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

After Musashi....Is this a problem?

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles

I would like people to check these pictures out and help me understand if these highlighted areas are also armor bugs or if they were like that all along.  This seems to be a similar issue as the Musashi.  Can any verify?  It would seem as though there's a lot of BBs that have this bug on their armor....if it is a bug.  Thanks in advance!

Lion Armor.png

Missouri.png

GK.png

Nelson.png

Schnarnhorst.png

Tirpitz&Bissie.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,030
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,092 posts
9,188 battles

Yes, always existed was armor bug that allowed for massive damage when hit. It was fixed in todays patch.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles
2 minutes ago, paradat said:

Yes, always existed was armor bug that allowed for massive damage when hit. It was fixed in todays patch.

I know Musashi was fixed, but these pictures were taken today, after the patch, when I was examining the other BBs just for grins to determine if they had the same issue.  To my knowledge, this looks like the other BBs may be in a bit of trouble if this turns out to be a bug across most BB's armor schemes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,030
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,092 posts
9,188 battles
4 minutes ago, SaidNoOneEver said:

I know Musashi was fixed, but these pictures were taken today, after the patch, when I was examining the other BBs just for grins to determine if they had the same issue.  To my knowledge, this looks like the other BBs may be in a bit of trouble if this turns out to be a bug across most BB's armor schemes.  

Oh sorry my bad. I did not even look closely at the picture. Hmm do not know. I hope not! We could research this in the training room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,950
[PVE]
Members
8,844 posts
7,257 battles

Those weak spots are on the Yamato as well. I know some players have talked about them and say if you aim is good and RNGesus is in your favor, it is a great way to get citadels on a bow-tanking Yamato. 

 

I do not know if they are supposed to be there or not.                                                                                       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,030
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,092 posts
9,188 battles
1 minute ago, Kizarvexis said:

Those weak spots are on the Yamato as well. I know some players have talked about them and say if you aim is good and RNGesus is in your favor, it is a great way to get citadels on a bow-tanking Yamato. 

 

I do not know if they are supposed to be there or not.                                                                                       

They did fix Yamato along with Musashi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles
1 minute ago, Kizarvexis said:

Those weak spots are on the Yamato as well. I know some players have talked about them and say if you aim is good and RNGesus is in your favor, it is a great way to get citadels on a bow-tanking Yamato. 

 

I do not know if they are supposed to be there or not.                                                                                       

You would think that the turret is supposed to cover the main battery mounts....especially on BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,950
[PVE]
Members
8,844 posts
7,257 battles
Just now, paradat said:

They did fix Yamato along with Musashi.

 

Well, I just took this pic in game, so if they fixed it, they didn't fix the armor viewer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles
Just now, Kizarvexis said:

 

Well, I just took this pic in game, so if they fixed it, they didn't fix the armor viewer.

That's my concern....the armor viewer does not appear to be fixed.  Also, the pics that I uploaded are from several different BBs, not just the Yamato and Musashi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[RS]
Members
84 posts
10,156 battles

The problem with Musashi and Yamato wasn't the fact that the barbettes protrude a bit, the problem was, that these protrusions had wrong/no armor value at all, as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles
6 minutes ago, ThePfeil said:

The problem with Musashi and Yamato wasn't the fact that the barbettes protrude a bit, the problem was, that these protrusions had wrong/no armor value at all, as far as I know.

I hope so!  Because even those these areas have armor values, in armor layout, they still protrude a disgusting amount.  I always thought the main batteries were designed over the main battery turret mounts.  At least on battleships.  Not too sure about other ship types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles
3 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I just took a series of screencaps after seeing this thread, showing "Main Battery Mount Armor" on the Tier VIII-X BBs, here's the gallery for them.

https://imgur.com/a/uvnd4

 

Yeah I appreciate this, but my question is....is it supposed to be that way?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,588
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,598 posts
14,017 battles
1 minute ago, SaidNoOneEver said:

Yeah I appreciate this, but my question is....is it supposed to be that way?  

Not really sure.  It's not something that's been brought up and made common knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
272
[RUST]
Beta Testers
931 posts
10,345 battles
49 minutes ago, SaidNoOneEver said:

I would like people to check these pictures out and help me understand if these highlighted areas are also armor bugs or if they were like that all along.  This seems to be a similar issue as the Musashi.  Can any verify?  It would seem as though there's a lot of BBs that have this bug on their armor....if it is a bug.  Thanks in advance!

No, the weak spots you've listed has always been there, the bug was that the armor value is 0. The correct armor thickness of these "weak spots" precludes over-match mechanics and the shell plunging angle isn't high enough for a direct penetration for all but the most extreme cases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[KRAB]
Members
615 posts
5,782 battles

If the barbettes did sometimes protrude outside the turret there would be a roof there, likely armored roughly as much as the turret roof. As long as it is thicker than 32mm it will rarely be penetrated, and with normal shell angles only overmatch or HE would cause damage. 

It is possible that they were incorrectly given zero or a very small armor value, causing shells to penetrate by overmatch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,823
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

In all computer graphics there will be slight non conforming areas with color discrepancies. This is normal. Blow up in size any computer graphic and you will see even more discrepancies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,161 battles
17 minutes ago, SaidNoOneEver said:

I hope so!  Because even those these areas have armor values, in armor layout, they still protrude a disgusting amount.  I always thought the main batteries were designed over the main battery turret mounts.  At least on battleships.  Not too sure about other ship types.

Not exactly. There is some gap, look at this photo of the Yamato's #2 gun during Calibration.

Yamato's_main_battery_guns_18.1%E2%80%9D

note the little 'shelf' below the gun's front face. remember Guns were usually inserted into a ship so they are naturally smaller then the mount (this is why when a ship capsizes the guns fall out like with Bismark).

Bismarck_illustration.png

You can see this on most large ships;

Bismark;

illustr_bismarck_06.jpg41a0d5c3ae22545dacaed43fe2f5ea27--model-

Nagato;

 

na-171.jpg

Dunkerque;

wip_turret___mn_dunkerque_by_jzed.jpg

Littorio;

01031307da72be06217ad29e969920fd.png

Arizona;

710x528_10959547_7237840_1508089252.jpg

There are exceptions of course like the Iowa class;

uss-missouri-2013-pearl-harbour-10.jpg

Note how the gun overhangs the mount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
267
[OPRAH]
Members
1,027 posts
6,572 battles
Spoiler
14 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

Not exactly. There is some gap, look at this photo of the Yamato's #2 gun during Calibration.

Yamato's_main_battery_guns_18.1%E2%80%9D

note the little 'shelf' below the gun's front face. remember Guns were usually inserted into a ship so they are naturally smaller then the mount (this is why when a ship capsizes the guns fall out like with Bismark).

Bismarck_illustration.png

You can see this on most large ships;

Bismark;

illustr_bismarck_06.jpg41a0d5c3ae22545dacaed43fe2f5ea27--model-

Nagato;

 

na-171.jpg

Dunkerque;

wip_turret___mn_dunkerque_by_jzed.jpg

Littorio;

01031307da72be06217ad29e969920fd.png

Arizona;

710x528_10959547_7237840_1508089252.jpg

There are exceptions of course like the Iowa class;

uss-missouri-2013-pearl-harbour-10.jpg

Note how the gun overhangs the mount.

 

Awesome!  Thanks for this.  This helps to clarify!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×