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

How does the Stanligrad have Modern 16" penetration

61 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

344
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,530 posts
3,526 battles

I was digging around WoWS Fitting Tool and took a look at the Stalingrad's penetration for its 305mm guns and I was absolutely stunned by the numbers, how does 305mm gun have the penetration of modern (WWII modern that is) 15 and 16" shells. How the hell does that work, I know Russian Bias is a joke but this is ridiculous. Here is a chart I made real quick just to prove it, these are ship 3 real ships with penetration figure that are pretty close to their real world tests and the 12" gun that reloads in 20 seconds some how beats them. I won't even bring Alaska into this with its actual real life modern 12" guns because they just don't compare

 

blank.thumb.png.3c4a92c3da6f66c8399460bfa061ec3b.png

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,398
[CUTE]
[CUTE]
Supertester
4,085 posts
4,098 battles

Muzzle velocity. Stalingrad's guns are pretty modern too (post war), not pre WW2 which I think you're presuming.

Edited by Cruiser_Noshiro
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[KNTI2]
[KNTI2]
Members
166 posts
8,155 battles

If the shell  is made with high quality metal as in durability and high velocity, then it has high penetration. Just take the force equation, F = ma. You can get a lot of force by mass but also acceleration.

Edited by AdmiralHattori
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,954 posts
3,551 battles

the 16" guns on the Iowa were designed in 1939

the 12" guns on stalingrad were designed in 1948

just because the caliber of the gun is larger doesnt mean there isnt more propellant or shell mass there. 45-70 may be a larger caliber than .338 lapua magnum, but the latter delivers more power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles

Because Paper Bulls**t scribbled onto a patch of toilet paper with whatever values the dartboard dictates says so.

 

So the Pen tables there for reals with the game?  And they gave this thing 2.65 Sigma?

:Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 4
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,954 posts
3,551 battles
16 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Because Paper Bulls**t scribbled onto a patch of toilet paper with whatever values the dartboard dictates says so.

 

So the Pen tables there for reals with the game?  And they gave this thing 2.65 Sigma?

:Smile_teethhappy:

the guns were made and tested.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[NGA-B]
Members
1,229 posts
7,662 battles
16 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

the guns were made and tested.

Made yes, but I have doubts about how thorough their testing was given that the prototype wasn't completed until after the ships were canceled.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,954 posts
3,551 battles
5 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Made yes, but I have doubts about how thorough their testing was given that the prototype wasn't completed until after the ships were canceled.

thats just not true. the guns were tested 49-51, and the project was cancelled in 53 after stalins death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,650
[INTEL]
Members
8,461 posts
25,360 battles
17 hours ago, Psycodiver said:

I was digging around WoWS Fitting Tool and took a look at the Stalingrad's penetration for its 305mm guns and I was absolutely stunned by the numbers, how does 305mm gun have the penetration of modern (WWII modern that is) 15 and 16" shells. How the hell does that work, I know Russian Bias is a joke but this is ridiculous. Here is a chart I made real quick just to prove it, these are ship 3 real ships with penetration figure that are pretty close to their real world tests and the 12" gun that reloads in 20 seconds some how beats them. I won't even bring Alaska into this with its actual real life modern 12" guns because they just don't compare

So glad I have stopped playing above T7. 2.65 Sigma + 20 second reload on guns with better penetration than WWII US BB guns. LOLOLOLOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,650
[INTEL]
Members
8,461 posts
25,360 battles
16 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

thats just not true. the guns were tested 49-51, and the project was cancelled in 53 after stalins death.

Wiki says:

 One barrel was completed in December 1953 for evaluation purposes after the ships were canceled earlier that year.[13]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,032
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,228 posts
6,433 battles
Just now, Taichunger said:

Wiki says:

 One barrel was completed in December 1953 for evaluation purposes after the ships were canceled earlier that year.[13]

" This gun was designed for the Stalingrad (Pr. 82) class battlecruisers. A prototype gun was built in 1948 and was tested from 1949 to 1951. 12 guns were built before the project was cancelled in 1953 after Stalin's death. "

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_12-62_m1948.php

57 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

And they gave this thing 2.65 Sigma?

That and the Graf Spee dispersion. Which means that overall the dispersion isn't as god-like as some people believe/claim.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[NGA-B]
Members
1,229 posts
7,662 battles
49 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

That and the Graf Spee dispersion. Which means that overall the dispersion isn't as god-like as some people believe/claim.

Tell that to the Musashi I saw lose 30k health earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,461 posts
3,211 battles

not entirely unheard of, look at the Alaska Class, their guns are 12" but i believe perform on par with the 14" guns of the New Mexico Class

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
241 posts
11 battles
14 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Tell that to the Musashi I saw lose 30k health earlier.

 

Moskva can also do that, while having better accuracy and higher AP DPM.

Should we make all ships pea-shooters, so Musashis can get away with showing their broadside/weakspot all day ?

Edited by Helmut__Kohl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[NGA-B]
Members
1,229 posts
7,662 battles
1 minute ago, Helmut__Kohl said:

 

Moskva can also do that with better accuracy and higher AP DPM.

Should we make all ships pea-shooters, so Musashis can get away with showing broadside all day ?

Except the Musashi was at least partially angled. And just for the record, the Stalin was on my team so I'm not being a sore loser or anything (a little bitter about how I'll likely never see that super camo for the Stalin sure and kind of annoyed that I didn't take advantage of the test server to earn the copper).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles
2 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

That and the Graf Spee dispersion. Which means that overall the dispersion isn't as god-like as some people believe/claim.

[edited].  WG gives the Graf Spee pattern as a "negative aspect" to the d*mn guns and then turn around and give it 2.65 f--king Sigma.  Seeing those shells come at me from long range, I call [edited] as if these guns are somehow inaccurate.

Edited by turbo07

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,032
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,228 posts
6,433 battles
1 hour ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Tell that to the Musashi I saw lose 30k health earlier.

And that disproves what I said how?

RNG is RNG, and will continue to be RNG. I played a match with Stalingrad yesterday, fired like 5 salvos against a Buffalo that was angled at 45° and less, no citadels. Against the Montana later which was Kind enough to Show broadside at 8km (Cyclone) I would then score one citadel per salvo. RNG at work.

39 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

[edited].  WG gives the Graf Spee pattern as a "negative aspect" to the d*mn guns and then turn around and give it 2.65 f--king Sigma.  Seeing those shells come at me from long range, I call [edited] as if these guns are somehow inaccurate.

Would you prefer it if they gave it Cruiser Dispersion and 2.05 Sigma? And I never said that These guns were inaccurate. I said that "the dispersion isn't as god-like as some people believe/claim". They are accurate. But not as accurate as People make them out to be based on one single number (you can guess which number).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
901
[LEGIO]
Members
2,964 posts
5,370 battles

There is no doubt those 12" guns would have been very high performance due to their extreme muzzle velocity. The 61 caliber length is quite impressive for a naval gun of that caliber. Of course the gun weighs 20 tons more than the 14"/45 caliber guns used by the KGV class for example.

Yet I do have doubts that it would rate up there with the US 16"/45 Mark 6 and the Italian 15"/50. Accuracy probably wouldn't have been all that impressive in reality either. And the barrel life? You'd need to reline the guns after one battle.

Then again the Russians also claim the 8.6" (220mm) guns on the Moskva would penetrate more armor than the 11" guns on the Scharnhorst class.

It's kinda sad that deck penetration is so worthless and ineffective in WoWS that nobody even tried to calculate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
241 posts
11 battles
1 hour ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Except the Musashi was at least partially angled.

You obviously don't know about the vulnerable frontal weakspot on Musashi/Yamato citadel.

Most Stalingrad owners will know that though...

 

Quote

And just for the record, the Stalin was on my team so I'm not being a sore loser or anything (a little bitter about how I'll likely never see that super camo for the Stalin sure and kind of annoyed that I didn't take advantage of the test server to earn the copper).

That copper was only to be earned on the PTS itself though...

Edited by Helmut__Kohl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[ARS]
Members
3 posts
115 battles

 

1 hour ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Except the Musashi was at least partially angled. And just for the record, the Stalin was on my team so I'm not being a sore loser or anything (a little bitter about how I'll likely never see that super camo for the Stalin sure and kind of annoyed that I didn't take advantage of the test server to earn the copper).

Partial angle in Musashi and Yamato means the same as no angle for parts of the citadel, take a look at the armor viewer, the front of the citadel under the turrets is octagonal, so once there is enough angle to get through the bow, which incidently, is widening right where the citadel starts, you have a relatively flat citadel armor to get into.

If a Yamato / Musashi can use the back turret, it can be citadelled easy if you can hit the right spot, which is just about between the turrets. That's why it's much easier to go straight bow on, in which case it's tanky as heck considering the deck armor, etc.


It somewhat hard to see in the below map, but that Yamato I trashed, was angled in, just not enough.

BestKurfurst_02_01_Broadside.jpg

Edited by Covenant_R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,951 posts
1,487 battles

Also like the 15" Italian and French shells they have excellent velocity retention. That very much works in their favour, (and for the Moskva to Scharnhorst comparison even more so as the KM 11" loses velocity ike crazy),

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
845
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,385 posts
7,979 battles

AdmiralHittori is right on the science aspect, Size/weight is about half the equation. As are materials.

 

But look at your own chart you have there, and you'll see the other drawback, and the science and all still at work. Lighter shell not cutting or forcing it's way through the air as well loses energy faster, and after 14 km loses penetration power faster than the others. 

And while it may be a bit dated, there is a series of charts on UK with multiple ships, which, I'll link at the bottom and generally appears to be accurate. Iowa seems to be pretty close to real life numbers I can find (and Montana shares the chart) between around 4km-18 km, then it seems it may be high and low on those respective ends. And has more pen still than the Stalingrad, at a way closer tier. That and the curve seems to be similar to Wyoming's albeit shifted upward a bit - another high velocity 305 mm gun system, just about 70 m/s slower and a slightly heavier shell. 

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/59528-armor-penetration-curves/

 

I'm not saying it likely isn't OP as hell. But when it comes to penetration, isn't really anything special. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,308
[CUTE]
Members
5,169 posts
3,436 battles
3 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

the 16" guns on the Iowa were designed in 1939

the 12" guns on stalingrad were designed in 1948

just because the caliber of the gun is larger doesnt mean there isnt more propellant or shell mass there. 45-70 may be a larger caliber than .338 lapua magnum, but the latter delivers more power. 

The mass on the lapua bullet would more than likely be heavier though. Bullet weights matter so much. .22 and .223 are pretty much identical by calibre but they couldn't perform more differently! 

I've got some 500 grain bullets for my 45-70 that I really would not want to get hit with either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
344
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,530 posts
3,526 battles
7 hours ago, AdmiralHattori said:

If the shell  is made with high quality metal as in durability and high velocity, then it has high penetration. Just take the force equation, F = ma. You can get a lot of force by mass but also acceleration.

This is coming from a nation during the same time period that couldn't make belt armor over 250mm because they didn't have the technological expertise nor the facilities because Stalin purged those people. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,858 posts
4,095 battles

made?yes.

tested?perhaps.

HIGH QUALITY?i don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×