Lert

Lert's problems with Hood

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

176 posts in this topic

Dont worry, those early reviews don't effect the ship's balance, WG would never consider community reaction on a ship being tested for their sales!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Premium ammo! Oh wait ...

 

bPLXDgD.gif (yes I know it was sarcasm)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understand, after all Bismark and Tripitz have 15" at T8 and survive, but their guns are not worn barrel, and the whole balancing thing goes crazy here because technically (and I use that term carefully) at range, the German 15" guns were superior to the RN WW1 designs and somewhat more superior in worn barrel format.

 

This is where all the balancing goes wrong, because the same guns should be on Warspite, Hood and Vanguard but they are not.  Now if WG balanced the ships with regards to their main armament, I don't think there would be much of a problem, but the gimmicks we have where the other factors that really didn't exist are used for balancing are not doing the job.    

 

There could be an excuse for having Hoods guns being slightly worse than Warspites due to the windscreen, but that "should" be made up for by having the same Krupp and a slightly faster rate of fire and longer range (neither of which exists but which Hood actually had)

 

Well, if I read off of the esteemed Mr Phoenix_jz's graph for 6crh (new) + supercharges it looks like those guns are ahead of the German 15in on Bis/Gneis. Superior penetration out to at least 20km, beyond 20km in game I don't think has much value.

 

The British also have consistently better accuracy than the herpa-derpa Germans. Overall I'd say an Admiral+supercharges (or Vanguard) would be reasonable in the guns department, if not 16in super-heavy equivalent.

 

If WG only have access to worn barrel data for the RN then we have a bit of a problem, and access is I think the likely issue. Purposefully using worn guns as a flavor? That would be even more stupid than giving a 31kt cruiser an 8% speed boost as a gimmick to test... oh!

 

I think Hood could do with higher ROF, Admiral can too - but staying behind the Germans.

 

 

If you're already inventing an a-historic refit for a tree Admiral class, then using supercharges seems a-ok to me. Emerald already gets them in game.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the supercharged 15" 6crh penetration against that of the German 15" of WWII. The light blue line is the British gun, it compares to the red line (which factors in angle of impact), not the dark blue one.

 

3e9498f104e9a1470173ade3948ce1a7_zpsgpjb

 

It is a just below 7 km that the British gun starts having superior penetration to the German gun, a result of the fact it's using an 879kg shell, compared to an 800 kg shell.

 

And, for the lols, also compared to Bayern's guns...

 

c187c06a407b03ece00d4cf89210a752_zps0l3m

 

... or, as I like to call it, a textbook example of what light shells do to your penetration. Bayern's guns are the same caliber, with superior MV to the supercharged shells... but are 129 kg lighter.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I would trade speed down to 28 knots for better shells and sigma myself.

Heck it's no secret I wanted a T7 WarSpite able to give it to Scharnhorst, and all the other T7s... I got part of it...  But will be waiting until June (9th?) to get her without bundles so can't try it just yet.

Speed is good, but over 25kts is not worth pushing for until the rest of the ship is in good state.

 

I hope the British BB line resembles more the WarSpite than Hood, and I feel the Turret buff is something that should not have happened.  It was THE drawback of the British, and WarSpite and Hood could've used buffs to another area (such as innate fire resistance to make them more tanky and better to hunt cruisers and other fire spammers).


 

Great Post, I agree 100%

Edited by Francois424

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

Premium ammo! Oh wait ...

 

I call dibs on the MK23 shells!  Oh and those firecracker shells, I'd love the detonate those over a DD hiding in smoke!

 KQLa5aU.jpg

 

Edited by Sventex

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got in about 9 or 10 battles in the Hood last night. I went ahead and bought it after watching TheMightyJingles video review of it (if you're on the fence about dropping a Benji on Hood, watch his video - it'll either convince you to do so, or not to do so). Other than that, I tooned up with a friend in his, and we went to town, these were my lasting impressions thus far:

 

  • It's a new ship, people by and large are enamored with it and want to kill it if facing one. The longer these are around, the better the chance of learning how and where to hit her for citadel shots (I ran into two people who knew exactly what to do and where to do it already)
  • Rudder shift mod makes this a very comfy ship to play
  • Turret rotation time is a bit painful when you're zig-zagging away from an invisible DD, or when you're constantly getting peppered by anyone with inertia fuses.
  • Deck fires are monsterously annoying with this ship
  • The less power of the guns I can live with, but the reloading time feels a bit painful at 30 seconds, especially when...
  • The secondaries while being a paltry after-thought, are very short-ranged for their tier ... not a fan.
  • 4 Upgrade slots ... weak... I'd love to have had the concealment mod slot :unsure:
  • Yay, I get AA defense cooldown (did not see a single CV last night) .... no hydro though... yikes. :ohmy:

 

Would I recommend it to people? Absolutely - it plays a bit to my strengths despite a few obvious weaknesses of the boat, I can more or less live with the ship the way it is if I had a 5th EQ slot or longer-ranged secondaries. The idea of 6 EQ slots like the Arkansas Beta makes me drool a bit. :D


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Granted, one could always use supercharges on the 15" guns. I suspect if WG did, they'd use the worn velocity again (785mps)... but granted, this is not as big of an issue as people make it out to be, in this case. The British 15" shells aren't just 15" AP... they're 879kg AP. They're the heaviest 15" AP in the game, and will be until the French and Italians arrive. Pairing them with a 785mps MV makes them quite strong, assuming you're using Warspite's 6crh shells, they should hit harder than the German 380mm/52 (Gneisenau, Bismarck, Tirpitz) past 7 km (German gun, despite the higher MV at 820mps, is much, much lighter, at only 800kg. A prime example is the difference between the penetration on Bayern's guns, versus Warspite's).

There isn't any data to support the notion that the 15inch cannons even with super charge, using mk17Bs match the 15" Cannons on the Bismarck class at 20km.

 

 

Vanguard is widely cited as a T8 with effectively the same guns. Hood could be not dissimilar.

 

Hood as currently is just too much at T6 compared to Mutsu and Warspite.

 

Depends on the Shells, and what else the ships brings to the table.

 

I would lean to agree that as she was at the time of Sinking, she was more T6 than T7 material given the amount of buffs needed for this.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most confusing thing to me is the shells. I really don't understand why being a tire up she need worse pen than Warspite. 

 

I think the problem is that Warspite is a refit BB of the QE Class, so it is newer than Hood and therefore should be better than Hood, except in speed. WG will be WG, "for Historical Reasons" or "For Balance", either excuse works for them. Just be thankful we have a naval warfare game using WWI and WWII ships.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah, all these gimmicks are really holding back the game. I mean I can understand national flavor to a point, but when it's actually limiting what you can do with the game instead of opening it up, maybe it's time to try a new approach.

 

 

Excellent point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't any data to support the notion that the 15inch cannons even with super charge, using mk17Bs match the 15" Cannons on the Bismarck class at 20km.

 

I was basing my data off of Warspite's shells, which the game labels as Mk.22b's. The deciding factor is that while the Bismarck's guns have better muzzle velocity, and better drag... They're only 800kg shells, and the better drag just doesn't offset the superior energy retention of the heavier British shells. The British gun will penetrate more past 7 km.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Excellent point.

 

I mean gimmicks are fun and all, and it can be fun to give a ship a specific quirk. Some are done by ship design, Spee is the perfect example, Atlanta(much as you don't like it, though I still think they are not giving the correct ballistics) is another.

 

But balancing around them, is just a BAD idea.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was basing my data off of Warspite's shells, which the game labels as Mk.22b's. The deciding factor is that while the Bismarck's guns have better muzzle velocity, and better drag... They're only 800kg shells, and the better drag just doesn't offset the superior energy retention of the heavier British shells. The British gun will penetrate more past 7 km.

 

All they had to do was give Hood not-worn guns and she probably would be fine. I mean, Gneisnau does fine with only 6 15-inch guns.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All they had to do was give Hood not-worn guns and she probably would be fine. I mean, Gneisnau does fine with only 6 15-inch guns.

 

Granted, Gneisenau has torpedoes, and Made in German armor that renders her citadel an item more of myth than reality. And powerful secondaries, coupled with the fact they make hilariously good DP guns (136.4 dps @ 5.19 km :trollface: ). And a 26 second reload on her main guns.

 

But yeah, Hood could've been helped with new gun velocities... although I still think she should've been a tier VI, without all the gimmicks.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean gimmicks are fun and all, and it can be fun to give a ship a specific quirk. Some are done by ship design, Spee is the perfect example, Atlanta(much as you don't like it, though I still think they are not giving the correct ballistics) is another.

 

 

 

But balancing around them, is just a BAD idea.

 

The reason I don't like Atlanta is because I remember what it was in CBT, when it was my favorite ship to play.  Let's be frank here, my favorite ships of that era, are USN cruisers.

 

They made all of them suck and unfun to play, and that seriously chaps my hide.  Atlanta was the one exception...a USN cruiser that was tons of fun to play.  Now, it's a brittle, hide behind island and pretend to be a fracking tank, firing from cover, POS that can't hit anything from any reasonable range.  I don't hate Atlanta; I hate what it's become.  I hate that they "flavored" it into a crap-sandwich that I can't stand the taste of any longer.  I hate that they ruined my favorite ship.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Hood rocket AA would been a fun gimmick if you actually got to see the rockets firing in the air and aerial minefields appearing.  I don't care if that AA rating was terrible, it would be fun to watch.  Rocket sound effects would be cool too.

Edited by Sventex

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The reason I don't like Atlanta is because I remember what it was in CBT, when it was my favorite ship to play.  Let's be frank here, my favorite ships of that era, are USN cruisers.

 

They made all of them suck and unfun to play, and that seriously chaps my hide.  Atlanta was the one exception...a USN cruiser that was tons of fun to play.  Now, it's a brittle, hide behind island and pretend to be a fracking tank, firing from cover, POS that can't hit anything from any reasonable range.  I don't hate Atlanta; I hate what it's become.  I hate that they "flavored" it into a crap-sandwich that I can't stand the taste of any longer.  I hate that they ruined my favorite ship.

 

Yeah, I can't argue that. Atlanta was a beast in CBT, as was Cleveland, 2 of my favorite cruisers. Now, just shadows of what they once were.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Granted, Gneisenau has torpedoes, and Made in German armor that renders her citadel an item more of myth than reality. And powerful secondaries, coupled with the fact they make hilariously good DP guns (136.4 dps @ 5.19 km :trollface: ). And a 26 second reload on her main guns.

 

But yeah, Hood could've been helped with new gun velocities... although I still think she should've been a tier VI, without all the gimmicks.

 

With her tonnage, she'd of had more HP than all tier 6 and 7 BBs. Not going to happen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game not a Historical Sim... :(

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was basing my data off of Warspite's shells, which the game labels as Mk.22b's. The deciding factor is that while the Bismarck's guns have better muzzle velocity, and better drag... They're only 800kg shells, and the better drag just doesn't offset the superior energy retention of the heavier British shells. The British gun will penetrate more past 7 km.

 

Velocity is more important than Mass in terms of penetration.

 

In fact, there's a case n point between the SHS round for the US 16"/50s and their Mk 5-5-5 round (Normal AP) which is a faster, lighter round. The SHS does not out-perform the mk5-5-5 round in terms of Belt penetration.

 

Furthermore, at 10km (and 10,000 yards for the British). The German 15"/47 is recorded for having 510mm (20.08") of belt penetration, while the mk22b is at 15.6" (422mm), and it never actually penetrates more plate (out to 30,000yards anyway as the data table stops for the 15"s at 25,000m) than the German 15" does, in fact. The German 15" Cannon has a higher penetration at 27,000 yards than the mk22b does at 20,000 yards.

 

Do keep in mind that the Kinetic energy formula is m*v^2 and that does very much so apply to kinetic penetrations (obviously the formulae for penetrating an object is markedly more complex). And the more important thing here is while yes, the mk22b is heavier, it isn't that much heavier (opposed to the difference between a 11" APC round and a 15" one as an example of a markedly bigger change)

 

Also, the Hood was never issued the Mk.22bs, thusly why she wouldn't have the 'same' penetration value(s) as the Warspite.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

So I took her out for a spin in a couple of games last night. I was pleasantly surprised by how she feels and how tanky she is. first game with her netted me 80k damage and 1.9m potential damage (and survived). Second game was only 30k damage (tier 9 match), but I did wreck a DD that tried to surprise me, so that was kinda nice ;)

 

One thing that caught me by surprise: She actually can wreck Scharnhorst without too much difficulty. I didn't think that would be the case, but she has the speed to maintain range on it, and at the angles she needs to unmask all four of her guns, Scharn AP shells do nothing but bounce and shatter on her armor. I had two of them shoot at me in that first match and they were pretty damn useless (and I killed one of them).

 

Obviously, Scharnhorst will wreck her if they charge each other ... but Scharnhorst can wreck *any* battleship that goes close quarters with it.

 

I really REALLY love her speed and rudder shift. Please never change these! But her guns definitely need a buff. Not Colorado or Nagato levels, of course, but they should be *at least* Warspite quality.

 

EDIT: I absolutely do not believe her guns alone warrant a drop to T6. Fact of the matter is that her speed, armor, and HP make her competitive at T7 ... as long as they buff the shell penetration. Really. That's all she needs.

Edited by KaptainKaybe

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi-clickbait title, but a serious subject.

 

I have a problem with Hood. And now that she's been released and is in my port (thanks to a very generous friend of mine - seriously, thank you SO much!) I can finally talk about her in public. NDAs getting in the way and all that ... I'm not talking about how she performs and plays - that's perfectly fine, to me. She's not OP, and that's a good thing. She's comfortable and even fun to drive and in the hands of a good BB driver can be a terror.

 

No, my problem with Hood is what choices Wargaming made to balance her, and what she represends for the game, and all possible future premiums and tech tree ships. You see, what we have in game isn't really Hood. Sure, it looks like Hood and has a few characteristics of Hood, but it is a bastardization of what Hood actually was like.

 

- Item the first: her guns. Yeah they can do work, but they're roughly 7% less powerful than Warspites. This in and of itself is a problem, and it didn't have to be this way. Hood used the same guns as Warspite (and other QEs) in a more modern turret. I see no reason why Hood would need to have 7% worse pen on her guns.

 

"But she didn't carry the same ballistic nose cap that the QE's did!"

 

True, the ammo hoists on Hood could not handle the longer shells the QEs could, but that's why Hood was given shells with a shorter AP cap, that influenced the wind drag. I don't see why these shells would have 7% lower Krupp (key factor in calculating penetration) than the shells on Warspite. Lose more velocity over range, yes. Be softer, no.

 

Second point about the guns is that WG took the velocity values of testing done with worn barrels. WG used values listed on NavWeaps.com for velocity. Now I'm not claiming that NavWeaps.com is where WG got their velocities, but they are still using the same values as listed on that webpage. However, the values listed on NavWeaps are from trials with worn barrels and are lower than they would be with new barrels. The same problem affects Warspite: her shell velocities are based on worn barrels too and would be higher if WG used values for new barrels.

 

- Item the second: the speed. Yes, Hood historically reached 32 knots. Before refits. With brand new machinery. By the time WWII broke out and she set sail for her fateful encounter with Bismarck, she could do about 28 knots, downhill, with the wind in her back. Now, I'm not arguing that her speed should be lowered - let the in-game ship keep the long legs she has now. It's part of her charm, and a nod to history.

 

Why bring this up? Why is this an issue? Well, WG likes to present ships with 'best case scenario' stats. You can see that with all their (well researched and well modeled) paper ships, all are given stats very close to the design specification. However, anyone who knows anything about ship manufacture will be able to tell you that design specifications on paper do not equate to ship performance in steel. Actual steel-in-water ship performance is always a compromise and never reaches all design specifications put on paper.

 

WG chose 'best case scenario' for her speed, pre-refit, new machinery, 32 knot top speed. But they chose to use the shell velocity numbers for worn barrels instead of 'best case scenario'. This is a problem that affects Warspite as well. Why did WG do this? I'll come back to this later.

 

- Item the third: the Unrotated Projectile rocket launchers. These killed more of Hood's crewmen than enemy pilots. There is AFAIK no record of them ever taking down a single German plane, but they are on record to getting tangled in Hood's own wiring and exploding on Hood's decks, injuring and killing British sailors. Now, it's not the fact that lives were lost to these why I disapprove of them - after all, they're a weapon and we all use weapons in this game - it's the fact that WG took what was basically an unmitigated disaster of a failed experiment, and turned it into a trump feature. Maybe this has to do with 'best case scenario' as outlined above, but the fact remains that for some reason WG has turned abysmal and dangerous deck clutter into a 'flavor' for Hood.

 

The Unrotated Projectiles (UPs) were a horrible idea, and the Brits knew it. The only reason they were mounted on Hood when she sunk is because they hadn't had time to remove them, yet. And WG saw fit to give them a starring role. Why did they do this? Probably just 'because they're there'. Certainly not to gamify their historical performance.

 

It all adds up to:

 

Now though we come to the meat of the tale, of my problems with Hood. From where I'm sitting, WG artificially nerfed Hood's guns (and Warspites as well though perhaps to a lesser degree) to below what they 'should' perform like, and then proceeded to drop gimmicks on her (DFAA, functional UPs, short-fuse AP shells, better autobounce angles on the AP, improved heal) to balance her out. For reasons that elude me, they chose 'best case scenario' for her speed, while accepting and implementing known sub-par values for shell velocity, and giving Hood weaker shells 'because reasons'. Even if we accept that Hood couldn't carry the 6crh shells that Warspite did, WG didn't have to implement that into the in-game Hood. We already see with the UPs that WG is not above pushing weapon performance into fantasy land.

 

From where I'm sitting it looks very much like WG chose to start off with Hood in a nerfed state with arbitrarily limited gun performance, and using gimmicks to balance her.

 

I've talked before about balancing ship lines by gimmicks rather than giving us ships balanced on a base line and then adding gimmicks, and I'm not the only one. And Hood, to me, is the perfect example of exactly this happening. I hope this isn't an indication of the direction WG is going in.

 

YMMV.

 

Still, despite all the problems I have with what Hood represents, I think she's balanced as is, enjoy driving her and I do not consider her presence in my port a waste of (someone else's) money.

 

A couple of points lert. Whilst i'd have to run the math, (say if you want it), i suspect the krupp change hs about the same effect on penetration as the extra drag. But without making the shells take longer to get there. Thus the overall effect is probably a net buff to Hoods guns compared to where they should be. Sorry for the bold but a lot of people seem to be assuming hood has artificially nerfed guns. if you want i will run the math for you.

 

Initial gun velocity is IMHO very likely to be a lack of the necessary data. bear in mind the Uk lost a massive archive of records to flooding in the 60's. The Bouncing bomb blueprints where amongst the total losses. I suspect this is also why we have a Lion armour scheme blueprint floating about marked as a KGV blueprint.

 

For speed. trial speeds are the standard WG'ing uses for every ship. I'm expecting repulse to get 32 knots too.

 

I totally agree on the T6 thing, i've been calling it for ages. No one';s listened, and some people are still asking for 14" KGV at T8. bear in mind thats the same pen, worse alpha, slightly more guns, at the same rate of fire on a slower, shorter ranged hull with similar health and worse (thanks to citadel placement and higher nemy pen relative to tier), armour. Yeah. I've got to the point of half hoping it happens, just to spite them with the worst T8 ever. And KGV is merely the most egregious example of RN fans asking for odd placements IMHO.

 

However theres one simple reason this happened: Marketing. They don;t want Hood competing with Warspite for sales. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

I know all of this. 

 

 

I'm just saying if they were never used in combat than it cannot be PROVEN that they were ineffective in combat.

 

Unreliable? Sure.

 

Bad concept? Sure.

 

Hazardous? Sure.

 

Ineffective in combat? Unknown, Untried, Unproven.

 

Because of this, WG can fudge the numbers all they want... just like paper ships. Because of the whole "unknown" factor.

 

As noted there were similar rockets used aroudn airfields, they were awful.

 

 

Arghhh now theres an issue...  if we take the planned refit of Hood into 2what was going to be the later Admiral Class B/C

 

if we look at the proposed mods....

 

  • New internal machinery and improved subdivision. It was desirable to upgrade and relocate engines and boilers. Alternatively, at a minimum the boilers would be replaced but the speed would be increased again back in excess of origional design speed.
  • Rearranged/remodelled torpedo bulges and side armour. Most likely the side bulges would have been extended to the top of the 7" armour belt rather than to the top of the 12" belt.
  • Improved deck armour/protection over vital areas. (increase in Belt and Deck armour)
  • Removal of armoured conning tower and the 5" side armour of the conning tower.
  • New superstructure and masts fore and aft. Most notably, the forward superstructure would have been a "block" type similar to that of Renown, the Queen Elizabeths or the King George Vs (KGV).
  • New funnels. These would have been something similar to those on Renown as KGV funnels would have been too small.
  • Re-addition of a catapult, dual hangars and Walrus seaplanes.
  • Improved antiaircraft (AAA) protection. This would include the removal of all existing weaponry and replacement with a total of 6 Mark M eight-barreled pom poms and lastly, the addition of either 12-16 x 5.25" guns (same type as KGV) or 16 x 4.5" (same type as Renown). Of course, the ship would likely have also received updated 0.5" machine guns and multiple 40mm mounts. (See "Some Considerations" below)
  • Upgraded fire control. She would have received updated radar, fire control tables, comms, directors, etc and higher optical rangefinders on the new masts.
  • Extended forecastle deck. Hood's stern was notoriously wet due to her overweight condition. An extension was considered for the simple fact that it might help keep the quarterdeck a bit drier. The extension would retain the rough "V" shape but would instead, extend to "X" turret.

 

Were all that to happen, I feel that because Hood is T7, you would have to push the rebuilt Admirals to T8, again with 15" guns, because the rebuilds would be significantly stronger than Hood with improved armour, speed and a spotter..  so now you have Tier 6 guns being fitted to a T8 B/C and facing T10's... 

 

Basically this whole.. "tier is decided because of HP" has completely stuffed the RN BB B/C trees big time... and the only way now to get a rebuilt Admiral into T7 will be to completely gimp something else historical or make Hood worthless.   

 

Gimmick decisions not only affect what we have, they massively restrict the future without thought in cases such as this.  By forcing what was in essence a T6 B/C into T7 they have completely stuffed future RN BB's dooming them to eithert having underpowered guns at tier or HAVING to rely on gimmicks to try and get round those underperforming guns.

 

What we are seeing currently about people doing well in Hood is purely based on the fact that most Hoods are seeing top tier battles currently because of the number of them.. when they start seeing T9 ships, things will change rapidly becasue NO gimmick can overcome underperforming main battery for a BB or a B/C.

 

M

 

 

 

Not really. Hood from reviews and impressions is coming off like Colorado, a really low end T7, whilst the rebuild would be a high end T7 like every other T7 who's name isn't Colorado or Hood. Sure it overshadows Hood. Shrug.

 

 

15in guns at T8 isn't a death sentence, there would be scope both to give the improved windshields (in line with Warspite) plus if you wanted supercharges could be examined giving an MV boost from the 732 (worn) to 804 m/s, a 10% upgrade. Plus Krupp changed in line.

 

Vanguard is widely cited as a T8 with effectively the same guns. Hood could be not dissimilar.

 

 

Hood as currently is just too much at T6 compared to Mutsu and Warspite.

 

WG have recently released UP rather than OP ships - Grozovoi, Z-52, Emile Bertin, Henri V. There is scope for a post-release Hood buff if needed.

 

 

Yes but even if they went with MkII guns with superchages she'd only be competing with Bismark in pen whilst having worse RoF, Secondaries, Armour, e.t.c. Vanguard is discussed as T8 because her AAA forces us to put her there, not because any other aspect of the ship is T8. Stick her with Mk I Supercharged guns and she's a fine T7, except for that AAA that could frighten a Montanna.

 

 

Honestly, I would hope so... but this is WG with the RN, and given that navweaps only has AoF and V_i data for a 785mps MV when it comes to supercharges (much as they only had that data for the 732 and 731.5 mps worn MV's that were 752mps on new guns)... I have a bad feeling that's the data they'd end up using. So, ideally, 804mps... but most likely (Given WG's resume with RN BBs) 785mps.

 

Roughly what the penetration curve for the supercharged shells should look lie vs Warspite's penetration curve;

 

ed748cdfabac6f1492defb79ed4747cd_zpsopau*Warspite's pen curve is taken from fnord_disc's thread on EU. The one on the left is my own work using the penetration formula, using the AoF and V_i from Navweaps' tables (@ 785 mps), with Warspite's shells (for weight and krupp).

 

Stop, stop, stop, stop. Fnord_Disc discovered there were some weirdness in the drag formulae, that make curves produced from real world velocity data completely inaccurate. Fnord Disc did do me  series of curves including new gun and SC and MkII and even MkII SC setups, note WG'ing can't necessarily do the same as AFAWK they don;t calculate from muzzle to finish but rather build a curve off existing IRL data and then subject that curve to their formulae.

 

Hence why an inability to get full velocity curves might be an issue.

 

 

Understand, after all Bismark and Tripitz have 15" at T8 and survive, but their guns are not worn barrel, and the whole balancing thing goes crazy here because technically (and I use that term carefully) at range, the German 15" guns were superior to the RN WW1 designs and somewhat more superior in worn barrel format.

 

This is where all the balancing goes wrong, because the same guns should be on Warspite, Hood and Vanguard but they are not.  Now if WG balanced the ships with regards to their main armament, I don't think there would be much of a problem, but the gimmicks we have where the other factors that really didn't exist are used for balancing are not doing the job.    

 

There could be an excuse for having Hoods guns being slightly worse than Warspites due to the windscreen, but that "should" be made up for by having the same Krupp and a slightly faster rate of fire and longer range (neither of which exists but which Hood actually had)

 

 

 

Unfortunately supercharges were only issued to these guns in Shore battery installations, however if we want to really get into "gimmicks"  then how about this one...

 

All of the APC shells in use during World War II had similar armor penetration performance with the exception of the special limited-issue APC Mark XVIIb shells developed by and manufactured by Cardonald of Scotland and issued to HMS Hood for the Mk2 turrets. These had a markedly superior penetration ability due to their harder nose and more rigid middle body. Confusingly, these shells did not get their own Mark number designation, meaning that there were other shells in service with the Mark XVIIb designation that did not have the better penetration capability.

 

So lets start using Cardonald shells :)

 

:hiding:

 

 

 

SC's where issued to any ship with unmodernised mounts and Vanguard was designed to handle them but never carried them in reality.

 

 

FNord_Disc's curves for alternate 15" setups using british 6crh shells:

 

Warspite (His Curve):

 

Wtes9Wn.png

 

New Gun Velocity:

 

arM10SF.png

 

MkI Supercharged Velocity

 

crjD44N.png

 

MkII Standard Charge Velocity

 

vIKFG6j.png

 

MkII Supercharged Velocity, (estimated velocity by me):

 

2IKhgTF.png

 

 

it should be noted his initial warspite curve based on muse's Warspite shoot tests is possibly a bit on the high side, so the same would apply to the rest, (he relies on outside sources for his drag coefficient, it could be wrong):

 

Bismarck/Tirpitz/Gneisenau:

 

e3XYRN0.png

 

Note the germans have the Worst T8 and second worst T7 Pen.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

With her tonnage, she'd of had more HP than all tier 6 and 7 BBs. Not going to happen.

 

Then drop the hit points as much as needed for balance. it wouldn't be the first time they've been adjusted. They boosted the German tier X BB by... what was it, almost 20k health? She was 88k HP or something like that originally. I'd honestly prefer that to them hammering her with gimmicks so she stays at a tier she's really not competitive at.

 

*edit - just to note, I'm aware nothing with Hood will change at this point. This is more a coulda/woulda/shoulda

Edited by Phoenix_jz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Velocity is more important than Mass in terms of penetration.

 

In fact, there's a case n point between the SHS round for the US 16"/50s and their Mk 5-5-5 round (Normal AP) which is a faster, lighter round. The SHS does not out-perform the mk5-5-5 round in terms of Belt penetration.

 

Furthermore, at 10km (and 10,000 yards for the British). The German 15"/47 is recorded for having 510mm (20.08") of belt penetration, while the mk22b is at 15.6" (422mm), and it never actually penetrates more plate (out to 30,000yards anyway as the data table stops for the 15"s at 25,000m) than the German 15" does, in fact. The German 15" Cannon has a higher penetration at 27,000 yards than the mk22b does at 20,000 yards.

 

Do keep in mind that the Kinetic energy formula is m*v^2 and that does very much so apply to kinetic penetrations (obviously the formulae for penetrating an object is markedly more complex). And the more important thing here is while yes, the mk22b is heavier, it isn't that much heavier (opposed to the difference between a 11" APC round and a 15" one as an example of a markedly bigger change)

 

Also, the Hood was never issued the Mk.22bs, thusly why she wouldn't have the 'same' penetration value(s) as the Warspite.

 

I wasn't actually thinking about our Hood, I'm more focused on future British ships that might use the 15" gun at supercharged velocities. I'm aware of the effect velocity has, but keep in mind that velocity is bled off over distance, and that is directly related to two factors at a basic level; the drag of a shell (how much it bleeds speed because of it's friction with the atmosphere), and how well it can upkeep it's momentum against that drag. A heavier shell is better able to do this than a lighter one, and eventually this will offset the effects of a lighter, but faster shell, even if it had less drag. So long as the slower shell isn't coming in at angles that mean it's velocity retention is wasted by the relative thickness of the armor because of the impact angle, than it will generally have better performance at range... and compared to the supercharged gun, the German 15" guns doesn't have enough of a velocity advantage over the British gun to offset the advantage of the better shell weight (only 4.46% better MV, while the British shell is 9.88% heavier).

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.