• Content count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5363

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About AkXb70

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile AkXb70
  1. I haven't seen it yet. Will sinking carcasses stop a deep water torp?
  2. I just really want a cart... More often than not, I cut back purchases just so I don't have to make 5 or 6 separate transactions.
  3. Navweaps also states: "From inadequate firing trials, a mistaken theory was promulgated by the Director of Naval Ordnance (DNO) that held that a high-velocity, low-weight projectile would have superior armor penetration characteristics at large oblique angles of impact, a conclusion which was the opposite of previous findings. This theory was not substantiated by later trials, but these took place too late to affect the decision to use a lightweight APC projectile for new designs. As a result, these guns proved to be only marginally better in terms of armor penetration than the previous 15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I and much less satisfactory than those older guns in terms of accuracy and barrel life." Not sure what the source of that marginally better pen line comes from though.
  4. I do wish the NC and MT didn't have those wings included in the citadel space. They're part of the TDS. I'll certainly appreciate the changes though, however slight. Now...about that weather and armor deck thickness discrepancy on monty. Can we trade that for the irrational extra two knots?
  5. Its nice to see this info, since it sheds some light on otherwise hidden stats. New Mexico vs Arizona was especially surprising to me. I wonder if this is partly due to WG playing homage to the fact that NM was built with (although removed in construction) turboelectric drives. The electric motors could more easily vary in speed and instantly reverse which helped with handling. I'd be curious if Colorado (which kept its TEDs) is similar in its lack of speed loss. On another note, since playing gneisenau​, I've felt that in game, her useable speed was near the highest for all battleships. I realize Iowa can do 33kts, but she seems to lose much more speed in a turn than gneis.
  6. ​The 5"/38 mounts should be immune to the 203mm HE hits even with IFHE with 51mm on NC and 64mm on Iowa IIRC. I swear, either they're missing armor, which isn't surprising, or its one of those really funky things that HE splash does in this game.
  7. Remind WG that Monty should have a 57mm weather deck, not the 29mm they tried to stuff it with, or the 38mm compromise they came up with when they didn't want to admit they were wrong. That will probably be as effective as letting them know about the other missing armor or the poor citadel placement as well though, so...yeah...
  8. Interestingly, that may not be the case. The shells are in the decapping zone for 0* obliquity hits on the Iowa's outer splinter protection. Without a cap, the 8" SHS shells will shatter on impact with the belt armor at full 2500fps muzzle velocity and 0* impact according to facehard, and it gets worse the further away you get. To add, this is again, according to the chart here: http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-085.htm, and it looks like Iowa's outer skin would be effective at decapping up to 8.8" shells The same round, however, would go through New Mexico's belt armor easily at point blank range. In fact, I think even Montana could be iffy at boarding party distances, but should easily stop the projectile at a couple km.
  9. IIRC, the standards all had 18" thick turret faces (not sure, but some places reference another 1" STS backer in addition to the 18" face??) with the exception of Nevada's twins which had 16" faces.
  10. If it doesn't, then it should, along with all the other battleships and cruisers missing their backing/STS layers. Bow, stern and superstructure steels count as armor in game even though they generally weren't. The rest should too. Maybe it would help ships angle and broadside a little more than relying purely on ricochet angles.
  11. Wiki shows only 10 sextuple, 1 twin, and 11 single. Using your math that's 121 @ 5 and 401 @ 3.5. Still very good, but not 800+
  12. Walking on it/climbing through it, it seemed thicker than 12# (.3"/8mm).
  13. As mentioned, I visited the Alabama this weekend (her armor layout is very similar to a shorter Iowa as posted earlier in the thread). The entirety of the ships vitals are indeed under the splinter deck.
  14. I'm not sure that's a good idea. It would make the ships tougher vs cruisers, destroyers, and carriers that rely on soft section ap pens or HE damage. Lowering their citadel height would only really increase their survivability except other battleships, which would be the better of the two situations imo. As for the STS is armor thing, I'd say include all backing plates for all nations as armor. They already use the hull structure as armor for the sake of superstructure, bow and stern pens. I visited the Alabama this weekend, and it was quite interesting seeing all of the areas of the ship that appeared to have useful amounts of splinter protection, even in the superstructure (there's an area behind the bridge that's 2-3" thick all the way around).
  15. Yeah, it looks like there are inconsistencies in what is defined as citadel space. For some ships (Iowa and Montana are among these), it appears that all of the main protected volume is a citadel. North Carolina and the standards have only the area under the 3rd armor deck count as citadel spaces (the entirety of the machinery and magazine spaces are below this 3rd deck even on Iowa and Montana). All of the new German ships only count the area under the lowest armor deck as citadel space which really helps with their survivability vs other battleships.