Royal BB line

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Why won't you address the fact that they both use a different formula, for the KGV

 

"This data is from "Battleships: Allied Battleships in World War II" for a muzzle velocity of 2,400 fps (732 mps) and is partly based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration and partly based upon official data."

 

and Sharnhorst "The above information is from "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War Two" for a muzzle velocity of 2,920 fps (890 mps) and is based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration."

 

The KGV is only partly based on the USN formula, also, for some reason, the penetration in the table is calculated using a muzzle velocity of 732mps, not the 757mps actually used, whereas the Sharnhorst uses the 890mps actually used.

 

Even then the difference between 732 and 757 isn't major at all, Scharnhorst would still have better Belt Penetration and medium range. And they both use the same formula.

[stockyy1994]

 

Even then the difference between 732 and 757 isn't major at all, Scharnhorst would still have better Belt Penetration and medium range. And they both use the same formula.

 

"Battleships: Allied Battleships in World War II" for a muzzle velocity of 2,400 fps (732 mps) and is partly based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration and partly based upon official data."

 

                                                                                                                                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

"Battleships: Allied Battleships in World War II" for a muzzle velocity of 2,400 fps (732 mps) and is partly based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration and partly based upon official data."

 

                                                                                                                                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

 

 

Still USN Empirical Formula.

[stockyy1994]

 

Still USN Empirical Formula.

 

"Partly" based, so part of the shell pen calculation isn't using the formula, its using real gun trials, whereas the Sharnhorst pen calculation only uses the formula, that's why they can't be compared fully.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

"Partly" based, so part of the shell pen calculation isn't using the formula, its using real gun trials, whereas the Sharnhorst pen calculation only uses the formula, that's why they can't be compared fully.

 

Not fully no, but it gives an idea on how both perform vs the other.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

Still USN Empirical Formula.

 

You do understand that means that two different methods are used and merged together?

That is NOT the same as just using the USN formula 

Come on man, don't make me doubt your intelligence, we both do not want that.

 

Also, nice observation with the muzzle velocity @stockyy1994. Actually, that's not a small increase. Looking at how important velocity is, that likely means a pretty significant penetration increase on short to medium ranges, as 4% more velocity will translate into a similar increase in penetration when using the USN formula.

 

But math. The Chipunk doesn't really like math.

 

 

You haven't backed up your claim it would work at tier 8, only that you think it would, and no, you are in the Minority. In truth, it's a tier 7, and if you get your way, it will be the worst ship at it's tier unless it was overbuffed to Martian Heat ray levels.

 

I haven't backed it up? The whole thread is whole if backups by various people. Actual first hand penetration values, pretty lengthy evaluations about how the penetration of the guns will work against the likely competitors, AA considerations, armour schemes, observations over how turning circles are determined by the game, etc.

 

Your only argument, which has been debunked numerous times at this point, has always been "But muh only 356mm guns". It's like you have a bot installed to do this, or you have trained a shimpanzee.

 

 

[Tangolikeoak]

 

 

 

Also, nice observation with the muzzle velocity @stockyy1994. Actually, that's not a small increase. Looking at how important velocity is, that likely means a pretty significant penetration increase on short to medium ranges, as 4% more velocity will translate into a similar increase in penetration when using the USN formula.

 

 

I think there has been an argument over the MV before. I had asserted that the higher number was of a new barrel ( much like those in game). The lower was with 25% wear so, in theory, can be utterly ignored as they are not representative of guns as they would appear in game.

[SeaMonsterUK]

Your only argument, which has been debunked numerous times at this point, has always been "But muh only 356mm guns". It's like you have a bot installed to do this, or you have trained a shimpanzee.

 

 

Because the 14" Mk VII is not as good as you think it is.

[SeaMonsterUK]

I think there has been an argument over the MV before. I had asserted that the higher number was of a new barrel ( much like those in game). The lower was with 25% wear so in theory can be utterly ignored. 

 

Not really, the increase in MV won't change the penetration in any major way.

[Webley_Mark]

So, you're still debating about the 14'' Mk VII gun? After all this time?!

[Earl_of_Northesk]

 

Not really, the increase in MV won't change the penetration in any major way.

 

Are you kidding me?

Yeah, velocity doesn't matter.

 

Also, I never said the 356mm gun is a good gun. It's a good 356mm gun but obviously a larger gun would have been better. 

What I say and what is correct is that the guns will be sufficient at T8. And that's plenty enough,

[Tangolikeoak]

 

Not really, the increase in MV won't change the penetration in any major way.

 

I suppose it is easy to dismiss ideas that are contrary to your own belief. I mean you have made serious comment on the sanctity of the USN formula... yet a flaw found in it, of course, won't undermine any information found from it.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Are you kidding me?

Yeah, velocity doesn't matter.

 

Please do reread the part where it says "in any Major way".

[Tangolikeoak]

So, you're still debating about the 14'' Mk VII gun? After all this time?!

 

I suppose you might have the grace to forgive the goal of maintaining the high standard of the scientific method.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

I suppose it is easy to dismiss ideas that are contrary to your own belief. I mean you have made serious comment on the sanctity of the USN formula... yet a flaw found in it, of course, won't undermine any information found from it.

 

It's still the most accurate calculation, all it needs is calibrated such as real world weather conditions etc.

[stockyy1994]

 

You do understand that means that two different methods are used and merged together?

That is NOT the same as just using the USN formula 

Come on man, don't make me doubt your intelligence, we both do not want that.

 

Also, nice observation with the muzzle velocity @stockyy1994. Actually, that's not a small increase. Looking at how important velocity is, that likely means a pretty significant penetration increase on short to medium ranges, as 4% more velocity will translate into a similar increase in penetration when using the USN formula.

 

But math. The Chipunk doesn't really like math.

 

 

I haven't backed it up? The whole thread is whole if backups by various people. Actual first hand penetration values, pretty lengthy evaluations about how the penetration of the guns will work against the likely competitors, AA considerations, armour schemes, observations over how turning circles are determined by the game, etc.

 

Your only argument, which has been debunked numerous times at this point, has always been "But muh only 356mm guns". It's like you have a bot installed to do this, or you have trained a shimpanzee.

 

 

 

Yeah, I agree with the muzzle velocity giving a reasonable penetration increase at close-mid range, not game changing, but it still matters. Also, Trainspite earlier posted the picture based on  actual firing trials showing the shell penning a 12" vertical plate at 26000 yards, much higher penetration than the value given on navweaps (9.5" at 25000 yards). So it's pretty safe to assume the penetration will be greater than shown on the navweaps values at all ranges, this is where higher krupp can be used to modify the ingame formula (which gives similar pen values to the table on navweaps), to represent the real life performance of the shell.

[Tangolikeoak]

 

It's still the most accurate calculation, all it needs is calibrated such as real world weather conditions etc.

 

Perhaps it would be if it was working on complete facts? It is intellectually dishonest to maintain that a gun firing  at 732, with all other factors the same, would have the same results as one firing from any other number.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

I suppose you might have the grace to forgive the goal of maintaining the high standard of the scientific method.

 

What, by making it look better than the gun actually was? In reality the gun was lackluster.

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

Perhaps it would be if it was working on complete facts? It is intellectually dishonest to maintain that a gun firing  at 732, with all other factors the same, would have the same results as one firing from any other number.

 

It's not dishonest at all.

[Tangolikeoak]

 

What, by making it look better than the gun actually was? In reality the gun was lackluster.

 

You'll forgive my incredulity. When did I suggest that the gun was anything? My suggestion has been that working from inaccurate results does not provide conclusive evidence on how a weapon performs. 

[Tangolikeoak]

 

It's not dishonest at all.

 

What is it then? I will be so kind as to allow you to plead ignorance. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

You'll forgive my incredulity. When did I suggest that the gun was anything? My suggestion has been that working from inaccurate results does not provide conclusive evidence on how a weapon performs. 

 

And when we look at areas such as the sinking of the Bismarck, the only 2 14" penetrations made at long range before Hood was sunk was below water line and in the bow, and before the Bismarck was actually sunk, most penetrations was done at close ranges to an already doomed ship.

[Tangolikeoak]

 

And when we look at areas such as the sinking of the Bismarck, the only 2 14" penetrations made at long range before Hood was sunk was below water line and in the bow, and before the Bismarck was actually sunk, most penetrations was done at close ranges to an already doomed ship.

 

That is fantastic, wonderful even, but utterly irrelevant to me. 

[SeaMonsterUK]

 

That is fantastic, wonderful even, but utterly irrelevant to me. 

 

Cause you couldn't give a f*ck about the British tech tree.

[Tangolikeoak]

 

Cause you couldn't give a f*ck about the British tech tree.

 

Maybe... I will likely enjoy it even if it is awful. 

 

Though that doesn't change the fact that you, without clarification, maintain that A at VX = 123 and that A at VQ =123 despite the fact VQ =/= VX