Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'armor'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 15 results

  1. Sorry if this is the wrong area to post, I beleive this is my first post since I started playing almost 2k battles ago. I was just wondering if I could , for lack of better words, compare notes with other scharnhorst players. I was looking at the armor layout earlier, and normally I don't pay much attention to the rear of bbs. Everyone knows the scharn isn't the best at bow tanking (isnt terrible by any means) but I noticed the rear external plating on it is 90 mm vs the fronts 70 mm. The citadel cross section is seemingly smaller aswell, and more importantly the athwart ship/ cit athwartship /citadel plating is 35/200/200 vs the fronts 20/150/150. The rear part of the citadel torp bulkhead is also very well angled if being shot from the rear compared to the front. So I guess what Im trying to figure out is, does anybody play it angling away and using turrets 1 and 3 vs angling towards and using turrets 1 and 2 (when you are ambushing people, obviously pushing in when angled away is a bad idea LOL!). You tend to eat he on the superstructure even bow in due to its width, and the increased armor values on the citadel is more important vs bb's due to their tendency to use ap (particularly since the scharn has a reputation for being fairly squishy) than cruisers and dd's anyway. Any thoughts on this? Sorry if angling away for the improved cit armor values has been covered before, but I didnt see that specifically in the search.
  2. from the USS New Jersey youtube site
  3. @Estimated_Prophet another one of those videos with something you like to see
  4. TLDR at the end :) After taking a good look at Queen Elizabeth's bow armor in the client and external websites, I noticed a good section of 104 mm bow armor quite near up front. Theoretically, if you could angle and bounce shells with the 104 mm section, you'll be pretty much be able to tank any BB ap for a good amount of time. To test this, I tried taking out my QE out for a spin in the training room against a Kremlin (LOL). The Kremlin has 457 mm shells that can overmatch QE's external plating of 26 mm but definitely not the 104 mm section. In the training room, I discovered that I managed to bounce around half of his AP. Most of the AP that bounced was on the main belt armor near the center of the ship. There were several occasions where the AP bounced when it hit the bow but most of the them resulted in regular penetrations. There was one citadel hit during the test but that was when I overturned and pointed my bow straight on when the AP hit. As the test progressed, I took less penetration damage to my bow due to damage saturation mechanics. I ended up taking a total of 93k damage after using 5 heals. Most of the damage was fire damage from his secondaries and the regular pens from his AP. I took 88 hits from his AP shells, with the damage averaging less than 1k per shell. I did get my main turret disabled a few times as a result of a penetration hitting the turret barbette area. After the test, I took a closer look in the armor viewer and made some notes. There are two sections to the bow armor I circled and examined. Both of them are 104 mm and located at the waterline. So although you may be technically angled, a shell could pass above the 104 mm section and deal damage. Section A (Red) This section of bow armor cannot bounce BB shells if you angle properly because shells will probably pen this area and hit something else. This means that this section of armor will not protect you from AP shells if you are bow on to an enemy BB. I noted in green arrows the possible path an AP shell could go. If an AP shell hit the bow head on, it could very well hit the citadel (the top boxy thing I outlined in red). Even though this section of armor will be penned most of the time, if you angle you reduce the probability of an AP shell hitting your citadel. I noted that approximately from 0-25 degrees from the centerline of the bow, the path of the AP shell will hit the citadel. Beyond that, it will miss the citadel. This is assuming that the AP shell hits section A of the armor and penetrates. Section B (Blue) This section of bow armor is actually useful. Since it extends a significant amount towards the bow, you find that you get overmatched less often than most battleships with fragile bows. The armor is at such an angle that it will bounce shells up to 15 degrees off the centerline of the bow. Once you go past 15 degrees, shells will start penning that section of armor. However there is a slight overlap in angling between section A and B. If you angle beyond 25 degrees, any shell that strikes section A will miss the citadel. However with the same angling, any shell that strikes section B of the armor will have a good chance of hitting your citadel. Considering that section B of the armor covers a significant amount of the bow, it is better to angle 15 degrees from the centerline of the bow to minimize getting citadeled. TLDR: Queen Elizabeth has a section of 104 mm bow armor that can technically bounce any AP shell in the game. This armor can be abused and you can tank a Yamato in this thing (not that she would ever meet one) There is no specific angle the Queen Elizabeth can take while approaching bow on without a chance of getting overmatched and citadelled. If you angle around 15 degrees from the center of the bow, you make it darn hard for other ships to overmatch your bow. Even though it is possible to be overmatched at this angle, it is very hard for enemy ships to do so and hit your citadel consistently I tried doing this in Training Room and managed to sink a Yamato while bouncing his AP on that 104 mm section. I simply angled 15 degrees and bounced his AP which gave me time to slowly chip away the Yamato's hp and eventually sink him. I'm not an expert at this kind of stuff so if something is up feel free to correct me :)
  5. Magnamuz

    Armor vs Torpedo Protection?

    I've been analyzing armor thickness to choose a durable punching bag of a boat, and I came across this for Torpedo Protection (TP) in tier 10 battleships: Republique: 37% TP with 32mm armor EVERYWHERE. Grober Kurfurst: 25% TP with 380mm to the sides, plus 150mm and 60mm towards the extremities, and 38mm below. WTH??? I've seen countless videos analyzing armor and curvature of shells and torpedoes but no, 37% with no armor, how is this calculated? Is there something I'm not taking into account that could explain this numbers?
  6. Grand_Admiral_Murrel

    Super-heavy cruisers

    Hey shipmates! Just looking for opinions on the following topics: should super-heavy cruisers (such as Alaska, Agir, etc.) have shorter fire duration? And would giving tier 10s (and 9s?) 30 mm plating on the bow and stern be too powerful? Just thinking, Graf Spee is unique in that it has 45s burn time when on fire. Agir, for example, burns for 60s, and yet doesn't have a battleship's HP to weather the storm in (let's face it) a world where HE spam is the norm. It basically forces any serious players to take a survivability build if they want to try and make the most of their ship, which doesn't seem fair. Players shouldn't have to worry about such things. Look at the recent IFHE rework: they changed HE penetration and armour thresholds across the board to make taking the IFHE skill a choice rather than a necessity. On the note of armour, I find ships like Siegfried and Agir are extremely vulnerable to overmatch by basically all new battleships that have been introduced (Georgia, Ohio, Yashima, etc.), and since these ships are supposed to be more tanky than your average heavy cruiser, I feel like 30 mm bow and stern plating would be a plausible change. 30 mm is still able to be overmatched by large-calibre battleship guns, but it would increase survivability slightly. As I said earlier, these ships don't have the HP to brawl, so any slight increase would help. Let me know what you guys think in the comments below! Thanks! Grand_Admiral_Murrel
  7. NVM.… . WG ing posted a new table..... This stuff is so hard to find especially with old stuff still out there.
  8. The Wiki seems way out of date on this topic. Is there a list of AP shells somewhere with improved auto-ricochet angles? I know the US 8" and 12", as well as the UK 6" have this feature, but I believe there are more than that......
  9. HeavenlyWind_

    Nerf the Kremlin

    Just had a game in my Yoshino where I unloaded roughly 50x HE shells on a Kremlin and not once did I set it on fire. For at least 35x of those shots, the Kremlin was borderline broadside. I've also had past issues when trying to damage it. You fire at it broadside and for some screwed up reason, you still ricochet with 0 dmg. In that same game, I also fired HE on a bow-tanking Kurfürst and set it ablaze maybe 5 shells in. Yeah.
  10. Heyo, wall of text alert, enjoy the read, I've been wanting to get this off my chest for some time now. There's a WG stream going on as I write this, in which a buff to the German Tier X Cruiser Hindenburg was announced (also includes Roon, same buff btw). The buff in question was stated to be a decrease in reload from 11 seconds to 10.5 seconds. Now, let me start this by saying that I find it good that WG is finally getting around to buffing Hindenburg. The game has not been kind to her ever since her initial nerf where the reload was increased from 10 to 11 seconds. To list a few things that happened, we saw the large wave of buffs to numerous T10s which raised the average performance of the T10 ship, whereas Hindenburg around that time got nerfed. Republique saw more widespread use, for those of you unaware, Republique is one of the most terrifying ships to face in Hindenburg, more on that later. And last one worthy of mention are the Legendary Upgrades, where Hindenburg got a rather mediocre one, again more on that later. So, does this buff to her dpm finally solve the issues she has? In my eyes, no, it doesn't. It doesn't even touch her main issue, and that of the German T8-10 Cruisers. While the dpm was no longer what it used to be, it's still usable. Her AP hits just as hard provided it penetrates, the HE still penetrates the 50mm plating. She was never a dpm machine, more of an opportunist that would seek AP opportunities whenever possible. Same unfortunately also applies to her buff some time ago, where she gained an extra heal charge. A fifth Repair Party charge is a situational tool, only being of any use when four heals have been used and the fifth one gets activated. If this does not happen in a match, then this buff did not show any effect in said match. What is Hindenburg's main issue? It's a feature of her that got powercrept. For those that have been around for some time, the term “Battleship Hindenburg” should not be uncommon. This reputation was gained for a few reasons. For one the turtleback armor which allowed her to pull some ridiculous moves in brawls, and then most importantly the 30mm midship section which allowed her to bounce all AP shells but the ones fired by Yamato, Musashi and 457mm Conqueror (which no one used, that didn't change). So basically, angle well and you can absorb a lot of damage. She still has those 30mm armor. But unfortunately for her there are plenty of ships that have been released since then, and more in the pipeline. Republique being chief among them. Why her? Because she amplifies the problems that Hindenburg has. Hindy's sluggish handling is nothing new, so any Republique with two baguettes to rub together (lewd) will not struggle to land shells, and when they land, they hurt. And there is no way for Hindenburg to counter this threat at all. Angling doesn't work, the concealment is mediocre, so are her dodging abilities. What remains is literally running away and trying to slowly wear the Republique down while 10k damage salvos will return to you every 20something seconds. So in short, 30mm is no longer worth what it once was, and Hindenburg is among the ones that is hit the most by this slow process. What remains is the turtleback, but I shouldn't have to explain how passive the meta especially on NA is. Anyone hoping to capitalize on the turtleback on a regular basis will be left disappointed. Is this an unsolvable issue? No. It can be fixed relatively easily, and WG already set the foundation for this some time ago when announcing possible upcoming changes to the midship plating of cruisers. Exactly the issue Hindenburg has, midship plating. Since then this idea has been surrounded by silence from WG's end, though I spent time on thinking about what possibilities there are for Hindenburg. Since this would be a significant buff to Hindenburg's survivability, it should not surprise that there has to be something in exchange that Hindenburg will sacrifice. For this the most suitable thing would be the third (or fifth if maxed out) Repair Party charge. So while Hindenburg gains the ability to avoid more damage, she pays by being able to recover less damage. A good trade-off. As clarification, these values would only affect the midship section, meaning central upper deck and upper belt. Bow and stern remain untouched. 31mm: An unconventional value for sure. This mainly excludes overmatching from Republique's 431mm guns. 32mm: Widely known value. No overmatch from guns up until 457mm, and German 128mm Secondaries lose the ability to penetrate the armor without the IFHE-skill 33mm: Again unconventional, but this one does a whole lot more. No AP overmatch at all (like Moskva/Stalingrad), Japanese 100mm+IFHE and up to 152mm+IFHE will no longer penetrate the midship section. Heavy Cruisers remain completely unaffected. 34mm: 203mm HE and 155mm+IFHE no longer penetrate the midship. I do not want to say “Option X is the best, because I know for sure”. I don't know for sure what would be the most balanced option. Hence why I listed them all. For one they provide food for thought, and secondly it would be more logical if WG tested Hindenburg with these values to determine which one is the most balanced one. As a final word, or sort of, how does this transfer to Admiral Hipper and Roon? They have similar issues, and Roon is evidently in need of buffs as well while Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen are at least indicated to be rather poor, given the server stats we can access. This concept should thus be applied to them as well, and the question arises how much the midship armor could be. 28mm: Doesn't change anything of significance. No really. 29mm: 413mm and below will bounce, however GK's 420mm shells and anything larger will slice through like a hot knife through butter. Want to make the 420mm guns have some sort of overmatch advantage, this is how you do that. 30mm: Same old, no overmatch from less than 431mm, 180mm HE shatters Different values can be applied for different tiers, obviously. But is an improved miship section desirable? Personally I shall say, most certainly. The beautiful thing about midship sections in that armor range is that they do not affect your gameplay unless you captalize on them. Show broadside and it'll do nothing. Sit nose in and again it won't do you any good. Only when being properly angled and when keeping the surroundings in check will this pay off. In other words, midship armor can be a skill-based option to migitate incoming AP fire. I say very much yes to this. Cheers~
  11. nastydamnanimal


    If I could design my mino it would be something like this.... muhahahaha.....muh...muhahahahahah kill youzzz!!!
  12. This is a repost from the consolidated armor model error collection over here: I am posting it here in hopes of it garnering a bit more attention than it otherwise would, as WG tends to ignore this sort of thing unless it is being talked about. As near as we have been able to ascertain (myself and @SireneRacker), this is not widely known or disseminated information, and multiple secondary source publications have repeatedly cited and re-cited the incorrect values, which is what has been represented ingame on both vessels. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau: There are so many issues with these models, that it honestly defies description. In the interest of simplifying them, I have only taken into account issues which are directly relevant ingame (ignoring details such as armored rangefinders, etc…). Keep in mind that these are merely what I have identified as “critical” errors. The errors in the armor model for these two ships have been entirely compiled from a scan of the original armor scheme documentation, which to my knowledge is entirely accurate and trustworthy. All values have been lifted directly from this layout, which will be made available below for your own inspection. All listed values are applicable to both vessels of the class (to the extent of my knowledge). Section 1: Belt Armor Thickness and Arrangement. The main belt between frames 32 and 166 should be 320 mm. Ingame it is modeled as 350 mm. The medium belt between frames 10 and 208 should be 35 mm. Ingame it is modeled as 45 mm. The medium belt should extend from frames 10 to 207. Ingame it ends at frames 32 and 166. Section 2: Deck Armor Thickness and Arrangement. The entirety of the primary deck armor (main armor deck) has been modeled in a grossly inaccurate manner, the details of which will be shown in full. -The aforementioned missing extensions of the medium belt should connect with a 50 mm forward extension of the forecastle deck armor, which covers the entirety of the deck from frames 10 to 207. Ingame this deck also ends at frames 32 and 166. -The machinery deck is split into two distinct areas: the inboard section, and the outboard section. These two areas are separated by a vertical 40 mm bulkhead which extends from the main armor deck, to the underside of the forecastle deck between frames 50 and 172. The inboard armor deck over the machinery is 80 mm thick, extending from frame 55 to 180. At frames 55 and 150, this deck covers the magazines, increasing in thickness to 95 mm until frames 12 and 170 respectively. Ingame, the machinery deck is modeled as one piece with a thickness of 80 mm, the magazine deck 95 mm. The outboard armor deck over both the machinery and magazines is 105 mm thick, between frame 32 and 166. This is not to be confused with the sloped armor deck, which is also 105 mm thick and “knuckles” downwards to meet the bottom edge of the main belt armor. The extended main armor deck in front turrets “Anton” and “Caesar” between frames 162-166 and 32-40 respectively, are also 105 mm thick. The magazine sloped decks between frames 32-55 and 150-66 are 105 mm. Ingame, these are modeled as 110 mm. Sources: Scharnhorst class official drawings: "RM 20,1913 Allgemeine Typfragen fur Schlachtschiffe, Panzerschiffe und Kreuzer 10,02,1939 11,12,1939 Scharnhorst Gneisenau Gewichte abgerundete und zwischen beiden Schiffen" and "GKDS. 100: Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl Heft g Schlachtschiffe Gn Sch"
  13. I'm looking for more information on this mechanic. I've heard of this occurring but wrote it off. Then while searching on the WOWS wiki for another stat, I located the following piece of information: Armor-Piercing Internal Ricochets An AP shell that ricochets after penetrating armor will cause another instance of penetration damage in the section where the ricochet occurs. Additional ricochets will cause additional instances of penetration damage until the shell exits the ship or explodes from fuse activation. This extra source of damage is most commonly encountered when shooting at "turtleback" armor schemes (common on all German battleships and other nations' dreadnoughts). Plunging fire that is insufficient to penetrate interior decks may also ricochet, causing one or more extra instances of damage.(http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration) I'd like to see some discussion and information on this. Here are some of my questions: 1) Does this apply to all AP shells? 2) How does the damage appear in the ribbons and reported in post battle results? 3) What is the damage percentage for the shell ricochet? 4) Layer penetration resulting in a final shatter, overpen or guarantee fuse arm? 5) What is the interaction with modules? Anything helps and I look forward to any comments or answers. Thanks
  14. I was messing around in a training room with my Moskva when I noticed that 99% of my AP shells that registered as "penetration" and was aimed at the lower broadside of the French Tier X Republique ship did almost no damage. Even just above the water line by quite a bit it's still the same issue. This only seems to happen in the mid and stern sections of the ship. The bow area doesn't seem effected. Below is a gif of what I noticed. Is the ship designed like this? If it doesn't load: https://i.imgur.com/4kOtUXy.gifv
  15. I was rushing a Missouri with my Minsk (the misso was rushing a cap, going full yolo no fuc*s given) I pop from the corner of the island while having my engine boost. He aims at me (of course AP loaded) fires and pens me so hard that I instantly lost 90% of HP. Died 3 mins later because of hydro... So WG when you plan to fix this? It is so frustrating for me as a DD player that loves to be aggressive! Thanks for the comments guys!!