Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Armor'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 26 results

  1. anonym_bg5iDZQhMWB9

    Cruiser usage

    Hey guys! I just started playing like 5 days ago and now got my baltimore. I get that it is a great ship but i really don´t know how to use it. BB´s are usually way out of range of my guns which got terrible range (14.4 km without the upgrade) and my armor doesn´t hold up to their guns which just straight up overmatch my armor and citadell me from every angle. Hiding behind islands doesn´t work either, there is always a little part of my ship that has to stuck out so that i can shoot and they always hit that and citadell me. The baltimore as well isn´t really maneuvarable enough to dodge incoming fire. Soo right now i really don´t know what to use this ship for. Before anything apart from the occasional DD gets in my range, i am dead, and then they all avoid my shots as for the high gun ark. Any advice? Maybe i just shouldnt try to shoot BBs at all? As said angling against them doesn´t do anything Thank you in advance fellow captains!
  2. lup3s

    Internal ricochets

    Hi, First things first, I know there is sometimes an inconsistency between the "shell hit indicator" ribbons and the actual damage dealt; be it you causing too much or too few damage with regards to these ribbons. I knew about non-damaging penetrations and "over-damaging" overpenetrations; I thought the former was probably due to hitting a module or spaced armor (you would receive a "pen ribbon" but deal no damage), the latter I thought was probably due to a shell overpenetrating one section and then exploding in an other section (you would receive an "overpen ribbon" but deal 1x "overpen damage" and 1x "pen damage"). In the recent Yamato video from Flambass, there is a strange occurence of inconsistent hit ribbons and damage dealt; clip: For those not able to load or view the clip: Flambass' Yamato hits an enemy FDG with 3 shells (3 penetration ribbons) and deals 19536 damage. 3 penetrations would equal the shell's listed damage (as a penetration ~ 1/3 shell's listed damage), which for the Yamato would be 14600; this is a lot less than the damage Flambass actually dealt. I'm not sure how this damage number was achieved, but it's really close to 4x "pen damage"; this could indicate a shell doing double penetration damage (which I didn't know of before). So I searched the WG Wiki and found something about shells ricocheting inside a ship (which, for some reason, I also didn't know of before) : http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration#Armor-Piercing_Internal_Ricochets This would fit the situation shown above (plunging fire + turtleback); but there's something I don't really understand (highlighted part in Wiki quote): ... it might be a stupid question but ... How can a shell cause penetration damage when it hasn't exploded (yet) ? I always thought the following : shell doesn't penetrate section (bounce/shatter) -> no damage shell penetrates section but exits it without exploding -> overpen damage shell penetrates section and explodes inside it -> pen damage (or citadel damage if this section is registered as a citadel) But apparently you can also get penetration damage when you overpenetrate a section? I'm confused
  3. Was thinking about this in releation to real life intended role and effectiveness vs effectiveness in wows after I visited the Belfast. I noted that the bow area of the ship(stern area is generally locked out) have things that could potentially provide enough resistance for a shell to arm if it hits it, and also potentially slow it enough to cause it to detonate inside, so that made me think about armor schemes. i have came up with 2 main types looking though the armor models here and the internet, one is all or nothing, another is incremental. all or nothing: examples: nagato, US BBs in general all or nothing is based on the idea that if you blow up the boiler in a boiler-turbine-shaft system, the entire thing is going to stop working anyways. The same thing goes to ammo+propellant , it is extremely difficult to arrange them without having the resulting explosion when they get hit damaging something else. In the ideal form of the system, all of a battleship's armor was concentrated to form an armored "citadel" around the ship's vitals: an armored box of uniform thickness designed to defend against the largest enemy guns. Anything else that is not crucial to a ship’s combat/movement capability is left unarmored. pros: gives the best thickness around the citadel and vital areas. Ideally, the ship can lose its bow and stern completely and still float. The idea behind an unarmored bow, stern and superstructure is that shells can pass through them without having the fuse in them arm, then the shell could pass through the entire ship without exploding. Cons: a shell flying through the ship is still causing damage along the path of the said shell. there can be something in the way that could arm the said shell, a cooking pot, the admiral’s bed, or some scrap metal piled up somewhere. compartmentalising the said bow and stern for better resistance to flooding may end up giving enough stuff to slow and arm the said shell. crew moral may drop if they know that they have to work in the unarmored section of the ship while it’s in combat, refer to 1st point, there can be every chance that you end up in the way of the shell. incremental armor: examples: KM BBs, Fuso, WW1 RN BBs A older system of armouring the ship that dates to when the first steel clad ships came out. It is basically covering the entire ship with armor plates, each with enough thickness to stop gun calibers that were used at that time. The design of those ships at that time had a thick middle belt where the ammo and engines are behind, and medium thickness everywhere else to stop small - medium sized guns, and the deck having just enough to stop splinters. It was later phased out as gun calibers became larger and engagement ranges increased, where only the thickest armor is effective and plunging fire became more of a problem, and treaties limiting the tonnage of warships+physical constraints itself(solid steel blocks are not gonna float) pros: makes the ship immune to small-medium calibers of weapons. Good for close range engagements of the time. cons: Less raw thickness of armor plates. as gun effectiveness increased, it soon became clear that only the thickest possible armor is gonna work, or have nothing at all and hope that the shell does not arm. Increased engagement ranges means that the lack of deck armor can become fatal. effectiveness of each scheme in wows: HE+IFHE spam is strong vs All or nothing schemes due to how damage works, and to a certain extent you can lolpen the lightly armored sections of the ship to get large damage. The best example of the problem is nagato, she has a 310mm belt, but her weather deck, bow and stern is only 25mm thick and contains HP, which means she is weak to HE spam, and to herself oddly enough, due to how overmatch works(410mm can lolpen 25mm armor). However having a thick belt means that shots aimed at it needs to pass through more of it, a good example being GK vs Yamato. GK has 380mm belt, which makes it the thinnest at t10, Yamato has 410mm belt on the other hand, then thickest(assuming all steel quality is the same). When a shell impacts at 45 degrees, the shell has to pass though about 580mm of armor for the Yamato, increasing the chance of a shell shatter, on the other hand on the GK the shell needs to pass through 537 of armor, which makes it more likely that the shell will penetrate, and the effect increases with angle. on the other hand, incremental armor scheme can be more effective in certain situations, such has the fuso(only had experience with her so far) she has a 100mm plate which covers her upper belt and more armor plates covering her bow and stern area, which makes it so that there is no way that a small-medium caliber HE shell can pen it, and also means that it is always above the threashold limit for autobounce to work. A good example is Yamato and GK again. Yamato can overmatch up to 32mm worth of armor, but GK has 60mm(?) plates covering a large portion of her bow, which effectively makes it nearly immune to yamato’s guns when bow in. However having a thinner overall armor plate over the vital areas means that if you got caught showing full broadside in a turn or got jumped on, you get deleted faster or in the case of Germans, take massive penetration damage.
  4. Oderisson

    Republique armor weakness

    Does anyone knows if recent armor penetration change fixed republique problem of getting citadelled by cruisers at extreme ranges?
  5. Ah the Atago, good guns, nice maneuvrability, good stealth, good torpedoes,... But armor ? Not that the armor is bad by itself, it seems like it's bugged, even at extreme angles or even if it scrape the paint of the ship without actually going in, it would still hit the citadel. The subject, the Atago, seems to not have been touched since it was out, nor buffed, not nerfed. Yet the armor need a review. Not about how strong it is, but how it react to a shell hitting it. Even if a shell graze the side armor (Not the front and not plunging fire) at a 89° angle, it will still hit the citadel, like if the shell made a 90° turn into the ship. I understand there's the caliber as well, but not on this situation. On this replay, look at the last 1 minute of the game, and the left side of the ship in slow motion. You will see the shell grazing the side armor of the ship and still touching the citadel. This happens a lot, like if the citadel was sticking out of the side of the ship. I know WG doesn't like touching at the stats of premiums, but that's what's killing the older premiums, because so far some of them seems to have been left behind untouched since the game went out. 20171230_160111_PJSC038-Atago-1944_19_OC_prey.wowsreplay
  6. PhantomSailor

    Iowa Changes for Public Test

    So logged on Public Test today and to see the changes to USS Iowa.These are the changes I saw, didn't look too deep if there could be other changes.But citadel has been lowered and here are the other changes. Citadel Deck Changed from 152mm to 25mm & 16mm (Splits to multiple sections) Citadel Athward FRONT - Changed from 287mm & 216mm to 216mm (One section) BACK - Changed from 287mm & 16mm to 16mm (One section) Citadel Armorbelt Changed from 307mm & 297mm & 163mm to 297mm & 163mm PUBLIC TEST: LIVE:
  7. PhantomSailor

    Montana Changes for Public Test

    So logged on Public Test today and to see the changes to USS Montana. These are the changes I saw, didn't look too deep if there could be other changes. But citadel has been lowered and here are the other changes. Citadel Deck Changed from 150mm to 19mm ​Citadel Torpedo Bulkhead Changed from 45mm to 110mm​ PUBLIC TEST: LIVE:
  8. Hi zusammen, habe mal eine grundsätzliche Frage zur Penmechanik der Zitadelle. Habe seit einiger Zeit die Des Moines und ordentlich Spaß mit ihr. Da meine Stats noch nicht wirklich überragend sind, wollte ich mich mal ranmachen, mich systematisch zu verbessern. Unter anderem im Trainingsraum exakt bestimmen, abe welcher Distanz ich welches BB zitadellen kann und mir eine entsprechende Tabelle erstellen. Also bin ich in den Trainingsraum und habe verschiedene BBs aus rechtem Winkel aus unterschiedlicher Distanz beschossen. Angefangen mit der North Carolina, dann rüber zur Amagi, zwischenzeitlich mal spaßeshalber auf eine Izumo geschossen. Jetzt das kuriose, was ich nicht verstehe: ich habe auf kein einziges BB absichtlich eine Zitadelle erzielen können. Nach der North Carolina dachte ich noch, dass hier bereits das Tieferlegen der Zitadelle was mit zu tun hat (obwohl ich glaube, dass es noch garnicht implementiert ist), aber spätestens bei der Amagi hab ichs nicht mehr gerafft. Selbst auf unter 2km kam nichts bei rum außer normalen Penetrationen. Weder unter dem Schornstein, noch unter den Geschützen, weder beim Zielen auf die Wasserlinie noch leicht darunter. Besonders komisch fand ich es, weil ich mich noch genau an eine Situation aus der Baltimore erinnern kann, wo ich einer exakt rechtwinklig stehenden Amagi direkt beim ersten Versuch in zwei hintereinander folgenden Salven insgesamt 6 Zitadellen aus ca. 6km Entfernung gedrückt habe. Insbesondere wenn ich die in diesem Thread erwähnte Penkurve betrachte, hätte ich schon aus ca. 8km Entfernung die ersten Zitas erwartet (Amagi hat 254mm Belt, dazu vielleicht dann noch ein leichter Winkel etc): http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/77219-henri-iv-tier-x/page__hl__%20kurve__st__20#topmost Also, wo ist mein Denkfehler? Oder einfach Zufall, dass am Ende aufgrund Streuung dann doch keine einzige Granate wirklich auf die Zitadelle gefallen ist? Für die interessierten habe ich das Replay angehängt, allerdings habe ich nach der Amagi die Lust verloren und die restlichen BBs nur noch runtergebrannt, d.h. der Rest des Vids ist lame. Lustigerweise habe ich dann in der allerletzten Salve auf eine Iowa, gezielt auf die Superstructure, aus ca. 2km und leichtem WInkel mit der allerletzten Salve die einzige Zita des Tests gemacht, wobei mich das Game hier glaube ich einfach nur noch verhöhnen wollte... Gruß Stahlfons edit: offensichtlich darf ich kein Replay anhängen. Irgendjemand einen Tip?
  9. hopeasusi

    Belfast Armor vs Edinburgh

    So I was looking at the armor models of these 2 ships of the SAME class, but Belfast has somehow less armor in fore and aft ends. Edinburgh has 16mm and Belfast 13mm, can anyone explain why? Or is this just Wail Gaming's balancing at it's "finest".
  10. Hi all, "Armor models are wrong" response." Flaw confirmed. We will fix it. We will look into it more. If there is truly such inconsistency, we will fix it. We are not going to split cruiser belts into such sections. Tapering them for historical accuracy would be gameplay nerf, and this is not something we want for cruisers. It's not that clear, we won't take actions until we have solid proof. Friedman often gives vague wordings, unfortunately. As for belt-backing we mostly treat it as balancing tool. We can add it if we need it. We will review the model. As for aft belt, it is not clear to us yet. We will look into it more. It would be nice to know whether external or internal belt is meant. Will fix the belt, and will look into bulkheads (we will review it additionally). There was no belt there. If magazine protection is meant, then we need some solid proof to act. Will fix that. I commented on backing above. We will review the model. We will review the model, same here. Yamato nerf request, huh? Our sources indicate they are adequate. It is present on the model, probably not viewable yet. That's right, but these are intentional conventions. We won't change this. Not confirmed. Not confirmed. Another Yamato nerf request Yep, it's not a big deal, so no, it won't happen. Game convention. That's right. NC is modelled differently because of balance purposes. On the side note: we don't consider Skulski a reliable source. He is fond of making some missing parts up. This is understandable though - original Yamato blueprints are scarce, we spent much time and effort to gather everuthing we have. We will review the model. Will fix that. We tend not to split magazine armor and decks into segments if there is tapering. Game convention. We will review the model. Same as with Des Moines: we don't split magazine armor and decks into segments if there is tapering. Game convention. We will review the model. Navypedia is not a reliable source for us. It's not like we always have first-class sources. But according to them, it is heavy armor. So..not confirmed. Same here. It is not missing, it is not visible in the viewer. It was indicated upon viewer release in patch notes, that some parts may not be visible (technical reasons, will be improved at some point). We will review the model. Uh. Looks like we're done. As you can see, most part of comment is relevant. Dear author, thanks again for your input. Fair seas! Leo "Apollo11"
  11. El2aZeR

    About the Iowa/Montana

    Browsing the American Forums, I've stumbled upon this thread: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/99212-confirmed-iowamontana-citadel-modeling-error/ For those of you too lazy to click that, it basically shows that the citadel model on both the Iowa and the Montana include a splinter deck which (obviously) should not be a part of it. This makes the citadel on both ships extend far above the waterline and is one of the reasons why they're so vulnerable compared to their contemporaries. Separating the splinter deck from the citadel would make them similar to the North Carolina and therefore much harder to hit at closer ranges. The official answer was: First of all, according to people in the thread (and I have no reason to believe they are lying) both Iowa and Montana are the only battleships in the game whose citadels are modeled to include the splinter deck (apparently the Yamato as well, but that is arguable). And I believe it is widely accepted that the Montana at least is the worst performing T10 battleship, being outclassed by both the Yamato and the G.Kurfürst in almost every category. Publicly available data supports this, showing that the Montana comes in dead last by a good amo in every relevant category across almost every server (a common trend for USN ships). The Russian server stands out as an anomaly, on which it on average sports slightly better damage and survival rates than the Yamato during the last two weeks. (I'm basing this off of warships.today, as wows-numbers is currently down, but I believe other stat sites will draw a similar picture) Of course, there are also things that will never be reflected in stats. Assuming a similar skill level, I think everyone will agree with me that a Yamato or a G.Kurfürst will usually win a fight against a Monty barring any divine intervention from RNGesus. The Montana simply doesn't have enough strengths to make up for it, most of her former ones taken away by the G.Kurfürst when it was introduced. Even some of the things it has going for it can be argued upon (for example Yamato is arguably better at weathering air strikes thanks to its absurd TDS value, as neither will be capable of wiping out a significant portion of T10 planes before they drop their payloads). This raises several questions: If being the most underperforming ship in its bracket is not enough to warrant a buff, what is? Sure, Monty deletes cruisers real good, but so do both the Yamato and the G.Kurfürst in addition to not being comparatively useless at everything else. And Monty is the most vulnerable to cruiser AP shells out of the 3. Does this perhaps mean that the game is only balanced based on statistics available on the Russian server? I've read otherwise, but WG employees are apparently no stranger to lying to the community as evidenced above. Is WG happy with the current state of US ships? If so, doesn't this validate everyone crying about "anti-US bias"? Including other facts like STS plating not being considered as armor (for those that don't know, that's 114mm of armor missing on the turret faceplate for the Montana alone), it'd be rather difficult to argue against that. It may just be that WG is waiting on how much the recent armor buff will affect the statistics before making further changes. Separating the splinter deck from the citadel would of course be a rather big survivability buff to the Iowa and the Montana, but the reasons given do seem rather questionable to say the least. Thoughts? PS: Well, this sure turned into a wall of text. It's my first post here, too *sigh*.
  12. Wyvern_Echo

    New york armor buff?

    I've played some games now with the tier 5 American Battleship the New York, and I see a small problem facing german bbs, first the guns lack penetration, and second it dont hace armor to brawl against them, I thought that american dreadnoughts had more armour in the bow of the ship? I think that many, american bb player can agree that US battleships lack of armor is there because it's not fun trying to brawl a german bb and get penned with 4-11k damage each time...
  13. Literaly ships such North carolina, Tirpitz, bismark, sharorst(tier7 german BB premium) and such similaritys, instent having their citadels under the water, why not moving it upwards? Such similaritys of the cruisers that has most of their Citadels abit up water, thus why of the reasons they get citadel so often, ofc their lack of armor does not help agains higher calibers guns naturaly. Though i dont understand why this BBs that i mention above got their citadels underwater. So yeah instent nerfing the bow armor that you WG try to do so, why dont raise their citadels up instent? Realy i dont understand why in this game this boats needs have their citadels underwater, for myself it does not seem logic. Now if the cruisers had their Citadels underwater that would be another story. Also montana, yamato or iowa got their citadels well balanced diferently and comparing to tiers 8 BBs. What are your opinion about this guys? Also why does this kind of ships special the tiers8 has their citadels like this? P.s- Though i know when enemy does a hard turn and shows the red hull then u can citadel but rare are the cases.
  14. duoinvasion

    question about T8+ german cruisers

    does the hipper, roon and hindihave the turtleback armor that their BB mates have? cause i spent salvos at atleast 4km and below trying to cit a hipper with my zao AP for the cit challenge and could not for the life of me cit him(before you plebes say l2p, i was aiming at the waterline and right under the smokes stacks). or did RNJesus fck me over really hard?
  15. OK, so whats up with this? Last few days whenever I was in a battle against t9/10 enemy battleships, my amagi did next to no damage to them. And no, I'm not talking about sniping them from 20km into the bow, I'm talking about 13-15km salvos into broadside that deal virtually no damage... Few battles ago I was literary spamming HE shells into a broadside Iowa from 13-14 km because I couldn't deal any real damage to him... (getting 10k HE salvos) Anyone else experiencing things like that? btw example from my last game (as noted, basicly all of shots were fired into broadsiding enemies, not angled ones.) Izumo - 16 shells hit from ~13 km into broadside (even incapacitated his gun because i was aiming below his turrets) - result: 20k damage Iowa - 13 shells hit from 14-15 km into broadside - result: 7.9 k damage Iowa - 3 shells hit from 14 km into broadside - result -2.5k damage
  16. lup3s

    Armor on cruisers.

    Hi, Since 0.5.5 was released I have the feeling it's harder to hit the citadel on a cruiser sailing broadside to you and easier to hit the citadel on a cruiser sailing angled or straight to you. I've had multiple times (with and against me) where a cruiser got devastated by a battleship, even though it was sailing perfectly angled or straight away from that battleship. On the other hand, I've had multiple times (again, with and against me), where a cruiser was sailing broadside to a battleship, and none of the hits were a citadel hit. Since that last update, I've got more Devastating Strikes (with my battleship) on cruisers not sailing broadside than on cruisers sailing broadside to me. Is it just me (and bad luck RNG) or did something really change to how citadel hits (especially on cruisers) are calculated? Now I'd sometimes prefer to shoot at cruisers that are sailing angled or straight towards (/away from) me, than at cruisers broadside to me; as I have the feeling the chance of getting a citadel hit on the former one is bigger. I also have the feeling you've got more chance scoring citadel hits on a cruiser sailing 15 km from you than on one sailing 4 km from you.. Really weird.
  17. This ship has utter [edited] armor. It's made from like paper. Even 30-40 angled shots getting citadel hit this ship. It feels like it has CA level armor. Heck even Myoko's armor is better then this [edited] when angled. I got citadel hit from 10 km Newyork when i angled 40-45 degree to it. Penscola hit with 7k damage in every salvo when in 10 km range when i angled.What's wrong with this ship? I regreted to buy this. What's your experience people with this ship?
  18. I really like playing the Fuso and I wanted to know the best and worst places to shoot the Fuso. I knew under the smoke stacks were good for citadels but I was surprised to see that underneath the turrets was not always an optimal shot choice. I put together a video which highlights the Fuso's armor and the best places to shoot the Fuso at closer ranges (line drive shots). I tested things out in a training room and some of the results surprised me. Anyways here is the link to the video if you all are interested in seeing what I found out. I will be checking the YouTube page off and on so leave me some comments on the channel so I can see what you guys and gals think. Or if you have any ideas for better tests to run. I know that results may differ with plunging shots and that is 1 alternative that I think I can test out. Testing plunging shots is harder though because of the battleship's RNG with it's shells. Part 1
  19. I really like playing the Fuso and I wanted to know the best and worst places to shoot the Fuso. I knew under the smoke stacks were good for citadels but I was surprised to see that underneath the turrets was not always an optimal shot choice. I put together a video which highlights the Fuso's armor and the best places to shoot the Fuso at closer ranges (line drive shots). I tested things out in a training room and some of the results surprised me. Anyways here is the link to the video if you all are interested in seeing what I found out. I will be checking the YouTube page off and on so leave me some comments on the channel so I can see what you guys and gals think. Or if you have any ideas for better tests to run. I know that results may differ with plunging shots and that is 1 alternative that I think I can test out. Testing plunging shots is harder though because of the battleship's RNG with it's shells. Part 1 I created a follow-on video to my original which details the Fuso armor against larger 16 inch guns. I wanted to see if the area underneath the turrets are able to be citadeled using the Nagato. I was surprised by the results. I then performed the same tests against a New Mexico to compare and contrast the results. Again that surprised me. Let me know what you all think about this updated video and if there are any other tests you would like to see. Part 2 Part 3 I took a deeper look into the New Mexico's armor to determine the ships defensive strengths and weaknesses. On part 3 I shot at the New Mexico while parallel and at angles to see how the armor reacts in differing circumstances. The New Mexico definitely showed some promise in certain cases. For me the only issue with the New Mexico is the ships speed. I am interested to see what you all think. Leave some comments and let me know what you all think.
  20. Ahoy there! I've been playing the Izumo for a while (grinding my bitter way to the Yamato), and I've noticed some odd things about this particular ship. First off, what is up with the dispersion of the main battery 10th year type guns? With the Gun Fire Control System Mod.1, I have better dispersion than most BBs around those tiers. 247m dispersion at 25.5km range (270+ something with spotter up), which is pretty damn good if you ask me. However, the calculation algorithm for the shells seems to troll players all the time. You land a perfect salvo time and time again, only to see them harmlessly land in the water in a circle around the enemy ships. I've gone through entire battles without hitting an enemy more than 11 times. In a 20km duel. With multiple targets. All of them giving me their sides. Wut? Now don't get me wrong, I know this is a common feature for BBs. But at the same time, it seems to happen WAY more often when I play the Izumo. How in the world can those guns perform so poorly when the dispersion (on paper) is so good? Next is the penetration values of the guns. And I know this is a hot subject to anyone playing BBs. What in the world is up with the shells penetration? And we're talking a fully upgraded Izumo, not that horrible pen that you get with the stock hull. I have to play the damn ship as a close-range knife fighter just to be able to penetrate other BBs. Well, except for when I fight another Izumo. The irony. Rarely do I get a hit that actually does more than 6k damage. And citadel penetrations are a thing of the past, it seems. You want to get citadels while playing an Izumo? Then shoot at a Yorck, and hope you actually even hit him. Furthermore, I can't make sense of the armor of the thing. The Izumo is supposed to be an adequately armored ship with sligthly less citadel armor and reinforced forward and after ends. Yet there seems to be no torpedo protection, so they just go straight through doing about 20k+ damage all the time. Even at an extreme angle those things cut through the ship like a hot knife through butter. And again, I'm not complaining about the ship, it has it's moments just like any other. For example, the AA and secondary batteries are great with their extreme range and punch (with mods, ofc). But you don't win battles with good AA guns. You actually need to be able to sink, well, things. So to sum up my experience of the Izumo: Trolly dispersion. Trolly armor. Lousy penetration. Great AA power (again, with mods). Great secondary batteries (same here, mods). Seemingly no torpedo armor bulge. Superstructure seems to be made out of flammable glass, not welded metal. So my question to you guys: what's your opinion and experience of the Izumo? Scourge or clown? Cheers!
  21. CAPT_Taste

    Fuso Armor Review - Some Surprises

    I really like playing the Fuso and I wanted to know the best and worst places to shoot the Fuso. I knew under the smoke stacks were good for citadels but I was surprised to see that underneath the turrets was not always an optimal shot choice. I put together a video which highlights the Fuso's armor and the best places to shoot the Fuso at closer ranges (line drive shots). I tested things out in a training room and some of the results surprised me. Anyways here is the link to the video if you all are interested in seeing what I found out. I will be checking the YouTube page off and on so leave me some comments on the channel so I can see what you guys and gals think. Or if you have any ideas for better tests to run. I know that results may differ with plunging shots and that is 1 alternative that I think I can test out. Testing plunging shots is harder though because of the battleship's RNG with it's shells.
  22. This thread mainly concerns the relationship between DD and Battleships, clearly two of the categories on this forum that shares great mutual love and respect for eachother. Now, the general purpose of HE is to ensure some damage where low-caliber AP shells would at worst scratch the paintwork of the imposing battleship drivers. But I am noticing a double issue when it comes to this and to be fair this has developed with patches. As it stands now, gunboat policies are becoming less and less effective. That's to say, DD's who focus mostly on the guns are facing numerous problems. I am not going to focus too much on American destroyers and their terrible ballistics, this has more to do what actually happens when an HE shell hits a battleship and to a degree vice-versa. HE shells of 120-130mm are becoming increasingly useless against certain battleships. Particularly in the mid-range ships like the New Mexico. This concerns not only fires, but also general damage. Now, most ships tend to be around 7-10% chance of making enemy battleships catch fire per shot. Given that one of the skills reduces the chance by 7% and another module can furthermore reduce it by 5%, is making fires while not a thing of the past from destroyers, but far less frequent than they should be. I've noticed this in my own battleships as well. Furthermore, HE shots that hits the general outer armour and does nothing I have no problem with. Hitting 7 shots on the middle of the superstructure and doing 256 dmg there can be no game-mechanic justification for. Now, I understand not having HE do consistently high damage or ensuring each shot having a significant chance of starting a fire, but having the opposite of both have essentially relegated the destroyer gunnery role to cruisers which they are the most wounderable too, or other destroyers which is at best an equal playing field. Now, I've had matches in the grem with over 200 hits which have been complete monster games, 5-6 kills. Yet I've had games with similar amounts of hits which have for the most part simply been scratching the paint of the com tower of a New Mexico. While it differs from ship to ship and defidently loadout to loadout, the HE utilization is becoming increasingly futile or at least unstable. On the other hand, Battleships while the main battery accuracy have been marginally improved, has secondariness that are not nearly accurate enough to hit the inside of a barn. To a certain degree I am missing the old balance . Not so much on the AP side, I am entirely fine with 120mm AP guns doing nothing against battleships, but the HE is as it stands imbalanced beyond what is reasonable in my opinion and BB secondariness are fairly useless at least in late tier games, which is a bit of a shame.
  23. If you think you know all that is to know about Ishizuchi, you may be wrong. ,,Sailing in at tier IV, this battleship is often thought of as a proto-Kongo (a mean ship in its own right). The Ishizuchi is the perfect Premium ship to master the fundamentals of battleship captaining: big guns, heavy armor, and intimidation." (present description on Wargaming official page) Facts: Wargaming was lying months ago about this ship and is still lying rudely about it. Ishizuchi is NOT "a great choice" or a "perfect ship". Example: ,,the perfect Premium ship"... First lie - heavy armor. For tier IV, Ishizuchi has an extremely weak citadel (203 mm), less than any battleships on tier III-IV you can see at this moment in the game, and a pretty weak hull armor. Even tier III battleships have 305 mm citadels, like South Carolina and Kawachi. Kawachi as tier III has better armor than Ishizuchi (tier IV), both citadel and hull parts. Second lie - big guns, comparable punch. That's a shameless lie, designed to create the image of power and destruction. Power and destruction? Mmm... NO. It has 305 mm guns, which are horrible due to bad penetration, nasty accuracy and (again) horrible dispersion. Yes, this is the word that describes this ship. HORRIBLE. The penetration is so bad, that you're asking if they mistakenly put the 203 mm guns from Furutaka on Ishizuchi and called them "305mm". Along with bad armor, penetration and accuracy, comes the fact of small range, 12,9 km, one of the things that will drive a Ishizuchi owner mad, since there are ships like Myogi (6 guns, 365mm, more than 15 KM range) , Wyoming (12 guns, 305 mm, 14,1 KM range) and Phoenix (if I remember well - some 10 gunsx152 mm, 13,7 KM range that can be raised to some 16KM with one of the 4th skills of the captain), which can give a serious kick from greater distances. Wanna light the Ishizuchi on fire? NO PROBLEM. Third lie - intimidation. You cannot intimidate when you have a horrible ship. Everybody who knows "her", knows that she's the perfect target. Period. Now... what people don't know, is that Ishizuchi is getting TOO EASY on fire. I've used the ship too many times to be wrong about this. It doesn't matter if she's fast. Most of the time you'll encounter faster ships or ships that have both speed and greater range. Just imagine what's the outcome. Ship's on fire. You use the repair consumable. "Oh, no, now it's on fire again. But I just repaired it. Great, here comes a torp..." Well... that's the course of things with this ship. Beside that, there are other aspects. Anti-aircraft defense. VERY BAD, even if you have a skillful captain. The AA guns fire like the crew is drunk, sick, drugged... or something. Secondary guns have bad accuracy as well, and they have a bad range, even if you manage in the end to enable the 4th skill of range. So... defense? What defense? It's a joke. The entire ship is a joke. A bad joke. At least here (secondary guns) WG could have done something, but as far as I saw, they just take money and leave the player in possession of a ship that clearly is pretty unusable. And now comes the worst part: when players who enjoy playing low tiers enable the 4th skill of their St. Louis, Phoenix, Kuma, Tenryu (etc) and some long range guns destroyers... they have no trouble destroying Ishizuchi, spamming fire. In case of a dd that can shoot at more than 13 km away, when you sailing Ishizuchi with his 12,9 KM range, YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THE GUY WHO'S SHOOTING YOU, AND YOU CANNOT SHOOT BACK! Another thing. Like all these problems weren't enough, this is the only battleship who gets constant damages to the... rudder. Considering guns range, turret rotation speed, the deck "inclined" to catch fire, the bad armor and the bad AA guns, having a problem with the rudder is even worse. More than that, last updates seem to bring something very unpleasant. Almost full HP ships destroyed in a single salvo. That haven't happened before, and I played it many times before the updates. Imagine a battleship like Ishizuchi, 40000 and some HP... one blow (and that was angled, not a 90 degrees shot), and it's gone. Really, now. How to have fun with this ship? And Wargaming has and is doing nothing about it. Now... Some kid told me to enable the 4th skill. Where that kid failed - is that 4th skill of range works on guns up to 155 mm (in this case works just on the secondary useless guns, since the main guns have 305mm). Some accused me of asking for a "pay to win" ship. Nope. This is not the case. I just paid money to have fun. I have experience with this, and I don't have fun. Simple as that. And so on... Some people asked me why I haven't take the refund. Well, because it had a limit of 14 days, if i remember well (not nearly enough to properly test a ship), and implied some procedures that I do not agree with. More that that, I dislike very much to be lied, I dislike even more to be tricked. If someone who sells a thing (Wargaming in this case) say something about that thing, they should make sure the description FITS the product. Otherwise they must be accountable for the problem and change the product with a better one (since the buyer was lied), which in this case could be done. There's another option, one that is called "buffing". So far Wargaming has done NOTHING about it, not even when people start complaining about Ishizuchi. They did it for the ATAGO, but not for Ishizuchi, which means they don't respect their customers. So, you do something for those who paid more (Atago), but nothing for those who paid less (Ishizuchi). N.O.T.H.I.N.G. If in my first post about Ishizuchi I was using a lot of cuss words due a lot of anger, now I come with all arguments, after sailing Ishizuchi in many battles. I expect moderators to be fair, as they should always be. If you know what I am talking about, please use the poll. Let's demand the ship our money deserve. Thank you One annotation: As far as I see on their profiles, people like Phantombeast and Hellhound666 have never fought a single battle in Ishizuchi. I respectfully ask that people treat this poll in a serious manner, as we talk about WORKED money. Work, you what that is, I hope... These two negative votes don't count.
  24. ChickenCheeze23

    Colorado and New Mexico's citadel

    What is the deal with these ship's citadel? Is the armor that strong or is it just placed weirdly like the Cleveland's? I have only ever citadel'd these ships in a training room at about 2-3km range or by getting a really lucky hit with plunging fire. Not once have I been able to get them at close range in an actual game, not ONCE. Something is funky and I don't like it.
  25. A lot of the discussions on the forums lately is about HE vs AP ammunition. With much of the rage being regarding the HE (supposed) superiority over AP, with it's ability to cause (supposedly) constant fires as well as consistant damage. So my suggestion is: let HE not be consistent, but affected by armoring. This goes especially for BBs (and if you look at my profile, I'm not just another whining BB driver), that adopted the All-Or-Nothing philosophy to armor (almost all dreadnoughts and true battleships of WoWs). AP shells can do high amounts of damage (either by penetrating and detonating in the citadel, or by over-penning and ricocheting inside the target before exploding) against medium and heavily armored targets (compared to their caliber). But if they hit the unarmored parts of the ship they will overpenetrate, doing minimal damage and just leaving a nice entry and exit hole, perhaps ripping away a few crew memebers of components on it's way. HE shells can do high amounts of damage if they hit the same lightly armored targets (even medium armored targets for higher calibers), it's large amount of explosive ripping apart light structures, shredding components and crew alike, and setting fires. But HE shells hitting heavy armor will just ecplode on the outside, leaving a scorchmark and nothing else, effectively doing little to no damage. For light calibers, even medium armor would prevent much damage from HE. These hits would also have next to no chance of starting a fire, as most fires were started by shells entering the superstructure to find smaller munition stores, fuel stores or crew quarters. The thought of the saltcrusted, wet wooden planing beig the thing that burn on a BB is wrong. Yes, given enough time exposed to other fires (i.e fuel, munitions etc) the deck will also burn, but the deck bunning is in no part vital.