Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Alamos80

Russian BBs

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[HUNG]
Players
10 posts
14,945 battles

Hi Everyone,

 

Just wanted to express my view on Russian BBs. I understand game need to have multiple type of BBs and other ships.

I believe there were a few surveys what most of us wanted. There was one particular question - which phrased somehow like this: Do you want real ships present in game?

 

I know Stalin was great, Russians too. However around 1903-1905 I heard was the last battleship what was really made by Russians against the Japanese fight. After this even Stalin and the propaganda knew they can't make and upkeep even a single Battleships.

 

I never even heard and seen any concept of Russian Battleship after that war between the Japanese and Russsians. Please provide real evidence to make me beleive this isn't became a fantasy/sci-fi game any more. I came here to play real ships.

Captain Kuznetsov another great step on it to Over Power these not real ships.

 

Many Thanks for the possibility to bring this theme on discussion on the forum.

Hope others view will be present and objective against it.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 5
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
3,828 posts
15,757 battles
1 minute ago, Alamos80 said:

However around 1903-1905 I heard was the last battleship what was really made by Russians against the Japanese fight. After this even Stalin and the propaganda knew they can't make and upkeep even a single Battleships.

Gangut at Tier IV and Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya at Tier V are real ships. Actually, they are the same ship, as renamed and rebuilt, post-Revolution. Imperator Nikolai I was also real. Sovetsky Soyuz was laid down, although Soviet industry lacked the know-how to make the planned guns and armour plate. The rest are just paper designs. But that's OK. All the Battleship lines contains at least one ship design that was never actually built. 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
4,746 posts
5,290 battles
5 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

Gangut at Tier IV and Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya at Tier V are real ships. Actually, they are the same ship, as renamed and rebuilt, post-Revolution. Imperator Nikolai I was also real. Sovetsky Soyuz was laid down, although Soviet industry lacked the know-how to make the planned guns and armour plate. The rest are just paper designs. But that's OK. All the Battleship lines contains at least one ship design that was never actually built. 

You forgot one, the Izmail. Which actually came closer to being finished than the Soyuz did.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
3,828 posts
15,757 battles

You are quite correct, although the Izmail in game is something of a work of fiction compared to the ship that was actually being built - it seems to have gained 7cm of belt armour while still being able to do 28 knots. The Normandie has a similarly fictional top speed, I suppose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAFIE]
Beta Tester
4,746 posts
5,290 battles
4 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

You are quite correct, although the Izmail in game is something of a work of fiction compared to the ship that was actually being built - it seems to have gained 7cm of belt armour while still being able to do 28 knots. The Normandie has a similarly fictional top speed, I suppose. 

Also somehow magically lost 5mm of citadel roof armor, I'm pretty sure my book on her said that she had a 25mm plate in that area, not 20..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
13,036 battles
18 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

All the Battleship lines contains at least one ship design that was never actually built.

Actually, the italian BB line ingame is entirely authentic.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SEN]
Players
795 posts
1 hour ago, Alamos80 said:

Hi Everyone,

 

Just wanted to express my view on Russian BBs. I understand game need to have multiple type of BBs and other ships.

I believe there were a few surveys what most of us wanted. There was one particular question - which phrased somehow like this: Do you want real ships present in game?

 

I know Stalin was great, Russians too. However around 1903-1905 I heard was the last battleship what was really made by Russians against the Japanese fight. After this even Stalin and the propaganda knew they can't make and upkeep even a single Battleships.

 

I never even heard and seen any concept of Russian Battleship after that war between the Japanese and Russsians. Please provide real evidence to make me beleive this isn't became a fantasy/sci-fi game any more. I came here to play real ships.

Captain Kuznetsov another great step on it to Over Power these not real ships.

 

Many Thanks for the possibility to bring this theme on discussion on the forum.

Hope others view will be present and objective against it.

You need to educate yourself on russian modern history, man.

"After this even Stalin and the propaganda knew they can't make and upkeep even a single Battleships." - this is a silly western stereotype, made by peoples who never bother to open a history book, and promoted by propaganda services during cold war, then sadly, again these days (see the russophobia on western MSM...) ;

During Bolshevik regime,  and especially under Stalin, Russia / URSS on that time advanced from a late feudal society to a modern industrialized one in just some decades,  with a speed nobody thought was possible.

At a cost of famine, population lost, and generally, huge human costs,   URSS manage to progress in 30 years what took western countries a couple of centuries !

After ww2, remember, they even manage to surpass the muricans in the space race, first man in space, first woman, first satellite, etc. Think is the same country where 30 years before peoples uses  horses to work the land !

They could easily build and maintain a huge surface fleet, even before ww2,   but they focused instead first on preparing to face the german war machine ON THE LAND,  then, after ww2, in reconstruction after the terrible destruction ; ( unlike USA, who never face the level of destruction URSS faced after nazi invasion...);

All that steel used to build thousands and thousands of T34 ? And guns ? But the germans attacked on the land, and nobody threatened them from the sea.

When that threat was perceived (cold war) they reacted, and  in the 70", remember, they build the world second large surface fleet, surpassed only by USA.

 

If you want some links to all this, I will be happy to provide you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,220 posts
2 minutes ago, SEN_SEN_Channel_Portugue said:

You need to educate yourself on russian modern history, man.

"After this even Stalin and the propaganda knew they can't make and upkeep even a single Battleships." - this is a silly western stereotype, made by peoples who never bother to open a history book, and promoted by propaganda services during cold war, then sadly, again these days (see the russophobia on western MSM...) ;

During Bolshevik regime,  and especially under Stalin, Russia / URSS on that time advanced from a late feudal society to a modern industrialized one in just some decades,  with a speed anybody thought was possible.

At a cost of famine, population lost, and generally, huge human costs,   URSS manage to progress in 30 years what took western countries a couple of centuries !

After ww2, remember, they even manage to beat the muricans in the space race, first man in space, first woman, first satellite, etc. Think is the same country where 30 years before peoples uses  horses to work the land !

They could easily build and maintain a huge surface fleet, but the focused instead in reconstruction after the terrible destruction from ww2 ( unlike USA, who never face the level of destruction URSS faced after nazi invasion...);

Later, when the ww2 wounds were cured, in the 70", remember, they build the world second large surface fleet, surpassed only by USA.

If you want some links to all this, I will be happy to provide you.

Please provide the link as I love a good historical lead:cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SEN]
Players
795 posts

"...In 1962 a prominent British economic historian Alec Nove in his article "Was Stalin Really Necessary?" (Nove 1962) posed a question whether in the absence of Stalinist economic policies during of late 1920s and 1930s Russia would be able to industrialize. The transformation of Soviet Russia from a backward agrarian economy to an industrialized superpower is one of the most significant economic and political events of the 20th century. Industrialized Soviet Russia was instrumental in the victory in World War II over Nazi Germany, reshaped the post-war world, and continued to be one of the two main superpowers for almost 50 years...

1 Introduction In 1962 a prominent British economic historian Alec Nove in his article "Was Stalin Really Necessary?" (Nove 1962) posed a question whether in the absence of Stalinist economic policies during of late 1920s and 1930s Russia would be able to industrialize. The transformation of Soviet Russia from a backward agrarian economy to an industrialized superpower is one of the most significant economic and political events of the 20th century. Industrialized Soviet Russia was instrumental in the victory in World War II over Nazi Germany, reshaped the post-war world, and continued to be one of the two main superpowers for almost Öfty years.The economics behind this transformation is therefore of profound interest. This question of Stalinist industrialization is also of academic importance for three reasons.First, from the point of view of development economics these policies are one of the most important examples of structural transformation implemented from the top. Soviet industrialization inspired countless others development models, most importantly in Nehruís India and in Maoism China. Certainly, even in the US caught in the pains of the Great Depression, growth of the Soviet Russia in the 1930s made it less clear whether a market economy would be able to compete with the centralized Soviet economy. Second, ours is the most  modern neoclassical analysis of the socialist economy. In the spirit of Cole and Ohanian (2004) who used the tools of modern macroeconomics to comprehensively analyze the Great Depression, we develop a model of structural transformation and growth of Soviet Russia and map policies into distortions. Third, our analysis sheds light on what type of policies might have contributed to the structural transformation of Soviet economy. Specifically, we are interested in delineating the validity of Big Push theories in which TFP improves by reallocating resources (e.g., Murphy,Schleifer and Vishny, 1989) versus the view of Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) that Stalin policies lead to removal or reduction of barriers to effective  allocation of resources. The proponents and the critics of Stalinist policies generally refer to Figure 1 which shows Russian per capita output and labor force composition between agricultural and non-agricultural activities. Both sides of the debate generally agree that Stalinist economic policies of late 1920sand 1930s were harsh. The proponents, however, point out to the rapid growth in 1928-1940and to the fast reallocation of labor from agriculture to non-agriculture. This view holds that, although excessively brutal, Stalinist policies allowed Russia to develop a strong modern economy that sustained a successful war effort in 1941-1945 and propelled Russia into a position of a dominant power after WWII."

 

Just think about - at the beginning of the XX century,  they were an almost feudal agrarian society,  then in just 2 decades they have the ww1, a revolution, civil war, invasion from US, France, Brits (all of them invaded URSS to change the outcome of the civil war) ,  they suffer the ww2 with most heavy loss of human lives of all allies, most of the country is in ruins, destroyed, and only a couple of decades later they put a satellite, then a man on orbit... Amazing process, I always wonder how many countries could do something like that...

 

 

here some extracts from the book, in ª.pdf

http://economics.mit.edu/files/8702

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,378 posts
2,939 battles
1 hour ago, Alamos80 said:

I never even heard and seen any concept of Russian Battleship after that war between the Japanese and Russsians. Please provide real evidence

 

Concepts ?

The whole serie of 406mm-wielding WWI design. About 15 different variants http://www.gwpda.org/naval/irn16bb.htm

All the developpement that surrounded the pre-WWI era. At least 6 different concepts, declined often in many variants : https://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/1007019/9/Vinogradov_-_Poslednie_ispoliny_Rossiyskogo_Imperatorskogo_flota.html

30s and WWII main designs. A group of three, surrounded by a dozen of studies. Alos includes combat cruisers and battlecruisers http://www.plam.ru/warhistory/superlinkory_stalina_sovetskii_soyuz_kronshtadt_stalingrad/p2.php

And since a like you, here is a bonus study, the mini-BB project 45 variant II+III-3. Also declined :

Spoiler

KleinesSchlachtschiff_small.jpg

That's only what's at the top of my head. You can count Project 24 inside, and probably more. Kinda too lazy to search through my files more right now.

 

The Soviet Navy had the largest paperfleet. They completed more studies than any other nations, and even several nations combined. If you're looking for concepts, I'm sorry, but the soviet navy is the best place to look towards.

Real ships, maybe not. Designs, studies, variants ? Now THEY are numerous. And not one is invented.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SEN]
Players
795 posts

Even today,  30 years after the end of cold war, pop-up prototypes of planes, tanks, submarines, etc. absolutely unknown to the western powers, so yeah, they do have A LOT of amazing  projects, and some of them even made up to the phase of prototype...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,376 posts
15,281 battles
On 6/18/2019 at 9:24 PM, Alamos80 said:

(...) I know Stalin was great (...)

 Compared to Mao Zedong? He surely seems like a nicer guy...

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator, Players
1,208 posts
8,503 battles

Your history is a bit lacking. Also note that this is a game and was never meant to be realistic.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
13,781 posts
19,466 battles

- Saw a Kremlin today that was being heavily HE spammed by me (DM) and a Henry.

- After several minutes it finally looks like he's about to go down

- He goes unspotted for a few seconds

- Reappears with over 30k HP

 

10/10 Kuznetsov is totally balans

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,378 posts
2,939 battles
45 minutes ago, CptMinia said:

Also note that this is a game and was never meant to be realistic.

 

As much as I'd defend paperships and balance above all, I've always found this argument stupid.

People go around justifying everything with "it's not a simulator" but history is not binary - you're not either 100 % historical or complete fiction. And yes, we can blame WG for pulling the history card when it suits them (mainly for promotion) and the it's not a simulator card whenever they can't justify a choice.

 

Yup, the game isn't a simulator. Doesn't mean you can ditch everything a teensy bit realistic - especially of you use the argument to attract players. There is a middleground to reach.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator, Players
1,208 posts
8,503 battles
1 minute ago, LastButterfly said:

As much as I'd defend paperships and balance above all, I've always found this argument stupid.

People go around justifying everything with "it's not a simulator" but history is not binary - you're not either 100 % historical or complete fiction. And yes, we can blame WG for pulling the history card when it suits them (mainly for promotion) and the it's not a simulator card whenever they can't justify a choice.

 

Yup, the game isn't a simulator. Doesn't mean you can ditch everything a teensy bit realistic - especially of you use the argument to attract players. There is a middleground to reach.

I agree, but that is exactly why this game was never branded as realistic or a simulator. People should not expect realism, that is all I am saying.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
3,828 posts
15,757 battles
29 minutes ago, CptMinia said:

I agree, but that is exactly why this game was never branded as realistic or a simulator. People should not expect realism, that is all I am saying.

Sort of. If you're going to market a game around battle between historical icons such as the Yamato, Iowa, Bismarck and Warspite then the pressure is on to deliver a game experience which meets the expectations of an informed audience. WoWs has always done that. If the historical source material is becoming exhausted and we're looking at plans and "what if?" ships....  it doesn't mean that player expectations have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
4,159 posts
1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

Sort of. If you're going to market a game around battle between historical icons such as the Yamato, Iowa, Bismarck and Warspite then the pressure is on to deliver a game experience which meets the expectations of an informed audience. WoWs has always done that. If the historical source material is becoming exhausted and we're looking at plans and "what if?" ships....  it doesn't mean that player expectations have changed.

For these reasons, IMO, we would need more content in terms of 'Historical Operations'.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SEN]
Players
795 posts

For me, "realistic" on this game resume at the aesthetics of the ships. The work involved on creating that superb look of the ship deserve all  the respect. All the rest is, I think,   just a mix of fantasy,  common sense, marketing and improvisation, to deliver a nice looking packet so all of us can have some fun and enjoy this. I am here since first beta, and from starts I was attracted by way the ships look on this game, the level of details, and the non-stop evolution of the game, something very few companies manage to do over so many years. But I never expected "full realism" ; If you want that, you go for a sim game, like Uboat ( the new one) or the famous  " Silent Hunter".

But I found full sim games a bit boring, I confess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SEN]
Players
795 posts
1 hour ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

For these reasons, IMO, we would need more content in terms of 'Historical Operations'.

I also have (high...) hope WG will dedicate, in the near future, some serious efforts on developing MORE scenarios, historical ones.

Is a niche a bit neglected on the current meta, and Ops. received, lately, an influx of players who are not so happy with the REEEwork, or those who need tokens, credits, etc...

Reason why I believe WG should pay a bit more attention to the Op.s content, a bit poor now, compared with the whole game...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,779 posts
245 battles
Just now, Kaseko said:

it already is, look at Kremlin :cap_old:

This has 460mm's though kremlin has 457's so this can overmatch all 32mm bows in the game. 457's can't do this (best they can do is go through 30mm's of bow armour like a des moine for example.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×