Montana armour

[woppy101]

why is the armour on the Montana so crap? I have just had a tirpiz citadel me through the bow, do these Russian [edited]don't it purposelessly to us ships?

[Comrad_StaIin]

why is the armour on the Montana so crap? I have just had a tirpiz citadel me through the bow, do these Russian [edited]don't it purposelessly to us ships?

 

you can citadel a Yamato through the bow too with the Tirpitz (with a little luck everything is possible)

[Tyrendian89]

 

you can citadel a Yamato through the bow too with the Tirpitz (with a little luck everything is possible)

 

because, as we all know, a Russian company is certain to have stronk pro-German bias! ohwait

[Msiiek]

Every bb can be citadeled by bow, but it needs a really good luck (except Yamato dont need that much luck, just land shells).

[ghostbuster_]

why is the armour on the Montana so crap? I have just had a tirpiz citadel me through the bow, do these Russian [edited]don't it purposelessly to us ships?

 

yamato armor is almost same with the yamato armor. yamato has bigger guns so thats why it can pen montanas armor that easly.

 

Edit: i mean montanas armor is almost the same with yamatos armor. 

[Mayv]

 

yamato armor is almost same with the yamato armor

 

Well I would expect the Yamato to have the same armour as a Yamato.

[Aotearas]

Starke deutsche Ingeneurskunst!

 

Silly US Stahl iz no match for ze deutsche Krupp.

 

 

 

 

 Quite probably just a lucky shot straight through the bow and hitting the internal citadel armour at a flat enough angle to penetrate, the coming ingame armour viewer will shed light into a lot of questions regarding the possibility to penetrate ships and their citadels from superficially counterintuitive angles.

 

[B010011A]

 

Well I would expect the Yamato to have the same armour as a Yamato.

 

Hahahaha Yamato is so damn YamatOP...

[Myrmix]

The only case I know where Montana is bad, is against Yamato, because the bow of it is so poorly armored, the overkill-mechanic starts to work (bowarmor is 14x less than 460mm caliber of yamato...it can't bounce and will penetrate).

This doesn't work with 410mm, or 380mm of Tirpitz...maybe you recieved plungingfire on your deck?

[RichardNixon]

The only case I know where Montana is bad, is against Yamato, because the bow of it is so poorly armored, the overkill-mechanic starts to work (bowarmor is 14x less than 460mm caliber of yamato...it can't bounce and will penetrate).

This doesn't work with 410mm, or 380mm of Tirpitz...maybe you recieved plungingfire on your deck?

 

Like most ships, the tip of the Montana's bow has a flattened section, which can be penetrated directly from the front with any AP round. Won't happen too often though. There's still a 457mm citadel bulkhead behind that, so I can only guess that this shot was at very close range.

[ghostbuster_]

 

Well I would expect the Yamato to have the same armour as a Yamato.

 

lol   well i meant montana

[Ferry_25]

Montana armor?? Ooohh! I get it! Early aprils 1st. Great one!!!!

[havaduck]

Oh look its a Montana.

 

[ghostbuster_]

this is not the montanas fault. the shoot is just perfect. it doesnt prove that montanas armor is bad. excellent aiming flamu gg.

[Namolis]

It's not just you, the Montana does have it's armor seriously gimped. Not only is this one of the many reasons she is a weak ship, but it's also not according to the design. There was a thread about it not long ago on the NA forums:

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/71366-the-yamato-understanding-why-its-imbalanced/#topmost

Now, the main problem is that it has 19mm deck armor throughout (rl design was 57mm). To understand why this is a problem, you need to know that WG put in historical values for plunging fire angles. At 20km, battleships still only had their shells fall at angles of about 25 degrees, which in this game means that even at the extreme range (for the game) of 20km you still call on the autobounce mechanic every time. 19mm will be overmatched by all battleships. 57mm would not be overmatched by anything. This means that all battleship guns can overmatch the deck armor, punch through to the next layer and autobounce there. This causes a lot of overpenetration damage shots, but even if they are just 10% damage each, when you get hit by half a salvo that's still going to be 7-8k damage each time. Which will stack up quickly.

 

So it is possible that he hit you with plunging fire. Most battleships are immune to this, Montana is uniquely susceptible.

[ilhilh]

http://menzgaming.com/worldofwarships/armor-guide-montana/

[RichardNixon]

So it is possible that he hit you with plunging fire. Most battleships are immune to this, Montana is uniquely susceptible.

 

Not uniquely. Tier 7 and lower BBs generally have 25mm decks, so they're vulnerable to 15"+ shells in the same way that the Montana is vulnerable to Yamato shells. Montana having 29mm mid deck armour when the plans say 57mm and the Iowa and North Carolina have 38mm and 37mm respectively feels like a calculation bug though. Either that or an obsolete Yamato buff.

 

I worry that WG don't even check their models when considering balance issues.

[Namolis]

 

Not uniquely. Tier 7 and lower BBs generally have 25mm decks, so they're vulnerable to 15"+ shells in the same way that the Montana is vulnerable to Yamato shells. Montana having 29mm mid deck armour when the plans say 57mm and the Iowa and North Carolina have 38mm and 37mm respectively feels like a calculation bug though. Either that or an obsolete Yamato buff.

 

I worry that WG don't even check their models when considering balance issues.

 

True enough. Although that isn't really limited to plunging fire, it's all shots.

 

It's so weird that people worry when a TX ship is a beast. Of course it will be, it's top tier in the match! In fact, I think there are ships in the game that will dominate much harder when they are top tier than Zao, Yama and Shima. Those other ships then get put in their place by being placed in higher tier matches.

 

*sniff*... I miss my rudder...

[Eternus_Damnatio]

Montana has armour ? I call lies.

[Sterbu1]

Im playing both BB lines, but from what you see in the games and on this forum there seems to be little meaning in paying 20 mil for the Monty. Iowa has nicer opposition and is generally good (I have some dispersion problems, but my aim isnt perfect either). You guys ever heard devs talking about making Monty better?

[Eternus_Damnatio]

Im playing both BB lines, but from what you see in the games and on this forum there seems to be little meaning in paying 20 mil for the Monty. Iowa has nicer opposition and is generally good (I have some dispersion problems, but my aim isnt perfect either). You guys ever heard devs talking about making Monty better?

 

Heard a rumour ages back that they were going to do something with the hit boxes nothing has ever materialised though.

About time they got around to sorting the Monty out and they should do the Gearing at the same time as it is terrible compared to Shima and Khaba.

[dasCKD]

Montana armor (lol)

[dasCKD]

On a more serious note, I don't think people should be able to penetrate the citadel of the same ship from the bow, even it it's a Montana VS a Yamato. I don't think that you should even be able to get a citadel penetration on the same tier even if you're a battleship shooting at the bow of a heavy cruiser. I am of the opinion that the game should reward good play and punish bad ones but that just might be my preference for lower tier games coming out again.

[ghostbuster_]

On a more serious note, I don't think people should be able to penetrate the citadel of the same ship from the bow, even it it's a Montana VS a Yamato. I don't think that you should even be able to get a citadel penetration on the same tier even if you're a battleship shooting at the bow of a heavy cruiser. I am of the opinion that the game should reward good play and punish bad ones but that just might be my preference for lower tier games coming out again.

 

than you have to change the penetration mechanics. if you wont be able to pen a ship from the bow. what is the point of having big guns? there should be a difference between 406mm guns and 460mm guns.

[dasCKD]

 

than you have to change the penetration mechanics. if you wont be able to pen a ship from the bow. what is the point of having big guns? there should be a difference between 406mm guns and 460mm guns.

 

I perfectly understand that mathematically it is perfectly possible for a shell with a radius advantage of over 50mm to have far better penetration than a smaller shell. I simply don't like the mechanic because it punishes aggressive and active plays and promotes the kind of play where everyone lurks around the spawn point and runs circle until the clock runs down. The Furutaka is a fun ship because her bow can resist shells of her tier yet she is still vulnerable on her flanks to AP fire and therefore requires some semblance of skill. To answer your question, the point of having big guns is to have more damage per shell, higher range, superior penetration, and better shell ballistics. It shouldn't just be an 'I win' button. I am not proposing removing the high penetration values, I am suggesting adding better armor protection on higher tier ships at least on certain parts of the ships.