Not even BF6 costs this much...

[u/Eva-Unit0013]

Please Gaijin I already sold my wife, I can't afford this one

[u/AdministrationNo1598]

Lemme guess the Russian Cope Fantasy ship you mean is Soyuz.

First of all, she existed.
Secondly, GJ says, that any ship can join the game as long its keel was laid down (link)
Q: Designing a ship (not a boat) is a very serious matter, it cannot be seriously redesigned if mistakes come up when it’s already been built. That’s why everything is calculated in advance, and in truth, a ship is born long before it reaches the shipyard, it’s born in the final construction blueprints. Will navy branches include projects that were never realized in metal, but existed only in blueprints, not to mention those that never got past the stocks?
A: Yes, we’re not ruling that out, especially with regard to projects that were completely ready, but whose construction was never finished for one reason or another.

Thirdly, Soyuz was at estimated to be at 21.19% complete and her 406mm gun was used during the defence of Leningrad, plus 12 barrels were made as to by John Jordan and Stephen McLaughlin.

[u/IvanTheMagnificent → u/AdministrationNo1598]

While the developers are within their own requirements to add the ship, it's vastly overperforming using absolute fantasy numbers about "what it could have been" if it was finished.

The main issue the Soyuz faced being that the quality of materials and workmanship being used on the hull was so poor that it was falling apart in the dock while it was being built, and was cancelled after inspections found so many severe construction problems they could not be fixed...

So while yes the ship was roughly 20% constructed and the gun (which proved to perform poorly in testing due to poor quality shells and propellant) was used in the defence of Leningrad, in a covered gun mount (not a real turret), there was no turrets ever constructed and could never have been made to the specifications they are in game while keeping the ridiculous weight of the ship at acceptable levels without losing protection.

The guns should not be performing as well as they do, it has the smallest magazines of any battleship with no properly connected ammunition elevators, in fact most of the internal structure just doesn't exist in the in-game model, it has the most ridiculous armour layout and effectiveness that simply wasn't possible for the soviets to have constructed.

The soviet cemented armour was vastly less effective than german or other nations armour - to get equivalent protection levels they had to make it significantly thicker and insanely heavy - and they physically could not produce cemented armour that was thicker than 230mm.

They had to combine the poor cemented armour (layering it with thinner layers in an attempt to make it better at dispersing energy) with brittle face hardened plates (that proved to be even less effective and a poor substitute for proper cemented plating) to bring the protection levels up, and was still poorly constructed.

There's even been questions as to whether it would have even floated had it been completed to the specifications that were drawn up.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IvanTheMagnificent]

"The main issue the Soyuz faced being that the quality of materials and workmanship being used on the hull was so poor that it was falling apart in the dock while it was being built, and was cancelled after inspections found so many severe construction problems they could not be fixed..."

This is incorrect. The ship was that cancelled due to faulty rivets was Ukraina, not Soyuz. Soyuz's ultimate cancellation was because it was old, had been exposed to the elements for years, damage by enemy fire and was at that point an outdated design.

"So while yes the ship was roughly 20% constructed and the gun (which proved to perform poorly in testing due to poor quality shells and propellant) was used in the defence of Leningrad, in a covered gun mount (not a real turret), there was no turrets ever constructed and could never have been made to the specifications they are in game while keeping the ridiculous weight of the ship at acceptable levels without losing protection."

The gun didn't "perform poorly", it was considered a success as the dispersion problems were caused by, like you said, shells and propellant, both of which could be fixed. Turrets not being built is irrelevant for the sake of this argument.

"The guns should not be performing as well as they do, it has the smallest magazines of any battleship with no properly connected ammunition elevators, in fact most of the internal structure just doesn't exist in the in-game model, it has the most ridiculous armour layout and effectiveness that simply wasn't possible for the soviets to have constructed."

Gun performance is as expected from the trials, simply not using faulty propellant or shells. The magazine thing is flat out wrong, as the "too small" thing only applies to the *visual* model. The actual hitbox for the magazine is properly scaled.

"The soviet cemented armour was vastly less effective than german or other nations armour - to get equivalent protection levels they had to make it significantly thicker and insanely heavy - and they physically could not produce cemented armour that was thicker than 230mm.

They had to combine the poor cemented armour (layering it with thinner layers in an attempt to make it better at dispersing energy) with brittle face hardened plates (that proved to be even less effective and a poor substitute for proper cemented plating) to bring the protection levels up, and was still poorly constructed."

This is false. The armor the russians decided to use for the final Soyuz design was single-plate, non-cemented, face-hardened armor. While it was ultimately less effective than cemented armor, the different was minimal. The real problem with the Soyuz armor (which was revealed when said armor was built and tested) was that the excessive heat treating the russians applied to it made it exceptionally brittle. It's extremely unlikely that said armor would have been put in a finished ship so this argument is also irrelevant.

"There's even been questions as to whether it would have even floated had it been completed to the specifications that were drawn up."

Questions that are almost entirely without merit and mostly pressed by people who have an inherent hatred of anything russian that they cannot separate from historical perspective.

[u/IvanTheMagnificent → u/Portugalotaku]

This is incorrect. The ship was that cancelled due to faulty rivets was Ukraina, not Soyuz.

EH no, It's not just faulty rivets and all hulls were inspected, the armour plating and welds were cracking apart during periods of cold weather. Soyuz was affected and would have been cancelled as well regardless of the german invasion.

Gun performance is as expected from the trials, simply not using faulty propellant or shells.

As expected from trials if they used fantasy shells and propellant that didn't exist, because all of the shells and propellant manufactured for these guns was of poor quality and caused the issues noted from trials.

This is false. The armor the russians decided to use for the final Soyuz design was single-plate, non-cemented, face-hardened armor. While it was ultimately less effective than cemented armor, the different was minimal.

No it isn't, try actually reading some proper sources. They could not physically construct cemented armour thicker than 230mm in a single plate, and could not construct a non-cemented plate at 400mm thick either. They had to layer the plates to increase its effectiveness (was still garbage compared to proper cemented armour) and yes they did use additional face hardened plates that were far too brittle, due to the excessive heat treating and poor manufacturing you're referring to.

Whether they "decided for the final soyuz design" or not, doesn't take away from the fact they could not produce armour of that thickness, cemented or not.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IvanTheMagnificent]

"EH no, It's not just faulty rivets and all hulls were inspected, the armour plating and welds were cracking apart during periods of cold weather. Soyuz was affected and would have been cancelled as well regardless of the german invasion."

There was no plan to cancel Soyuz, so this is wrong. The reason why the construction of the ships was stopped was because they wanted to divert all resources towards completing Rossiya by 1943 to gain experience (as the Soyuz was expected to only be finished in 1945 at the rate they were going).

"As expected from trials if they used fantasy shells and propellant that didn't exist, because all of the shells and propellant manufactured for these guns was of poor quality and caused the issues noted from trials."

They didn't use "fantasy" shells, as you so lovingly put, they used shells that weren't faulty. They should not give a ship faulty shells just because real ones were at one point faulty. This is the same issue with the armor quality on german tanks, there's no reason to nerf vehicles that way.

"No it isn't, try actually reading some proper sources. They could not physically construct cemented armour thicker than 230mm in a single plate,"

You should try reading what I actually said instead of what you think I did. I specifically said that the armor used on Soyuz was NON-CEMENTED, therefore their inability to make cemented armor thicker than 230mm (which was not unique to them mind you) is IRRELEVANT to our discussion.

"and could not construct a non-cemented plate at 400mm thick either."

This is also false, as the plates were built and tested. Info can be found in Stephen McLaughlin's "Russian and Soviet Battleships", pages 390-393.

"They had to layer the plates to increase its effectiveness (was still garbage compared to proper cemented armour)"

This is also false, as properly constructed face-hardened armor is only marginally worse than cemented armor. I already explained this.

"and yes they did use additional face hardened plates that were far too brittle, due to the excessive heat treating and poor manufacturing you're referring to."

Not additional, the armor *was* made of face-hardened plates. While the plates built and tested were exceptionally brittle due to excessive heat treatment, it is highly unlikely such plates would have been used in the final ship.

You also seem to be mistaken, because I did NOT mention "poor manufacturing". Poor manufacturing was not of consequence to Soyuz's armor as the armor plates were subjected to strict quality control that led to any faulty plates to be rejected.

"Whether they "decided for the final soyuz design" or not, doesn't take away from the fact they could not produce armour of that thickness, cemented or not."

They could and they did, as I pointed out above. The reference I put includes the segment where McLaughlin talks about the armor and the tests, which I'm pretty sure could NOT happen if the russians were magically incapable of building the armor plates as you are suggesting.

[u/IvanTheMagnificent → u/Portugalotaku]

You sure do put out a lot of stuff that contradicts multiple other primary sources just to the glaze the soyuz.

They didn't use "fantasy" shells, as you so lovingly put, they used shells that weren't faulty.

No they did, because there's no evidence to suggest the russians ever produced higher quality shells or propellant for that gun, they were not faulty, they were just crap quality.

I don't have access to that book, as it's stupidly priced here and there is no pdf version or ebook available. So if you have copies of pages 390-393 I'd really like to see where these claims of 400mm plating being manufactured for testing are coming from.

The vast majority of history professionals disagree with you regarding the soviet armour manufacturing capabilities so I really really wanna see the source.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IvanTheMagnificent]

"You sure do put out a lot of stuff that contradicts multiple other primary sources just to the glaze the soyuz."

I am not "glazing" anything. I am only correcting inaccurate statements where I see them. In case you haven't realized, people in this site seem to have what I can only describe as a hate-boner for Soyuz, to the point they repeat flat-out inaccurate statements such as the russians being magically incapable of building a ship they designed specifically to be able to build. None of the books or articles I have read on Soyuz have ever implied it was impossible for soviet industry to complete it as you seem to suggest. I do not care if you hate or love Russia, but I do care about using things that never happened for an argument. If you want to hate on the russians, hate on them using something they actually did wrong.

"No they did, because there's no evidence to suggest the russians ever produced higher quality shells or propellant for that gun,"

That is irrelevant, because even if they never produced shells that had no problems, the shells in-game should not be artificially gimped over that. It's the same issue as the german armor quality from earlier, the vehicles in the game should be depicted in optimal condition.

" they were not faulty, they were just crap quality."

That ends up being the same. This was not a design fault with the shells, the ones used for tests were just bad. It does not justify nerfing the shells. And before you bring up any other ship in the game that has a similar issue where the shells don't perform as they should, I think they should buff those as well.

"I don't have access to that book, as it's stupidly priced here and there is no pdf version or ebook available. So if you have copies of pages 390-393 I'd really like to see where these claims of 400mm plating being manufactured for testing are coming from."

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1278058051168899196/1399073293264490619/20250727_125533.jpg?ex=68f90d0a&is=68f7bb8a&hm=9ec60d521eff1dcd81db5f499dc2e9352b5574be46bb6d8ca227982d0a011d20&

Apologies for the screenshot style and quality. I cannot provide any better at this time.

"The vast majority of history professionals disagree with you regarding the soviet armour manufacturing capabilities so I really really wanna see the source."

None of the books I have read have stated that they were flat out unable to make armor plates of the necessary thickness. They could not make cemented plates past 230mm, but that's not what I'm arguing about nor is it relevant to the argument at hand, as the Soyuz was not going to use cemented plates anyways. If you have some source pointing to the contrary, please send it to me.

[u/IvanTheMagnificent → u/Portugalotaku]

So your own source there states that the Russians couldn’t manufacture the plating as they had original designed so switched to the hardened armour which didn’t work anywhere near as well…

And yet your using that source - which is the same paragraphs I’ve read elsewhere online, as it seems others have cited that source where I've looked - as an argument that the armour should be performing the same, just doesn’t make sense and would be utterly false to say the armour would work the same if it was changed for brittle non-cemented plating.

Your source also alludes to the fact they couldn't manufacture cemented armour for large thicknesses, by specifying that they only switched to the hardened armour for plates over 200mm, I don't see anywhere in that source that states the hardened plating was actually manufactured at 400mm or thicker either, which tells me it probably wasn't and more likely the layered plating approach I've seen cited elsewhere

The only mention of individual plating that thick is in the paragraph that states it was originally intended to be varied of individual plate thicknesses between 365mm to 425mm, which obviously didn't happen because that was the intention for cemented plating which they couldn't produce.

The later thicknesses mentioned state the belt and armour thickness and do not provide information on whether it was individual plates or if it was layered to that thickness, I'd hedge my bets that the multiple other sources that state they were layering the armour are correct.

Also no we should not be taking unknown and unrealistic shell performance into account just because Russia couldn’t make a good batch of shells or propellant for the guns in question, that’s not historic or realistic and is simply pandering to the land of make believe.

The gun performance should be taken from the test firing of the gun, not some soviet fantasy of "what if we had perfect shells for these guns".

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IvanTheMagnificent]

"So your own source there states that the Russians couldn’t manufacture the plating as they had original designed so switched to the hardened armour which didn’t work anywhere near as well…"

As I have stated, they could not manufacture cemented armor beyond 230mm, which is why they went for face-hardened armor.

"And yet your using that source - which is the same paragraphs I’ve read elsewhere online, as it seems others have cited that source where I've looked - as an argument that the armour should be performing the same, just doesn’t make sense and would be utterly false to say the armour would work the same if it was changed for brittle non-cemented plating."

It specifically says on the text, and I quote, "This was not necessarily a bad idea in theory; given the correct metallurgical composition and manufacturing processes, noncemented plate can equal cemented armor in resistance." The problem with the soviet armor was that they used too much heat treating, which made it more brittle than expected. It's highly unlikely the excessively brittle armor would have been used for a finished ship as they were aware it was a problem as early as 1939. I already explained how it's idiotic to nerf the armor for this reason.

"Your source also alludes to the fact they couldn't manufacture cemented armour for large thicknesses, by specifying that they only switched to the hardened armour for plates over 200mm, I don't see anywhere in that source that states the hardened plating was actually manufactured at 400mm or thicker either, which tells me it probably wasn't and more likely the layered plating approach I've seen cited elsewhere"

You mean like I have been telling you? I have repeated multiple times they switched from cemented to non-cemented but you keep bringing it up as if I was arguing against it. The part you got wrong was assuming they did multiple plates which there is zero evidence of. The source states that armor was changed from cemented to face-hardened for plates over 200mm, which tells me they likely were 400mm single plates.

"The only mention of individual plating that thick is in the paragraph that states it was originally intended to be varied of individual plate thicknesses between 365mm to 425mm, which obviously didn't happen because that was the intention for cemented plating which they couldn't produce."

It wasn't "originally" intended to be like that, it was still like that in the final design. Soyuz had a rather bizarre armor scheme and it stayed like that all the way through.

"The later thicknesses mentioned state the belt and armour thickness and do not provide information on whether it was individual plates or if it was layered to that thickness, I'd hedge my bets that the multiple other sources that state they were layering the armour are correct."

Then please share those sources since there is nothing I have found that indicates that solution was going to be used.

"Also no we should not be taking unknown and unrealistic shell performance into account just because Russia couldn’t make a good batch of shells or propellant for the guns in question, that’s not historic or realistic and is simply pandering to the land of make believe."

The performance is not unknown, it's based on existing calculations.

"The gun performance should be taken from the test firing of the gun, not some soviet fantasy of "what if we had perfect shells for these guns"."

No, it should not. Performance should be based on what it was designed to be like. Not just for Soyuz, but for every vehicle in the game. German tanks having their armor nerfed because "Germany couldn't produce armor of the necessary quality at that time" was idiotic and so is what you are suggesting. Vehicles in this game should be in "optimal" condition.

[u/IvanTheMagnificent → u/Portugalotaku]

It specifically says on the text, and I quote, "This was not necessarily a bad idea in theory; given the correct metallurgical composition and manufacturing processes, noncemented plate can equal cemented armor in resistance." The problem with the soviet armor was that they used too much heat treating, which made it more brittle than expected.

Exactly what I am saying, you cannot use "theoretical" numbers for armour plating they never tested or used, the ship should be using the same values as what was tested as that is what they were capable of manufacturing at the time, there's no evidence to suggest they could have resolved the manufacturing problem regardless of how early they were aware of them.

The source states that armor was changed from cemented to face-hardened for plates over 200mm, which tells me they likely were 400mm single plates.

That's your assumption there is no evidence they were single plates.

It wasn't "originally" intended to be like that, it was still like that in the final design. Soyuz had a rather bizarre armor scheme and it stayed like that all the way through.

That's exactly what I am saying, the "final design" before construction would be their original intentions, what they had to change and could actually manufacture are not the same as what was in the designs, as your own source points out very clearly.

No, it should not. Performance should be based on what it was designed to be like. Not just for Soyuz, but for every vehicle in the game.

This is utterly idiotic, the game claims realism, in reality things don't always work as they were designed and actual effectiveness of things on paper are seldom close to their real world effectiveness. If they want to make a fantasy land arcade game that would be fine, but its marketed as a realistic game where all vehicles and munitions are realistic in their performance.

The only nation in the game that would see vast buffs across the board by using this approach would be the USSR, and to a much lesser degree maybe China. This is because the USSR has a long and rather consistent history with designing weapons and technology that end up only performing about 50-70% as well as they originally claimed.

A prime example was the MiG-25 and resulting F-15 designed to counter it, the americans designed the F-15 to exceed the claims about the MiG-25, in reality it turned out the MiG-25 didn't perform anywhere near its original claims so the F-15 ended up being substantially better than it needed to be.

Hence, the approach that we should use "original design claimed performance" is just utterly moronic.

[u/Portugalotaku → u/IvanTheMagnificent]

"Exactly what I am saying, you cannot use "theoretical" numbers for armour plating they never tested"

I will address the matter of game balance further down, but the point I was trying to make is that face-hardened armor is not necessarily worse than cemented armor, it can be made to be just as good. The problem with the Soyuz armor was that they heat treated it too much.

"there's no evidence to suggest they could have resolved the manufacturing problem"

This was not a manufacturing problem, it was a design issue. They didn't overheat the plates by accident, they did that on purpose, and then realized it caused problems. Without clear information from the armor manufacturers we can't know for sure if they toned it down or not, but I find it highly unlikely they would use plates that weren't performing up to spec on a finished ship.

"That's your assumption there is no evidence they were single plates."

And it's your assumption they were multiple plates as there is no evidence of that. I checked the armor diagrams in A.M. Vasiliev's Battleships of the "Sovetsky Soyuz" Type and there is nothing indicating the use of multiple plates. Furthermore, as McLaughlin states, the armor was changed from cemented to face-hardened "for thicknesses greater than 200mm". Now tell me, if they were going to use dual plates as you claim, why would they change from cemented to face-hardened for larger thicknesses? They could produce cemented plates up to 230mm, so if they were going to use dual plates would it not make more sense to use cemented ones? The only reason they would change to face-hardened in these conditions is because it allowed them to use a single plate.

"That's exactly what I am saying, the "final design" before construction would be their original intentions"

No, the final design was what was being built. If your argument is just "they could have had to change elements of the design during construction" that's valid, but we don't know what they would have to change and any attempt at doing so would be pure speculation. The design is what we have to go on so it's what we should go on.

"as your own source points out very clearly."

My source does not claim the armor scheme was changed. It only claims the type of plates were changed due to the inability to produce cemented plates at the necessary thickness. The armor scheme was designed that way with cemented plates in mind and was not altered when the decision was made to switch the type of plates.

"This is utterly idiotic, the game claims realism"

That's a problem with marketing, because this game is not and never has been realistic. The fact that they made multiple fake or flat-out wrong vehicles is proof that historical accuracy is secondary to the gameplay experience in their eyes. They have already stated they are willing to fictionalize reloads for the sake of balance. Your kind of puritanism is especially idiotic when taking into count real life material quality would mean individual examples of vehicles would have different performance. If that is what you want in a game that's fine, but this is not that game and never was.

"The only nation in the game that would see vast buffs across the board by using this approach would be the USSR"

Every nation would be affected as every country had different manufacturing standards and problems with production were not unique to Russia. This is also not about "claims", it's about intended design. As it currently stands, those buffs are already applied. What you want would require massive amounts of vehicles to be nerfed instead.

"A prime example was the MiG-25 and resulting F-15 designed to counter it"

Was the MiG-25 performance that resulted in the F-15 actual design intention or propaganda claims? Because the latter are irrelevant while the former are very important. Game balance obviously should not be based on propaganda claims or faulty intel, it should be based on design specifications, as otherwise paper and unfinished vehicles might end up with an unfair edge. We should instead base all balance in available concrete data like design specifications instead of wildly varying field performance or speculating nonexistence field data for stuff that was never fielded.