Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
KnightFandragon

"Go Bow on" they say

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,003 posts
1,451 battles

Yeah, I call horse crapon that one.  Ive gone bow on several times now with the AZ and taken like 30,000 damage from it to. 

 

Sooo, whats the secret here?  AZ armor seems to be pretty RNG its seeming.....sometimes its really good, othertimes it stops nothing.  Ive even had Mahans and DDs do heavy damage through my side armor like lolwut.....angling only seems to sometimes help......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
729
Alpha Tester
2,162 posts
6,770 battles

Arizona armor is useless against 16 inch guns (NC, Colorado, Nagato, Amagi, I think one other...)

As for DDs, they are either using HE or shooting your superstructure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,326 posts
95 battles

Better just go angled so ap hits your side armor at an angle. You'll get better results this way I think.

Edited by geser98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,515 posts
8,453 battles

Going Bow on in the Arizona with it's 25mm armor plating only works for 14 inch and below rifles.  Otherwise you will want to make your citadel "box" into a diamond shape against heavier gun incoming fire and hope your Belt takes the hits.


 

All of the USN standards are very soft everywhere but their belt armor and turrets so Destroyer and Cruiser HE and AP will do damage to those areas easily.   If you want a BB that takes hits everywhere more reliably, go with German BB's.

 


 

That's all I can say really, in US BB's you must go relatively heavy angled or die quickly.  They really aren't that good at taking hits vs the Germans and they are less forgiving for new players.

Edited by Hangoverhomey
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,255
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,714 posts
26,569 battles

Arizona's bow armor is 25mm. The way this game works is that armor when angled enough will bounce any AP up to 14.3x its own thickness in diameter. This means that 14" AP will bounce harmlessly off the bow of a bow-on Arizona but 15" AP or bigger will go right through.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
4,964 battles

If your thoughts are only in Inches then the number is 0.563 (0.56299) for your multiplier.  (mm to Inches pre-converted). But remember that also means you need to remember the Inch versions of all the guns in advance. 

 

So for quick estimations:

102 = 4"

127 = 5"

152 = 6"

203 = 8"

254 = 10" 

 

If you cannot see the pattern about every 100mm = ~4" and ~50mm = ~2"

(Or 1/4 feet and 1/8 feet)... well at least my Drafting knowledge is coming in handy outside of the work place..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,003 posts
1,451 battles

Its armor is weird for sure.  I seem to hit the citadel somewhere towards the front of it.  When its being shot at long range, it doesnt seem to stop a head cold, no matter how I position it.

 

I mean, I have taken a potential of 38.4million damage in 86 games in Coops with it, so I guess the armor is working, but when it doesnt, wow does it not......it goes all in when it decides to be made of paper.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,889
[HINON]
Members
7,797 posts
2,144 battles

25.4 is the magic number for 'mm' to 'in' conversions.

 

1 inch = 25.4 millimeters

 

As far as bow-on goes, that's no a very American standard-type thing, from what I've observed. Angled, though, they're very tough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,003 posts
1,451 battles

25.4 is the magic number for 'mm' to 'in' conversions.

 

1 inch = 25.4 millimeters

 

As far as bow-on goes, that's no a very American standard-type thing, from what I've observed. Angled, though, they're very tough

 

 

How angled though?  Ive sat angled and been lolpenned like it didnt matter...there are some times when it seems to take hits well...but I guess I havent found the magical way to sit yet.  I always try to be somewhat angled at my enemy.   38 million potential damage has been rung off my Arizona in 86 games though, so I guess its armor is working better then I think it is....ive taken 1.55million in 1 game as my record high, ofc that game I also almost died and went through all 3 of my Repair boxes staying alive...

Edited by KnightFandragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
116 posts
4,555 battles

Yeah, I call horse crapon that one.  Ive gone bow on several times now with the AZ and taken like 30,000 damage from it to. 

 

Sooo, whats the secret here?  AZ armor seems to be pretty RNG its seeming.....sometimes its really good, othertimes it stops nothing.  Ive even had Mahans and DDs do heavy damage through my side armor like lolwut.....angling only seems to sometimes help......

 

 

 

Before the German BB's came out the only ship of the same tier that could over match bow on was the grand old gal Warspite. Her 380mm rifles will over match the armor. Now most German BBs around that tier pack 380mm rifles or bigger if you run into tier 7. But in an equal tier match the only ships that can give you problems will be the German ones as all others can't pen you if bow on. The Fuso and New Mexico will bounce all day long. I once took on a Fuso to my front and a New Mex to my rear and after some maneuvers some good shots and a bit of luck came out on top. Biggest problem with Arizona is her reload and turret turn time. Each of those are slow and you really have to plan ahead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,515 posts
8,453 battles

 

Before the German BB's came out the only ship of the same tier that could over match bow on was the grand old gal Warspite. Her 380mm rifles will over match the armor. Now most German BBs around that tier pack 380mm rifles or bigger if you run into tier 7. But in an equal tier match the only ships that can give you problems will be the German ones as all others can't pen you if bow on. The Fuso and New Mexico will bounce all day long. I once took on a Fuso to my front and a New Mex to my rear and after some maneuvers some good shots and a bit of luck came out on top. Biggest problem with Arizona is her reload and turret turn time. Each of those are slow and you really have to plan ahead.

 

Yeah the Reload time is a royal pain in the [edited].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,462 posts
5,897 battles

Why are they 34s anyway?

 

"Balance"

 

No really, that's what they say even though most of these guns could sustain a 30s fire rate nearly indefinitely and even had higher burst fire rates, meaning higher ROF for short periods of time.

 

 

The best way I've found to angle an Arizona is to bring all your guns to bare and then move so you lose just one of the rear turrets.  This has worked well for anyone who decides to shoot at your midships instead of your guns/superstructure at that range and it bounces pretty much everything.  YOLOCharged an NC in my Arizona (took forever... seriously) and promptly deleted him via this method as he turned to bail out of the situation.  Was comical!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,003 posts
1,451 battles

 

"Balance"

 

No really, that's what they say even though most of these guns could sustain a 30s fire rate nearly indefinitely and even had higher burst fire rates, meaning higher ROF for short periods of time.

 

 

The best way I've found to angle an Arizona is to bring all your guns to bare and then move so you lose just one of the rear turrets.  This has worked well for anyone who decides to shoot at your midships instead of your guns/superstructure at that range and it bounces pretty much everything.  YOLOCharged an NC in my Arizona (took forever... seriously) and promptly deleted him via this method as he turned to bail out of the situation.  Was comical!

Yeah, the American line in general in this game does not live up to it's paradigm.

 

Its what?  Armor?  Short range?  Brawler?  Slow?

 

Yeah, its slow and short range but its neither of the other 2.  For all the armor they have they are the easiest to damage.  The 16 inch guns pretty much ignore Arizona  armor,  no matter the angle.  Its among the heaviest armored in the game for its tier, and the Colorado keeps just lolpenning it for citadel hits like no bodies business. 

 

I sure hope when I get ahold of a 16inch gun ship I can reciprocate....16 inch through 25mm armor?  Yeah.....I shot the Bismarck with the NC and did a big fat fking 0. 

 

If a gun is so powerful it can lolpen the heaviest armor in the game, then it should pretty much autodetonate the lesser ships like Cruisers...every time...

 

PLus the RN-fking G in this game.  Ya go 10 games where the armor works, then get 1 game where the AI just decides...ok time to  die and no matter what, a [edited]Erie will pen the ship no problem....its [edited]annoying as all [edited]hell.....its probably my absolute biggest issue with WG games....the absolutely rigged RNG crap. 

Edited by KnightFandragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,730 posts
1,193 battles

In reality vertical dispersion was greater then horizontal dispersion. So even in the age of dreadnoughts being bow on was a bad thing as you increased the chance of a hit not decreased it and there was a lot of super structure and other equipment that could get hit.

 

In WoWS with the dispersion completely flipped with horizontal being greater then vertical and their weird over pen mechanic they've set up in the game going bow on is best for minimizing hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
116 posts
4,555 battles

Why are they 34s anyway?

 

Because Arizona has one of the lowest Sigma values for her tier. She has very accurate rifles and can land shots with ease. If they gave her the reload like the new Mexico which is 30secs people would yell over powered. But now since the German line is out having a 30 sec reload for her would even things up a bit. But all in all she still has some of the most accurate guns for her tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[BMBF]
Members
208 posts
16,007 battles

Armor remains constant.

 

The variables are opponents and angles. Folks here have made you aware of overmatch. Now go look at the armor and guns of your opponents in the port.

 

Learn where and when to shoot them.

 

I had it really rough early on because I didn't know the mechanisms involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,462 posts
5,897 battles

 

Because Arizona has one of the lowest Sigma values for her tier. She has very accurate rifles and can land shots with ease. If they gave her the reload like the new Mexico which is 30secs people would yell over powered. But now since the German line is out having a 30 sec reload for her would even things up a bit. But all in all she still has some of the most accurate guns for her tier.

 

Higher is better for Sigma, just so you know.

 

New Mexico's reload is also 34.2s.  

 

Being bow on in real life didn't increase hit chances of enemy fire.  You'd think it would, but the actual hit rates were lower as expected due to the smaller profile target.  The disadvantage to being bow on was not being able to bring all your guns to bare on a target.  At the ranges seen in most naval combat at the time (15km-25km or more) being broadside wasn't the disadvantage it was in game.  WG rotated the dispersion 90º to artificially increase hit rates to make the game entertaining to play rather than frustrating.

 

As for the armor... it does indeed remain constant and I don't find the Arizona any worse than the Colorado or New Mexico in terms of armor.  If you can get someone to shoot at your belt while angled, you are golden, nothing is punching through that.  If they are smart and aim higher, well, no ship survives that for long... not even the German BB's. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

I sure hope when I get ahold of a 16inch gun ship I can reciprocate....16 inch through 25mm armor?  Yeah.....I shot the Bismarck with the NC and did a big fat fking 0. 

Bismarck, and all T8+ battleships for that matter, have 32mm of bow armor.

 

This also seems like an appropriate place to put this:

K5R6TYH.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,730 posts
1,193 battles

 

Higher is better for Sigma, just so you know.

 

New Mexico's reload is also 34.2s.  

 

Being bow on in real life didn't increase hit chances of enemy fire.  You'd think it would, but the actual hit rates were lower as expected due to the smaller profile target.  The disadvantage to being bow on was not being able to bring all your guns to bare on a target.  At the ranges seen in most naval combat at the time (15km-25km or more) being broadside wasn't the disadvantage it was in game.  WG rotated the dispersion 90º to artificially increase hit rates to make the game entertaining to play rather than frustrating.

 

As for the armor... it does indeed remain constant and I don't find the Arizona any worse than the Colorado or New Mexico in terms of armor.  If you can get someone to shoot at your belt while angled, you are golden, nothing is punching through that.  If they are smart and aim higher, well, no ship survives that for long... not even the German BB's. 

 

 

Results of Force Battle Practice 1930-31. Each ship was given 7 salvos against the target at 12,800 yards.

 

no31991-pic4.jpg

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm

 

Vertical dispersion is much greater then horizontal in real naval gunnery. This is because each propellant charge undergoes combustion at slightly different rates giving slightly different muzzle velocities. Each projectile engages the rifling ever so slightly different resulting in minor differences in windage which affect muzzle velocities. 

 

Going bow on wouldn't actually reduce the chances of a hit on your vessel like it does in the game because as you can see if you turn the target ship into the line of fire it would have received as many hits or more during the practice. In real life it would also expose a lot of things such as sides and rear of turrets aft of the superstructure. While at the same time significantly reducing your own weaponry in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,462 posts
5,897 battles

 

Results of Force Battle Practice 1930-31. Each ship was given 7 salvos against the target at 12,800 yards.

 

no31991-pic4.jpg

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm

 

Vertical dispersion is much greater then horizontal in real naval gunnery. This is because each propellant charge undergoes combustion at slightly different rates giving slightly different muzzle velocities. Each projectile engages the rifling ever so slightly different resulting in minor differences in windage which affect muzzle velocities. 

 

Going bow on wouldn't actually reduce the chances of a hit on your vessel like it does in the game because as you can see if you turn the target ship into the line of fire it would have received as many hits or more during the practice. In real life it would also expose a lot of things such as sides and rear of turrets aft of the superstructure. While at the same time significantly reducing your own weaponry in action.

 

Cool pictures but the real world combat results indicate otherwise.  Here is what Navy Weaps has on accuracy for the Iowa class:

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php#Accuracy_During_World_War_II

 

Less when bow on than broadside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,003 posts
1,451 battles

 

 

 

As for the armor... it does indeed remain constant and I don't find the Arizona any worse than the Colorado or New Mexico in terms of armor.  If you can get someone to shoot at your belt while angled, you are golden, nothing is punching through that.  If they are smart and aim higher, well, no ship survives that for long... not even the German BB's. 

 

There in lies the problem.  The armor is ONLY on the belt.  Its got no armor anywhere else, but suffers greatly for it.  Slow as [edited], loads slow, moves slow, is inaccurate.  US BBs in general suffer for this mythical armor feature......

 

I got a Sharn from the boxes and THAT is armor.  THAT ship is well armored.  It was tanking shots like I figured the Arizona should be able to.  I went [edited]on to no less then a NC, Tirpitz, Sharn and a Cruiser or 2 and SURVIVED absolute HORDES of shots.  I got up close to another NC the AI had later on as well as another Tirpitz and took direct point blank shots to my angled hull and BOUNCED THEM.  The SHARN has ARMOR.  The Arizona does not.  The US BBs, their armor is a lie......Even the Sharn and its 11.5inch guns can lolpen the Colorado no problemo....Torps cause flooding on every hit, so much for that TDS....

 

IDK where this whole US has armor thing comes from...not from what ive seen they dont.  The Russian Cruisers take hits better then those things.  Ive angled that Arizona in every way I know possible and it takes 1080-10,080 every time it gets hit.  Ive even had my turret DESTROYED through the faceplate by another Arizona, and that is 457mm face plate on the turrets, like 350mm on the barbettes....and my turrets get KOd CONSTANTLY....

 

It has had like 50 million damage thrown its way in my 108 games, but yeah, it doesnt take hits like the "well armored" ship its said to be.  Its better then the NY, but the Sharn really smokes that thing in armor.

 

I wish the USN in this game got even a fraction of the love the KMS has....dear god, just 5 games in the Sharn, and barring its weak gun damage, is a very fun ship to play.

Edited by KnightFandragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,730 posts
1,193 battles

 

Cool pictures but the real world combat results indicate otherwise.  Here is what Navy Weaps has on accuracy for the Iowa class:

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php#Accuracy_During_World_War_II

 

Less when bow on than broadside. 

 

Would like to point out those are not the results of combat or practice scenarios but estimates by the naval college. 

 

That does not make these bad estimates however. The naval college was making he estimations on the trajectory and ballistics of the AP Mark 8. The super heavy shells had a much more indirect arc as their idea was to fall steeply into deck armor using the mass to punch through. Even for close in targets reduced charges could be used to give the same steep trajectory. Without details it's impossible to know what the 10,000 yard estimates by the naval college where using.

 

As an interesting example the Colorado class's 16"/45 Mark 1s AP Mark 3 I have only ever seen single charge table of 590 lbs SPD. In a nutshell the naval theory of I'm going to chuck this 2,110 lb projectile at you directly as fast as I can no matter the range. Later the Mark 5 which was heavier at 2,240lbs had a full charge of just 545 lbs of SPD or a reduced charge of 295 lbs SPD. Reflecting the change of theory that maybe instead of hurtling this thing as fast at you as I can I'll lob it.

 

The difference this makes in vertical dispersion though I can best analogize picture throwing a baseball like a fast ball across a pond at a fixed target with ideal aim. Minor variances in velocity will lead to an over or under shoot and due to the high horizontal velocity an overshoot will travel quite a long distance before impacting the water. In the case of an end on target this may mean missing the forward aiming point but impacting the aft deck, or super structure etc.

 

Now if you take that same baseball and start throwing it like a softball at the target with ideal aim minor variances in velocity of the ball leaving your hand won't have as much impact in vertical dispersion on the target because more of the initial velocity is in the vertical vector instead of horizontal. It will still miss of course but the impact point with the water will be much closer to the target instead of very far away.

 

Still given the new naval theory the naval college still estimated a 22.3% end on at 10,000 yards compared to 33.7% broadside which is incredibly good considering the target horizontal profile has been reduced to 14.9%. which actually shows how much more vertical dispersion still plays then horizontal in the grand scheme of things.

 

At 20,000 yards it's far more favorable in broadside, then at 30,000 yards it moves back in the direction of the 10,000 yard ratio again. My intuition here is that at 20,000 yards broadside would give a far better radar contact for fire control. And at 30,000 yards the differences in broadside reflection and end on reflection reception would be more equalized simply through scattering, but that's only a guess at that peak at 20,000 and drop off towards 30,000 yards respectively.

Edited by Cragger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,730 posts
1,193 battles

There in lies the problem.  The armor is ONLY on the belt.  Its got no armor anywhere else, but suffers greatly for it.  Slow as [edited], loads slow, moves slow, is inaccurate.  US BBs in general suffer for this mythical armor feature......

 

I got a Sharn from the boxes and THAT is armor.  THAT ship is well armored.  It was tanking shots like I figured the Arizona should be able to.  I went [edited]on to no less then a NC, Tirpitz, Sharn and a Cruiser or 2 and SURVIVED absolute HORDES of shots.  I got up close to another NC the AI had later on as well as another Tirpitz and took direct point blank shots to my angled hull and BOUNCED THEM.  The SHARN has ARMOR.  The Arizona does not.  The US BBs, their armor is a lie......Even the Sharn and its 11.5inch guns can lolpen the Colorado no problemo....Torps cause flooding on every hit, so much for that TDS....

 

IDK where this whole US has armor thing comes from...not from what ive seen they dont.  The Russian Cruisers take hits better then those things.  Ive angled that Arizona in every way I know possible and it takes 1080-10,080 every time it gets hit.  Ive even had my turret DESTROYED through the faceplate by another Arizona, and that is 457mm face plate on the turrets, like 350mm on the barbettes....and my turrets get KOd CONSTANTLY....

 

It has had like 50 million damage thrown its way in my 108 games, but yeah, it doesnt take hits like the "well armored" ship its said to be.  Its better then the NY, but the Sharn really smokes that thing in armor.

 

I wish the USN in this game got even a fraction of the love the KMS has....dear god, just 5 games in the Sharn, and barring its weak gun damage, is a very fun ship to play.

 

This is because the game punishes the 'all or nothing' Nevada class onwards and the 'armored raft' of South Carolina, Wyoming, and New York classes (Distributed but more focused in the direction of all or nothing then contemporaries).

 

In game they are inferior while in real life they where superior. Because in real life having the galley, post office, paint storage, showers, or windlass hit (things outside the armor) didn't affect the combat capabilities of the vessel during the battle. But in the game they make nice 33% AP damage hitzones. that are super easy to penetrate and trip the fuse.

 

As far as vulnerability to citadel hits go well.. the German Battleship's citadels in game are consistently much narrower then USN and IJN battleships, this means reaching them with underwater hits is highly unlikely. Belt penetrations failing to get into the citadel is not just due to 'turtle back' armor that so many reflexively state. Infact many ships incorporated this slopped armor on the edges of the citadel. Nagato, New Mexico, Kongo, even the Dreadnought herself. The key difference here is angling and WoWS overmatch mechanics. German BBs this angled section is at such an angle that penetrating it is highly unlikely or is thick enough to block 14.3x overmatch versus what it is facing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,462 posts
5,897 battles

 

Would like to point out those are not the results of combat or practice scenarios but estimates by the naval college. 

 

That does not make these bad estimates however. The naval college was making he estimations on the trajectory and ballistics of the AP Mark 8. The super heavy shells had a much more indirect arc as their idea was to fall steeply into deck armor using the mass to punch through. Even for close in targets reduced charges could be used to give the same steep trajectory. Without details it's impossible to know what the 10,000 yard estimates by the naval college where using.

 

As an interesting example the Colorado class's 16"/45 Mark 1s AP Mark 3 I have only ever seen single charge table of 590 lbs SPD. In a nutshell the naval theory of I'm going to chuck this 2,110 lb projectile at you directly as fast as I can no matter the range. Later the Mark 5 which was heavier at 2,240lbs had a full charge of just 545 lbs of SPD or a reduced charge of 295 lbs SPD. Reflecting the change of theory that maybe instead of hurtling this thing as fast at you as I can I'll lob it.

 

The difference this makes in vertical dispersion though I can best analogize picture throwing a baseball like a fast ball across a pond at a fixed target with ideal aim. Minor variances in velocity will lead to an over or under shoot and due to the high horizontal velocity an overshoot will travel quite a long distance before impacting the water. In the case of an end on target this may mean missing the forward aiming point but impacting the aft deck, or super structure etc.

 

Now if you take that same baseball and start throwing it like a softball at the target with ideal aim minor variances in velocity of the ball leaving your hand won't have as much impact in vertical dispersion on the target because more of the initial velocity is in the vertical vector instead of horizontal. It will still miss of course but the impact point with the water will be much closer to the target instead of very far away.

 

Still given the new naval theory the naval college still estimated a 22.3% end on at 10,000 yards compared to 33.7% broadside which is incredibly good considering the target horizontal profile has been reduced to 14.9%. which actually shows how much more vertical dispersion still plays then horizontal in the grand scheme of things.

 

At 20,000 yards it's far more favorable in broadside, then at 30,000 yards it moves back towards being more equal again. My intuition here is that at 20,000 yards broadside would give a far better radar contact for fire control. And at 30,000 yards the differences in broadside reflection and end on reflection reception would be more equalized simply through scattering, but that's only a guess at that peak at 20,000 and drop off towards 30,000 yards respectively.

 

The thing with fire control is you are only as accurate as where you put the dispersion circle in the first place.  You have a lot more leeway in the broadside profile of a target as to lateral placement and it paints a much clearer picture as to what the ship is doing.  The resolution of the radar plays a vital role as well.  The USN had particularly accurate radar setup for the time but even it struggled to determine the true heading of a ship without considerable time and plotting of the ships path.  That's why USN practice was to track targets that appeared on radar for an extended period of time.  USS West Virginia, in the Battle of Surigao Strait picked up the Japanese Naval Forces at 38km and held fire until 20.8km.  Anyway, Ranging wasn't really the issue for USN BB's during WWII as the Radar was plenty accurate enough in that regard but being able to put together a full firing solution meant that most of your placement error, your accuracy (not precision, which is shot grouping) came from horizontal errors in the calculations.  Hence why broadside targets are easier to hit and the radar return probably presented a clearer and more accurate picture of the range of the ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×