Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Aotearas

Overconfidence™ Mk.2

114 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
1,911 posts
5,907 battles
1 hour ago, wilkatis_LV said:

644.82mm of vertical armour penetration at that same distance, with an impact angle of 5.51°

 

Since overmatch disables ricochets, you only have to compare the horisontal penetration value from the graph to the calculated effective deck thickness (128,9957 mm at 81,53 degrees). As such, the Amagi would only fail to penetrate if the impact angle was 88,311 degrees (from the surface's normal vector) or greater. But as @Aotearas wrote, this will not happen due to the angle adjustments of normalisation.

 

The formula you use does not take overmatch into account and is invalid for all cases where overmatch is a deciding factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,089 battles
7 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

Since overmatch disables ricochets, you only have to compare the horisontal penetration value from the graph to the calculated effective deck thickness (128,9957 mm at 81,53 degrees). As such, the Amagi would only fail to penetrate if the impact angle was 88,311 degrees (from the surface's normal vector) or greater. But as @Aotearas wrote, this will not happen due to the angle adjustments of normalisation.

Even so the math he bases his theoretical non-penetrations of overmatching caliber shells on doesn't add up when compared to the reality ingame.

 

According to his math, Yamato's 460mm shells shouldn't be able to penetrate 32mm of armour at extreme angles (like say perfectly bow-on battleships) unless it hit the exact tip of the bow at a sufficiently flat angle. But everyone who plays the Yamato (or has been on the recieving end, with the possible sole exception of wilkatis_LV as it seems) can readily testify that Yamato's 460mm AP does penetrate such a bow-on angling battleship noses. All the damn time. Certainly more reliably than you'd expect your shells to hit the bow-on battleship's perfectly on the small flat part of its nose.

 

He's talking bollocks, simple as that.

 

 

edit://

Ah, I see you edited your post, disregard me repeating my point then.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Players
1,860 posts
17,245 battles

wilkatis_LV  cant know how cool is it to take 20k from one salvo by BB AP since his high tier DD experience is nearly 0 - depens if you count 50 battles on T7. 

I always feel thats its wrong when I hit poor DDs by AP for 15-20k.

Want big volleys on DD??  Use HE!!! Thats all we ask for.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,187 battles
11 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

If I now take 32mm armour and were to calculate the effective armour thickness at an angle of 84,78° (as you did to get to the 197,88mm for the 19mm armour on a DD) I get an effective armour thickness of 351.72mm, which checked against the aforementioned penetration of 141,7mm at that range and impact angle shouldn't penetrate.

 

And if Yamato hit the deck - a bounce is exactly what would (should?) happen. But you go for the vertical armour, not the horizontal, right? Except that vertical isn't as easy bcuz it has the tendency to curve (not on all BBs, of course, but quite a lot of them)

 

9oGsyWB.png

 

19 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Do you see the problem with your math here?

I see the problem with your math

 

19 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

That certainly depends on who you ask to. We've gotten plenty of "non issues" on this game that have been changed despite plenty of players crying about it: HE shells penetration, BB citadels over the water, individual AA being insuficient to stop a CV strike, stealth firing, smoke firing,etc. All of these were changed to arguably improve the game.

And how many of those did improve the game?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
439 posts
10,686 battles
1 hour ago, wilkatis_LV said:

On horizontal deck, yeah

644.82mm of vertical armour penetration at that same distance, with an impact angle of 5.51°

 

You've clearly showed you don't need to, I still prefer doing so.

 

 

Edit: so you don't have to ask - https://mustanghx.github.io/ship_ap_calculator/

 

Man next time you propose a JavaScript app that does floating or big number and angle calculations please go shoot yourself. Second how do you validate any of the configuration JSON's and which is the source?

And all the calculations in the world do not say anything about the fact that less than 1 year ago I would not have considered using AP on DD's (except UK CL AP or when shooting a German DD) whilst now I switch from HE to AP the second I see a DD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,187 battles
19 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

you only have to compare the horisontal penetration value from the graph to the calculated effective deck thickness (128,9957 mm at 81,53 degrees)

 

jz36kcy.png

 

So you want to pen a something by the shell going parallel to it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,187 battles
3 minutes ago, Barkyro said:

Man next time you propose a JavaScript app that does floating or big number and angle calculations please go shoot yourself.

I was recommended that site by some guy in WG Support team quite a while back, those values there are the same that WG use (basically it's the historical values of thsoe guns assigned to the ships that have those guns or something like that)

 

4 minutes ago, Barkyro said:

And all the calculations in the world do not say anything about the fact that less than 1 year ago I would not have considered using AP on DD's

Well, that's because... sorry to say but there's no better word to replace it with - you were and idiot. Back when we still had the +/-3 tier MM BB AP was exactly as effective on DDs as it is right now - a.k.a. it's always been like that. What changed? People found out that hitting a DD with AP does dmg - whoa, magic!

 

7 minutes ago, Barkyro said:

whilst now I switch from HE to AP the second I see a DD.

So the "you were" part can be turned into a "you are". HE is still better, AP is simply good enough

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Players
1,860 posts
17,245 battles
18 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

 

And if Yamato hit the deck - a bounce is exactly what would (should?) happen. But you go for the vertical armour, not the horizontal, right? Except that vertical isn't as easy bcuz it has the tendency to curve (not on all BBs, of course, but quite a lot of them)

 

9oGsyWB.png

If the armor thickness is less than 1/14.3 of shell's caliber, a ricochet does not occur regardless of armor encounter angle.

32mm deck = every caliber higher than 457,6mm will penetrate(overmatch). Is Yamatos 460mm higher than 457,6mm? Check. 32mm deck will not save you against Yamato.

 

First you must check overmatch. If overmatch doesnt happen then you can calculate impact angles not before.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,911 posts
5,907 battles
37 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

So you want to pen a something by the shell going parallel to it? 

 

81,53 =/= 90 degrees.

 

Your formula shows the plunging fire penetration (aka vertical), but that doesn't mean anything when overmatch is involved: the mechanic is used to simulate that the shell is diving into the deck and merely demolishing the armour due to the large difference between kinetic energy and structural resistance.

Or to put it another way: the shell is hitting an extremely angled horisontal plate but isn't bouncing due to the overmatch mechanic. As such, the horisontal penetration will be used. Similarly, the vertical penetration will be used when a shell of a large enough calibre hit a thin vertical plate during plunging fire.

 

Now, how this would pan out in a real-life scenario is another matter, but this is World of Warships, not a physics simulation/dynamic FEA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Players
1,860 posts
17,245 battles

seems he left this discussion after he was beated by arguments, probably studying WoWs.wiki now :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
439 posts
10,686 battles
37 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

I was recommended that site by some guy in WG Support team quite a while back, those values there are the same that WG use (basically it's the historical values of thsoe guns assigned to the ships that have those guns or something like that)

 

Well, that's because... sorry to say but there's no better word to replace it with - you were and idiot. Back when we still had the +/-3 tier MM BB AP was exactly as effective on DDs as it is right now - a.k.a. it's always been like that. What changed? People found out that hitting a DD with AP does dmg - whoa, magic!

 

So the "you were" part can be turned into a "you are". HE is still better, AP is simply good enough

 

1 Ok fair enough then they can shoot himself as JS looses precision with every calculation.

 

2  +/- 3 MM was I think 2 years ago and this AP crap popped up less than a year ago so trying to be smart really dosent work out and no it was not anywhere near to being like that as I can count on one hand the time s I got more then an overpen on a DD spanning T1-T8. So sorry to tell you this but simply making stuff up to satisfy your opinion.

 

3  Well if you prefer doing 2.5k and breaking an engine rather then delete a DD in one salvo that is your specific problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,464 posts
7,357 battles
58 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

And how many of those did improve the game?

 

You still hadn't answered my question. What makes the situation with DDs any less deserving to be looked at than the others.

About wether those changes improved the game? It's a matter of opinion, but I'm pretty sure you agreed with at least some of those changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,187 battles
49 minutes ago, Quetak said:

seems he left this discussion after he was beated by arguments, probably studying WoWs.wiki now :Smile_trollface:

Should I answer to everything within 5 min? YOu all sure as hell don't do that

 

28 minutes ago, Barkyro said:

+/- 3 MM was I think 2 years ago and this AP crap popped up less than a year ago

EXACTLY. MY. POINT.

 

Nothing has changed, it just took 2 f-ing years for you to notice. If it wasn't a problem 2 years ago - it isn't a problem now

 

28 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

What makes the situation with DDs any less deserving to be looked at than the others.

Looked at it. It has not changed since the game was released. Wasn't a problem, wasn't a problem, wasn't a problem, oh look - someone decided it's a problem!

 

The only "problem" there is that potatoes figured out they can actually shoot DDs

 

32 minutes ago, OVanBruce said:

I'm pretty sure you agreed with at least some of those changes

1 hour ago, OVanBruce said:

HE shells penetration, BB citadels over the water, individual AA being insuficient to stop a CV strike, stealth firing, smoke firing,etc.

By HE pen I'm assuming you mean IFHE? Made cruiser and DD lives easier while taking away BBs ability to tank those hits (a.k.a. pushed BBs further back)

 

Underwater citadels - you can still hit them, just it's a little harder. Amagi never had a problem with it, Kii - noone said it has a problem with it. US BBs? Still pretty easy to citadel, and as I learned recently - if you know where to aim at close distances (probably 10km and less) you can reliably bow-citadel the Iowa (to a lesser extent the Missouri) without any overmatching, and RN BBs get punished extra hard each time they get citadelled - thing is, you won't citadel a BB by firing HE at it.

 

I preferred the time when the game was just released and you actually needed AA ships to provide AA support, and even then - I can drop you a list of all the BB AA buffs, unless you call adding 5 dps to their 2km aura a massive buff there really isn't much that changed

 

SF never was anything more than an annoyance with no counterplay - a ship stealthfiring from smoke is confined to a very small area thus it can be hit, while a DD going full speed and firing at you - nothing you can do there. Then again they really didn't do any dmg unless their RNG was lucky enough to set multiple fires (at a time when most players still repaired 1 fire). Didn't care if it stays or goes, I guess this is the closest to a "positive" impact any of those have had

 

Smoke firing - the "good" version of stealthfiring as you just needed to learn how to use spotting aircraft to shoot into smoke. Of course having a BB unload a broadside into you from 3km and not get spotted was stupid, but so is the ability to sit in smoke, spot for yourself and fire at your target without being seen in the return. It literally made the game worse.

 

1 hour ago, Kartoffelmos said:

Your formula shows the plunging fire penetration (aka vertical)

No it does not. Or you want to claim I can get plunging fire with the Amagis 410s at 8km? it shows you how much of that type of armour you can penetrate at that distance, and what will be the hit angle.

 

It's not "your horizontal vector is X and vertical is Y, calculate them together to get the result" - it's you hit H / V armour at that angle, and you can penetrate this much of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,464 posts
7,357 battles
9 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Looked at it. It has not changed since the game was released. Wasn't a problem, wasn't a problem, wasn't a problem, oh look - someone decided it's a problem!

The only "problem" there is that potatoes figured out they can actually shoot DDs.

 

There is something that is called "latent problem". Something that never actually posed a problem until the circunstances of the game changed in such a way that said phenomena, which was minimal or devoid of inconvenience suddenly poises itself as a general problem. As you can see, I'm an Alpha player, I've been through most of the iterations this game have had and one of the most famous "latent problem" we've had was the state of carriers when the game finally entered OBT. We Alpha and Close Beta players could cope with the fact that carriers were as strong as they were back then because we had a higher standard of play bettwen ourselves. Once the game went live there were continous adjustments to CVs and their interactions bettwen thenselves and the surface ships. And that was supposedly a non issue to all Alpha and Close Beta players yet even nowadays the problem continues.

 

29 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

By HE pen I'm assuming you mean IFHE? Made cruiser and DD lives easier while taking away BBs ability to tank those hits (a.k.a. pushed BBs further back)

 

Underwater citadels - you can still hit them, just it's a little harder. Amagi never had a problem with it, Kii - noone said it has a problem with it. US BBs? Still pretty easy to citadel, and as I learned recently - if you know where to aim at close distances (probably 10km and less) you can reliably bow-citadel the Iowa (to a lesser extent the Missouri) without any overmatching, and RN BBs get punished extra hard each time they get citadelled - thing is, you won't citadel a BB by firing HE at it.

 

I preferred the time when the game was just released and you actually needed AA ships to provide AA support, and even then - I can drop you a list of all the BB AA buffs, unless you call adding 5 dps to their 2km aura a massive buff there really isn't much that changed

 

SF never was anything more than an annoyance with no counterplay - a ship stealthfiring from smoke is confined to a very small area thus it can be hit, while a DD going full speed and firing at you - nothing you can do there. Then again they really didn't do any dmg unless their RNG was lucky enough to set multiple fires (at a time when most players still repaired 1 fire). Didn't care if it stays or goes, I guess this is the closest to a "positive" impact any of those have had

 

Smoke firing - the "good" version of stealthfiring as you just needed to learn how to use spotting aircraft to shoot into smoke. Of course having a BB unload a broadside into you from 3km and not get spotted was stupid, but so is the ability to sit in smoke, spot for yourself and fire at your target without being seen in the return. It literally made the game worse.

 

I see you've liked and saw noo problem with some of those changes, to the point that you directly downplay the effects of some of then as marginal. Yet I'm still here waiting for an answer to my question. What makes a change to BB AP to ensure it only gives overpens something less deserving to be changed?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,975 posts
12,535 battles
23 hours ago, Humorpalanta said:

I hate that Missouri. That goddamn RNG he has. I never get those. My shells just never hit a damn DD.

 

 

Happens more than one in 10 games. 

Best shot was probably a 26k hit on a Khaba from 20 kms (from C cap on Hotspots to 1 line near A). He survived on <1k hp :Smile_sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,570 posts
11,916 battles
3 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

And how many of those did improve the game?

 

Very few imo, and most of them were BBaby-cries...

 

But as these changes were made and are likely to stay, why should only BBs be (indirectly) buffed most* of the time? Don't the other classes deserve some love? :cap_hmm:

 

(* except for the smoke firing mechanics' change.. I hated that one.. so long smoke-based teamplay :cap_old:)

 

 

1 hour ago, wilkatis_LV said:

EXACTLY. MY. POINT.

 

Nothing has changed, it just took 2 f-ing years for you to notice. If it wasn't a problem 2 years ago - it isn't a problem now

 

Looked at it. It has not changed since the game was released. Wasn't a problem, wasn't a problem, wasn't a problem, oh look - someone decided it's a problem!

 

The only "problem" there is that potatoes figured out they can actually shoot DDs

 

This "problem" is mainly caused by an overpopulation of BBs (there are 5 BBs per team (nearly) every battle), and DDs being much easier detected (e.g. more radar ships, SF removal).

Because of this, these devastating AP salvoes happen more often than they used to.

 

Yes, it never changed, it just occurs more; and when something "bad" occurs too often, a change might be needed.

 

WG catered the BB plebs so many times, why not cater the DD / CL / CA players for once? :cap_book:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,911 posts
5,907 battles
3 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

No it does not. Or you want to claim I can get plunging fire with the Amagis 410s at 8km? it shows you how much of that type of armour you can penetrate at that distance, and what will be the hit angle.

 

It's not "your horizontal vector is X and vertical is Y, calculate them together to get the result" - it's you hit H / V armour at that angle, and you can penetrate this much of it.

 

Why are you even arguing? Additionally, why are you arguing semantics? It doesn't matter if I call it plunging fire, or "vertical penetration at 8 km", as the end result is the same: that parameter yields little penetration (as such, there is indeed next to none "plunging fire" at 8 km) and is irrelevant to this discussion. Why? Because it doesn't adhere to the game's mechanics when overmatch is involved.

 

As for your last sentence: that's your words and not mine. Feel free to read my earlier post a couple of times more.

 

As for the actual topic, of course it is an issue when this bug affects destroyers the most: "it happens to every class" is hardly a valid argument when destroyers lose roughly 15 % of their HP because of it while cruisers lose only 7,5 % (and this is very roughly calculated, as I just couldn't be bothered to pick an exact example). Don't even get me started on battleships, since this won't really affect them at all due to the healing and HP pool. If this bug is also tied to the compartments of ships, it just also might be a "DD-mostly" feature due to their small sizes.

 

That's enough from me on this discussion, I think...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,744 posts
8,750 battles

DDs versus BB AP has always been an issue.

Nothing has really changed about the mechanics since release, but other things compound to make it more of an issue than it was before.

 

On release most people assumed that HE was the correct ammo choice for BBs fighting DDs. It was still perpetuated for quite a while longer after that.

DDs have become more and more visible: DDs with less concealment have been introduced, radar has been introduced and more hydro has been added.

Last but not least post-battle statistics have improved and something you would earlier have shrugged off as being hit several times, you can now see for what it truly is.

 

The issue remains that BBs do too much damage to DDs with AP. Whether it is through bugs or actual mechanics (a little of both it turns out), it's a problem of game balance.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,187 battles
5 hours ago, OVanBruce said:

What makes a change to BB AP to ensure it only gives overpens something less deserving to be changed?

Well that wasn't your question, was it? And trust me, that's not going to be enough because already - almost everything you score with AP on a DD is an overpen, yet the bit**ing and whining is everywhere.

BB did dmg to a DD? But muh DD supposed to counter BB, why BB can deal dmg to DD?!?!?!

 

Try this in game - load HE in your US / IJN BB and fire at a DD. A fair chance they'll start whining about BB AP in the chat :fish_palm:

 

5 hours ago, OVanBruce said:

I see you've liked and saw noo problem with some of those changes

Did you... even bother to read what I wrote there? I getting a distinct feeling that you just marked that section, quoted it, and wrote this ^ without reading it

 

4 hours ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

Best shot was probably a 26k hit on a Khaba from 20 kms

Either you met the worlds most braindamagerd Khaba or that's pure bs. You didn't mention the ship but going by quote I'll assume you are talking about Missouri

 

First of all - 26k - that's 6 of your 9 shells penetrating a DD (a small target) at 20km. Lets oversimplify and say - Khaba is a rectangle with its sizes (140m length / 14m beam) as lengths of the sides (much larger area than the ship would take). And then lets assume your target area is a perfect circle (much smaller area than the ellipse would actually have) with diameter equal to your horizontal dispersion at 20km (250m). Do the maths, and you have a target area of 49 087.4 m² with a target sized 1960 m² in it. That target is taking up 4%  of your dispersion area (and keep in mind we get this with oversizing the DD and undersizing the target area). You can't reliably get 6 shells on a BB at that distance, don't bs me you can get 6 pens on a DD.

 

2nd - 20km part 1 - that's 12s shell flight time. Haven't played the Khaba myself, so remind me - what's her rudder shift time? Also, if I'm not mistaken, rudder shift is given in time from full one side to full other side, so we can take half of it. Unless that Khaba sailed in a straight line for all that time (and some time before as you would line up your shot) - your shells weren't even close. In fact - unless he was stationary (afk) you wouldn't be even close

 

3rd - 20km part 2 - lets simplify once more with base speed of 43 kts - no speed flag, no speed boost. 43kts = 22.12 m/s -> times 12 seconds = 265.44m times 2.5 speed scaling = 664m lead (unless I forgot to count in something more)

 

So yeah, nice fantasy tale, never happened tho

 

4 hours ago, lup3s said:

Don't the other classes deserve some love?

CVs need their UI fixed, cruisers could do with some love for their survivability. DDs are fine as they are - don't forget which is the other class apart from BBs which has 3...5 ships per team pretty much every battle.

 

5 hours ago, lup3s said:

This "problem" is mainly caused by an overpopulation of BBs (there are 5 BBs per team (nearly) every battle), and DDs being much easier detected (e.g. more radar ships, SF removal).

Just because there are 5 BBs scraping the border behind their spawns instead of there being 2 BBs doing exactly that - doubt that's the threat you're looking at.

Mean while spotting (mainly radar I guess) is a problem DDs face - and tell me now, how will "fixing" (as you seem to call it) BB AP vs DDs fix your getting spotted issues? Hint: it won't.

 

5 hours ago, lup3s said:

Because of this, these devastating AP salvoes happen more often than they used to.

They happen more often bcuz enough BBs have finally learned that they can actually hit a DD if you fire at it (unlike back in the past where DDs were left for cruisers to deal with).

 

5 hours ago, lup3s said:

Yes, it never changed, it just occurs more; and when something "bad" occurs too often, a change might be needed.

Don't PA DDs have better torp hit rates than other BBs bcuz of how stealthy those torps are? Well then - when something "bad" occurs too often, a change might be needed.

 

WoWS Today isn't updating once again, but last info they had - the only tier where PA DD doesn't have the best torp hit rate of all DDs in that tier is tier 7 - Gadja comes 2nd there. Guess that means they need some good old nerfin'!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
311 posts
10,275 battles
27 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

First of all - 26k - that's 6 of your 9 shells penetrating a DD (a small target) at 20km. Lets oversimplify and say - Khaba is a rectangle with its sizes (140m length / 14m beam) as lengths of the sides (much larger area than the ship would take). And then lets assume your target area is a perfect circle (much smaller area than the ellipse would actually have) with diameter equal to your horizontal dispersion at 20km (250m). Do the maths, and you have a target area of 49 087.4 m² with a target sized 1960 m² in it. That target is taking up 4%  of your dispersion area (and keep in mind we get this with oversizing the DD and undersizing the target area). You can't reliably get 6 shells on a BB at that distance, don't bs me you can get 6 pens on a DD.

 

2nd - 20km part 1 - that's 12s shell flight time. Haven't played the Khaba myself, so remind me - what's her rudder shift time? Also, if I'm not mistaken, rudder shift is given in time from full one side to full other side, so we can take half of it. Unless that Khaba sailed in a straight line for all that time (and some time before as you would line up your shot) - your shells weren't even close. In fact - unless he was stationary (afk) you wouldn't be even close

 

3rd - 20km part 2 - lets simplify once more with base speed of 43 kts - no speed flag, no speed boost. 43kts = 22.12 m/s -> times 12 seconds = 265.44m times 2.5 speed scaling = 664m lead (unless I forgot to count in something more)

 

 Image result for samuel johnson meme

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
3,570 posts
11,916 battles
8 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Don't PA DDs have better torp hit rates than other BBs bcuz of how stealthy those torps are? Well then - when something "bad" occurs too often, a change might be needed.

 

Yes, return IJN torps to their pre-nerf state please :cap_money:

 

(my Shima feels nearly useless atm ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Players
1,860 posts
17,245 battles
16 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

you can reliably bow-citadel the Iowa without any overmatching

how? tell me :cap_hmm:

Im starting to think that you are just troll.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
2,226 posts
10,980 battles
1 hour ago, Quetak said:

Im starting to think that you are just troll.  

hallelujah-squirrel-edited.png?w=690

 

Someone else has seen the light!

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,187 battles
2 hours ago, Quetak said:

how? tell me :cap_hmm:

Im starting to think that you are just troll.  

No idea what to call it - that "bow bubble" on the lower half of the tip of the bow, also when you look at Iowa & Missouri from the front there is a clear point where the bow armour turns outwards to get wide in front of the hull - again, it goes from waterline to about halfway up the hull - that part lacks the against you (and if the Iowa / Missouri angles herself that's that same part under #1 turret where you'd aim for to hit in front of the main belt). Bow-on shots there will pass through with barely any problems (well at least US 406s, IJN 410s and KM 420s do). Missouri's a harder nut to crack (for citadels) as her frontal bulkhead is quite a bit thicker, for penetrations they both are the same.

 

As a quick sketch-up it's approximately these zones:

shot-18.02.14_00.44.30-0918.jpg

 

You could say that the upper half of the bow gets wider aswell - but since the bow is angled upwards those would be just overpens.

 

Also here's a short video of the first bow-testing I did (after getting citadelled that way in a Missouri by a Missouri - bots can't be Missouris so I went with the Iowa)

 

 

Effective range of up to about 8...10km, past that you won't be able to hit reliably enough

 

1 hour ago, PzychoPanzer said:

Someone else has seen the light!

Just read that same answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×