforementioned foreign sources which miraculously got "comprehensive insights" into extremely secretive Soviet military of the era. Not only it was secretive, but also fluid. Last moment changes were normal. In other words, if there is no completed, or at least sufficiently completed ship, then there is no substantial evidence. Boys are wasting hours of their time arguing over sheets of paper, insisting that the USSR (which cancelled those projects) was IN FACT unreasonable enough to complete them in such a poor state. 

Despite all the technicalities they spin, in the end their positions are full of contradictions. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

I wouldn't call insinuations of a couple passive-aggressive nerds an "explosion". Boys just like their documents very much - I understand. Perhaps, a little too much to take a moment and look back on Soviet military development of the era and realize that what paper-evidence they have means very little. Particularly aforementioned foreign sources which miraculously got "comprehensive insights" into extremely secretive Soviet military of the era. Not only it was secretive, but also fluid. Last moment changes were normal. In other words, if there is no completed, or at least sufficiently completed ship, then there is no substantial evidence. Boys are wasting hours of their time arguing over sheets of paper, insisting that the USSR (which cancelled those projects) was IN FACT unreasonable enough to complete them in such a poor state. 

Despite all the technicalities they spin, in the end their positions are full of contradictions. 

Too be fair i have no clue about any russian ships (or most ships for that matter), so i can't really say anything about the ships. I just wasn't expecting the replies afterwards was what i meant lol.

I think alpha 5 not being here has made peeps a bit fiesteh.

Oh well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I think alpha 5 not being here has made peeps a bit fiesteh.

Yep. All I want here is Alpha-5. Not arguments. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Modern Battleship is the mission I shall test this patch on. Hopefully all the new French, Italian, and Russian and British hulls will be there. It’ll allow me to force to build a ship within a budget and test the hulls, what guns they can use, and what I can cram into them. So far, in the current alpha 4 version for the mission, a Super Yamato is winning in overall hull and weapon placements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...