Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
NoCoGaming3645

Does IFHE Help? Use this Calculator...

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

333
[CZS]
Members
842 posts
7,892 battles

Attached is an Excel spreadsheet (which will also work in Google Sheets or OpenOffice as well), that lets you figure out if a given gun caliber will benefit from IFHE, and against what armor levels.

It computes the penetration values for all common armor, from 16mm up through 50mm, then compares penetration with and without IFHE, highlighting the difference. It draws from http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration#HE_penetration  to build the tables.

It also uses the presumption that German Secondaries of greater than (but not equal to) 105mm also benefit from a built-in /4 penetration buff.  This is not 100% verified, as I've only experimental data to possibly validate this cutoff.  It would be nice if WoWS staff could actually state, officially, which secondaries have the /4, and which use the /6, divisor for HE penetration. 

 

This sheet replaces one I made prior and posted elsewhere.

 

 

WOWS IFHE Pen Determination.xlsx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,065 posts
3,885 battles
17 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

Attached is an Excel spreadsheet (which will also work in Google Sheets or OpenOffice as well), that lets you figure out if a given gun caliber will benefit from IFHE, and against what armor levels.

It computes the penetration values for all common armor, from 16mm up through 50mm, then compares penetration with and without IFHE, highlighting the difference. It draws from http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration#HE_penetration  to build the tables.

It also uses the presumption that German Secondaries of greater than (but not equal to) 105mm also benefit from a built-in /4 penetration buff.  This is not 100% verified, as I've only experimental data to possibly validate this cutoff.  It would be nice if WoWS staff could actually state, officially, which secondaries have the /4, and which use the /6, divisor for HE penetration. 

 

This sheet replaces one I made prior and posted elsewhere.

 

 

WOWS IFHE Pen Determination.xlsx

Is it anything past 105?  I'd read it was the 150's that benefited from 1/4.  Miiiigggghhhhttttt be able to test this with the Gneisenau since it features both the 105 and 150 in its stock configuration and then 128's in its upgraded configuration.  The Großer Kurfürst  could work as well since it features both 128's and 150's.  Course I have no idea how this testing would work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,166 posts
13,758 battles

How is that regular HE CAN pen higher armor, and IFHE can NOT? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,573
[WOLF7]
Members
11,367 posts
12 minutes ago, SkywhaleExpress said:

How is that regular HE CAN pen higher armor, and IFHE can NOT? 

On WG knows for sure....:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
333
[CZS]
Members
842 posts
7,892 battles
24 minutes ago, Palladia said:

Is it anything past 105?  I'd read it was the 150's that benefited from 1/4.  Miiiigggghhhhttttt be able to test this with the Gneisenau since it features both the 105 and 150 in its stock configuration and then 128's in its upgraded configuration.  The Großer Kurfürst  could work as well since it features both 128's and 150's.  Course I have no idea how this testing would work...

Yeah, I've run those tests, and it does look like the 128mm as well as the 150mm get the /4, while the 105mm doesn't for KM BBs.

I did it in the Training Room - loaded up a bunch of New Orleans cruisers, which are coated with 25mm armor, and then had a Gneisenau and Bismark use their secondaries, and compared what the the expected damage output/hit was for /4 vs /6 and what I actually observed.

But again, this is experimental data, and WG really needs to make an OFFICIAL pronouncement of what the /4 applies to, and what it doesn't.

Edited by EAnybody
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
333
[CZS]
Members
842 posts
7,892 battles
18 minutes ago, SkywhaleExpress said:

How is that regular HE CAN pen higher armor, and IFHE can NOT? 

Certain countries' HE has better performance than IFHE of other countries.  Same for HE on DDs vs HE on BB/CAs. Don't ask why, just accept it - it's a game balance thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,065 posts
3,885 battles
4 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

Yeah, I've run those tests, and it does look like the 128mm as well as the 150mm get the /4, while the 105mm doesn't for KM BBs.

Got it,  thank you for the testing and everything,  man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,376 posts
8,793 battles
1 hour ago, EAnybody said:

Yeah, I've run those tests, and it does look like the 128mm as well as the 150mm get the /4, while the 105mm doesn't for KM BBs.

I did it in the Training Room - loaded up a bunch of New Orleans cruisers, which are coated with 25mm armor, and then had a Gneisenau and Bismark use their secondaries, and compared what the the expected damage output/hit was for /4 vs /6 and what I actually observed.

But again, this is experimental data, and WG really needs to make an OFFICIAL pronouncement of what the /4 applies to, and what it doesn't.

Do German cruiser secondaries have modified penetration too, or is it only the battleships?  That would make it a lot easier to conclusively test, because Hindenburg, Hipper and the upgraded hull of Yorck only have 105 mm secondaries.  Then you wouldn't have to do any math or try to figure out which guns are hitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
333
[CZS]
Members
842 posts
7,892 battles
4 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

Do German cruiser secondaries have modified penetration too, or is it only the battleships?  That would make it a lot easier to conclusively test, because Hindenburg, Hipper and the upgraded hull of Yorck only have 105 mm secondaries.  Then you wouldn't have to do any math or try to figure out which guns are hitting.

I tested the Yorck and Hipper (with their 105mm secondaries) against the 25mm armor of the New Orleans, and yeah, it does NOT have the /4 - it won't pen without IFHE.  I don't have a Roon anymore, so I can't test it's 150mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,660
Members
22,336 posts
5,780 battles
18 hours ago, SkywhaleExpress said:

How is that regular HE CAN pen higher armor, and IFHE can NOT? 

Because some ships get (calibre/4) pen instead of the regular (calibre/6). And IFHE makes regular pen equivalent to only about (calibre/4.5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
739
[NWNG]
Members
2,771 posts
4,646 battles
3 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Because some ships get (calibre/4) pen instead of the regular (calibre/6). And IFHE makes regular pen equivalent to only about (calibre/4.5)

When referring to artillery, caliber is used to describe the barrel length as multiples of the bore diameter. As such, the Iowa doesn't have a 16 inch caliber gun, it has 16 inch 50 caliber guns, which gives her a barrel length of 800 inches.


So the proper math is (<bore size>/6) or (<bore size>/4), or as the Wiki puts it "shell diameter."

Also, there is a reason one should not touch the numerator in the equation. The numbers do not align properly for every shell diameter. Example: 100mm without IFHE penetrates 16mm armor (100/6, rounded down) while penetrates 21mm armor with IFHE ([100*1.3]/6, rounded down). 100/4.75, is the perfect representation of this increase. Your Divide by 4.5, produces 22mm armor penetration.

HOWEVER, 127mm with IFHE is able to penetrate 27mm, your divide by 4.5 produces 28mm armor penetration. However, my earlier divide by 4.75, produces only a 26mm armor penetration (rounded down). Hence why the wiki clearly states "(<shell diameter> *1.3)/6" or "(<shell diameter>*1.3)/4"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,660
Members
22,336 posts
5,780 battles
15 minutes ago, Counter_Gambit said:

When referring to artillery, caliber is used to describe the barrel length as multiples of the bore diameter. As such, the Iowa doesn't have a 16 inch caliber gun, it has 16 inch 50 caliber guns, which gives her a barrel length of 800 inches.

It's actually both. The 16"/50 has a caliber of 16", and the barrel is 50 calibers long.

Caliber is the (dimensionless) unit of measurement. 1 caliber is (always) the bore diameter, (in this case 16") and 50 calibers is the length of the barrel. 

"50 caliber" is the common way of saying it, but "50 calibers in length" is the proper phrase.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
739
[NWNG]
Members
2,771 posts
4,646 battles
1 hour ago, Skpstr said:

It's actually both. The 16"/50 has a caliber of 16", and the barrel is 50 calibers long.

Caliber is the (dimensionless) unit of measurement. 1 caliber is (always) the bore diameter, (in this case 16") and 50 calibers is the length of the barrel. 

"50 caliber" is the common way of saying it, but "50 calibers in length" is the proper phrase.

incorrect. In naval Gunnery, Caliber is used specifically to refer to the relationship between barrel length and bore diameter. That is because this relationship drastically changed the performance of the weapon, maximum shell weight allowed by the weapon, AND life expectancy of the weapon. Making this dimensionless measurement, extremely important. A 5"/25 would barely scratch a surface target, but makes for great AA weaponry; while a 5"/51 makes for poor AA weaponry, but makes for great anti-surface weaponry. 5"/38 makes for a great compromise between the two extremes, allowing for decent AA, and decent Anti-Surface combat, from the weapon.

All with the same bore diameter, but each with vastly different purposes due to the vast differences in performance of each weapon. Which is why when talking naval weapons, you use caliber to refer specifically to the relationship between barrel length and bore diameter rather than the bore diameter.

The relationship between Barrel Length and Bore Diameter, plays a far bigger role, than just the bore diameter, for artillery. Which is why it irritates me that armor penetration for HE rounds rely on shell diameter, rather than the Bore-length relationship. However, I don't voice that irritation much (this is the first time I've voiced the irritation), because it is easier to balance to bore diameter, rather than the bore-length relationship.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,660
Members
22,336 posts
5,780 battles
11 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

incorrect. In naval Gunnery, Caliber is used specifically to refer to the relationship between barrel length and bore diameter.

We'll have to agree to disagree. You should probably inform the editors at Navweaps as well.

Quote

 A 5"/25 would barely scratch a surface target, but makes for great AA weaponry; while a 5"/51 makes for poor AA weaponry, but makes for great anti-surface weaponry.

The 5"/25 was only superior as an AA weapon because the shorter barrel made it lighter with less inertia, which made it easier to aim quickly than the 5"/51, with the manual gun training in use for secondaries at the time. (right after WW1)

Quote

5"/38 makes for a great compromise between the two extremes, allowing for decent AA, and decent Anti-Surface combat, from the weapon.

Longer barrel is always better, whether for AA or AS use. The extra velocity attained allowed accurate fire at twice the altitude of the 5"/25. You can get away with a heavier gun pre-WW2, because now mounts are powered. The 5"/54 used by Midway (and Montana in-game) was even better, except it had shorter barrel life, and used heavier shells which slowed ROF.

Quote

Which is why it irritates me that armor penetration for HE rounds rely on shell diameter, rather than the Bore-length relationship.
 

Armor pen for HE has nothing to do with barrel length or velocity of the rounds. It's all about the size of the charge. It doesn't matter whether you fire an HE charge from a railgun or a trebuchet. The shell itself has no penetrative value because it is designed to explode on contact.

The reason they base it on bore size is because bigger shells tend to have a bigger charge, and thus the blast has more power to penetrate. The national differences in explosive composition and charge weights are accounted for by differences in damage in-game.

The only thing that a longer barrel does for an HE round is make it more accurate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,575
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts
14 hours ago, Counter_Gambit said:

When referring to artillery, caliber is used to describe the barrel length as multiples of the bore diameter.

Just the US. The UK and elsewhere use calibre to designate bore diameter. That's why we call them a BL 15" Gun or a 15" Calibre gun, not a 15/42.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×