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

High Explosive Ammunition

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
20 posts
1,641 battles

I have no idea why WOWS will not provide British cruisers I-VI with HE ammunition.   It seems like a bit of a handicap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
347
[H-W-C]
Members
1,258 posts
3,306 battles

British cruisers fire SAP (semi armour piercing). They have better penetration than standard AP (or so the wiki says) and they have a shorter fuse time so they don't overpen as much against DDs. It's also pretty good against battleship superstructures and extremities.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,432
[HINON]
Supertester
18,904 posts
12,441 battles
7 minutes ago, warpath_33 said:

British cruisers fire SAP (semi armour piercing). They have better penetration than standard AP (or so the wiki says) and they have a shorter fuse time

Additionally they have more favorable ricochet angles so they're better at defeating angled armor.

To answer OP's question: It's the 'flavor' WG has decided upon for the UKCL, improved AP at the cost of no HE.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
7 hours ago, Lert said:

Additionally they have more favorable ricochet angles so they're better at defeating angled armor.

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that only the US 203mm AP got the better richocet treatment. I don't see anywhere that it's indicated RN AP gets favorable treatment.

 

7 hours ago, Lert said:

To answer OP's question: It's the 'flavor' WG has decided upon for the UKCL, improved AP at the cost of no HE.

 

Yup. It's an arbitrary decision based on balance and "national flavor". This is a video game, after all.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,432
[HINON]
Supertester
18,904 posts
12,441 battles
53 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that only the US 203mm AP got the better richocet treatment. I don't see anywhere that it's indicated RN AP gets favorable treatment.

Moderately to almost certainly sure. Give it 95% certainty on higher level 152mm RN SAP, like T6 and up.

@LittleWhiteMouse will probably know for sure and be able to point at third party proof.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,042
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,659 posts
9,977 battles
38 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that only the US 203mm AP got the better richocet treatment. I don't see anywhere that it's indicated RN AP gets favorable treatment.

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Ships_of_U.K.

British cruisers in World of Warships share many similarities with American and German cruisers, with fast-firing guns housed in quick-turning turrets; however, they fire only armor-piercing rounds. While the lack of high-explosive shells greatly reduces their versatility against more heavily armored ships or well-angled opponents, their AP shells' fuse lengths and penetration values are improved over other nations' such that shots are able to penetrate in places where they would normally bounce off.

Emphasis mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,520
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,032 posts
7,609 battles
2 hours ago, Lert said:

@LittleWhiteMouse will probably know for sure and be able to point at third party proof.

Nominal Auto Ricochet Angle for 152mm Guns:  45º to 60º
British Auto Ricochet Angle for 152mm Guns:  60º to 75º
American Auto Ricochet Angle for 203mm Guns:  60º to 67.5º

Nominal Fuse Timers for 152mm Guns:  0.01s or 0.025s
British Fuse Timers for 152mm Guns:  0.005s
American Fuse Timers for 203mm Guns:  Standard for 203mm.  0.033s.

Nominal Normalization for 152mm Guns:  8.5º
British Normalization for 152mm Guns:  8.5º
American Normalization for 203mm guns:  Standard for 203mm.  7.0º

So British cruisers have (much) improved Auto-Ricochet angles -- even better than the improved ricochet on American 203mm cruisers.  They also have a much shortened fuse timers compared to other cruisers.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,505 posts
7,927 battles
11 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Nominal Auto Ricochet Angle for 152mm Guns:  45º to 60º
British Auto Ricochet Angle for 152mm Guns:  60º to 75º
American Auto Ricochet Angle for 203mm Guns:  60º to 67.5º

Nominal Fuse Timers for 152mm Guns:  0.01s or 0.025s
British Fuse Timers for 152mm Guns:  0.005s
American Fuse Timers for 203mm Guns:  Standard for 203mm.  0.033s.

Nominal Normalization for 152mm Guns:  8.5º
British Normalization for 152mm Guns:  8.5º
American Normalization for 203mm guns:  Standard for 203mm.  7.0º

So British cruisers have (much) improved Auto-Ricochet angles -- even better than the improved ricochet on American 203mm cruisers.  They also have a much shortened fuse timers compared to other cruisers.

Hey

LWM comes through again, with good facts.  Nice job.

 

Pete

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,520
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,032 posts
7,609 battles

I remember the last bit of information that's pertinent:  the amount of armour needed to arm the fuse (Fuse Arming Threshold).  This is the thickness of armour needed to cause a penetrating hit.  This is normally shell caliber divided by 6.

Nominal Fuse Arming Threshold for 152mm Guns:  25mm
British Fuse Arming Threshold for 152mm Guns:  12mm
American Fuse Arming Threshold for 203mm Guns: Standard for 203mm.  34mm.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×