Battleship Comparison

[Exustio]

You messed something up with the discription of Bismarck it's a Battleships not a Battlecruiser (btw. there were no Battlecruisers in the Kriegsmarine )

 

 

Wasn't the concept of BC not already archaic by the time the Kriegsmarine started building here fleet? I think the only BCs taking part (of any fleet) in WW2 were from the 20s or even from before that era. The fast BB more or less replaced the BC from the 30s on into WW2.

 

Both of u seem correct, think my mind drifted away there as the Bismarck and the Tirpitz are both fast moving, fast firing, high caliber ships and better armor then a Cruiser yet on some area's do not qualify as a Battleship. Placing these sisters somewhere inbetween a Cruiser and Battleship, thus being a BC.

 

Nevertheless, they are indeed marked as Battleships and have fixed the type-o in response. 

 

Thanks for the heads up. 

[CountOfTuscany]

 

 

 

Thanks for the heads up. 

 

No problem, it's just some designation I'd say. I think the Alaska class cruiser (USN) was designated BC by some other navies. Does that change the performance? nope. Just some designation.

 

By the way, I'm really impressed and really happy with the kind of effort you put in these comparisons, great job!

 

[Whatever08152]

+1 for your effort, that is really handy.

 

Altough I would object that a Fuso is better then a New Mexico like the raw numbers would suggest (I wouldnt only object but say that they almost have no chance ...at least I never met one who did because at T6 players generally dont care to angle and broadside you all the time ...and - to boast a bit - I did oneshot a Fuso in NM at 10-12km the day before yesterday xD).  ...it really depends on playstyle and I am having a lot of fun in my New Mexico and she never feels underperforming against IJN BBs.

 

Also North Carolina has pretty good frontal armor and I was never afarit to approach higher tier BBs in her ...she gave me almost a feeling of invincibility (ofc I wasnt ...but the gap between the ok´ish Colorado and the outright fantastic North Carolina is huge. She is by far the ship I enjoyed playing the most)

[Exustio]

+1 for your effort, that is really handy.

 

Altough I would object that a Fuso is better then a New Mexico like the raw numbers would suggest (I wouldnt only object but say that they almost have no chance ...at least I never met one who did because at T6 players generally dont care to angle and broadside you all the time ...and - to boast a bit - I did oneshot a Fuso in NM at 10-12km the day before yesterday xD).  ...it really depends on playstyle and I am having a lot of fun in my New Mexico and she never feels underperforming against IJN BBs.

 

Also North Carolina has pretty good frontal armor and I was never afarit to approach higher tier BBs in her ...she gave me almost a feeling of invincibility (ofc I wasnt ...but the gap between the ok´ish Colorado and the outright fantastic North Carolina is huge. She is by far the ship I enjoyed playing the most)

 

In theory one shot'n anything at 10-12km in a BB is no surprise to anyone. I would imagine everybody has done this one time or another. However, the Fuso being with 10-12km is a sign that the guy that drove her had no clue how to play her. This resulted in him being owned by u. A Fuso can kite a New Mexico around, as it is both faster and has more range making this ship a sniper specialist, keep your distance and u will own. 

 

Now im not saying the New Mexico is not worth playing, but if both ships are played by the same caliber player, the Fuso will most likely win, as he will keep his distance, and the New Mexico unable to fire or keep up with him. 

 

However, as u said, and i completely agree with u, if u like playing the ship then please do. In the end, it's a game and we play it for fun. 

 

In terms of the North Carolina, agreed, it is a awesome ship, and from tier 7 and up, the American BB's generally rule the BB line's. Although rumours say at tier 10, that the Montana has trouble penetrating the Yamato. This is caused either by Yamato's armor profile or the lack of penetrating power of the Montana guns. Do keep in mind, that a mediocre ship after a disasterous one can be seen as a messiah (or awesome) simply because the preceding ship is so terrible (The T6 IJN DD Mutsuki for example) 

 

 

[Whatever08152]

 

 

Now im not saying the New Mexico is not worth playing, but if both ships are played by the same caliber player, the Fuso will most likely win, as he will keep his distance, and the New Mexico unable to fire or keep up with him. 

 

I dont see the advantage here because if the Fuso is running he can also not harm the New Mexico and could aswell be ignored. But I dont want to start an argument and both ships are pretty descent I guess. I cant even compare the two because I didnt play IJN BB line very far... maybe my thoughts were different then.

 

And ofc was the oneshot BB lucky and happened once in ~300 games in the NM.

 

 

Although rumours say at tier 10, that the Montana has trouble penetrating the Yamato. This is caused either by Yamato's armor profile or the lack of penetrating power of the Montana guns.

 

If the Yamato doesnt show broadside to the Montana she will have a hard time against her. Although every BB in Yamatos Tier bracket can penetrate her from the side because there isnt any armor that protects well while broadsiding. Those arent rumors - the additional back turret just isnt very helpfull in such a situation

[Diminios]

Exustio, there seems to be something wrong with the US BB line, more precisely, the speed. T4 can reach 20.9 knots, T5-T7 can all run at 21.4, T8 at 27.9 and T9 at 30.8 (all numbers taken from Wargaming's wiki page as I'm too lazy to start the game up).

[Comrad_StaIin]

@OP

Its the same with Scharnhorst everyone says they are BCs but they are in fact BBs(FBBs)

[Exustio]

Exustio, there seems to be something wrong with the US BB line, more precisely, the speed. T4 can reach 20.9 knots, T5-T7 can all run at 21.4, T8 at 27.9 and T9 at 30.8 (all numbers taken from Wargaming's wiki page as I'm too lazy to start the game up).

 

Seems i forgot to add the extra Engine BB's get, nice spotting, will change it when im back

[Exustio]

 

Hello fellow captains, 

 

It has been a while since i updated this sheet, but it is finally here!

 

I am sorry for the delay, however i have shared this sheet with my clan to hear some feedback. Seeing no major comments were raised, i went on and went to updating the WoWs forums. 

 

A few changes have been made: 

 

• Using google Excel cause.....well....lets just say Microsoft was being a ****** (Not to say Google is perfect, it also has its flaws)
• Incorporated data from www.gamemodels3d.com. Show them your support! (Major thumbs up to these guys!)
• Removed comments on each ship. Was tiring to keep it up to date, thus removed. If u wanna know my comments on the ships, poke me

• Added a explanation to the Sector Fire graphs. Please read that if u are unsure what the graphs mean!!! (or poke me)
• Didn't add CV's just yet cause, i am unsure how to represent certain pieces of data about this class. 

 

Hope these changes and updates will help the few who are still following this thread. 

 

As always, happy sinking and thumbs up/comment if u like it!

 

Exustio

 

[Namolis]

What does the "projectile krupp" mean? I assume it has something to do with penetration, but does anyone have the exact meaning in game?

[Exustio]

What does the "projectile krupp" mean? I assume it has something to do with penetration, but does anyone have the exact meaning in game?

 

This question was an expected one, however i can not give u any definitive answer. However, i have come up with the following "idea" of what it would mean. 

 

The name Krupp was determined by the Krupp steel company in the 2nd WW by the family Krupp. This company developed a steel which was stronger then any other, and soon enough the steel was used in every major naval power in the 2nd WW. 

 

What i believe is that Projectile krupp originated from the testing of armour penetration with different caliber guns/armour by the company. This resulted in them defining a constant named "Resistance constant".

 

The Resistance Constant represents the quality of the armour and the capacity of a shell to penetrate it. 

 

Assuming this, we come up with the following formula: 

 

Where: 

B= Armor penetration
V= Velocity
P= Mass Shell 
K= Resistance Constant
D= Caliber Gun

 

This will allow us to calculate average penetrations per gun. I have made a small list of Tier 10 ships with the following results: 

 

	Zao	DM	Yam	Mon
V	920 m/s	762 m/s	780 m/s	762 m/s
P	155 KG	152 KG	1460 KG	1225 KG
K	2468	2919	2574	2520
D	203 mm	203 mm	460 mm	406 mm
B	326 mm	226 mm	540 mm	525 mm

 

For now, my clan seems to think i am correct in these assumptions. Both myself and clan members have tested these value's and they seem to be in the green. 

 

Keep in mind, these are guesses. I have yet to hear from a WG employee if what i assume is correct, so don't go flame when im wrong. 

 

Hope this might clear up some questions. 

 

Exustio

 

As always, thumbs up if u like

 

 

[BuccaneerBill]

 

This question was an expected one, however i can not give u any definitive answer. However, i have come up with the following "idea" of what it would mean. 

 

The name Krupp was determined by the Krupp steel company in the 2nd WW by the family Krupp. This company developed a steel which was stronger then any other, and soon enough the steel was used in every major naval power in the 2nd WW. 

 

 

 

Just a heads up, but I think Krupp was used in all WW1 RN and SMS capitals ships too.  Also I don't think native Japanese capital ships made in WW2 used Krupp, but Vickers hardened I think.

 

Good bit of info by our resident author.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/235502-japanese-development-of-naval-armor-1900-1945/

[Exustio]

 

Just a heads up, but I think Krupp was used in all WW1 RN and SMS capitals ships too.  Also I don't think native Japanese capital ships made in WW2 used Krupp, but Vickers hardened I think.

 

Good bit of info by our resident author.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/235502-japanese-development-of-naval-armor-1900-1945/

 

I understand your scepticism, and who can blame u? 

 

Everything that i read says that Krupp was the first manufacturer that added chromium to the steel and improved the rate at which carbon was introduced to the metal by using carbon-based gases instead of coal. 

 

This however is the origin of the process to make good armour steel and also where the name comes from. Undoubtably variations are made based on these processes and it is not a far fetch at all that every single major naval nation had different method's & compositions. 

 

However, the term "Projectile Krupp" is a synonym of Resistance Constant and this states:

 

The Resistance Constant represents the quality of the armour and the capacity of a shell to penetrate it. 

 

Now understandable, japanese steel armour can have completely different properties of USN shells, but according to the constant it does not matter (for us at least) which armour and shell was used. It is all integrated into the constant, and we have no way of knowing how WG come to these numbers. Once again, it was krupp that started with this constant by testing. Seeing at what distance what type of shell goes threw different type's of armour, and eventually, every navy in the world began to do the same thing. This is made easier, as every major naval power at the time used somewhat the same method of production of armour (Granted, there will be differences, but overall i doubt the differences in armour are that far apart) This made getting the constants more reliable, but in the end, it is all guess work. 

 

All im saying is, regardless of what it is called the same process will have been used on every single major naval power in the world. If Willy Wonka invented the process, then it would have been called Willy Wonka. Now if mr.Pokemon in Japan took the Willy Wonka Process and made a slight difference by adding slightly more chromium, then they would call it the Pokemon armour. Now, regardless of how good/bad each of these 2 versions are, the original idea is from Willy Wonka, which is why WG took over the name of the original inventor of the steel (Which would be Krupp, not Willy Wonka)

 

If only ships would fire chocolate.........

[Namolis]

 

This question was an expected one, however i can not give u any definitive answer. However, i have come up with the following "idea" of what it would mean. 

 

The name Krupp was determined by the Krupp steel company in the 2nd WW by the family Krupp. This company developed a steel which was stronger then any other, and soon enough the steel was used in every major naval power in the 2nd WW. 

 

What i believe is that Projectile krupp originated from the testing of armour penetration with different caliber guns/armour by the company. This resulted in them defining a constant named "Resistance constant".

 

The Resistance Constant represents the quality of the armour and the capacity of a shell to penetrate it. 

 

Assuming this, we come up with the following formula: 

 

Where: 

B= Armor penetration
V= Velocity
P= Mass Shell 
K= Resistance Constant
D= Caliber Gun

 

This will allow us to calculate average penetrations per gun. I have made a small list of Tier 10 ships with the following results: 

 

	Zao	DM	Yam	Mon
V	920 m/s	762 m/s	780 m/s	762 m/s
P	155 KG	152 KG	1460 KG	1225 KG
K	2468	2919	2574	2520
D	203 mm	203 mm	460 mm	406 mm
B	326 mm	226 mm	540 mm	525 mm

 

For now, my clan seems to think i am correct in these assumptions. Both myself and clan members have tested these value's and they seem to be in the green. 

 

Keep in mind, these are guesses. I have yet to hear from a WG employee if what i assume is correct, so don't go flame when im wrong. 

 

Hope this might clear up some questions. 

 

Exustio

 

As always, thumbs up if u like

 

 

 

Thank you for answer. There is one thing I found a little odd, however. If this is the way it's defined in game, why would the krupp be in the denominator (ie. lower krupp gives higher penetration)? HE is listed with a very small krupp, so that should give them penetration values that are absurdly high (which, I realize, in itself may not necessarily be wrong - HE is supposed to be your way of defeating (or at least "working around") heavy armor, so maybe WG "hacked" the formula to make that happen). In addition to that, if the data mining that Gamemodels3d did is correct, the shells that change type on upgraded hulls (eg. NM, NY, Kongo) typically have slightly lower velocity (less penetration), slightly higher mass (more penetration, but only as a square root) and much higher krupp (less penetration). Does that mean that these shells actually do have worse penetration?

 

Take the NM as an example: with your formula, the "356mm AP early 1400lb" has a B = 641mm, while the upgraded "356mm AP Mk16" has B = 447mm. I realize that a lighter shell will lose speed slightly faster, but the huge difference in krupp (1776 vs 2545) will never be made up for on the ranges we typically fight on (<15km). All you get in return is 300 extra damage. That doesn't sound quite right to me, because in game experience says those early models are be quite bad in penetration.

[Exustio]

 

Thank you for answer. There is one thing I found a little odd, however. If this is the way it's defined in game, why would the krupp be in the denominator (ie. lower krupp gives higher penetration)? HE is listed with a very small krupp, so that should give them penetration values that are absurdly high (which, I realize, in itself may not necessarily be wrong - HE is supposed to be your way of defeating (or at least "working around") heavy armor, so maybe WG "hacked" the formula to make that happen). 

 

Well spotted and once again questions i have been expecting for a while. 

 

 

However back on topic......

 

U are right, With a small K the resulting penetration skyrockets. This is probably why they added another stat in the gamemodels3d which i failed to integrate into the spreadsheet called Alpha piercing HE because i did not at the time understand the significance of projectile Krupp. 

 

 

These are the statistics for shells with the New Mexico and as u can see, there is a stat called Alpha piercing HE which should be prioritized over the projectile krupp for HE. This would solve the overwhelming penetration that HE gets from the formula and give it a more reasonable penetration. 

 

 In addition to that, if the data mining that Gamemodels3d did is correct, the shells that change type on upgraded hulls (eg. NM, NY, Kongo) typically have slightly lower velocity (less penetration), slightly higher mass (more penetration, but only as a square root) and much higher krupp (less penetration). Does that mean that these shells actually do have worse penetration?

 

It would seem so. 

 

 Take the NM as an example: with your formula, the "356mm AP early 1400lb" has a B = 641mm, while the upgraded "356mm AP Mk16" has B = 447mm. I realize that a lighter shell will lose speed slightly faster, but the huge difference in krupp (1776 vs 2545) will never be made up for on the ranges we typically fight on (<15km). All you get in return is 300 extra damage. That doesn't sound quite right to me, because in game experience says those early models are be quite bad in penetration.

 

Once again u hit the nail on the head. However there are a few more things one needs to consider when calculating if u penetrate a ship or not: 

• Your initial penetration under "ideal" circumstances, which we calculate via this formula. 
• The angle at which the shell comes into contact with the enemy ship. This has to do with effective armour angling and as many many people have said, angling armour is a thing in WoWs. This is why. 
• The armour thickness of the enemy ships. 

 

Out of these 3, the angle is the most important, as this angle determines the effective armour thickness and the the arc of the shell and of these 2, the arc is the most important stat. This however, i have yet to get a real grasp on. I do know that WoWs uses drag in the equation which makes the formula from a simple high school level degree to an advanced physics problem, but as of yet, i have not found the correct formula (or something that comes close to it). 

 

Coming back to your dilemma with the NM. Yes it is weird that your basic gun has a higher B then the upgraded one. I think more changes occur with the guns other then shell statistics, such as arc? I have yet to play the NM so i have no real experience in shell arcs/travel times. However, if i follow the distinguishing trends within the game per nation, i would say it has a higher arc then its counterpart the Fuso. If this is true, a higher penetration will do u hardly any good unless u are within 5km of the enemy as a high arc means u will go threw the deck armour of a ship where even a DD can go threw with its relatively small 127mm guns. 

 

It might just be, that the NM with the starting gun excels in close range combat because of its higher armour penetration capabilities and the upgraded NM more of a sniper, where with its lower Armour penetration relies on going threw deck armour, which requires a high incline into the decks of ships to effective do damage. I am not saying these are the best ways to play a NM as i have yet to play it (so this is me guessing based on its current penetration numbers and shell arc) but it might be how the dev's intended people should play the NM. 

 

Overall, i believe the Krupp formula is solid as it was used during that era of naval combat and should only be applied to the AP side of the shell charactaristics. However as i have said before, there are more aspects to penetration then simple Armour penetration values per gun, and until we find the one formula we actually need (which is the calculation of shell arc inclinination which includes drag) we are merely guessing here. 

 

If any WoWs dev reads this......please enlighten us

 

Hope this helps

 

Exustio

[Unintentional_submarine]

I calculated the Nürnberg AP, and it was surprisingly good. I tihnk it was somewhere in the range of 280mm. Now I know that a DM can citadel an Amagi, and people have said that it can citadel Iowas as well. So that's at least a bit more than 300mm. But the formula shows it is less than the 150mm of the Nürnberg (which is itself very high). I have actually tried to citadel battleships in the Nürnberg at short ranges. Simply doesn't work I'm afraid. Further, Murmansk has a clearly better AP than Omaha. It simply penetrates at steeper angles and bounces less overall. The only difference? Higher krupp value.

 

So something isn't right. I'm sure if you were to calculate some of the other small guns, the results would be odd, like Murmansk sitting at 190mm and Omaha at 288mm. I know from experience that Omaha doesn't have the better penetrating shell, at the very least not to such an impossible degree.

 

Either there is a hidden factor, or the calculation isn't the one they are using.

[Mucker]

Well i dunno, but on game3dmodels the number that is here referred as "Krupp" is referred there as "ballistic coefficent" which is a very different animal by nature:

 

"In ballistics, the ballistic coefficient (BC) of a body is a measure of its ability to overcome air resistance in flight. It is inversely proportional to the negative acceleration — a high number indicates a low negative acceleration."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient

 

However, even this does not make much sense, mainly the low BC on HE shells. That not what we are seeing across the board in the game.  

 

[Exustio]

Well i dunno, but on game3dmodels the number that is here referred as "Krupp" is referred there as "ballistic coefficent" which is a very different animal by nature:

 

"In ballistics, the ballistic coefficient (BC) of a body is a measure of its ability to overcome air resistance in flight. It is inversely proportional to the negative acceleration — a high number indicates a low negative acceleration."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient

 

However, even this does not make much sense, mainly the low BC on HE shells. That not what we are seeing across the board in the game.  

 

 

Then why have it called specificly Krupp. Ballistic coefficient has no link to the name Krupp, where as the steel manufacturer and the method they gained the numbers do. I am sorry, but that is surely not it, not to mention the ballistic coefficient is used to calculate drag which is needed to calculate the arc of a shell which determines the angle of penetration. I do think we need it for that, but not penetration under optimal conditions. 

[Mucker]

 

Then why have it called specificly Krupp. Ballistic coefficient has no link to the name Krupp, where as the steel manufacturer and the method they gained the numbers do. I am sorry, but that is surely not it, not to mention the ballistic coefficient is used to calculate drag which is needed to calculate the arc of a shell which determines the angle of penetration. I do think we need it for that, but not penetration under optimal conditions. 

I took a look again, it seems to be a translation issue. The English version says indeed krupp, the german version says ballistic coefficent. Since most other languages also use krupp, therefore I assume it's a mistake in the german translation. 

 

On another note, I tried to calculate the penetration potential according to your formula, but my results are way off. 

 

Here are the units I use 

V = m/s

P = kg

K = krupp

D = m

 

Any idea whats wrong?

 

 

 

[T0rad]

 by the way, has anyone tried to calculate drop of velocity of the shell with penetrating lets say cruiser armour? or probability that the shell will hurl out of the citadel during overpen? i mean shell penetrating another layer of citadel armour while leaving? I tried and i failed and i lack the means and knowlage to do propper impact/plasiticy/breaking simulation in finite elements method... 

[CountOfTuscany]

I took a look again, it seems to be a translation issue. The English version says indeed krupp, the german version says ballistic coefficent. Since most other languages also use krupp, therefore I assume it's a mistake in the german translation. 

 

On another note, I tried to calculate the penetration potential according to your formula, but my results are way off. 

 

Here are the units I use 

V = m/s

P = kg

K = krupp

D = m

 

Any idea whats wrong?

 

 

 

 

What unit does krupp have?

[CountOfTuscany]

I tried to do some calculations with the units. 

This is what I got so far (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

 

 

 

So unit of Krupp seems to be something like (N^0.5)*(m^-1)

 

Note that I didn't convert mm to m yet (cause the value used for D is in mm).  So I guess that the unit for Krupp either needs multiplication or division by a 1000.

[CountOfTuscany]

 

 

U are right, With a small K the resulting penetration skyrockets. This is probably why they added another stat in the gamemodels3d which i failed to integrate into the spreadsheet called Alpha piercing HE because i did not at the time understand the significance of projectile Krupp. 

 

 

These are the statistics for shells with the New Mexico and as u can see, there is a stat called Alpha piercing HE which should be prioritized over the projectile krupp for HE. This would solve the overwhelming penetration that HE gets from the formula and give it a more reasonable penetration. 

 

 

Could there be a relation to the "Alpha piercing HE" (HE shell) and the "detonator threshold" (AP shell)? The values seem to be the same accross the board for shells of the same caliber. The values also compare well to the values given in the wiki:

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration_(WoWS)#Armor-Piercing

 

[Exustio]

 by the way, has anyone tried to calculate drop of velocity of the shell with penetrating lets say cruiser armour? or probability that the shell will hurl out of the citadel during overpen? i mean shell penetrating another layer of citadel armour while leaving? I tried and i failed and i lack the means and knowlage to do propper impact/plasiticy/breaking simulation in finite elements method... 

 

This is very well explained by the thread that Countof Tuscany has linked. Well done sir

 

Link is dead, here it is: 

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration_(WoWS)

 

Mucker, on 20 December 2015 - 08:36 PM, said:

I took a look again, it seems to be a translation issue. The English version says indeed krupp, the german version says ballistic coefficent. Since most other languages also use krupp, therefore I assume it's a mistake in the german translation. 

 

On another note, I tried to calculate the penetration potential according to your formula, but my results are way off. 

 

Here are the units I use 

V = m/s

P = kg

K = krupp

D = m

 

Any idea whats wrong?

 

 

 

 

What unit does krupp have?

 

@ Mucker

 

Using the New Mexico as an example from the quote underneath i get the following: 

 

V= 823 m/s

P= 680,4 kg

K= 2545 (unitless)

D= 356 mm

 

B= 0.447m or 447mm. 

 

Seems about right?

 

@CountOfTuscany

 

So far i have read, krupp doesnt have a value as i think it is the same as resistance constant which is: 

 

The Resistance Constant represents the quality of the armour and the capacity of a shell to penetrate it. 

 

I have no clue what kind of unit would fit this constant. 

 

Exustio, on 19 December 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

 

 

U are right, With a small K the resulting penetration skyrockets. This is probably why they added another stat in the gamemodels3d which i failed to integrate into the spreadsheet called Alpha piercing HE because i did not at the time understand the significance of projectile Krupp. 

 

 

These are the statistics for shells with the New Mexico and as u can see, there is a stat called Alpha piercing HE which should be prioritized over the projectile krupp for HE. This would solve the overwhelming penetration that HE gets from the formula and give it a more reasonable penetration. 

 

 

Could there be a relation to the "Alpha piercing HE" (HE shell) and the "detonator threshold" (AP shell)? The values seem to be the same accross the board for shells of the same caliber. The values also compare well to the values given in the wiki:

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration_(WoWS)#Armor-Piercing

 

 

Seems u are right, in the end, WG sources should be more trustworthy then anything else. Great find

 

Updated the link though:

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration_(WoWS)

 

 

[CountOfTuscany]

 

@ Mucker

 

@CountOfTuscany

 

So far i have read, krupp doesnt have a value as i think it is the same as resistance constant which is: 

 

The Resistance Constant represents the quality of the armour and the capacity of a shell to penetrate it. 

 

I have no clue what kind of unit would fit this constant. 

 

 

 

yeah, the link was broken indeed.

I was trying to make the calculation mathematically sound by checking the units, I guess 'Krupp' has to have some kind of unit, and if not, than there might be other variables also involved?

 

Thing I got with the current formula is that it results in some strange outcomes, like BB Mikasa having more penetration than the Yamato, Karlsruhe having more penetration than Zao. Kawachi having more penetration than it's tier 3, 4 and 5 adverseries and just below the penetration values of the tirpitz.

Theses outcomes are often the result of strange values for Krupp. Maybe i'ts especially a mess on the lower tiers and it does hold true for the higher tiers.

 

What I also wonder at what range the calculated penetration value applies. Close range (<3km)? 10km range? 20km range??

And in what way and to what extent might the penetration decrease over range (I guess velocity decreases over range, subsequently reducing penetration), this would also explain the shell drop at high distances)?