Battleship armor layout vs IFHE breakpoints

[soramirez]

Could IFHE be useful for the Yorck? I was thinking, since her AP is useless at long ranges and you're forced to shoot HE, maybe you could get more consistent damage this way. Not to mention that the bump from 35 mm to 45.5 mm of pen (if made the calculations correctly) would be enough to pen the upper belt of a Gneisenau (unlike the 203 guns).

[Shirakami_Kon]

Hmmm... I'm starting to be interested in how that would affect Atlanta. I guess that when that skills comes in-game we'll see videos about that soon enough. But maybe Atlanta starts to actually deal some direct damage and become the gatling she's supposed to be.

[Pajosaurus]

All this will do is mean that I will not be tanking in my BB from now on, shame really as I enjoy a bit of Tanking :-(

 

Since you're usually botting, I don't think it'll impact you too much.

[Kurbain]

Could IFHE be useful for the Yorck? I was thinking, since her AP is useless at long ranges and you're forced to shoot HE, maybe you could get more consistent damage this way. Not to mention that the bump from 35 mm to 45.5 mm of pen (if made the calculations correctly) would be enough to pen the upper belt of a Gneisenau (unlike the 203 guns).

 

Overall it is not very useful for the Yorck. The increase from 35mm to 45mm of penetration would allow it to damage the deck of the NC/Iowa, the deck of the Atago and the frontal 40mm armor patches on the Hipper/Eugen/Roon aside from what you mentioned.

Not worth the 3% fire chance reduction.

The next big penetration target after 32mm is 50mm.

 

Hmmm... I'm starting to be interested in how that would affect Atlanta. I guess that when that skills comes in-game we'll see videos about that soon enough. But maybe Atlanta starts to actually deal some direct damage and become the gatling she's supposed to be.

 

Atlanta HE penetration will increase from 21 to 27mm. Very useful against mid-tier BBs and all cruisers, most of which got 25mm or less of front, rear and deck armor. Useless against T8-T10 BBs and DDs, though.

It is worthy of consideration, but might not be the best choice considering how low the natural fire chance of the Atlanta is. 3% is a big difference for it.

[Panocek]

Could IFHE be useful for the Yorck? I was thinking, since her AP is useless at long ranges and you're forced to shoot HE, maybe you could get more consistent damage this way. Not to mention that the bump from 35 mm to 45.5 mm of pen (if made the calculations correctly) would be enough to pen the upper belt of a Gneisenau (unlike the 203 guns).

 

Rule of thumb: shell caliber divided by 6 gives you current HE penetration. Perk will increase it by 30%, thus 210/6*1.3 gives 45.5mm penetration.

HE ignores angles, thus 45mm plating and below can be damaged. Without perk Yorck should have 35mm penetration.

 

Now look at armor schemes in game, what ships you can damage with increased penetration

[ThinderChief]

I'm dedicating this post to taking a look at the current gen armor layouts of battleships and how they stack against the current proposed Inertial Fuze High Explosive. Reminder, this is a flat +30% bonus to penetration for high explosive shells. There's a debuff for fire chance that I will ignore because it's outside the scope of this exercise in Analysis-Fu.

 

First, I'll detail by caliber how much their penetration is. Note I won't focus on battleship calibers because the IFHE issue, if any, with them is when employed against cruisers. Therefore, they're largely out of scope. However, if someone has an insight into BB calibers against BB armor with IFHE, please do. Also, I'm not going to bother looking at BBs below tier 5.

 

~100mm, pens 21-22mm vs 16-17mm

~128mm, pens 27-28mm vs 21mm

~152mm, pens 32-33mm vs 25mm

180mm, pens 39mm vs 30mm

203mm, pens 43mm vs 33mm

 

So, without further ado, let's get to it.

 

JAPAN

 

KONGO

 

 Armor layout :

Bow and stern are 19mm thick except for an extension of the armor belt on the bow. Deck is 38mm, armor belt is 152mm. Superstructure 13mm.

 

Implications:

Bow and stern no longer immune to under 127mm guns. Deck gets rekt by 180mm. That includes 203mm.

 

FUSO

 Armor layout:

25mm bow and stern except armor belt extension on bow, armor deck 35mm, armor belt 152+mm,

 

Implications:

Superstructure becomes vulnerable to ~100mm caliber, bow and stern become vulnerable to ~127mm. Armor deck becomes vulnerable to 180mm.

 

NAGATO

 Armor Layout:

Bow, stern, casemates, deck all 25mm. Superstructure 16mm. Armored deck 70mm. Armor belt 229+mm. Torpedo bulge 25mm.

 

Implications:

Holy mother of god. ~100mm caliber damages superstructure, ~152mm wrecks just about everywhere that isn't a turret. Torpedo bulges may count too, I do not know.

 

AMAGI

 Armor Layout:

Bow, stern, casemates, deck, torpedo bulges, all 32mm. Armor belt 254+mm. Superstructure 19+mm.

 

Implications:

Superstructure vulnerable to 100mm, 150mm wrecks everything that isn't a turret or armor belt. It used to require 203mm to do that.....

 

IZUMO

 Armor Layout:

Essentially 32mm everywhere but the armor belt at 356mm. 19mm superstructure.

 

Implications:

Superstructure vulnerable to 100mm, 150mm wrecks everything that isn't a turret or armor belt. You like how 203mm hurts? Well, 150mm now gets its turn.

 

YAMATO

 Armor Layout:

Bow, side, 32mm. Bow, deck, half 32mm half 50mm. Upper armor belt 32mm, citadel armor belt 410mm, aft deck 32mm except on higher deck at 50mm. Superstructure 19mm. Upper deck over the center of the hull 57mm.

 

Implications:

Superstructure vulnerable to 100mm, upper armor belt and most of the bow and stern now vulnerable to 150mm.

 

GERMANY

 

KONIG

 Armor Layout:

Bow 19mm except at armor belt level with heavy tapering armor, stern 19mm sides 20mm deck except armor belt level. Armor belt 170+mm thinnest at casemates, both deck levels 30mm. Superstructure is 13mm.

 

Implications:

The soft bow and stern parts become vulnerable  to 100mm. Decks become vulnerable to 150mm.

 

BAYERN

 Armor Layout:

Bow and stern are 25mm except at armor belt level. Armor belt at casemate level 170mm, rest of armor belt thicker. Lower deck 30mm, upper deck (over casemates) 40mm.  Superstructure 16mm

 

Implications:

Superstructure vulnerable to 100mm. softer bow and stern areas vulnerable to 127mm, lower deck vulnerable to 150mm. Upper deck vulnerable to 203mm.

 

GNEISENAU/SCHARNHORST (if they have minute differences in armor layout forgive me, I doubt they are material. Using Gneisenau as reference)

 Armor Layout:

Bow and stern 25mm except at armor belt level. Lower armor belt 350mm, upper armor belt 45mm. Deck is 50mm, superstructure is 16mm.

 

Implications:

Superstructure vulnerable to 100mm, bow and stern take damage from 127mm above armor belt level. No other changes.

 

BISMARCK/TIRPITZ (see Scharnhorst disclaimer)

 Armor Layout:

Bow and stern 32mm except at armor belt level, armor belt 320mm, upper armor belt 160mm, deck 50mm, superstructure 19mm

 

Implications:

Superstructure vulnerable to 100mm, bow and stern take damage above armor belt level from 150mm. No other changes.

 

FRIEDRICH DER GROSSE (because I don't have the germanic letter in my keyboard so there)

 Armor Layout:

Bow generally 32mm except at armor belt level and a third of the top being 50mm. Stern generally 32mm except at armor belt level and a fourth of the top being 50mm. Armor belt 90+mm with main belt 300mm, upper main belt 145mm, deck 80mm around the turrets and 50mm over the center of the ship. Superstructure is 19mm.

 

Implications:

The soft 32mm areas become vulnerable to 150mm guns and the superstructure to 100mm. It's... a rather diminute area of the ship.

 

GROSSER KURFURST (See F.d.G.)

 Armor Layout:

Bow is 32mm except at armor belt level and part of the deck level being 50mm. Stern is 32mm except at armor belt level and half of the deck level at 50mm. Main armor belt is 380mm, upper main belt is 150mm, deck is 50mm, superstructure is 19mm.

 

Implications:

Superstructure to 100mm, the small soft 32mm bow and stern areas to 150mm. And nothing else. GERMAN STEEL. Seriously, you'll hardly notice any difference in this ship.

 

 

USA

 

New York

 Armor Layout:

Bow and stern 19mm, 25mm torpedo bulges, 13mm superstructure, 280mm armor belt underneath.

 

Implications:

Everything but torpedo bulges and turrets take damage from 100mm. Torpedo bulges take from 127mm.

 

NEW MEXICO

 Armor Layout:

Armor belt 343mm, superstructure 16mm, everything else 25mm.

 

Implications:

Everything takes damage from 127mm guns except hits on the armor belt or turrets. Superstructure was already vulnerable to 100mm so...

 

COLORADO

 Armor Layout:

343mm armor belt, 16mm superstructure, 25mm everywhere else.

 

Implications:

Everything takes damage from 127mm guns except hits on the armor belt or turrets. Superstructure was already vulnerable to 100mm so...

 

NORTH CAROLINA

Armor Layout:

Bow and stern 32mm, armor belt 305mm, upper armor belt 32mm, deck 37mm, superstructure 19mm.

 

Implications:

Superstructure becomes vulnerable to 100mm, everywhere but armor belt and turrets and deck become vulnerable to 150mm. Deck becomes vulnerable to 180mm Exploding Stalinium. And don't forget that also means 203mm...

 

IOWA/MISSOURI (I imagine the Missouri is the same or close. I don't own one and unless the difference is material, no need to bring it up)

 Armor Layout:

Bow and stern 32mm. Torpedo bulge 25mm, Citadel armor belt 307mm, upper armor belt and deck 38mm, superstructure 19mm.

 

Implications:

Superstructure becomes vulnerable to 100mm, torpedo bulge vulnerable to 127mm (dunno if it does damage), bow and stern vulnerable to 150mm, upper armor belt and deck vulnerable to 180mm exploding stalinium. And don't forget that also means 203mm...

 

MONTANA

 Armor Layout:

Bow and stern 32mm, main armor belt 409mm, upper armor belt 38mm, deck 38mm, superstructure 19mm.

 

Implications:

Superstructure becomes vulnerable to 100mm. Bow and stern vulnerable to 150mm, upper armor belt and deck vulnerable to 180mm exploding stalinium. And don't forget that also means 203mm...

 

UNITED KINGDOM

 

WARSPITE (a.k.a. the Colonizer)

 Armor Layout:

Bow and stern 25mm, armor belt 152mm, torpedo bulge 25mm, casemate armor belt and deck 25mm, superstructure 16mm.

 

Implications:

Just about everything but a thin strip of main armor belt becomes vulnerable to 127mm guns. Especially if torpedo bulge penetrations count for damage dealing.

 

 

Yeah, that's about it. I'll refrain from offering opinions since it's 5am and I want sleep. I seriously pity the japanese, though, they clearly seem to get the wrong end of the stick here... and I am seriously tempted to say GERMAN STEEL for some reason. Totally wouldn't have anything to do with how their armor layout seems to give so little new surface area for this potential upcoming new skill to work on...

 

​Good info, thanks! When i think some guys are making a nervous diarrhea about the new Fire Prevention skill, I laugh...

[Cyclops_]

Have been thinking about grinding the KM BB for a while, I think now is the time

 

[BCHood]

Actually it's many of "all or nothing" armor USN BBs which are already weakest against smaller caliber shell spam.

With everything (but turrets) above waterline area vulnerable to 127mm New York just melts like snow in oven especially compared to König.

And 25mm plated New Mexico or Colorado can be easily damaged by just spamming AP into that big flimsy side if they show side.

 

Yeah, I was primarily thinking of a line I play (IJN) and thinking out loud, I haven't said USN ships aren't affected, per say, I agree with you on that.

[BadGene616]

Pretty sure that a penning he shell has the full stated chance to set fire (less ships natural defence, mods and skills)

A non penning one has half that.

 

A significant increase in penetration of he shell vs a fairly small reduction in fire chance would make this very effective, if fire chance base is over 6%.

 

That's along with the possible increase in overall damage done by the guns due to greater penetration.

[Migulaitor]

 

Rule of thumb: shell caliber divided by 6 gives you current HE penetration. Perk will increase it by 30%, thus 210/6*1.3 gives 45.5mm penetration.

HE ignores angles, thus 45mm plating and below can be damaged. Without perk Yorck should have 35mm penetration.

 

Now look at armor schemes in game, what ships you can damage with increased penetration

 

For the germans it was divided by 4? maybe only the BBs? Not sure about it 

[Unintentional_submarine]

 

For the germans it was divided by 4? maybe only the BBs? Not sure about it 

 

Only the battleships.

[lup3s]

FRIEDRICH DER GROSSE (because I don't have the germanic letter in my keyboard so there)

 

ALT+225 = ß

[Cyclops_]

 

Since you're usually botting, I don't think it'll impact you too much.

 

errr, explain yourself  please???, I hope your having a joke ?, if not, I will not be pleased!!!

[Trad9]

 

 

 

With RPF the ship on the receiving end will get an notification that somebody with RPF has a bearing on them. How do you torp BBs with this your IJN DD (with RPF) if your target gets very early the information about an undetected ship getting in position for an torp attack?

 

It's very unlikely that any of BBs will  take this perk as it costs 4 pts, so you will need to sacrifice too much secondaries/AA/survivability. This skill is more viable for gunboat DDs  (esp. USN) 

[allufewig]

Pretty sure that a penning he shell has the full stated chance to set fire (less ships natural defence, mods and skills)

A non penning one has half that.

 

A significant increase in penetration of he shell vs a fairly small reduction in fire chance would make this very effective, if fire chance base is over 6%.

 

 

 

I keep hearing these things over and over lately. Is there any source to this?

[Thonar]

Despite -3% Fire Chance, people seem to forget that they only have a chance to cause a fire, when they penetrate (or am I wrong here?).

This means it actually balances itself out already (relatively) and means a huge buff in combination with everything that increases the Fire-Chance.

 

Thus this perk seems to be huge.

[Msiiek]

Is this and demo expert have impact on secondaries also?

[Nethraniel]

Despite -3% Fire Chance, people seem to forget that they only have a chance to cause a fire, when they penetrate (or am I wrong here?).

This means it actually balances itself out already (relatively) and means a huge buff in combination with everything that increases the Fire-Chance.

 

You do not need to pen with HE in order to start a fire

[Thonar]

 

You do not need to pen with HE in order to start a fire

 

 

I'm pretty sure there was a correlation between Penetration and Fire-Chance, I'm just not sure anymore how it was and I don't know if they might have patched it out.

[eliastion]

 

 

I'm pretty sure there was a correlation between Penetration and Fire-Chance, I'm just not sure anymore how it was and I don't know if they might have patched it out.

 

I'm pretty sure there is a link between the two in that you only get your listed fire% when penetrating - but you still can set fires as my Akizuki can attest (despite low base fire% and inability to pen BB superstructures I do, occasionally, switch to HE when I'm desperate for a fire on something that has loads of HP and has just recently burned repair - fires do happen).

[Ebu34]

So German BB with this skill

 

406/4 x 1,3 =  131mm pen if i am correct.

 

What's the applicable result can be for this? Anyone can enlighten me?

[Gojuadorai]

 

in test2 it will have only 3% fire chance penalty and have increased effect from 25% to 30%. Fire chance nerf cancels out with Demo

 

it does not since demo is 2% now and thats 7pt.(4+3) for 1 skill...

[Panocek]

So German BB with this skill

 

406/4 x 1,3 =  131mm pen if i am correct.

 

What's the applicable result can be for this? Anyone can enlighten me?

 

Citadels on cruisers with exposed citadels, as in sticking above waterline and without torpedo belt, acting as spaced armor against HE. Though german 406/420 HE should pen 100mm cruiser citadel anyway, without the perk. IFHE makes more sense on 380mm HE shells - 123mm HE pen as early as tier 6.

[allufewig]

 

I'm pretty sure there is a link between the two in that you only get your listed fire% when penetrating - but you still can set fires as my Akizuki can attest (despite low base fire% and inability to pen BB superstructures I do, occasionally, switch to HE when I'm desperate for a fire on something that has loads of HP and has just recently burned repair - fires do happen).

 

 

I have my doubts that there is any connection between these two values. I regularly set fires although all my shells shatter.

 

The reason that people assume a connection might come from the fact that often you only do shell-damage when you hit the superstructure. Two hitboxes, midships-hull and superstructure, are at roughly the same area of a ship, giving a better chance for a fire when aiming at this general spot. (Also, if you do hit there, the volley usually was on point, resulting in more hits per salvo). This might skew perception towards a connection that does not actually exist.

[mtm78]

 

 

I have my doubts that there is any connection between these two values. I regularly set fires although all my shells shatter.

 

The reason that people assume a connection might come from the fact that often you only do shell-damage when you hit the superstructure. Two hitboxes, midships-hull and superstructure, are at roughly the same area of a ship, giving a better chance for a fire when aiming at this general spot. (Also, if you do hit there, the volley usually was on point, resulting in more hits per salvo). This might skew perception towards a connection that does not actually exist.

 

Center hull is not a fire zone, only bow stern and superstructure ( which is two zones if they don't take FP )?