Earl_of_Northesk

They are​ calculated against the same kind of armour. While it's not accurate, it is better for comparions sake. And it really shows that what Chipmunk said in this thread is completely invalid.

Are you kidding me? Yeah, velocity doesn't matter. Also, I never said the 356mm gun is a good gun. It's a good 356mm gun but obviously a larger gun would have been better. What I say and what is correct is that the guns will be sufficient at T8. And that's plenty enough,

You do understand that means that two different methods are used and merged together? That is NOT the same as just using the USN formula Come on man, don't make me doubt your intelligence, we both do not want that. Also, nice observation with the muzzle velocity @stockyy1994. Actually, that's not a small increase. Looking at how important velocity is, that likely means a pretty significant penetration increase on short to medium ranges, as 4% more velocity will translate into a similar increase in penetration when using the USN formula. But math. The Chipunk doesn't really like math. I haven't backed it up? The whole thread is whole if backups by various people. Actual first hand penetration values, pretty lengthy evaluations about how the penetration of the guns will work against the likely competitors, AA considerations, armour schemes, observations over how turning circles are determined by the game, etc. Your only argument, which has been debunked numerous times at this point, has always been "But muh only 356mm guns". It's like you have a bot installed to do this, or you have trained a shimpanzee.

Your time investment over month suggest otherwise. And actually, you are in the minority here. There hasn't been one serious poster arguing against her being a goo fit for T8. Just you and your subpar understanding of penetration mechanics. Yet again, you refuse to back up your claim about the USN formula and yet again you try to sweep the fact under the carpet you obivously don't properly understand its results.

Ah. You base that on what? And what are those other formulas you spoke of earlier? Mate, at some point, you will need more than one liners whitout back up sources if you want to be taken serious. That's the reason you get ridiculed in this thread.

What are the "other methods"? Why is it superior? Do you have anything to back that up? Oh by the way, most of the naval community agrees that the Thompson formula is deeply flawed. Also, just to make you happy, it is actually able to compensate in some way for impact angle, but because of the aforementioned difficulty that pretty much all ships have a belt that is angled in a different way and results would thus vary between targets shot at, this is ignored in comparison calculations. Last but not least, if the projetile cap is able to dig into the armour, it pretty much doesn't matter at which angle it hits. Penetration remains the same if it's not that the shell strikes so near to the ricochet angle that it will produce some very weird results. Those cases can be ignored as well though. As someone with superior knowledge to mine stated: Below the projectile's "biting" angle (the highest obliquity where nose-first penetration occurs at the Navy Ballistic Limit with this projectile against all thicknesses of the plate type under test), for a given plate type thickness does not significantly affect the percentage increase in striking velocity required to penetrate at a given angle compared to penetrating the same plate at normal (a single multiplier for a given obliquity gives good results for all plate thicknesses where projectile damage is not changing things). The projectile's nose immediately digs into the plate and inhibits ricochet. To sum it up: impact angle can pretty much be ignored up to a 75-80 degree impact, where the shell will most likely either ricochet or not penetrate anyway. Oh, I'll even give you a source: http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Hstfrmla.htm

You know that. I mean, you do not understand what the results of the formula even mean, but you just KNOW it's more accurate. And you don't give a reason why. You haven't tried to counter even one of my arguments. You just ignore the fact the result of the formula always indicates penetration on a 90 degree impact and that if you want to get actual penetration against actual ships, you need to determine the impact angle the shells have on that specific ship. Because then, you can evaluate the actual armour thickness the shell needs to pass. That's why you won't pen 335mm of belt armour at 15km with Scharnhorst: the angle the shell hits means that the effective armour thickness is way higher than 335mm. But yeah, set me on your ignore list, I'll count that as a win as you are now completely out of arguments

What do you think the formula tells you then? That Scharnhorst can penetrate 335mm of angled armour at 15km? Do you see anything in that formula that determines angle of impact? You can't be serious. The penetration values of ANY formula that determines penetration always assumes a 90 degree impact angle. There's not one out there which doesn't and it would be totally pointless to have one. If you wouldn't do it like that, you would get different penetration results based on the ship you fire at because the impact angle would always be different. The whole POINT of angling is the fact that while you 150mm armour can't withstand a 28cm hit at 15km for example, it probably will be able when it's presented at an angle which greatly increases its effective armour thickness. Also, just having a laugh. You don't even understand how the USN formula works and what it tells you, but you juts know it gets superior results. And I haven't even taken into account that the USN formula does actually rely on which kind of armour you put into the equasition and since we don't know what has been used in the case of the navweaps data, it's pretty useless.

You realise that the USN empirical formula always assumes a 90 degree impact angle as well? It's the whole point of the formula.

You still have ZERO material to back up your claims. That's pathetic in my book. You are trolling around in this thread for a good 30 pages and still, you have presented nothing but instead you seem to enjoy being laughed at by everyone. Okay, that's fine with me. But we shall at least try to get a few things straight in your head: The document presented to you clearly indicates the actual penetration far ourpaces the ones concluded from the USN empirical formula, which also suggests that instead of being at even penetration (Scharnhorst isn't really superior if you compare it via navweaps anyway: at the only roughly comparabl range figure the side gives, 15.000 yards, the penetration is pretty much even, with the 28cm gun having slightly better belt, the 356mm gun having slightly more deck penetration.) the KGV's guns have higher penetration at any range. Your argument is invalid then and it really doesn't matter which range you throw into the discussion. You are wrong, period. You must be able to understand such basic logic?

Don't really know how to react to you, so, better not to react at all. Have fun in your world!

So, I'm banned from ranked because I have a clan tag?

I seriously wouldn't recommend it. With players at my skill level, the chances are too high they just end on the enemy team. It probably evens out over time, but I fance my chances more against some random guys.

Someone presents you with actual source material, but no, this must be wrong! Because you can't be wrong, right? It's getting a bit pathetic at this point

Yes, real life performance doesn't really seem to matter. For example, the actual turning circle of Yamato was, in real life, better than that of some destroyers in the game. It's one of those soft stats they really play around with to balance ships.

Wow mate, really? You know, I'm part of a German multi-skill clan consisting of probably around 500 members. The chance we end up in the same battle is always there, you don't need to "try" it. It happens. So, what you are saying is, I shall get banned when someone with an MDIV clantag ends up in the enemy team by chance? Also, I don't know if you realise this, but if he ends up in my team, I am coordinating my team anyways. Doesn't really make a difference. If he ends up in the enemy team, I will do everything I can to win regardless. Because in the end, it's MY star to loose or gain. Same for you short-sighted individual: what do I gain by giving away positions after I die? Don't I want to win and progress? So seriously, tell me, WHY should I do that? And what difference does it make if the guy on my team is also in my clan, if I'm supposed to work closely together with 6 people anyway?

Still good broadside weight and able to pen any upper belt. And more. Scharnhorst is the prime example. Not that hard to aim a bit higher.

To put this into perspective, the commodore already admitted he wants KGV at T7 so his favourite ship is OP. Explains a lot. Like "only RoF is important in secondaries, not range".

Given how secondaries work in this game, where the only two things which matter are 1.) does it fire HE? and 2.) how close does it come to real life range, that's not necessarily true. Max 10km 133mm guns will easily outclass max 7.2km 127mm guns, even if there are more of the latter on the ship.

What we have in game so far of British secondary guns indicates they might be quite good. And they seem to fire HE.

You realise the graphs fnord_disc has done are representing ingame values while yours (I guess) try to simulate navweaps data? There's a whole plethora of problems with doing that. The formulas aren't all the same, the armour used to emulate their penetration isn't the same. Using navweaps gives you an indication and a method to compare guns in some way, but it is in no way feasible to make accurate predictions about the exact ingame penetration performance. Bayern is a prime example, her gun performance at range seems to be severely nerfed compared to her real life performance. Also, ingame performance seems to be close to USN empirical formula sugestions, data which we just don't have for KGV at this point (at least I don't, navweaps doesn't provide that data while giving only USN empirical data for the 14inch/Mk11 gun of USN BB's). Real life performance is usually below that.

The post does not include armour penetration values of the 14 inch Mk7 guns. And tbh, yes, the penetration (although better) isn't far better than Bayerns. Doesn't really matter though as you still got enough penetration to pen most of the ships she meets (except the obivous Yamato). She will do the damage and you can still play around with dispersion. By the way, the penetration of the 14/Mk7 is normally around the +-20mm range of the 15/Mk1 guns of Warspite with greenboy shells. And those are adequate at T8, if it weren't for that rotation. Probably most hitpoints, best armour (doesn't matter how you wan't to downplay that), best AA, highest speed except the far worse gunned Gneisenau....Yeah. Just fix the AA and she will be fine.

T6? I mean, our friend Commodore_Ashoka already had some funny suggestions here, but this is really the low point of this discussion so far Easily able to penetrate her belt? Ah, alright then, easily. I mean, just as easily as those are able to penetrate other T8/T9 BB's right? Hey, and you are still on about it's better to nerf everything else to fit her into T7 instead of just giving the guns a marginal buff to give her her rightful place at T8? I love this thread

To be fair here, the credit and flag economy changed a lot in recent months. I pretty much run 8/8 flags on all my ships, but for the first time in between ranked seasons, I did not run out of flags. We have containers now, we have more missions, we have campaigns. So I am not in any way dissappointed not to be able to earn flags (or credits, we just got the inventory). I understand the reason. I am dissappointed though that the things which replaced the flag rewards past T10 are just not worth the grind....you spend a shitload of flags and get modules in return which you will, in most cases, never use. A rank-specific camo (even if just cosmetic) to earn or something like that would have been better. Something unique.