Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
GSXstage1

Why bow is strong and side is weak on BB's

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

752
[TIGRB]
Members
782 posts
15,661 battles

Curious. I'm a big History on Military in General. Ive read many times about every naval battle since the building of HMS Dreadnaught in 1906. According to WOW a citadel is when a shell Penetrates to the inner parts of the ship and causes Major Damage or a Magazine explosion. If my Memory is correct No Battleship has ever been citadeled by a shell THROUGH their side armor and blown up. A bow hit like Prince of Wales inflicted on Bismarck went straight through and out the other side shows how weak the bow is. The Ships at Jutland that exploded not because of a citadel hit but by hits to the turrets and the mishandling of the powder bags and shells. HMS Hood was destroyed by Plunging fire through her thin deck. I cannot think of any Battleship ever being citadeled through her armor belt on the side. If I'm correct, The gane has it wrong. A citadel hit should only be through the bow heading bow first. Not the side. just MY humble opinion

Edited by GSXstage1
mistake
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

The simple answer is that Wargaming was lazy when developing the penetration and damage system for WoWs and basically just copied the armor system from WoT's and applied it hear. You'll get answers after mine that discuss range compression creating immunity zone issues ect, but the real short answer is laziness of taking the armor angling system from WoT's (which makes sense there) and applying it to Naval combat where it makes NO sense. This is most evident with bow on combat because the shells have no mass, and thus no momentum nor inertia. The reason that is important is shells are treated as an infinitely small singular point in WoWs for penetration purposes, and if that single point cannot penetrate the given armor, it has zero effect. In physics terms it treats all shell impacts as perfectly elastic, but even someone with Primary school physics knows that a 1-2 ton shell landing at ~300 m/s is never going to produce a perfectly elastic collision regardless of how thick the armor plate is. Thus damage that should come from an inelastic collision does not exist in game, and is why bow on combat works so well in WoWs and exactly why it was so dangerous in reality.

19 minutes ago, GSXstage1 said:

I cannot think of any Battleship ever being citadeled through her armor belt on the side

A number have been. Bismarck's wreck shows 4-5 (post-sinking damage has partially obscured some penetrations) main-belt penetrations, very obviously 16" Holes from Rodney. Kirishima suffered several belt penetrations from Washington. Warspite suffered 1 major stern-belt penetration at Jutland. At the same battle Warspite landed a hit (at about the same moment in fact) on FdG (a Konig class) that was a belt penetration but the fuse failed to arm and caused only spall damage. Valiant or Hood caused Bretanage to blow up after a shell penetrated her belt. So it happens, but typically only when the shell is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the ship was designed to counter (16", 15" guns vs. ships designed to take 15" to 13.5-14" shells)

 

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
933
[BNKR]
Members
1,520 posts
1,914 battles

You think battleships are campy now? Eliminate the risk of citadel hits when broadside and battleships will turn 90° at the start of a match and never move again. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,767
[WOLFG]
Members
26,774 posts
6,791 battles
1 minute ago, GSXstage1 said:

I cannot think of any Battleship ever being citadeled through her armor belt on the side. 

The problem is not the mechanic itself. Shells do have the pen to get through belt armor under the proper conditions.

The issue is frequency. Not only do you see more BB vs. BB engagements in a single gaming session than occurred in the entire 20th century, each one of those engagements features BBs that hit 10x as often.

Also,what in-game guns typically have as max range is where their RL counterparts began encountering "immunity zones".

If we fought fewer battles, hit a lot less often, and fought at the ranges where shells hit the belt armor at a less flat angle, it would be more in tune with RL.

IOW, it's not the penetration mechanics that are at fault, it's the parameters they start with. Those unhistoric parameters are necessary, because unlike in RL, we don't want the norm to be shooting from 20+km, and getting a maximum of 6-10 hits per game.

And even that low number  assumes guns firing every 30 seconds, and a match that goes the full 20 minutes. Use an average length match, with a typical rate of rounds fired, you'd be looking at roughly 3-5 hits per game. If that's what BBs typically did, then you'd see citadel hits more in line with history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
497
[XG]
Members
315 posts
3,163 battles
4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

The simple answer is that Wargaming was lazy when developing the penetration and damage system for WoWs and basically just copied the armor system from WoT's and applied it hear. You'll get answers after mine that discuss range compression creating immunity zone issues ect, but the real short answer is laziness of taking the armor angling system from WoT's (which makes sense there) and applying it to Naval combat where it makes NO sense. This is most evident with bow on combat because the shells have no mass, and thus no momentum nor inertia. The reason that is important is shells are treated as an infinitely small singular point in WoWs for penetration purposes, and if that single point cannot penetrate the given armor, it has zero effect. In physics terms it treats all shell impacts as perfectly elastic, but even someone with Primary school physics knows that a 1-2 ton shell landing at ~300 m/s is never going to produce a perfectly elastic collision regardless of how thick the armor plate is. Thus damage that should come from an inelastic collision does not exist in game, and is why bow on combat works so well in WoWs and exactly why it was so dangerous in reality.

 

Exactly this. WOWS is WOT on water (with a dash of WOWP since the rework).

It would not be unreasonable to suppose that WG figured their initial market for Warships would come from their huge Tanks community, and adopted this mechanic to make them feel comfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,882
[HINON]
Privateers, Privateers
6,798 posts
4,837 battles

BTW you are incorrect about Hood, at the distances the engagement took place it was impossible for Bismarck to have plunging fire through Hood's deck, which actually was pretty decent. No, Bismarck penetrated Hood's belt.

 

KGV and Rodney also penetrated Bismarck's belt armor, however due to her armor scheme, could not penetrate the citadel, and that was why Bismarck took such a pummeling, yet couldn't sink her. It was only when the crew scuttled her, did she finally sink.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
752
[TIGRB]
Members
782 posts
15,661 battles
11 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

The simple answer is that Wargaming was lazy when developing the penetration and damage system for WoWs and basically just copied the armor system from WoT's and applied it hear. You'll get answers after mine that discuss range compression creating immunity zone issues ect, but the real short answer is laziness of taking the armor angling system from WoT's (which makes sense there) and applying it to Naval combat where it makes NO sense. This is most evident with bow on combat because the shells have no mass, and thus no momentum nor inertia. The reason that is important is shells are treated as an infinitely small singular point in WoWs for penetration purposes, and if that single point cannot penetrate the given armor, it has zero effect. In physics terms it treats all shell impacts as perfectly elastic, but even someone with Primary school physics knows that a 1-2 ton shell landing at ~300 m/s is never going to produce a perfectly elastic collision regardless of how thick the armor plate is. Thus damage that should come from an inelastic collision does not exist in game, and is why bow on combat works so well in WoWs and exactly why it was so dangerous in reality.

A number have been. Bismarck's wreck shows 4-5 (post-sinking damage has partially obscured some penetrations) main-belt penetrations, very obviously 16" Holes from Rodney. Kirishima suffered several belt penetrations from Washington. Warspite suffered 1 major stern-belt penetration at Jutland. At the same battle Warspite landed a hit (at about the same moment in fact) on FdG (a Konig class) that was a belt penetration but the fuse failed to arm and caused only spall damage. Valiant or Hood caused Bretanage to blow up after a shell penetrated her belt. So it happens, but typically only when the shell is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the ship was designed to counter (16", 15" guns vs. ships designed to take 15" to 13.5-14" shells)

 

Missing my point. They did not explode. The Magazine stayed intact. Kirishima was a Battlecruiser. They later reclassified her as a BB but by WW2 she again was considered a BC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,181
[KWF]
Members
3,823 posts
5,588 battles
9 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Snip.

Dunno if I would attribute it all to laziness. A big part of the game mechanics revolves around "magic" values that assist in balancing. One is the extremity armour and overmatch. Another are the Krupp values given to guns. Murmansk, the Omaha clone has close to the AP penetration of Chapayev because reasons. Personally the best thing to do is completely disregard any semblance of realism when it comes to these things at least.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
752
[TIGRB]
Members
782 posts
15,661 battles
1 minute ago, Doomlock said:

BTW you are incorrect about Hood, at the distances the engagement took place it was impossible for Bismarck to have plunging fire through Hood's deck, which actually was pretty decent. No, Bismarck penetrated Hood's belt.

 

KGV and Rodney also penetrated Bismarck's belt armor, however due to her armor scheme, could not penetrate the citadel, and that was why Bismarck took such a pummeling, yet couldn't sink her. It was only when the crew scuttled her, did she finally sink.

Wrong sir...wrong. Hoods belt was not hit. Look again and read. Plunging fire. And Hood was a BC, Not a BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
870
[A-D]
Beta Testers, Alpha Tester
2,638 posts
33 minutes ago, GSXstage1 said:

Curious. I'm a big History on Military in General. Ive read many times about every naval battle since the building of HMS Dreadnaught in 1906. According to WOW a citadel is when a shell Penetrates to the inner parts of the ship and causes Major Damage or a Magazine explosion. If my Memory is correct No Battleship has ever been citadeled by a shell THROUGH their side armor and blown up. A bow hit like Prince of Wales inflicted on Bismarck went straight through and out the other side shows how weak the bow is. The Ships at Jutland that exploded not because of a citadel hit but by hits to the turrets and the mishandling of the powder bags and shells. HMS Hood was destroyed by Plunging fire through her thin deck. I cannot think of any Battleship ever being citadeled through her armor belt on the side. If I'm correct, The gane has it wrong. A citadel hit should only be through the bow heading bow first. Not the side. just MY humble opinion

It's basically 2 things

1. World of Warships doesn't model internal compartment damage, so a shell going in lengthwise is the same damage than one cutting through the broadside

2. Ship artillery in World of Warships is far, far more accurate than their historical counterparts. This means you have to count on armor taking direct hits more often, instead of hoping the occasional but unlikely hit is mitigated. This also means minimizing a ship's profile is proportionately (ie a lot) more effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
110 posts
30 minutes ago, GSXstage1 said:

Curious. I'm a big History on Military in General. Ive read many times about every naval battle since the building of HMS Dreadnaught in 1906. According to WOW a citadel is when a shell Penetrates to the inner parts of the ship and causes Major Damage or a Magazine explosion. If my Memory is correct No Battleship has ever been citadeled by a shell THROUGH their side armor and blown up. A bow hit like Prince of Wales inflicted on Bismarck went straight through and out the other side shows how weak the bow is. The Ships at Jutland that exploded not because of a citadel hit but by hits to the turrets and the mishandling of the powder bags and shells. HMS Hood was destroyed by Plunging fire through her thin deck. I cannot think of any Battleship ever being citadeled through her armor belt on the side. If I'm correct, The gane has it wrong. A citadel hit should only be through the bow heading bow first. Not the side. just MY humble opinion

Hell if you want to complain about historical accuracy in this game just start at the disbursion of the guns.  It always makes me laugh when people want to compare things in this game to history, it's an arcade style game.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,767
[WOLFG]
Members
26,774 posts
6,791 battles
19 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

The simple answer is that Wargaming was lazy when developing the penetration and damage system for WoWs and basically just copied the armor system from WoT's and applied it hear. You'll get answers after mine that discuss range compression creating immunity zone issues ect, but the real short answer is laziness of taking the armor angling system from WoT's (which makes sense there) and applying it to Naval combat where it makes NO sense. This is most evident with bow on combat because the shells have no mass, and thus no momentum nor inertia. The reason that is important is shells are treated as an infinitely small singular point in WoWs for penetration purposes, and if that single point cannot penetrate the given armor, it has zero effect. In physics terms it treats all shell impacts as perfectly elastic, but even someone with Primary school physics knows that a 1-2 ton shell landing at ~300 m/s is never going to produce a perfectly elastic collision regardless of how thick the armor plate is. Thus damage that should come from an inelastic collision does not exist in game, and is why bow on combat works so well in WoWs and exactly why it was so dangerous in reality.

Simple answer maybe, but to the wrong question.

The OP was asking why ships take more damage under a particular circumstance in-game, and you're explaining why they take less

No worries though, it's a typical thing for engineers.

I remember once, having drinks with a friend who's an architectural engineer. I recited the riddle "As I was going to St. Ives", and he spent a good 10 minutes complaining that it was unrealistic for each child to be carrying seven cats, as their squirming would make it all but impossible to make any progress along the road.

He also asked me if the road were dirt, gravel, or paved......

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
22 minutes ago, Xidax_Gamer said:

It would not be unreasonable to suppose that WG figured their initial market for Warships would come from their huge Tanks community, and adopted this mechanic to make them feel comfortable.

I actually doubt that was the reason: I think it's far simplier laziness. They had a physics model and penetration engine. It works fine. Just apply it ships. Problem is the penetration mechanics of a 10 kg shell and that of a 300 kg shell are not the same as things like inelastic collisions start to matter more (whereas both in reality and in WoT's (and WT to be fair) you can treat the light shell impacts from/on tanks as perfectly elastic). You may not PENETRATE an armor plate, but you may CRUSH it which has the same net effect (this was seen by SoDak at 2ndNBoGC and evidenced on Bismarck's wreck where those 16" Shells from Rodney that didn't pen, simply bent the plates enough to buckle their welds). WoWs totally omits this because it would necessitate a far more complex damage, penetration, and ballasitics model, as things like armor *strength* and hardness (not just thickness) would start to matter, as well as internal framing and mountings (this is something, that for me, as a ship builder, drives me nuts, as ships are a lot more than muzzle velocities, shell diameter, and armor thickness).

18 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

KGV and Rodney also penetrated Bismarck's belt armor, however due to her armor scheme, could not penetrate the citadel, and that was why Bismarck took such a pummeling, yet couldn't sink her. It was only when the crew scuttled her, did she finally sink.

Bismarck's wreck shows 4-5 belt penetrations and eyewitnesses from the Germans confirmed at least 2 of her machine spaces were blown out by those penetrations prior to sinking (it's what caused her to lose main power and why her last surviving Main Battery turret/director finally shut down), meaning that it penned both the turtleback and the belt.

stbdbow9b.jpg

 

17 minutes ago, GSXstage1 said:

Missing my point. They did not explode. The Magazine stayed intact. Kirishima was a Battlecruiser. They later reclassified her as a BB but by WW2 she again was considered a BC. 

Couple things: 1, and I know this is being a stickler, but in a HISTORICALLY framed argument, it matters, the proper abbreviation is CC, not BC; CC stands for Cruiser, Capital, which is what a Battlecruiser is and is what the USN Hull Classification system refers to Battlecruisers as, CC-1 Lexington, CC-2 Saratoga, ect(that's why we don't abreviate Battleship as B.S., it's BB, or Heavy Cruisers HC).

2. That's only partially true of Hood (it is true, mostly, of Kirishima though, she had hybrid framing as did HMS Tiger which was likewise more durable than most CC's). Hood went through SEVERAL design changes, and this get's into specific shipbuilding THINGS that will bore you, but the way a Battlecruiser is built, framed, supported, ect, is different than a Battleship. It's a sea keeping/strength thing. The Admiral Class actually started as *battleships* that were just improved Queen Elizabeths. Most of those features made it through to the BUILT HMS Hood, so internally and structurally, she's a Battleship. And she also had the BELT armor of a Battleship, not a Battlecruiser (thicker than some SUBSEQUENT Battleships). So it is a FAIR comparison to bring up Hood.

Also, also, the Bretenage, decidedly a Post Dreadnought battleship, DID blow up when she had her belt penetrated by 15" shells from either Hood or Valiant (PROBABLY Hood, but there is still dispute).

And also, also also,

18 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

No, Bismarck penetrated Hood's belt.

*Upper* Belt. There is a difference, as at the same ranges, angle of decent, velocity, she could not have penetrated Hood's *lower* belt either.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
2 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

The OP was asking why ships take more damage under a particular circumstance in-game, and you're explaining why they take less

Except if you read the title, it's not; reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

He asked: "Why is the bow strong and the side is weak." The answer is the 1:1 copy of the penetration mechanics from WoTs where flat surfaces are more vulnerable as the entire penetration system is built around armor thickness, and thus angles highly effect thickness, thus a bow (angular by nature) is thicker than the belt. And the REASON this is unrealistic is, as I said, that in real life there's this thing called inertia and momentum, which on a 2000 lb shell will effect not just the ability to punch a HOLE in a plate, but if it shatters or crushes that plate (fyi this is a major issue with Japanese and Russian plate armor, that typically was extremely brittle and would crack due to inertia transfer).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,174
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
8,975 posts
7,897 battles
11 minutes ago, GSXstage1 said:

Wrong sir...wrong. Hoods belt was not hit. Look again and read. Plunging fire. And Hood was a BC, Not a BB.

Bismarck fired her lethal salvo at a range of ~17,000 yards. At 17k yards Bismarck‘s guns could at max penetrate 2.1 inches of deck armor.

Considering that the shell had to go through some side armor first, and would then hit the 3 inch thick magazine deck, I call doubt on Bismarck plunging through her deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,053 posts
5,108 battles
31 minutes ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

You think battleships are campy now? Eliminate the risk of citadel hits when broadside and battleships will turn 90° at the start of a match and never move again. 

I would love that in my shima and asashio:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
83
[TASC]
Members
352 posts
8,837 battles

as someone who has been in on the making of several games both tank and warship and most of them not computer games,

1 WG used the tank damage and armour model. the over match and all the rest are just numbers for them to play with. ships BB  for sure ( lol ) didn't fire forward as it would damage and maybe set fire to the deck and bow of the ship. there is a lot of muzzle blast from those guns. 

2 check out the IJN naval page it has a link to how naval shells work. the short answer is even with compression of ground ( sea? ) scale and time the way the ships armour set ups were done there would be more pens with little damage as the US to take one had an outer light armour and a belt behind it. so AP shells would be stripped of the AP cap and not pen as well. you may get a hole in the armour but the shell fail to go BOOM or just get spalling.  WG went with most of the ships having a belt on the outside and beat that you are good. 

3 accuracy, radar fire control was getting hits on target by shot 3 at iron bottom sound ( Neptune's Inferno ) it isn't so  much we hit more as the ships take more hits to stop. when ships took 8" shells parts went away and never came back. that isn't modeled in game at all. 

i still have to fight to not run the ship as she was made to be run even now 3 years later. oh well. 

take care all and have some fun 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
29 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

Bismarck fired her lethal salvo at a range of ~17,000 yards. At 17k yards Bismarck‘s guns could at max penetrate 2.1 inches of deck armor.

Considering that the shell had to go through some side armor first, and would then hit the 3 inch thick magazine deck, I call doubt on Bismarck plunging through her deck.

While I agree, you are wrong about why you are right, and this is the inherent problem of with historians not knowing anything about materials science: you don't have to penetrate a plate, you just have to crush it to open it up and it's a totally different type of 'strength' involved, and fissure, then a straight hole being blown through something.

So, specifically, metal has several characteristics: Hardness, Ductility, Elastic Stiffness, plasticity, strain, strength, toughness, visoelasticity, and viscosity. Each one of those has subheadings such as indentation hardness, yield strength, compressability, tensile strength ect.

Now a metal can be VERY hard and Strong, but have no ductility nor visoelasticity (this is the case for example, of Japanese armor plates circa 1920-1935). Such a plate will likely not allow a penetration, but it will likely bend open off it's supports when suffering an impact stress. Likewise it will be highly compressible which will assist the bend. As a result an impacting body may 'push past' the armor and still arm and detonate behind it (an incorrect but somewhat applicable visual metaphor would be a shell hitting water doesn't penetrate the water as much as it pushes past it (the reason this is 'wrong' is water is not compressible for all intents and purposes)).

Now in WoWs case, all of that is ignored. Armor has exactly 1 value: Thickness (dependent on angle). Shells sort of have a hardness factor (Krupp), although it does not seem to correlate to any real-world physical dimension and essentially a fudge-factor amalgamation of ductility, hardness, and strain. As a result, realistic penetration mechanics do not make sense. For example specifically, a SHS Mk8 shell from a USN BB should be able to penetrate the same 32mm bows as the 18.1" shells from Yamato/Musashi as what they lack in diameter/velocity, they are MORE Than making up for in hardness, mass, toughness, and plasticity (lack thereof).

And this is why those penetration tables are often of dubious merit, as the calculations behind them are non-exhaustive and ignore many features present in steel (much of which was not understood until the 1960's). The only penetration values of worth are ones gotten empirically and still only apply to THAT specific target plate, so for example, Rodney's penetration of Bismarcks belt would not NECESSARILY yield the same type of result on even a thinner Japanese plate.

This is why I have said in the past, World of Warships has about as much in common with reality as Star Wars does. It's just a different coat of paint.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
854 posts
14,046 battles

In real life gunnery most ships were pretty solid shots at deflection (leading the target). Where most of the misses occurred was in overs and shorts. That is not the case in WoWS.

A bow on ship in real life was a much longer target and would be hit more often in most engagements. Since you have a better chance of not being hit being broadside....and that lets more of your guns shoot...there ya go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,570
[FEM]
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
2,251 posts
14,922 battles

Heyo Captains,

An interesting discussion we have here. It's great to see so many of you guys interested in the historical properties of our ships and game. While we strive to reflect as much history as possible in the game there are some obvious limitations that need to be made to ensure the fun and play-ability of the game as a whole. As RagingxMarmoset noted, reflecting complete historical combat could make some pretty stale game play.  

Thank you for your feedback,

Fem, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[A-CUP]
Members
1,022 posts
8,156 battles
3 minutes ago, Femennenly said:

Heyo Captains,

An interesting discussion we have here. It's great to see so many of you guys interested in the historical properties of our ships and game. While we strive to reflect as much history as possible in the game there are some obvious limitations that need to be made to ensure the fun and play-ability of the game as a whole. As RagingxMarmoset noted, reflecting complete historical combat could make some pretty stale game play.  

Thank you for your feedback,

Fem, 

I bet shooting guns without any indicator UI will result in 80% miss. Makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,167
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
12 minutes ago, Femennenly said:

reflecting complete historical combat could make some pretty stale game play.  

I agree in principle, however, there would be equally simplistic ways to make the game dynamic without needing to account for materials properties nor even immunity zones. Frankly it could have been as simple as changing how and where the citadel takes damage, removing armor thresholds and replacing them with %modifiers (so, for example, a shot that strikes an angled section does 20% damage, a shell that strikes an unangled section 100%, for example). I'd argue for MOST players, it isn't so much a lack of REALISM that they bemoan as frankly, most of them do not know what realistic actually looks like, but rather the cognitive dissonance associated with how the damage is dealt out.

I would be surprised if the vast, vast VAST majority of WoWs players do not have at least a DEGREE of knowledge and interest in early 20th Century Naval Combat, and there is an entering expectation on how it should work, and when that expectation is not met, there's a conflict and that somewhat poisons the well. If sitting broadside in a BB reduced damage rather than enhanced it, there are ways to make a fair, still unrealistic, but fair, damage model work (and not be overly complex either) that would be far less confusing or 'off feeling' than the current system.

Personally, if it were up to me, I would do away with overpens, bounces, and shatters and citadels; all shells do damage to all parts of all ships at all times, but there's a %modifier based on where it hits and the size/bursting/type of shell. So a 152mm AP shell strike an NC's 305mm belt at any angle? That does only 5% of it's maximum damage (or less at extreme angles). But that same shell strike the super structure (90 degrees)? Does 100%. 45 degree super structure? Maybe 50%. This also opens up more balancing options and national flavors, and the best part is, you haven't actually changed the armor model or the shell characteristics much, just a new check line and a removal of the old.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
817 posts
9,071 battles

well,just to make 1 point clear(or rather not clear) , there is no certainty on the exact cause of the destruction of the Hood.... Some even say it could have been  the Prinz Eugen, or the 4th salvo of the Bismarck, and the projectile could have been go thru ,or under,or above the armor belt,in the vicinity of Hood`s main mast.....NOBODY GONNA EVER KNOW for certain ,,,,   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
817 posts
9,071 battles

the Admiralty`s conclusion boils down to this: 

That the sinking of the HOOD was due to a hit from BISMARCK's 15-in shell in or adjacent to HOOD's 4-in or 15-in magazines, causing them all to explode and wreck the after part of the ship. The probability is that the 4-in magazines exploded first.

As to that shell how exactly reached the magazines,,,just speculation.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,324
[NERO]
Members
3,630 posts

Pretty sure no one's actually been killed in combat by a knife being thrown over a building and bouncing off a roof before falling into someone's head either but I've seen some wild kill cams from FPS games based on settings, events and guns that existed in real life. 

WoWS isn't a sim. Don't expect it to behave like real life. If it did, we would mostly be shelling shore targets and not engaging in so much ship to ship artillery anyway. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×