Jump to content
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About AkXb70

  • Rank
  • Profile on the website AkXb70
  1. I was under the impression that normalization was similar to WOT's use in that it reduces the effective angle of the shell when calculating penetration (at the initial strike, not after). For example: A shell with 6* of normalization coming in at 45* against a flat plate would only have to penetrate at an equivalent 39*. This overall makes angled armor and angling in general worse.
  2. It's sad that it seems the 5"/38 is a downgrade in the game from the 5"/25 in the anti-surface role.
  3. I've noticed that Izumo's belt armor texture doesn't match her armor model. From the texture, it would appear that the belt would stop before turret 1 and probably angle in to the center, similar to Yamato's, rather than squared off at the end.
  4. Will deep water torpedoes be stopped by sinking ships? If so, will it only be sinking ships of the type they would normally hit?
  5. I haven't seen it yet. Will sinking carcasses stop a deep water torp?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. ​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.
  11. 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...
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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+