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

The in-game 5"/38 HE shell is SAP shell rather than HC shell

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

I'm sure that people have brought this up before but I think it's worthwhile to bring it up again in a dedicated thread, as I so far haven't been able to find a lot of discussion about it other than a few passing comments here and there.

The HE shell that's used by the 5"/38 Mark 12 both as primaries and secondaries is listed in-game as the Mk 32, or "Common" shell. However, for all intents and purposes, the Mk 32 shell is actually a semi-armor piercing shell with a correspondingly low burster size of just 2.58 lbs, or 1.2 kg. You can see the characteristics here. This small burster has been used to justify giving the 5"/38 shell anemic fire chance of just 5%. Meanwhile, the HE shells for comparable caliber guns for other nations have larger buster size, such as the Japanese Common Type 1 with 4.86 lb (2.2 kg) burster or the Russian OF-46 with 7.89 lb (3.58 kg) burster.

However, the 5"/38 does have an actual HE shell, which are the Mk 34, 35, 47, 49, 52, 56 "Anti-Aircraft Common" (AAC) shells that are usually used for anti-air purposes when fitted with variable time fuses. You can read about their characteristics here. Because of this, some will attempt to dismiss these shells as not "true" HE shells for surface engagements. However, as Navweaps point out below:

Quote

AAC Mark 35 and Mark 49 projectile bodies could be used with Point Detonating (PD), Mechanical Time (MT) or with proximity (VT) nose fuzes. When issued with MT or VT fuzes they were considered as being AA rounds, but when issued with PD fuzes, they were considered to be HC rounds. Changing the fuze also resulted in slight changes in the total projectile weight and burster weight. For example, the Mark 35 with PD fuze weighed 54.3 lbs. (24.63 kg) total with a 7.55 lbs. (3.42 kg) burster.

As such, you can see that the gun in-game is missing its actual HE shell, which would be the Mk 35/49 AAC shells when used as "High Capacity" (HC) shells with PD fuse.

Now, as for how it factors into the game, I don't think the 5"/38 Mark 12 needs to use the Mk 35/49 AAC shell to gain an across-the-board fire chance buff. It would be rather ludicrous given how strong some USN DDs are, such as the Fletcher and Kidd. However, I think it's reasonable to consider this shell for USN ships using this weapon that are underperforming, such as Mahan. Furthermore, I think the 5"/38 Mark 12 secondaries can seriously use a bit of a buff especially on cruisers, since they are by far the most gimped secondaries in the entire game with rate of fire comically below what they would achieve at minimum (15 RPM). Again, that can be a case-by-case basis as well. If you really don't want to buff them on battleships (understandable concern), then just give them their actual Mk 28 mounts and keep the grossly nerfed rate of fire just on those mounts and give the Mk 32 mounts the proper rate of fire.

Edited by DeliciousFart
  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[KP]
Members
1,992 posts
18,368 battles
33 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

I'm sure that people have brought this up before but I think it's worthwhile to bring it up again in a dedicated thread, as I so far haven't been able to find a lot of discussion about it other than a few passing comments here and there.

The HE shell that's used by the 5"/38 Mark 12 both as primaries and secondaries is listed in-game as the Mk 32, or "Common" shell. However, for all intents and purposes, the Mk 32 shell is actually a semi-armor piercing shell with a correspondingly low burster size of just 2.58 lbs, or 1.2 kg. You can see the characteristics here. This small burster has been used to justify giving the 5"/38 shell anemic fire chance of just 5%. Meanwhile, the HE shells for comparable caliber guns for other nations have larger buster size, such as the Japanese Common Type 1 with 4.86 lb (2.2 kg) burster or the Russian OF-46 with 7.89 lb (3.58 kg) burster.

However, the 5"/38 does have an actual HE shell, which are the Mk 34, 35, 47, 49, 52, 56 "Anti-Aircraft Common" (AAC) shells that are usually used for anti-air purposes when fitted with variable time fuses. You can read about their characteristics here. Because of this, some will attempt to dismiss these shells as not "true" HE shells for surface engagements. However, as Navweaps point out below:

As such, you can see that the gun in-game is missing its actual HE shell, which would be the Mk 35/49 AAC shells when used as "High Capacity" (HC) shells.

Now, as for how it factors into the game, I don't think the 5"/38 Mark 12 needs to use the Mk 35/49 AAC shell to gain an across-the-board fire chance buff. It would be rather ludicrous given how strong some USN DDs are, such as the Fletcher and Kidd. However, I think it's reasonable to consider this shell for USN ships using this weapon that are underperforming, such as Mahan. Furthermore, I think the 5"/38 Mark 12 secondaries can seriously use a bit of a buff especially on cruisers, since they are by far the most gimped secondaries in the entire game with rate of fire comically below what they would achieve at minimum (15 RPM). Again, that can be a case-by-case basis as well. If you really don't want to buff them on battleships (understandable concern), then just give them their actual Mk 28 mounts and keep the grossly nerfed rate of fire just on those mounts and give the Mk 32 mounts the proper rate of fire.

Fart I can only give you one thumbs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[KP]
Members
1,992 posts
18,368 battles

I've said it before the complaint on US cruisers is they don't have any torps. Yet if the unnerffed the secondaries US cruiser flavor could be good secondaries or good AA now there is a conundrum do I take manual AA or Manual secondaries. Do I want to be a fly swatter? Or a DD stone cold killer? As it stands now US cruiser builds are pretty Brain Dead straight forward without much in the way of "Oh I better sacrifice this skill for another"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
469
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,879 battles

HE, AP, British AP, Torpedos, Air Dropped Torpedos, Bombs, AA Guns

 

How to cause more complaints in a game with a lot of complaints :cap_book:

Spoiler

:fish_boom:GOLD HE/AP ROUNDS!!!:fish_boom:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,301
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,336 posts
3,555 battles

There was a huge thread about this a while back, but always good to have a reminder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
504
[STW-M]
Supertester
1,453 posts
5,488 battles

Let's take this a different way since even the OP says buffing the fire chance it's a non starter. Fix the HE pen then!  1/4 HE pen on USN DD and 5"/38 secondaries!

Edited by UrPeaceKeeper
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts

I kind of assumed the Inertia Fuse for HE Shells Captain skill kind of crossed the bridge between HE and SAP.  SAP -- as you indicate -- isnt true AP (or actually APCBC).  SAP has armor piercing capability but not on par with full blown AP.  It doesnt have a big bursting charge like true HE.  

Inertia Fuse for HE Shells Captain skill isn't perhaps the correct terminology -- WG probably should of just called in SAP.  But it kind of fits the fill.  

Edited by Dr_Dirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,274
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,727 posts
9,432 battles
3 hours ago, Cobraclutch said:

There was a huge thread about this a while back, but always good to have a reminder. 

That would be my thread. Here it is in case people want to read it. 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[TURDS]
Members
552 posts
3,604 battles
4 hours ago, IronMike11B4O said:

Fart I can only give you one thumbs up.

^Concur

3 hours ago, IronMike11B4O said:

I've said it before the complaint on US cruisers is they don't have any torps. Yet if the unnerffed the secondaries US cruiser flavor could be good secondaries or good AA now there is a conundrum do I take manual AA or Manual secondaries. Do I want to be a fly swatter? Or a DD stone cold killer? As it stands now US cruiser builds are pretty Brain Dead straight forward without much in the way of "Oh I better sacrifice this skill for another"

Any DD should be wary of straying into 5"/38cal range.  Just extend DFAA effects to any selected target in secondary range. This give the cruiser driver the option to consider burning a DFAA in order to swat an opportunity target, to be counter balanced by the loss of that DFAA when the planes do show up because it's on cool down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
[C-HAG]
Members
481 posts
7,690 battles

Yes. We need historical accuracy 

how about give 5/38 guns historical fire chance and give USN torpedoes historical reliability?:Smile_playing:

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,274
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,727 posts
9,432 battles
2 minutes ago, Plaatduutsch said:

Yes. We need historical accuracy 

how about give 5/38 guns historical fire chance and give USN torpedoes historical reliability?:Smile_playing:

How about historical detonation danger for cruisers with torpedoes?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[TURDS]
Members
552 posts
3,604 battles
2 hours ago, Plaatduutsch said:

Yes. We need historical accuracy 

how about give 5/38 guns historical fire chance and give USN torpedoes historical reliability?:Smile_playing:

Unlike Val Kilmers' Doc Holiday; My hypocrisy knows few bounds & I am not afraid to cherry pick my hysterical facts, thank you. :Smile-_tongue:

2 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

How about historical detonation danger for cruisers with torpedoes?

Like cruisers need another means of going boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,301
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,336 posts
3,555 battles
3 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

That would be my thread. Here it is in case people want to read it. 

 

Thx I din't get a chance to look it up today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts
3 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

How about historical detonation danger for cruisers with torpedoes?

In the land of WoWs CAs with torpedoes seem to explode less frequently than USN CAs.  Not really well thought thru by WG -- but whatever.  

Edited by Dr_Dirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts
49 minutes ago, Curly__san said:

Like cruisers need another means of going boom.

what he is suggesting is that cruisers that don't carry torpedoes should have less of a chance of going boom (fun and engaging play! followed by 10 free flags).  its kinda the whole point in why the US Navy decided to remove torpedo launchers from its cruisers.  removal of a several thousand pounds of Torpex from a ships deck area and magazine would result in a reduction to spontaneous boom potential.  So like Tier 6 USN cruisers plus.  

Edited by Dr_Dirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
898
[LEGIO]
Members
2,956 posts
5,370 battles

They give the 5"/38 secondaries a gimped rate of fire, have it firing the wrong shells, and give it a miserably short range. Why not just make it shoot nerf darts WG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,493
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,788 posts
11 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

They give the 5"/38 secondaries a gimped rate of fire, have it firing the wrong shells, and give it a miserably short range. Why not just make it shoot nerf darts WG?

Isn’t that what they did?

The 5”/38 was a pretty fearsome weapon... but like many things about the US Navy... it got hammered by “game balance.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles
5 hours ago, UrPeaceKeeper said:

Let's take this a different way since even the OP says buffing the fire chance it's a non starter. Fix the HE pen then!  1/4 HE pen on USN DD and 5"/38 secondaries!

Yup, you'd think that SAP would give it some inherent penetration benefit over regular high capacity shells, like built-in IFHE. Even that is a bit too drastic of a buff though.

 

4 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

That would be my thread. Here it is in case people want to read it. 

 

 

I thought I saw it somewhere before though I didn't remember where. Thanks.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles

I can'r say for sure @DeliciousFart but is suspect the gimped USN secondaries are a holdover from the alpha to beta transition. In alpha secondaries where apparently full rnage and accuracy and consequently tended to out-amage main battery guns. That got changed in the transition to beta and i suspect WG;ing didn't back off from their hard "secondaires must be for show" stance until the KM BB's hit the conceptual stage. AT this point they're afraid to fiddle for fear of making USN stuff OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×