Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Psycodiver

Proof of Concept, Plunging Fire from BBs is possible

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

351
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,558 posts
3,539 battles

There was a thread not to long ago discussing of plunging fire and several players agreed if theres a ship capable of it, it would be the NC at max possible range. In real life at the NC class (and South Dakota class) was able to hurl a 16" shell out to 32km, at that distance the shell would come down just past 45 degrees and able to penetrate 268mm of deck armor (just for reference the Iowa could only penetrate 218mm of deck armor at the same distance). In game with the North Carolina, with upgraded FCS and Plotting Room mod she can reach out to 27km and with spotter she can reach 32.4km, it also takes over 27 seconds for the shells to reach this far ingame. I did run into a issue when ships failing to render past 31km though, I brought this up in another thread but I was able to figure it out with swapping my Concealment mod for Target Acquisition mod.

 

Using a Bot CV to spot and a fleet of stationary enemy Bismarks to target I was able to reliably citadel a Bismark at 32.2km repeatedly. I used the Spotter to target the middle of the deck and fired. Now dispersion was pretty bad at this point but what shells hit either citadeled or fully penetrated. Of a side point at 27km I was able to score easy full penetration hits.

 

AEsukMZ.jpg

 

I will toy with this a little more, but honestly this is pretty much pointless for Random Battle, its just a proof of concept that Plunging fire is a real thing in this game

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

It makes sense that Iowa could not have that pen at that range, her guns had a higher velocity, so thus, would have a shallower rate of fall at that distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
641
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,851 posts
1,332 battles
3 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

It makes sense that Iowa could not have that pen at that range, her guns had a higher velocity, so thus, would have a shallower rate of fall at that distance.

True.  16"/45s vs 16"/50s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,273
[RKLES]
Members
7,213 posts
9,006 battles

So are you just shooting shells into the sky so they travel the max distance their velocity will allow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,370
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,434 posts
3,875 battles

I don't think the argument was ever that plunging fire didn't exist in World of Warships, just that it's impractical at the ranges it's possible at, and at the ranges pretty much every ship fights at, isn't possible due to the angle of fall on shells fired at targets under 20km.

 

A good proof of concept though.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,640 posts
7,476 battles

Now that's a gimmick that could be interesting. 2 Ammo types, 1 Standard AP and the other plunging AP, which would have characteristics of plunging fire at shorter distances..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
942 posts
4,083 battles

well theoretically you could do plunging, I did one with my Cleveland vs Fuso pretty long time ago

 

it's hard but not impossible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,273
[RKLES]
Members
7,213 posts
9,006 battles

If you could actually get some team work, it would be interesting battle tactic. To score and effective hits though it would require you and the ships assisting you to sail in close proximity and fire your salvos together in order to get enough shells in the air to make the target area get plastered with shells.

Lol looks like we have found out the reason they said you had fire 100 shells to get 1-3 hits back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
918
[LEGIO]
Members
2,994 posts
5,408 battles

I tried the same experiment some time ago on the test server with a similar set up. Ocean map, a North Carolina with range upgrade and spotter planes, plus scouts to spot the enemy. Yet I got very lackluster results. With the target ships generally facing me bow on (which is ideal for dispersion patterns) I got a lot of overpens (how?!) and bounces. I scored a few citadels on German BBs but on other BBs I was getting nothing good. At those ranges I had the deck penetration to defeat the deck armor of any battleship ever built.

 

At extreme ranges it sometimes works yet not nearly as often as it should. Meanwhile "auto-bounce" mechanics severely limit the chances of plunging fire at more moderate ranges where deck penetration would still be technically possible.


Maybe I'll try this experiment again and see if I can get some better results but generally speaking plunging fire is non-existent in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
440
[MIA-A]
[MIA-A]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,052 posts
7,783 battles

Yamato can citadel German BBs reliably under its max range without the mod and scout plane, although I'm not sure if this is plunging fire because the shell travel animations are not displayed accurately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,558 posts
3,539 battles

I forgot to update this but a while back before I swapped my NC back to normal I took my "max range" build out and found it useful in 1 match out of the whole night and that was a T10 match where DUN DUN DUNNNN enemy BBs were camping at the back of the map. Because they were static for long periods of time I was able to score some hilarious hits including citadeling a Yamato not once but twice with 2 separate salvos.

 

Outside of the classic T10 Camping meta the Max Range build is fairly useless especially because I have to give up my concealment mod means no more sneaking up on unsuspecting broadsides at close ranges or disappearing while being focused fired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
280
[RUST]
Beta Testers
947 posts
10,407 battles

Bismarck is probably not the best target ship for this type of test, their turtle back armor makes them more vulnerable to citadel hits at extreme long range. A better test would probably be high tier UK BBs where their citadel roofs are flat and are completely under the waterline so the only way to citadel them is by plunging fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,815
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,125 posts
14,528 battles
12 minutes ago, NCC81701 said:

Bismarck is probably not the best target ship for this type of test, their turtle back armor makes them more vulnerable to citadel hits at extreme long range. A better test would probably be high tier UK BBs where their citadel roofs are flat and are completely under the waterline so the only way to citadel them is by plunging fire.

 

Bismarck is a valid target choice.  She is the most played ship in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
272 posts
3,535 battles

Heck, I can get plunging cits on Tirpitz fairly reliably with Fuso at 19km and beyond. I've also been broadside on to a Warspite  at what must have been her max range with a spotter and bounced those 15 inch shells off of Fuso's belt armor. Under certain circumstances, it is possible to get battleships to work as intended by their designs in this game, but it is difficult to do and rare that it works just right. I think plunging fire is most likely in this game with some of the older, lower velocity guns that have lob shells higher to get to their max ranges. NC and Alabama have just about the right ballistics and range to start taking advantage of plunging fire, but it would be nice if they'd let us test how the game would work at real battle ranges on a PTS or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
280
[RUST]
Beta Testers
947 posts
10,407 battles
5 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

 

Bismarck is a valid target choice.  She is the most played ship in the game.

 

For a test, it's a poor choice at best because the armor angle helps penetration, you can "plunge" shells into Bismarck at much shorter range than the test here. The problem is, this puts into question how many of the citadels in the test was the result of actual plunging fire, and how much of it was "helped" by the armor angle. Flat citadel roof of high tier UK BB eliminates this question as there is no armor angles to consider. A poor experimental setup only produce poor experimental results that doesn't really answer any questions or provide ambiguous answers at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,558 posts
3,539 battles
17 minutes ago, NCC81701 said:

 

For a test, it's a poor choice at best because the armor angle helps penetration, you can "plunge" shells into Bismarck at much shorter range than the test here. The problem is, this puts into question how many of the citadels in the test was the result of actual plunging fire, and how much of it was "helped" by the armor angle. Flat citadel roof of high tier UK BB eliminates this question as there is no armor angles to consider. A poor experimental setup only produce poor experimental results that doesn't really answer any questions or provide ambiguous answers at best. 

 

Fair point but if I recall the RN have strong armored decks (post Jutland battle designs plus modern AP Dive bombers being a thing during WWII). I have to take a look at the armor viewer to see what they have

 

This test came about from a thread a while back that said the only way to citadel a Bismark was with plunging fire but several players said plunging fire was impossible ingame. I proved that yes you can citadel a Bismark with plunging fire and yes plunging fire is a real thing. I would love to get with a couple players in a training room to do more accurate testing whether I use one of my many ships or I can supply the respeced NC or I can even pilot the CV needed to spot at the ranges needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,110
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,849 posts
4,742 battles

You guys recall the video of when Tirpitz was first released? An NC using a spotter tagged it from max range at the VERY start of the match and detonated it. 

 

Hilarious....more so it was on Twitch to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,866 posts

I have citadeled both Fuso and Scarnhorst through the deck at long range. I citadeled an unwary Belfast through the deck too. Plunging fire was not understood until it was too late for most designs. Note that Taiho had good deck armor after the lesson of Midway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[HKC]
Members
215 posts

I killed a ship in similar at range scenario with my GC.  BB was moving away and three of my HE dropped down and in.  No citadel, just massive damage. 

(Unless you mean 'plunging fire for citadel').

Edited by Viva_Palestine

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.

×