First German BB Leak - STOP THIS PAPER "WHAT-IF" UPGRADE IDIOCY!

[DanRO]

I don't see any problem at all.

What do you think would have happened if the German high seas fleet had survived into the 30es? Yes. Exactly the same every other navy did to their older ships: modernization and even reconstruction. It's not like you can't use these ships in their original configuration so if you don't like it, don't upgrade them.

[LeeQuid]

Except that same refit also changes her belt armour as well. 

So yes, the refit is still relevant. 

 

She gets her main belt extended and upgraded to ww2 era armor but it would still be 12inches thick...and its just as vulnerable to underwater hits as the unmodernized version. 

Bismarcks gun can punch through 420mm of vertical ww2 grade armour at 19.000yards.

No amount of vertical armour updates can save the Hood at 16k. yards.

 

In hindsight, Hood had no immune zone to the 15in.L52  and the brits should had kept her far away from Bismarck.

[RamirezKurita]

 

She gets her main belt extended and upgraded to ww2 era armor but it would still be 12inches thick...and its just as vulnerable to underwater hits as the unmodernized version. 

Bismarcks gun can punch through 420mm of vertical ww2 grade armour at 19.000yards.

No amount of vertical armour updates can save the Hood at 16k. yards.

 

In hindsight, Hood had no immune zone to the 15in.L52  and the brits should had kept her far away from Bismarck.

 

​That does also depend on angling though. If Hood approached at a 45 degree angle then her 12" armour effectively becomes almost 17" in thickness, which would have been capable of resisting Bismarck's fire. There's also the minor point that there's still a fair amount of stuff, even if it isn't armoured, between the belt and the magazines.

[fnord_disc]

 

​That does also depend on angling though. If Hood approached at a 45 degree angle then her 12" armour effectively becomes almost 17" in thickness, which would have been capable of resisting Bismarck's fire. There's also the minor point that there's still a fair amount of stuff, even if it isn't armoured, between the belt and the magazines.

 

Nobody angled in real life.

[DanRO]

 

Nobody angled in real life.

 

Exactly. In real life captains presented the entire broadside in order to bring all the guns to fire simultaneously. There was also no zigzagging during a gunnery duel because that would make the targeting even more difficult to the ship own gunners. Except when there were inbound torpedoes.

Except much later, when radar assisted gunnery became effective but even then, no one zigzagged around.

[RamirezKurita]

 

Nobody angled in real life.

 

​Hood was still very much trying to close the gap when she was sunk, but she was also trying to bring all of her guns to bear. In that scenario, she wouldn't be bow-on or full broadside, but around a 45 degree angle to be able to both unmask the rear turrets and still be sailing towards her opponent. In fact, Hood was sunk mid turn as she was trying to begin using her rear turrets. The only time ships ever were fully perpendicular to their opponents were during deliberate T-crossings, most of the time they were either trying to close the gap or put more distance between them while bringing all guns to bear, in which case the angling of the armour is an incidental effect of their maneuvers.

[anonym_MfZ6T7iwWpUC]

 

Nobody angled in real life.

 

Yes they did. Captains of the Admiral Hipper class were all given a dossier on allied Cruisers, with specific angles to use when engaging them, and advise on ranges and chances of success.

[orlathebeast]

 

Yes they did. Captains of the Admiral Hipper class were all given a dossier on allied Cruisers, with specific angles to use when engaging them, and advise on ranges and chances of success.

 

interesting

[fnord_disc]

 

Yes they did. Captains of the Admiral Hipper class were all given a dossier on allied Cruisers, with specific angles to use when engaging them, and advise on ranges and chances of success.

 

Sounds like useless information to me. I doubt there is any evidence anything like that was ever actually done in battle. Would appreciate sources that the Hipper captains employed this information.

 

The only reason you would "angle" yourself in battle is if you're trying to close in or get away, which is not really angling. It's trying to close in or get away.

 

It isn't possible to zigzag since that will completely throw off your firing solution. At the very end of the war, when all the fighting was done, the Mk I (I believe it was the Mk I) was the first one able to keep a firing solution on the target through full half-turns of the carrying ship. If you used WASD hax in RL, you were no longer able to fire on the target.

 

Sailing away or towards the enemy at a sharp angle to improve your own armor is unrealistic because it will either carry you out of range or bring you to point blank range very quickly. In real life, a gunnery duel wasn't decided within 4 minutes like in WoWs. It could last hours. Even if the battle only goes on for an hour, that still means the ships travel about 45 kilometers @ 25kn since they would be going full speed. Let's say one of the ships angles at 45° that means it travels 45/sqr(2)=32km away from its target.

 

You cannot angle in real life.

 

edit:

How about this. Show me a historical document or a book about naval history that says something like "and then the captain angled his ship to improve LoS armor."

[Spellfire40]

Gunery wasnt acurate enogh in WW2 you aimed to hit ships not really aiming for specific parts as Capital ships. Same on Zig Zaging it was done to make U boot atacks more dificult. In Battle Zig Zags throw off your own gunery as much as the enemys so if your tryed to actually hit something it wasnt employed.

[Gojuadorai]

Sailing away or towards the enemy at a sharp angle to improve your own armor is unrealistic because it will either carry you out of range or bring you to point blank range very quickly. In real life, a gunnery duel wasn't decided within 4 minutes like in WoWs. It could last hours. Even if the battle only goes on for an hour, that still means the ships travel about 45 kilometers @ 25kn since they would be going full speed. Let's say one of the ships angles at 45° that means it travels 45/sqr(2)=32km away from its target.

 

this argument is flawed to the core.

i dont know if they angled or if they did not

but

both ships can be angled and still driving into the same direction if one is persuing the other (simplified like your argument)      

 

ship 1       \                    

 

ship 2                      \

 

so this case shows your argument that the one ship would be  massively enlarging or closing distance is nonsense

[fnord_disc]

 

this argument is flawed to the core.

i dont know if they angled or if they did not

but

both ships can be angled and still driving into the same direction if one is persuing the other (simplified like your argument)      

 

ship 1       \                    

 

ship 2                      \

 

so this case shows your argument that the one ship would be  massively enlarging or closing distance is nonsense

 

Yeah, and these battles do exist. But this isn't intentional angling. This kind of angle is the result of either one ship running away or some kind of unusual mission parameters. If you look at maps of battles where both sides actually wanted to engage the enemy, you will see they are very close to being either broadsides or T engagements.

 

Have you ever tried crossing someone's T in WoWs? How did that work out?

[Gojuadorai]

well as i said i know jack about the historic battles and stuff

i just had to point out the argument makes no sense.

 

my educated guess is that they took angling if there was a course that alowed it but prefered position over angle.

 

still im waiting for someone to settel this with historic facts (links provided) before i choose to belive in "historic angling" or not.

[fnord_disc]

Some examples, collected without much selection.

 

River Plate

 

Ajax and Achilles give broadside several times early on and only turn in towards Spee to pursue when she turns away. Exeter keeps giving broadside for an entire hour between 6:40 and 7:40, though much of this is at long range.

 

Dogger Bank

Jutland BC action

 

Clearly visible that they simply sail broadside and blast each other. Main battle for Jutland is harder to explain, but shows this as well.

 

Listing the Pacific battles is a little pointless because they were mostly chaotic night battles, but if you look at Surigao Strait, you can clearly see that the American fleet was completely fine showing a perfect broadside.

 

Incidentally, the entire concept of crossing someone's T doesn't exist in WoWs. It's a mistake to do it, in fact, while in reality it was the best thing that could happen to you.

[CaptainThunderWalker]

Some examples, collected without much selection.

 

River Plate

 

Ajax and Achilles give broadside several times early on and only turn in towards Spee to pursue when she turns away. Exeter keeps giving broadside for an entire hour between 6:40 and 7:40, though much of this is at long range.

 

Dogger Bank

Jutland BC action

 

Clearly visible that they simply sail broadside and blast each other. Main battle for Jutland is harder to explain, but shows this as well.

 

Listing the Pacific battles is a little pointless because they were mostly chaotic night battles, but if you look at Surigao Strait, you can clearly see that the American fleet was completely fine showing a perfect broadside.

 

Incidentally, the entire concept of crossing someone's T doesn't exist in WoWs. It's a mistake to do it, in fact, while in reality it was the best thing that could happen to you.

 

What makes showing your broadside (ie; all your guns) more effective IRL than it does ingame? Crossing someone's T here is an absolute mistake because of that.

 

But what is the root? Is it the armor effectiveness of ships IRL (being greater) or the generally poor accuracy of guns IRL (below 5% rate of hits for most navies), or a combination of both? Greater engagement ranges obviously were not helpful in regards to accuracy but even then any Real Life WW 2 gunnery captain would be jealous of the number of hits we achieve with a given number of shells.

 

 

[RamirezKurita]

 

What makes showing your broadside (ie; all your guns) more effective IRL than it does ingame? Crossing someone's T here is an absolute mistake because of that.

 

But what is the root? Is it the armor effectiveness of ships IRL (being greater) or the generally poor accuracy of guns IRL (below 5% rate of hits for most navies), or a combination of both? Greater engagement ranges obviously were not helpful in regards to accuracy but even then any Real Life WW 2 gunnery captain would be jealous of the number of hits we achieve with a given number of shells.

 

 

 

​There's a few other things. Currently, maximum range for most ships also corresponds with most ships designed immune zones, which means there's very little risk of having deck armour penetrated in game, for example the Iowas historically needed to be over 30km or so to reliably penetrate another Iowas citadel through the decks even with their super heavy shells which were optimised for plunging fire, but in-game they can't really do anything at those ranges; this makes deck penetrations much less of a thing and so ships that are bow-on don't face that risk. There's also the issues surrounding turrets being disabled, as facing enemies bow-on means that a greater proportion of enemy fire will hit your turrets, which historically is just asking to have all of your bow turrets taken out while in game losing all your front turrets is a very rare occurrence. Another important point is that ships historically were really quite tough, even the toughest ships in game will fall to pieces after a few penetrations while historically they could take an incredible beating and keep going.

[CaptainThunderWalker]

Ah yeah, deck armour and the turrets being incapacitated. Knew I missed something.

 

 

And yeah, ships were a lot tougher historically. Shells were not really likely to penetrate a battleship's main belt and citadel penetrations were extremely rare against modern battleships showing a full broadside - usually it was a matter of knocking all gun turrets out and then send someone with torpedoes to sink it.

 

Also ships' gunnery becoming more inaccurate if you change course and speed constantly.

 

[fnord_disc]

It cannot be overstated how much easier it is for fire control if the range does not change much and your ship makes no maneuvers. Making any kind of wild maneuvers will ruin your firing solution and if the delta speed is high, it will carry you out of range quite quickly. Gunnery was so inaccurate in real life that you needed a lot of time to fire a lot of salvos. Sailing angled away means you don't have enough time and sailing towards is a kamikaze charge.

 

As for crossing the T...

 

The two main reasons I usually read is that the upper bar of the T can use all their guns whereas the lower bar can only use forward guns. In WoWs, your ship can fire its guns just as well at 10% as it could at 100%, but in reality the damage to the bridge, the rangefinders, radar, the turrets... would have drastically reduced the ship's ability to fight. So the danger to the upper fleet's citadel areas is not that dramatic.

 

The other reason is that the lower fleet has different ranges for all its ships, and they would have to watch their own splashes very carefully. If they confuse a different ship's splashes for their own, they adjust the range wrong and hit nothing. The upper fleet has practically the same range on all ships. Since "nobody is perfect", the lower fleet is likely to have much worse accuracy.

[Gojuadorai]

Some examples, collected without much selection.

......

 

im not saying youre wrong!

but

you can tproove there was no battle where intentionally angling was no thing by showing some battles where it wasnt

 

ps im not to sold on that too without beeing an expert on that matter some parts of the course of the graf spee at river plate  look like it either tried to zig zag or keeping mostly an angle while maintaining distance

[fnord_disc]

 

im not saying youre wrong!

but

you can tproove there was no battle where intentionally angling was no thing by showing some battles where it wasnt

 

ps im not to sold on that too without beeing an expert on that matter some parts of the course of the graf spee at river plate  look like it either tried to zig zag or keeping mostly an angle while maintaining distance

 

Read what happened in the battle. Spee was trying to get away after about 7 AM, so it makes sense that she would prioritize maneuvers over accuracy. The point of the battle is that British were fine with showing broadside, not what Spee is doing.

 

Erm, that's exactly how it works. I don't have to show every battle in history to demonstrate that angling wasn't a thing. I have to show examples of broadside engagements and the proponents of angling have to show examples of angling. The burden of proof that angling existed is not on me when I would have to provide a complete collection of naval gunnery history to show the opposite.

[Gojuadorai]

 

Read what happened in the battle. Spee was trying to get away after about 7 AM, so it makes sense that she would prioritize maneuvers over accuracy. The point of the battle is that British were fine with showing broadside, not what Spee is doing.

 

Erm, that's exactly how it works. I don't have to show every battle in history to demonstrate that angling wasn't a thing. I have to show examples of broadside engagements and the proponents of angling have to show examples of angling. The burden of proof that angling existed is not on me when I would have to provide a complete collection of naval gunnery history to show the opposite.

 

sry but i have to correct you once again ...

lets see what needs to be prooven

you said:

Nobody angled in real life.

 

-so you need to prove that no ship in no naval engagement angled just because of the angling. (intentional)

[or show a source that did prooove this]

 

is forum member XYZ had said:

 

"there was angling"

-he had to show one ship in one naval engangement that angled just to produce armor angling

 

if forum member KLM had said:

 

"there was mostly no angling"

-he would have to show that 51% of all ships in all battles did not angle

 

thats how it works.

 

[fnord_disc]

 

sry but i have to correct you once again ...

lets see what needs to be prooven

you said:

 

-so you need to prove that no ship in no naval engagement angled just because of the angling. (intentional)

[or show a source that did prooove this]

 

is forum member XYZ had said:

 

"there was angling"

-he had to show one ship in one naval engangement that angled just to produce armor angling

 

if forum member KLM had said:

 

"there was mostly no angling"

-he would have to show that 51% of all ships in all battles did not angle

 

thats how it works.

 

 

It would be less work for proponents of angling to prove me wrong, so I will refuse to expend this silly effort in service of an online discussion.

[geLaden]

Here comes the funny part.

 

The soo called "angling" in game is meant to increase chances of deflecting incoming AP shells by increasing equivalent armor thickness.
In reality ships did not do maneuvers for that purpose, the intention was simply to dodge shells and avoid being stradled.

 

[RamirezKurita]

 

im not saying youre wrong!

but

you can tproove there was no battle where intentionally angling was no thing by showing some battles where it wasnt

 

ps im not to sold on that too without beeing an expert on that matter some parts of the course of the graf spee at river plate  look like it either tried to zig zag or keeping mostly an angle while maintaining distance

 

​Also 3/4s of the ships in the Battle of River Plate spent 90% of their time angled, it was really only Exeter that spent a significant time in full broadside. It looks like Ajax and Achilles basically alternated between fully bow-on and angled broadsides to maximise firepower while still closing on the enemy, only being perpendicular for a brief period in the opening stages.

[Darth_Glorious]

 

Datamined German tier 9 and 10 shell characteristics :

 

406mm L/52 SK C/34: reload time  = 29 s (ROF = 2.1 RPM)

 

AP: 406mm Pzgr L/4.4

12700dmg
velo 810m/s
mass 1030kg
air drag 0.299
ricochet angle 60
normalize angle 4
krupp 2527

 

HE: 406mm Sprgr L/4.4

4800dmg
velo 810m/s
mass 1030kg
air drag 0.299
krupp 1
fire chance 38%

 

420mm L/48 Drh LC1940: reload time = 32 s (ROF = 1,9 RPM)

 

AP: 420mm APC L/4.6

13500dmg
velo 800m/s
mass 1220kg
air drag 0.299
ricochet angle 60
normalize angle 4
krupp 2415

 

HE: 420mm HE L/4.6

5000dmg
velo 800m/s
mass 1220kg
air drag 0.299
krupp 1
fire chance 41%