Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'gneisenau'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 2 results

  1. 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"
  2. coldsteelfury

    Gneisenau AA

    I've got a Gneisenau with second hull and the following commander skills: PM, AR, BFT, AFT AA rating roughly 81, which I thought was pretty good. Except when I was in a game with an enemy T8 Lexington, the enemy CV didn't seem to fear me at all. Not even though I was next to a friendly T9 Kii. I had read how awesome the Gneisenau's AA was meant to be but I was disappointed at how the ship's AA didn't really seem to affect the CV strikes against me. I kept being visited by dive bombers and I recall one instance where I was dive bombed and the squadron only took one casualty. Pretty poor! It seems like if you don't spec the Gneisenau to be full AA with the the MFCAA and turn her into AA-death, that her AA suite is pretty average and no real source of comfort or security. As I've only got a 10 point commander, I'm experimenting with the AA 2 module to extend my AA range and buff my AA rating to 93. I'm hoping that will provide some protection from CVs until I get 14 points and decide whether I want to go full AA [edited] or manual secondaries. I'd rather go manual secondaries but I'm wondering if I have to go full AA to be safe. Thoughts? [edited]
×