Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
07Beast109

Crossing the T

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3
[LFD]
[LFD]
Members
26 posts
4,947 battles

Can the naval tactic crossing the T work in world of warships? Has any teams tried to perform the tactic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[INR]
Members
1,224 posts
4,060 battles

It absolutely does not work. In fact, WoWs actively punishes Crossing the T because your citadel is 110% exposed to enemy fire.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
384
[KAPPA]
Members
1,369 posts
6,350 battles

Are they reloading? Temporarily, if you can overmatch their bow plating.

Are you a DD? If you have enough health and torps ready.

Are their guns too small to cit you? Usually, yes. Most cruiser's Ts can be crossed by a BB, and DDs Ts can be crossed by many cruisers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[INR]
Members
1,224 posts
4,060 battles
5 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

 DDs Ts can be crossed by many cruisers.

Know your enemy. A lot of DDs at close range can citadel cruisers, especially the IJN 10cm guns. I've also citadeled an Alldestroyer (GK) with Zaya (Zao) during Space Battles.

Crossing the T does not work as a battle formation and should not be attempted by a team. Full stop.

Edited by WuYixiang
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
384
[KAPPA]
Members
1,369 posts
6,350 battles
Just now, WuYixiang said:

Know your enemy. A lot of DDs at close range can citadel cruisers, especially the IJN 10cm guns. I've also citadeled an Alldestroyer (GK) with Zaya (Zao) during Space Battles.

Was why I added "many" and "most". I'm well aware of how hard a DD can cit a cruiser, as I'm pretty sure I managed a dev strike on a poor Marblehead in my Okhotnik before. If it wasn't a dev strike, it was on the cusp. XD So many cits in 2-3 salvos... Was the start of the match, too!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
908
[VW]
Members
2,927 posts
15,469 battles
1 hour ago, 07Beast109 said:

Can the naval tactic crossing the T work in world of warships? Has any teams tried to perform the tactic?

In game the tactic works for the side who would have been sunk in reality. This is because the game ignores reality and naval tactics by supposing that the heaviest armored parts of ships are the most vulnerable to incoming fire. As a side note look at the absolute absence of rhe single most relevant map: ocean.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
15 posts
4,226 battles
12 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

In game the tactic works for the side who would have been sunk in reality. This is because the game ignores reality and naval tactics by supposing that the heaviest armored parts of ships are the most vulnerable to incoming fire. As a side note look at the absolute absence of rhe single most relevant map: ocean.

a) It works the way it does in-game almost entirely because of wg's made-up autobounce mechanic. 

b) Citadels are the most heavily-armored part of a ship precisely because they are the most vulnerable. In theory, they are supposed to be buoyant enough to keep the entire ship afloat. In other words, not only do they contain all vital machinery/ammunition, the ship also literally cannot be sunk (ideally) unless the citadel is flooded.  They can still be neutralized, but as long as they're above water, it's impossible to know whether or not an opposing ship will be repaired to a state where it can function.

c) Ocean is almost completely irrelevant historically. Find a single example of a battle between surface ships which was engaged out of sight of land. I'll be waiting. The reason this didn't happen is quite simple: the ocean is big People won't see each other unless they're in the same part of it. The only way that's likely to happen is if they're both near the same landmark (ie: an island/island chain).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
384
[KAPPA]
Members
1,369 posts
6,350 battles
7 minutes ago, M0nkE said:

a) It works the way it does in-game almost entirely because of wg's made-up autobounce mechanic. 

b) Citadels are the most heavily-armored part of a ship precisely because they are the most vulnerable. In theory, they are supposed to be buoyant enough to keep the entire ship afloat. In other words, not only do they contain all vital machinery/ammunition, the ship also literally cannot be sunk (ideally) unless the citadel is flooded.  They can still be neutralized, but as long as they're above water, it's impossible to know whether or not an opposing ship will be repaired to a state where it can function.

c) Ocean is almost completely irrelevant historically. Find a single example of a battle between surface ships which was engaged out of sight of land. I'll be waiting. The reason this didn't happen is quite simple: the ocean is big People won't see each other unless they're in the same part of it. The only way that's likely to happen is if they're both near the same landmark (ie: an island/island chain).

So... ocean being so rare is fairly accurate? Huh. Funny how that works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
908
[VW]
Members
2,927 posts
15,469 battles
1 hour ago, M0nkE said:

a) It works the way it does in-game almost entirely because of wg's made-up autobounce mechanic. 

b) Citadels are the most heavily-armored part of a ship precisely because they are the most vulnerable. In theory, they are supposed to be buoyant enough to keep the entire ship afloat. In other words, not only do they contain all vital machinery/ammunition, the ship also literally cannot be sunk (ideally) unless the citadel is flooded.  They can still be neutralized, but as long as they're above water, it's impossible to know whether or not an opposing ship will be repaired to a state where it can function.

c) Ocean is almost completely irrelevant historically. Find a single example of a battle between surface ships which was engaged out of sight of land. I'll be waiting. The reason this didn't happen is quite simple: the ocean is big People won't see each other unless they're in the same part of it. The only way that's likely to happen is if they're both near the same landmark (ie: an island/island chain).

You were doing well until c. I’ll let you do your own reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,028
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,310 posts
5,249 battles

There is exactly one ship that I know of where Crossing the T is useful and somewhat encouraged: Mikasa. Once you get in close enough for her secondaries (her REAL firepower) to open up you're going to want to expose as many of them as possible plus her two main turrets. That means sailing broadside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,385
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
7,028 posts
17,169 battles

@07Beast109 Hardly. Try getting a team to form a line of battle. Go ahead try it and get back to us with a few replays.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[LFD]
[LFD]
Members
26 posts
4,947 battles

Thanks for the responses fellow Captains!!! I thought maybe Jingles, Notster or Flambass might have gotten it to work with team play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,994
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,904 posts
12,193 battles
6 hours ago, M0nkE said:

c) Ocean is almost completely irrelevant historically. Find a single example of a battle between surface ships which was engaged out of sight of land. I'll be waiting. The reason this didn't happen is quite simple: the ocean is big People won't see each other unless they're in the same part of it. The only way that's likely to happen is if they're both near the same landmark (ie: an island/island chain). 

Are you joking?

Distances from nearest land in nautical miles:

Battle of the Denmark Strait - 224
Sinking of Bismarck - 280
Second Battle of Sirte - 160
Battle of Calabria - 60
Battle of the North Cape - 85
Battle of the Barents Sea - 131
Duisburg Convoy - 108
Battle of the Java Sea - 56 (moved closer inshore later)
Sydney v. Kormoran - 110
Battle off Samar - 58

Yamato's (for instance) rangefinder is about 30m above the sea surface, from there you could see a flat horizon about 11 nautical miles away. A mountain you could see from further. Best case also depends on weather, light and other visibility factors.

The sea is very big, the area of which you're in-sight of land is pretty small and the area in which land will be a constraint is also small. There were plenty of actions far, far offshore. The inshore US-Japan fights off Guadalcanal were more the exception than the rule.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
15 posts
4,226 battles
9 hours ago, mofton said:

Are you joking?

Distances from nearest land in nautical miles:

Battle of the Denmark Strait - 224
Sinking of Bismarck - 280
Second Battle of Sirte - 160
Battle of Calabria - 60
Battle of the North Cape - 85
Battle of the Barents Sea - 131
Duisburg Convoy - 108
Battle of the Java Sea - 56 (moved closer inshore later)
Sydney v. Kormoran - 110
Battle off Samar - 58

Yamato's (for instance) rangefinder is about 30m above the sea surface, from there you could see a flat horizon about 11 nautical miles away. A mountain you could see from further. Best case also depends on weather, light and other visibility factors.

The sea is very big, the area of which you're in-sight of land is pretty small and the area in which land will be a constraint is also small. There were plenty of actions far, far offshore. The inshore US-Japan fights off Guadalcanal were more the exception than the rule.

Well, I stand (very) thoroughly corrected. I'll show myself to the door, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[W_K_A]
Members
107 posts
709 battles

Crossing the T only really worked in the age of sail when you had to pretty much be point blank to score a hit, Jutland, and Tsushima for example where the T was crossed, involved ships firing many miles away, and in terms of the game if you attempt it you're exposing your weak side armor, and don't forget ships like the Nelson, Dunkerque, Richelieu, and Izumo,  all have their entire main armament mounted on the bow so that alone negates the purpose of crossing the T which was to make sure your enemy could only fire his forward guns 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[HUNGS]
Members
1,707 posts
3,603 battles

It COULD work if there wasn't something called teamwork in this game, having all your ships in a line firing on 1 ship at a time would be devastating. Instead this is a every man for themselves type game so its a no go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,823 posts
6,734 battles
On 4/25/2019 at 9:39 AM, mofton said:

Are you joking?

Distances from nearest land in nautical miles:

Battle of the Denmark Strait - 224
Sinking of Bismarck - 280
Second Battle of Sirte - 160
Battle of Calabria - 60
Battle of the North Cape - 85
Battle of the Barents Sea - 131
Duisburg Convoy - 108
Battle of the Java Sea - 56 (moved closer inshore later)
Sydney v. Kormoran - 110
Battle off Samar - 58

Yamato's (for instance) rangefinder is about 30m above the sea surface, from there you could see a flat horizon about 11 nautical miles away. A mountain you could see from further. Best case also depends on weather, light and other visibility factors.

The sea is very big, the area of which you're in-sight of land is pretty small and the area in which land will be a constraint is also small. There were plenty of actions far, far offshore. The inshore US-Japan fights off Guadalcanal were more the exception than the rule.

Do you have a source for those numbers?

i do think the number of open ocean surface fights probably did increase when naval aviation became a thing because scout planes could get high enough to see large distances, but even finding an entire battle group in a sea like the Med would be lucky if you didn’t know when they were leaving and their exact route and speed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,823 posts
6,734 battles

Off the top of my head the battles for Santiago, Manila, and guadal canal were all within sight of land. Large portions of land no less.

 

im at work but it probably wouldn’t be hard to find an approximately even number of naval battles within sight of land during the age of battleships...

 

kunfunda bay, was fought in a harbor or just outside of one.

battle of Lemnos I’d wager money occurred in sight of land

Battle of Elli most likely was in sight of land

Battle of Coronel sounds like it was within sight of land

battle of cocos almost certainly occurred in sight of land

Battle of Dover straits 1916 probably could see land

battle of Dover Strait 1917 probably could see land 

There’s a total of 10 naval battles that  were I either know for a fact occurred in sight of land, or were very likely conducted in sight of land, to match your 10.

 

 

 

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,994
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,904 posts
12,193 battles
18 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

Do you have a source for those numbers?

i do think the number of open ocean surface fights probably did increase when naval aviation became a thing because scout planes could get high enough to see large distances, but even finding an entire battle group in a sea like the Med would be lucky if you didn’t know when they were leaving and their exact route and speed.

I looked them up by position, then bunged them into Google Earth and used the measure tool to find the closest point of land, give or take.

For instance Bismarck has a recorded sinking position here. Which seems sensible given the general map here.

Put it in like so:

9oPGRhp.png

I was either incorrect or used a different position in the first round as that's at about 320nm instead of 280nm. Oops, at least it's further offshore. Same methodology for most of the others, some eyeballing off relative position maps in which case I was conservative.

The original criteria sparking my response was 'out of sight of land' which plenty of battles were. Heck even Jutland in WWI was pretty far offshore, 60 nautical miles for instance for the loss of Invincible:

AEFueHMg.png

There were certainly battles within sight of land during WWII, but they were far from a monopoly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,823 posts
6,734 battles
14 minutes ago, mofton said:

I looked them up by position, then bunged them into Google Earth and used the measure tool to find the closest point of land, give or take.

For instance Bismarck has a recorded sinking position here. Which seems sensible given the general map here.

Put it in like so:

9oPGRhp.png

I was either incorrect or used a different position in the first round as that's at about 320nm instead of 280nm. Oops, at least it's further offshore. Same methodology for most of the others, some eyeballing off relative position maps in which case I was conservative.

The original criteria sparking my response was 'out of sight of land' which plenty of battles were. Heck even Jutland in WWI was pretty far offshore, 60 nautical miles for instance for the loss of Invincible:

AEFueHMg.png

There were certainly battles within sight of land during WWII, but they were far from a monopoly.

Well this game covers ships designed or built in the late 19th century through the  mid 20th century, so using WWII as the only metric is a little narrow sighted.

ill try to do the same for others at some point when I’m home.

 

one note on methodology, you’re going based off of a single point, it might be hard to find the point at which the battle started or ended and try to compare that way (for example as you noted the battle of java sea moved closer to shore later.)

 

also as a navy veteran who was qualified look out i was trained that from the flight deck the horizon was 12miles. (Whether they specified nmi or smi, don’t recall, but considering it’s the navy I’m pretty sure that was nmi) Our flight deck was no where near 30m above sea level 

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,994
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,904 posts
12,193 battles
8 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

Well this game covers ships built in the late 19th century through the  mid 20th century, so using WWII as the only metric is a little narrow sighted.

Well, yes, hence the Jutland example. The main action there for instance ran largely north-south so I doubt they came much closer than Invincible's loss location, they headed south a bit longer after so were maybe a bit closer to Denmark.

The important thing with horizon distance is that it's not for instance anything like 280 nautical miles, and yes you could look at the overall position of battles - of course in the Bismarck example she was steaming in circles, Denmark Strait was fought sailing south and away from land and was over pretty quickly, 30 minutes, 14 nautical miles traveled. Some of them would vary.

There were lots of battles closer into land, and they're likely a bigger proportion of the total. You can find as many as you like, the criteria was that at least some battles were fought out of sight of land, which there clearly were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,823 posts
6,734 battles
12 minutes ago, mofton said:

Well, yes, hence the Jutland example. The main action there for instance ran largely north-south so I doubt they came much closer than Invincible's loss location, they headed south a bit longer after so were maybe a bit closer to Denmark.

The important thing with horizon distance is that it's not for instance anything like 280 nautical miles, and yes you could look at the overall position of battles - of course in the Bismarck example she was steaming in circles, Denmark Strait was fought sailing south and away from land and was over pretty quickly, 30 minutes, 14 nautical miles traveled. Some of them would vary.

There were lots of battles closer into land, and they're likely a bigger proportion of the total. You can find as many as you like, the criteria was that at least some battles were fought out of sight of land, which there clearly were.

I believe this got started based on someone claim the ‘ocean’ map was the most realistic because there was no land.

obviously there were probably few of any battles where ships were lobbing shells over islands, the claim that out of sight of land is more realistic than in sight of land is quite contestable

 

edit

sorry I misread somewhere along the line.

im at work and it’s been a long day lol

yes obviously it was a silly thing to say there was never a naval battle out of sight of land lol.

im sure it even happened in the age of sail lol let alone the age of aircraft and radio

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
709 posts
27 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

Off the top of my head the battles for Santiago, Manila, and guadal canal were all within sight of land. Large portions of land no less.

 

im at work but it probably wouldn’t be hard to find an approximately even number of naval battles within sight of land during the age of battleships...

Battle of Santiago

 battle_santiago_de_cuba_1898.jpg

Battle of Manila Bay

manila_bay_1898.jpg

Battle of Tsushima.

2000px-Tsushima_battle_map-en.svg.png

 

Battlecruiser Raids 1914

WW1Book-RN2-048.JPG

Battle of the Falklands

Falklandschlacht.jpg

Naval Attack on the Dardanelles

naval-attack-gallipoli-small.jpg

Operation Albion

Operation_Albion_Map.jpg

Battle of Imbros

tumblr_p3zfrtq4iW1vuavi7o1_1280.jpg

Battle of the RIver Plate

25bf968c-dab1-11e7-9cbd-ac162d8bc1e4.jpg

Battle of Mers-el-Kébir

1280px-Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir_harb

Battle of Dakar

Battle-of-Dakar.jpg

Battle of Cape Matapan

Www2mR130BMatapan.GIF

Operation Cerberus

1200px-Operation_Cerberus-fr.svg.png

Battle of Savo Island

SavoJapaneseChart1.jpg

Second Battle of Savo Island

CapeEsperanceChart1.jpg

 

Guadalcanal

army-map-129bg.jpg

 

And no doubt much much more, but I'm tired now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,994
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,904 posts
12,193 battles
1 hour ago, Royeaux said:

Battle of Cape Matapan

Www2mR130BMatapan.GIF

Matapan's quite far out for most of it.

The Pola sinking position is here:

UT0WaJp.png

Nearly 100 nautical miles from land.

The cruiser action, by eye is about 75 nautical miles south of Gavdos. The night fight is in pretty close proximity to Pola's sinking position, within a few miles. The Italians took a path a little closer to land at some stages but likely not within sight of is my guess. Crete's a pretty big island, the scale's deceptive.

 

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,823 posts
6,734 battles
16 hours ago, Royeaux said:

Battle of Santiago

 battle_santiago_de_cuba_1898.jpg

Battle of Manila Bay

manila_bay_1898.jpg

Battle of Tsushima.

2000px-Tsushima_battle_map-en.svg.png

 

Battlecruiser Raids 1914

WW1Book-RN2-048.JPG

Battle of the Falklands

Falklandschlacht.jpg

Naval Attack on the Dardanelles

naval-attack-gallipoli-small.jpg

Operation Albion

Operation_Albion_Map.jpg

Battle of Imbros

tumblr_p3zfrtq4iW1vuavi7o1_1280.jpg

Battle of the RIver Plate

25bf968c-dab1-11e7-9cbd-ac162d8bc1e4.jpg

Battle of Mers-el-Kébir

1280px-Attack_on_Mers-el-K%C3%A9bir_harb

Battle of Dakar

Battle-of-Dakar.jpg

Battle of Cape Matapan

Www2mR130BMatapan.GIF

Operation Cerberus

1200px-Operation_Cerberus-fr.svg.png

Battle of Savo Island

SavoJapaneseChart1.jpg

Second Battle of Savo Island

CapeEsperanceChart1.jpg

 

Guadalcanal

army-map-129bg.jpg

 

And no doubt much much more, but I'm tired now.

Where all those maps from a single source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×