Warspite's Armour...

[kfa]

 

Nice job KFA! do you have the replay??? I would love to land 53 hits with my warspite, does not happen ever!

 

Yes I do.

http://wowreplays.com/Replay/7521-kfa-Warspite-Land-of-Fire

[Armoured_Carriers]

For HMS Warspite to have the exposed waterline she has in game, she would have to be in 'light' condition - meaning she's used up most of her oil fuel and much of her ammunition.

 

Here's a picture of Warspite, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant together.

 

Note the waterline on all three of these ships...

 

[thestaggy]

I think I found why Warspite may feel very soft for some people now. 

 

/snip

 

So if I understand this correctly, the Warspite has a large chunk of its ''meat'' unprotected while the Fuso and New Mexico do not have this problem?

 

Would you guys recommend purchasing the Warspite now or is it the Lowe of WoWs? Good when it was released, but powercrept by new additions and now pretty mediocre?

[RedStorm1]

Warspite is on sale in the EU shop 25.10 €)

 

 

[RedStorm1]

 

Yes I do.

http://wowreplays.com/Replay/7521-kfa-Warspite-Land-of-Fire

 

THANKS!

But now it crashes! Probably because of the update 0.5.6.0 from this morning???

 

[RedStorm1]

For HMS Warspite to have the exposed waterline she has in game, she would have to be in 'light' condition - meaning she's used up most of her oil fuel and much of her ammunition.

 

Here's a picture of Warspite, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant together.

 

Note the waterline on all three of these ships...

 

 

Thanks! This is a great photo! The difference to the current Warspite in the game is obvious!

Here I have a picture before the patch showing how the citadel was below the waterline:

http://gamemodels3d.com/worldofwarships/vehicles/pbsb002

 

 

That is good enough for me to try claim a refund!

[Armoured_Carriers]

 

Warspite's not wearing her knickers!

 

Looking in to this a little more, yeah: There could be problems with the armour accuracy for the Warspite model.

I am not sure of the accuracy of the data at gamemodels3d. But, after almost 500 battles in Warspite, that certainly ‘feels’ about right.

Expose the Grand Old Lady’s butt to anything CL and over and you’re going to get citadelled (I was going to say penetrated, but appropriateness)

Sure: That could be because the historical amidships deck armour wasn’t great anyway (2.5 inch NC over 1inch HT).

But 6mm (0.24in) on 38mm (1.5in)  - as it appears from gamemodels3d – certainly seems considerably understated.

 

British Battleships of World War II, Alan Raven & John Roberts:

Page 229: Warspite, Protection:

The fitting of non-cemented armour on the middle-deck, followed the pattern set in Malaya except that the 2.5 inch thickness was extended to cover the boiler rooms…

The 6 inch armour on the main deck aft - originally provided to protect the after 6-inch guns – was retained as it gave additional protection to the after magazines. The embrasures, however, were plated over and only a small portion of this armour remained visible externally.

 

Anatomy of the Ship: The Battleship Warspite, Ross Watton.

Page 10: Particulars of protection

Middle deck: After 1934 5in over magazines (4in NC over 1in HT), 3.5in over machinery (2.5in NC over 1in HT).

Page 11: General arrangements and hull structure

(rebuild) Horizontal protection was increased on the middle deck, which received 2.5in NC (non-cemented) armour over the main magazines, replacing the post-Jutland 1in HT steel plating.

Pag62: B Hull Construction

B9 Armour and protective plating.

 

•    Side diagram shows the deck spaces aft/amidships as “5e” over “9c on 4e”

•    The reference table lists “5” as 50lb plate and “e” categorising HT (High Tensile) steel

•    The reference table lists “9” as 100lb plate and “c” categorising NC (Non Cemented) armour

•    The reference table lists “4” as 40lb plate, and “e” as above.

•    Top-down drawings show some variance in the amidships deck armour:

o    6e (60lb plate high tensile) and 7e (70lbs high tensile) closer to the edges than the central 5e plates.

 

The British Battleships, 1906 – 1046, Norman Friedman

Page 261: Modernising the fleet

Once the savings in machinery weight and space was understood, much more was asked for … 2.5in armour over the boiler room as well as the engine room (350 tons); 4in armour over the high-angle magazines in the vacated No.1 boiler room (190 tons)…

Page 267: Modernising the fleet

As with Warspite, the additional deck armour (4in NC over magazines and 2.5in NC over machinery spaces) was all to be on the middle deck, between the torpedo bulkeads. That left gaps; for example, a plunging shell could pass throughthe gap between the deck and the belt on the outside of the hull. A bomb hitting ourboard of the deck armour would not be resisted by any other horizontal armour… Compared to Warspite, these ships did have additional deck armour over the soft area forward.

 

The Grand Old Lady is also showing a bit more leg than she should.

I know waterline has been a problem with all national lines before the Russian tree was introduced, and that some effort has been made to fix the worst examples - particularly in the German tree.

But Warspite needs a bit of a look, also.

As it stands, in-game Warpsite must be in a low fuel, low ammunition, low stores state.

Ships in Standard to Heavy loads look as below:

 

 

* For some reason the EU server won't allow me to link to Photobucket images, where the NA one does...

I'll have to post this thread over there

 

 

[RedStorm1]

Thank you Armoured_Carriers for the post above, that gives a lot of insight!

 

I wonder whom we have to contact within the developers team to ask for such changes....

 

Still this does not explain why the Warspite became worse since it first appeared a year ago (as the developers claim, they did no changes to its armor model).

 

As far as your comment

As it stands, in-game Warpsite must be in a low fuel, low ammunition, low stores state.
 

 

 

I can not agree more. Here are my findings:

This used to be the citadel of the warspite. It is clear that it was BELOW the waterline as all test reviews published during that period claimed.

I am sorry I can not post pictures

http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/redstorm66/media/Warspite%20Citadel%20below%20waterline%20before%20patch_zps7bwrl5mu.jpg.html

http://i1036.photobucket.com/albums/a445/redstorm66/Warspite%20Citadel%20below%20waterline%20before%20patch_zps7bwrl5mu.jpg

 

Then there is a comment in WIKI many months later: "Citadel point is slightly over the waterline. "

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Warspite

Obviously this comment does not match what we see in the picture above.

 

What changed???

There may be an easy explanation if we compare these two pictures: Warspite in real life

http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/redstorm66/media/Warspite%20waterline%20real%20pic_zpssppdg5k9.jpg.html

http://i1036.photobucket.com/albums/a445/redstorm66/Warspite%20waterline%20real%20pic_zpssppdg5k9.jpg

and Warspite in game (notice the waterline):
http://s1036.photobucket.com/user/redstorm66/media/Warspite%20waterline%20game%200_5_6_0%20pic_zps5pjcfet6.jpg.html

http://i1036.photobucket.com/albums/a445/redstorm66/Warspite%20waterline%20game%200_5_6_0%20pic_zps5pjcfet6.jpg

 

So maybe this is the only reason why Warspite changed so much, maybe I am wrong. In any case, I would like Wargaming to prove to me that they have not changed anything as they claim....

 

 

 

[Unintentional_submarine]

 

 

So maybe this is the only reason why Warspite changed so much, maybe I am wrong. In any case, I would like Wargaming to prove to me that they have not changed anything as they claim....

 

 

And how exactly would WG be able to prove that they didn't change anything? They very act of having done nothing leaves no proof.

 

Anyway, I don't have Warspite so I can't readily confirm anything compared to now, but this old Jingles review is from Beta, and it looks like she sat slightly deeper then than now. Unfortunately Jingles uses still images from the port, so it is hard to gauge the precise difference. I suggest clicking at various points in the video as it is really long (thank goodness for the preview image on the timespot).

 

Next up we have a relatively recent video uploaded (date is in the title). I set it to start where there is a good comparison of the ship in a straight line motion.

 

Compared to the portions in Jingles video where his Warspite is going in a straight line, it does look like there is a difference. However, it isn't big. But even small differences can mean the world.

 

If there is a difference it probably didn't come as part of a stealth-nerf or something like that. As you probably noticed, in Jingles' combat portions, when Warspite turned, she would heel over significantly. Well, she still heels over rather much, but it is less pronounced. This was actually a feature of all the lower tier USN BBs too for a while, they showed their red so much it was almost impossible to not citadel them if they touched their rudder. Obviously that was changed, and it was a significant improvement. It is possible, that during this change Warspite got changed otherwise with the unintentional consequence of sitting slightly higher. But we are talking late CBT here... which doesn't fit well with most people's comments about her survivability at least for a time in post-release.

[Nightmare4U]

Hi guys Im not into all that technical stuff but something certainly feels wrong with the armor of Her.

I went into a match sailing my Warspite yesterday after a long break from WoWS and I got OBLITERATED in minutes by a Colorado. Almost every single salvo that hit me caused huge amount of damage regardless my angling. I was forced to use my repair kits as soon as it has recharged. The whole experience was shocking but that alone wouldnt make me thing something is wrong.

Today I took my Kirov (tier 5 russian) for a spin. 180mm guns. With my very first salvo from ~12km scored 2 citadels on the angled enemy Warspite. I took the shot only to change to HE to fight him. As soon as I've seen the damage I've done to her with that salvo switched back to AP and scored 1 more citadel and numerous 3-5000dmg hits on her. 11km, 180mm guns of a Kirov. Ruined his day big time. He was down to 10000HP in a few minutes and repaired herself back to 14000 and been forced to hide behind an island from me.... A bloody tier 5 cruiser.....

That was just ridiculous.... I never scored any citadel hits on any other battleship ever in any cruiser let alone make AP an ammo of choice to fight them in a cruiser....

If this working as intended than the Warspite is a cruiser with BB guns (hell, even an angled cruiser would have given me more trouble to citadel hit)

[RUSSIANBlAS]

I was playing the Warspite over the last few days and I bought the Texas.

 

 

That is a picture from LittleWhiteMouse's review of the Warspite. It says it is a full salvo of 14" shells bouncing off and doing no damage. That is simply a rare sight now.

 

I've been both on the receiving end and given out huge damage to Warspites from what were previously great angles. Including a citadel from the front in my Texas last night. 

 

It's definitely been messed around with. Warspite used to stand between the Fuso and New Mew as the sort of balanced BB with a blend of their abilities. 

 

Now as the guy above just said, it's now just a cruiser that's slow, fat and has some big guns...

[Trainspite]

Well, if you want differences in how high Warspite sits in the water, I did take two screenshots.

The first is from the 15th August, while the second is from December 24th.

 

I'm not quite sure about differences etc. , but Warspite is definitely not the ship she was when I first purchased her. She reached her peak around November last year for me.

 

She still does not look right to me without her turret AA mounts, nameplate, and Flag on the mainmast however.

 

 

 

[Sea_viper]

I don't think there is much difference between draft of the two figures. But obviously the ship is very lightly loaded in game. But looking at the armor scheme, I really don't think this is the major issue. I consider the problem of the "casemate" module much more serious and ridiculous as discussed in #66

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/48276-warspites-armour/page__st__60__pid__1033156#entry1033156

 

For those tl;dr, Warspite in game could be sunk by constantly shooting through its BLOODY FORECASTLE. Which only have 25mm of armor all around...

(It is a pity that the 3D and armor model is quite good...)  

[_Flyto_]

It's worth noting that nearly all the battleships in this game sit rather high in the water. Whether this was a deliberate choice, to increase the area available to shoot at, or a misunderstanding of designs and loads at some stage, we don't know, but it's not unique to Warspite and the game is balanced around it.

 

Maybe they were proud of modelling torpedo bulges and wanted to show them off? :-)

[RUSSIANBlAS]

It's worth noting that nearly all the battleships in this game sit rather high in the water. Whether this was a deliberate choice, to increase the area available to shoot at, or a misunderstanding of designs and loads at some stage, we don't know, but it's not unique to Warspite and the game is balanced around it.

 

Maybe they were proud of modelling torpedo bulges and wanted to show them off? :-)

 

I've always wondered that. Most ships show too much red 

[RedStorm1]

Something strange happened yesterday!

 

I had a good game in my Warspite! First time in months.

 

I noticed the difference, every broadside cause havoc to the enemy ships. For a moment I had to re-check the ship I was in, I thought I had made a mistake and was sailing my Texas...

The reason was that this was my first game in months I was top tier!

 

The damage Warspite's guns do to Tier 4-5 is heavy. The damage Warspite receives is there, a lot of penetrations, but because of the smaller caliber of tier 4-5 the damage they cause is smaller than tier 6-7 guns.

 

At the end, it all comes to how long can this ship stay afloat to hand out damage. At tier 6-7-8 games it dies so quickly either through fire or through damage (because its armor is crap) that it does have a chance.

 

 

 

[StringWitch]

I was playing the Warspite over the last few days and I bought the Texas.

 

 

 

 

That is a picture from LittleWhiteMouse's review of the Warspite. It says it is a full salvo of 14" shells bouncing off and doing no damage. That is simply a rare sight now.

 

I've been both on the receiving end and given out huge damage to Warspites from what were previously great angles. Including a citadel from the front in my Texas last night.

 

It's definitely been messed around with. Warspite used to stand between the Fuso and New Mew as the sort of balanced BB with a blend of their abilities.

 

Now as the guy above just said, it's now just a cruiser that's slow, fat and has some big guns...

 

When the citadel is a flat-fronted box inside the ship and your US BB which is armoured in an all-or-nothing scheme (no meaningful bow plating to bounce anything with) gets shot in the front, why would you expect not to get citadelled? 40-60 degress is best under most circumstances, I'd say; closer to 40 for a ship like Texas, and closer to 60 for a conventionally armoured ship like Warspite (so your thinner bow/stern plates don't eat a load of penetrations). But of course the best defence is not getting hit — moving at 3/4 speed at the start of a fight often gets people, whom shoot as though you're moving at full.

 

 

By the way everyone, I'm pretty sure all battleships in the game sit high in the water for gameplay reasons; I recall reading as much from a Q&A on TAP once, or maybe a supertester said on the forums. If they were at full load, they'd be almost impossible to citadel even when exposing full broadside, just like St. Louis whose citadel is below the waterline and protected by both an inclined deck and belt (just be glad her coal bunkers aren't modelled).

 

[Sea_viper]

No, Angling Warspite at around 60 degree is actually a terrible idea.

For a start, the bow of Warspite can bounce 14 inch shell only because of the overmatch mechanic, which basically need you to point your bow directly towards incoming fire. This is true for most BBs unless you know the guns shooting at you will overmatch your bow hull plates, than it is better to angle according to the citadel armor, (Which only US BB have enough citadel armor to consider this)

 

What makes angling at 60 degree such a bad idea in Warspite though, is that the internal bow armor plates above the water line are sloped backwards, so at 60 degrees, the internal bow armor plates are basically flat against incoming shells. Since the hull plate no longer auto bounce shells, even 14 inch shell will do penetration damage if they aim a bit higher.

 

When facing guns with 15 inch+ shells, Warspite WILL eat penetration damage from shells that hit anywhere besides the belt at any angle. Yes, the armor is THAT bad.

[DanB24]

Well it's a British ship isn't it? The most successful Battleship we ever had so of course they need to make it rubbish.

 

[johnsloveboat]

The 6 inch casemate guns were always a weak spot and almost cost a ship at jutland where a single hit took out all the starboard 6 inch guns on HMS Malaya .

[DanB24]

And apparently in service they where meant to be pretty poor. That's why they removed them completely in the more comprehensive rebuilds of Queen Elizabeth and Valiant and replaced them with 10x dual 4.5" gun turrets.

[RedStorm1]

Dum spiro spero

(as long as I breathe, I hope)

 

An interesting comment made at WoWS Q&A – 21st June 2016 according to TAP

https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/06/21/wows-qa-21st-june-2016/#comments

 

3. My question is about Warspite’s waterline. Why is her draught (draft), which according to the waterline mark on the model is at 30 ft (9.14 m), so low compared to the standard 9.35 m, and even lower compared to her draft when fully loaded which is at 10.35 m ? For this reason, in game, the citadel sits at least one meter higher above the water than it should, instead of being hidden under the waterline.

You can clearly see the difference in the following pictures.

 

......................
 

A. I reckon we will fix this issue in 0.5.9.

 

Hopeful...

 

[Battledragon]

There's another big problem with Warspite riding too high, her belt does not extend down that far under the waterline and on the armour model it clearly shows that wargaming have modeld NOTHING of the lower hull what so ever.  So, if you're turning away in a Warspite and a shell hits you on the waterline essentially the first thing it comes in contact with is the citadel bulkhead.  Now, I know the lower hull of warspite was only structural steel, but it's over 300mm thick, and there's an aditional bulkheads between the hull and the citadel too.  Wargaming need to take into account that even structural steel has more resistance to a shell than thin air.  So, right now warspite essentially looses any kind of hull armour about 1.5 meters bellow the waterline

[Sea_viper]

The issue of waterline protection of Warspite is a bit complicated.

The belt of Warspite is only around 15ft tall， with the top 6ft linearly reduced from 330mm to 152mm and the bottom 3ft linearly reduced from 330mm to 203mm. The armoured slope should only be 25mm (legend missing in the armor plan posted previously)
So currently the waterline protection of Warspite is too thick. If the ship is at standard displacement, the historical configuration would still offer decent protection, but it would be a disaster at current displacement. So my bet is the dev team will roll out the correct armor scheme at the waterline and lower the ship to standard displacement at the same time.

And the 51mm torpedo bulkhead is correctly modeled. The torpedo bulge is given 25mm to compensate for the lack of the original hull plating. It seems rather sufficient to me.
P.S. Revenge class battleship have a taller belt with uniform 330mm thickness... but that's all the good news they got...

[RedStorm1]

The worrying part, nothing is mentionned whether she is deeper in the water.

 

As part of Update 0.5.9, the in-game models of both the US Battleships and the British Premium warship HMS Warspite were refined. In some cases, this led to a redistribution of the inner part of the ship's durability points (within a 5% limit). 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56737-pt-059-announced-starting-on-197-1830-cest/page__pid__1164010#entry1164010

let's see what this will bring...