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

AP DB versus Plunging AP Fire

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,945
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,392 posts

Back in the day, I recall Jingles and others always talking about "plunging fire" using AP. I am curious if it ever existed. If it did, does it still exist? If not, why not? 

 

Seems to me - me, mind you - if planes are dropping AP and penning the living daylights out of German BB then so should AP "plunging fire". What do you think? 

 

tiafyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,882
[HINON]
Privateers, Privateers
6,798 posts
4,910 battles

Plunging fire in this game can only happen at ridiculous ranges. 28km or so, so battleships with long range and spotter up and range mod.

 

Distance in this game is compressed, but not ballistics, so the shells cannot truly hit plunging fire unless it's at such far ranges that it makes it impractical.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,951
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,852 posts
11,307 battles
1 hour ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Back in the day, I recall Jingles and others always talking about "plunging fire" using AP. I am curious if it ever existed. If it did, does it still exist? If not, why not? 

 

Seems to me - me, mind you - if planes are dropping AP and penning the living daylights out of German BB then so should AP "plunging fire". What do you think? 

 

tiafyc

 

Already does, actually. Usually just a matter of the angle sometimes isn't quite right or aim 100% on, where as the DB's are accurate along the deck straight down mostly. Part of hy German BB's are meant to be in closer as well, further out you are, more likely a plunging round goes through the deck to the citadel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
350 posts
19,923 battles
2 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Back in the day, I recall Jingles and others always talking about "plunging fire" using AP. I am curious if it ever existed. If it did, does it still exist? If not, why not? 

 

Seems to me - me, mind you - if planes are dropping AP and penning the living daylights out of German BB then so should AP "plunging fire". What do you think? 

 

tiafyc

plunging fire happens in wows but very rare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,945
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,392 posts

well older man memory being what it is.. .but good ol' Jingles seemed to constantly talk about it... so I was thinking (dangerous I know) they just looked back at the Alpha stuff and said, "Hey - plunging fire... ap... DB... it works..." But for BB's and the like no, we don't want higher firing arcs at range where plunging fire would kick in... 

 

Okay then - thanks all 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[P-V-E]
Members
1,449 posts

I use to get it quite a lot with the Atlanta at maximum range but that was also In part the volume of shells, but not very often now, also the Cleveland when it could reach out to about 18km or 19km.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,747 posts
3,622 battles
2 hours ago, Herr_Reitz said:

Ah yes... the old Cleveland... 

Back in the day when BFT and AFT effected guns up to 160mm

 

Honestly with stealth fire gone I don't see why these skills can't be buffed up again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,945
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,392 posts

True... if they give it but a moment's notice... it would be helpful against the deadly "campus crampus" infection that seems to be spreading through ships these days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,753
[SYN]
Members
15,692 posts
12,778 battles

Pretty sure you can do plunging with AFT+GFCS Fletcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,044
[CVA16]
Members
5,011 posts
14,978 battles

Don't know how they could have the suborbital arcs on the Atlanta and Cleveland (amongst a few others) and not consider it plunging fire. The 6" should still have a good velocity and high shell weight to punch through most listed decks. On the other hand, it seems the deck armor on most WG ship models, especially over the vitals,  is lower than IRL, possibly to compensate for the lack of plunging fire.

Just checked and the IRL Cleveland should have up to 3" of deck armor. WG gives it less than an inch. Several other ships I checked all had more deck armor than WG gives them.

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,945
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,392 posts

Hmm... that's interesting, to me at least... wonder "why" they gave them less deck armor... so they could make the DB more effective on the Cleveland? Nah - who in their right mind takes a flight of DB on a Cleveland. 

I wonder if they have plans for such things in the near future? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,044
[CVA16]
Members
5,011 posts
14,978 battles

I think, in general, ships (non-DDs anyway) in game have a lot less deck armor than IRL. This was decided long before AP bombs were conceived. It has to be a way to make the shells that never reach plunging fire angles have some chance to penetrate the decks of ships that would otherwise be autobounced by the true deck armor. This thin deck  does make AP bombs way more effective than they should be against many ships, not just the Cleveland.

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.

×