Perfectly BALANSED Russian shell arcs ))))

[Eagle_Six_TR]

The shell arcs of Russian destroyers and cruisers are literally an insult to any other nation's dd and cruisers. Especially russian dd's have ridiculous shell arcs, it's literally easy mode. It's not like USN dd's where you have to lead off-screen to actually score a hit. I hate USN cruisers and dd's for their floaty shell arcs. Don't ever come here with that "it had to be balansed in some way))))"  Haida's shell arcs is a joke too. Blys has good arcs but terrible reload. I don't even want to talk about German dd's.  Do you have to be a russian ship to have good shell arcs in this game?

 

 

 

 

[Tyrendian89]

uh... yes... ships are different? and? would be a tad boring if they were all the same wouldnt it? And you dont hear the RU ships complain how all the Muricans and Japs have such overpowered concealment and torpedoes...

[22cm]

Dude, everyone knows that the Russian fleet defeated the Japanese, the British, the Turkish, the German and the French fleets. You are just jealous.

[Lebedjev]

So at the end you want more "difficult" ship ?

Or it's another rant with the only purpose is to said, "My nation must be the best".

[ColonelPete]

30 minutes ago, Eagle_Six_TR said:

The shell arcs of Russian destroyers and cruisers are literally an insult to any other nation's dd and cruisers. Especially russian dd's have ridiculous shell arcs, it's literally easy mode. It's not like USN dd's where you have to lead off-screen to actually score a hit. I hate USN cruisers and dd's for their floaty shell arcs. Don't ever come here with that "it had to be balansed in some way))))"  Haida's shell arcs is a joke too. Blys has good arcs but terrible reload. I don't even want to talk about German dd's.  Do you have to be a russian ship to have good shell arcs in this game?

Are you sure?

We have a thread here where people ask for improvements on Khaba...

 

And it is time you learned the pro and cons of the lines.

 

There are many players who are quite happy about the floaty arcs of some of the US ships.

[El2aZeR]

As far as I remember this is actually a historical aspect. Soviet designers tended to favor guns with higher muzzle velocity and thus lower shell arcs at the cost of barrel life, something they got from the Italians.

 

Don't take my word for it tho, I'm not too well versed in the subject.

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

53 minutes ago, 22cm said:

Dude, everyone knows that the Russian fleet defeated the Japanese, the British, the Turkish, the German and the French fleets at the same time. You are just jealous.

My clarification.

[Inappropriate_noob]

Tats funny  I don't see much difference in the shell arcs of say the Smolensk or the Atlanta, they both go high and gently float down around your target, by which time the target has moved or changes course, always bugs me when the do that, lol

[dasCKD]

Ships of different nations have different characteristics. The American cruisers, in fact, have shell arcs that can be exploited to fire over islands. The Russian ships also has poor DPM generally compared to other nations. If you can't tolerate lobed shell arcs, then play something Russian or Japanese. 

[Bear__Necessities]

What’s the actual point of this thread?

[El2aZeR]

52 minutes ago, Bear_Necessities said:

What’s the actual point of this thread?

 

[Srle_Vigilante]

I dare these so called biased ships to 1v1 my Z52 

4 hours ago, Eagle_Six_TR said:

 Especially russian dd's have ridiculous shell arcs, it's literally easy mode.

More like "different" mode.

 

4 hours ago, Eagle_Six_TR said:

It's not like USN dd's where you have to lead off-screen to actually score a hit. I hate USN cruisers and dd's for their floaty shell arcs.

Then don't play them? 

Not like each line/nation excels in their own way or in their own combat range...

 

4 hours ago, Eagle_Six_TR said:

I don't even want to talk about German dd's.

No, please sir! On the contrary i do encourage you to do so if i may! 

 

4 hours ago, Eagle_Six_TR said:

Do you have to be a russian ship to have good shell arcs in this game?

No.

[MadBadDave]

4 hours ago, 22cm said:

Dude, everyone knows that the Russian fleet defeated the Japanese, the British, the Turkish, the German and the French fleets. You are just jealous.

And the Yanks, dutch, pan Asian, Spanish, etc,etc, Didn't you know that the japanese surrendered on a Kremlin .

[AmiralPotato]

13 hours ago, Eagle_Six_TR said:

Especially russian dd's have ridiculous shell arcs, it's literally easy mode. It's not like USN dd's where you have to lead off-screen to actually score a hit. I hate USN cruisers and dd's for their floaty shell arcs.

I prefer flat arcs so I precisely avoid US DDs and play the russian ones.

May I remind you that they (almost) all have terrible concealment and torps, leading to a very different gameplay than usual DDs.

Which is great.

 

If you want to complain about russian bias, I suggest to look at the BBs. Extremely strong without real drawbacks.

[anonym_Wl2ej1ad8jEc]

Dont the german DD's have similar gun-characteristics?

[DasTongle]

4 minutes ago, Snautzi said:

Dont the german DD's have similar gun-characteristics?

No, very fast muzzle velocity but then the Drag sets in and you have quiet the high arc at the end.

Actually suits their strenght, get close hydro enemy dd smoke up and fight him upclose

[MacArthur92]

Thought is another Smolensk rant thread. USN arcs are good + the reload is great. Ofc hard to hit fast moving objects like French DD even in 10km. 

[Aragathor]

13 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

As far as I remember this is actually a historical aspect. Soviet designers tended to favor guns with higher muzzle velocity and thus lower shell arcs at the cost of barrel life, something they got from the Italians.

 

Don't take my word for it tho, I'm not too well versed in the subject.

Well, one thing that WoWS gets right is the gun velocity and shell weight. So those parameters are at least historical in this arcade game. And the barrel life issues were solved later on, but the fact that the early barrels could not even empty the ship magazines before needing to be exchanged is hilarious.

 

Speaking of barrel life, the RN had built their's with long life principles in mind. The guns weren't stellar but could keep going and going. And going.

 

[Fat_Maniac]

13 hours ago, Admiral_H_Nelson said:

My clarification.

Lets not forget Glorious Russian Navy vs Fishing Trawlers in the North Sea, where in the darkness they managed to shell themselves 

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

[Panocek]

14 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

As far as I remember this is actually a historical aspect. Soviet designers tended to favor guns with higher muzzle velocity and thus lower shell arcs at the cost of barrel life, something they got from the Italians.

 

Don't take my word for it tho, I'm not too well versed in the subject.

Kinda this. Also you wouldn't want to show uncle Stalin new gun specs if they are inferior "on paper" to evil capitalist equipment, would you?

And such trivial things like barrel life expectancy... details. Cruisers and destroyers can replace their barrels as part of usual ammo replenishment

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Aragathor said:

And the barrel life issues were solved later on, ....

... by reducing the muzzle velocity.

[Aragathor]

5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

... by reducing the muzzle velocity.

No. By changing the rifling on the barrels. They had different types of ammo with different velocities, but you don't shoot starshells with high velocity. 

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

Oh-oh! Someone just said "No" to the Colonel.

Stocks up with supplies...

[ColonelPete]

25 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

No. By changing the rifling on the barrels. They had different types of ammo with different velocities, but you don't shoot starshells with high velocity. 

I know of no such cases.

 

Kirov class got her V0 reduced.

356mm guns got V0 reduced.

406mm B-37 was not a finished design and official records contradict the experience of Royal Navy with such guns.

See navweaps.com

[Aragathor]

Just now, ColonelPete said:

I know of no such cases.

 

Kirov class got her V0 reduced.

356mm guns got V0 reduced.

406mm B-37 was not a finished design and official records contradict the experience of Royal Navy with such guns.

See navweaps.com

130 mm/50 (5.1") B13 Pattern 1936: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-50_m1936.php

 

Spoiler

The desire to keep the same ballistics as the 13 cm/55 (5.1") gun led to an increased barrel pressure, which in turn led to a very short barrel life of only 130 rounds. This meant that Pr. 1 Leaders and Pr. 7/7U Destroyers couldn't even empty their magazines a single time before needing to change out the barrel. After many design changes (including trying to manufacture a polygonal gun barrel), the remedy was found to be making a liner with deeper grooves. The original liner had 1.0 mm (0.039") deep grooves, while the new liner had 2.7 mm (0.106") deep grooves. In the end the fleet was equipped with what amounted to be three different guns, a design with 1.0 mm (0.039") grooves, a design with 1.95 mm (0.077") grooves and a design with 2.7 mm (0.106") grooves. Unfortunately, this meant that the guns, ammunition and range tables were all incompatible with each other, which greatly complicated the logistics for these weapons. By 1941 there were 378 guns in service, most of which were of the deepest groove type.

 

Please, do keep putting your foot in your mouth, it looks adorable.