fnord_disc

Dunkerque looks hard to play with 17km concealment and terrible armor. Guns have better penetration than Fuso b/c quite heavy and very high MV.

Bayern has incredibly good concealment. Also, am I the only one who likes these ships now that I've seen the stats? They look fine to me.

Thanks. Also Jesus that is such low drag. I tested 165 on Wyoming's upper belt and 152 on Kongo's upper belt: an overpen is the superstructure and the citadel is below, so you only have to nudge around until you get regular pens. 229 is Wyoming's middle belt, directly above the citadel belt. If you work down from long range then this is very reliable. Also, it was pointed out to me that rho changes with altitude in reality. Naval shells fly very high, like oyu can see here for constant rho=1: http://i.imgur.com/rQ25iDQ.png But at 4000 meters, rho in reality is only like 0.7. It decreases quite quickly. Solving the ballistic equations including rho(y(t)) is very complicated, so I assume Lesta just averaged rho to ~0.8. This would make sense and agree wit hmy curves.

.......?????????? Tirpitz has much worse dispersion than Nagato. Scharnhorst also has much worse dispersion than Nagato. Nagato has absolutely amazing dispersion for a battleship. Some of the best battleship dispersion in the game.

Thanks! I'll try to find the drag constants for it. It's the same problem I have with New Orleans... finding the drag constants is a bit tricky.

She has a lot more penetration that Roon. Sure, you need someone's broadside to penetrate battleship citadels, but even if you don't, you can get a lot of good penetration hits. I find it highly unlikely that the ship will be underpowered.

There is a lot wrong with this post. Scharnhorst does not have "cruiser armor". Her armor is like Tirpitz. She can still penetrate battleship citadels until around 12km and it's more than enough for regular penetrations. Also H39 was laid down man.

The triples also really do look rather fat in my opinion in that grainy little image.

Maybe Kaiser really didn't need a hypothetical refit... but König sees T6 and T7 carriers, and it needs the range to engage the ships at those tiers too.

Seriously though, the thing about the triples. There is a slight chance that WG is telling the truth, because the Soviet army took all the documents it could find and brought them to Russia. They weren't accessible during the Cold War, so obviously the designs wouldn't be in all the western books we know. The Soviets didn't have access to the Krupp research because it was in West Germany, but they did have access to the artillery proving grounds at Kummersdorf where the navy test-fired some of their guns. The documents may have been destroyed in the Krupp archives but survived at Kummersdorf. Very low probability, but there is actually precedent for this. A whole bunch of new historical files on the V-2 rocket were discovered after the end of the Cold War because Pademünde was in the Soviet zone and they had taken everything to Russia.

Friedrich der Große is a good name and completely plausible and if you think it isn't then I don't even. Großer Kurfürst... well this one would probably not have been rehashed from the WW1 dreadnought. But it's still fine. They should only be swapped.

Scharnhorst was basically confirmed to have 20s reload. So the AP DPM is better than Nagato. And while the penetration is lower, it isn't that low. Scharnhorst will penetrate battleship citadels until 12-15km, depending on thickness. And just getting penetrations can also work.

The German 28cm is not hard to balance at T7.

I also regularly find unknown and new designs in my inner Russian archives.

No it never was.

Maybe the French T10 will have quintuple turrets! 4x5 38cm!

No - there are no blueprints for the P41 cruisers. The model that Zao uses was published in the 1970s in a Japanese magazine with the explicit note that it was an artist's impression of what the design process could have resulted in. It is pure fantasy.

H39 looks normal. Only H41 is some kind of chimera.

Could have just been some random illustration without any relation to the tech tree. It's just artwork. It's not rendered based on the ingame models or anything. But the point still stands. T10 has triple guns.

How do you know that's H41 and H39? You don't know that. However... ... ... ... You are right. WELP.

How about you give us a source for triple guns blah?

To reiterate, Großdeutschland is an implausible name for a battleship because Hitler was obsessed with the propaganda impact it would have if something called -deutschland sank. That's why he had the pocket battleship renamed to Lützow.

Good ship names for the H class. Plausible. Would have swapped them to make Frederick T10, but it's fine. Gonna love the crapout of Bayern.

Thanks! Tachibana shells have such high normalization that they should always hit at 90°... The USN formula is definitely giving really good results for a lot of ships. It works at the same constants for Cleveland, Budyonny, USN 12.7 and some of the ones below. Myoko: Tachibana: Kongo Also, methodology for my own test data: Sail to broadside of target, shoot at citadel hitbox/waterline, back up until no-damage hits to belt armor are scored -> bounce, then nudge around to find the exact distance. So, some observations & conclusions before I fiddle around with it. The general shape of the USN Empirical curve looks very accurate, much more accurate than the Krupp formula which produces a much more linear curve that is wrong at basically all experimental values. I'm quite sure the formula is correct in principle. Two variables remain that aren't completely known: air density (which value it is) and krupp (what it does). Battleships are already a very close fit without krupp, and they are not affected much by air density at those ranges All smaller shells except Tachibana have slightly more penetration in the game, consistently. But if krupp is incorporated to buff these curves, it throws off the battleships. Due to the way these values were obtained, the curves should always be slightly higher than the experimental data to account for excess energy. This makes the battleship curves especially appealing as they are now. More generally: rho changes the curving nature of the curve, making it arc more prominently (more drag) whereas krupp would scale the curve along the y-axis.