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

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

5
[ANKER]
Members
11 posts
5,814 battles

I won't write all of pros and cons of Montana and Grober Kurfurst.

 

Montana, despite of her lack of caliber, has very weird citadel protection.

She has 260mm citadel belt located right under her 400mm(main upper belt) part. Iowa has thicker armor (270mm+38mm AT bulge)

This thin part makes her very unreliable of protecting her citadels.

Even moskva in 10km can penetrate her citadel in impact angle of 40' and Jean Bart's 15inch in 20km 20~30' (my experience when shooting montana)

Every other T10 battleship(except yamasashi's cheek) can easily stop heavy AP shells when angled slightly(15~20' in long range, 30~40'in medium to close range)

 

Does this unreliability work as concept of USN battleship line, or Montana?

 

If not, I can strongly advise this part of armor is fixed in order to balance T10s.

So how much? I hope 400mm(same as upper main belt) especially her armor is not inclined to 15'(like Iowa)

 

 

GK is meant to take role of close range fighter.

However,German battleship get their very bad gun arc in T9, T10.

You can see turret stop rotating without any obstacles.

This factor greatly limits performance of GK (which is meant to be charging.)

 

The range and accuracy, are limiting factor due to her concept.(frankly, she needs least 21.6km range, same as Bismarck)

But gun arc is different story. It is just irritating feature that does not accord to German Battleship concept.

Thus, I greatly suggest her gun arc to be buffed to level of Bismarck.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,939 posts

Armour values and gun performance are designed from the what the ships actually had. They follow the blueprints with little adjustments for balance. They are not just made up.. Gun arc's are determined by the size and weight of the shell used...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,304
[CMFRT]
Members
10,239 posts
22 minutes ago, Raven114 said:

Armour values and gun performance are designed from the what the ships actually had. They follow the blueprints with little adjustments for balance. They are not just made up.. Gun arc's are determined by the size and weight of the shell used...

Not shell arcs, gun "arcs", as in how far around the turrets can traverse.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
189
[CHASE]
Beta Testers
333 posts
11,403 battles

Both the Frederick the Great and the Great Elector has better firing arcs to the rear than in front, which ironically makes them better kiting ships than pushing ships. Improving firing arc, as well as dispersion (+0.1 - 0.2 sigma) can greatly improve these high tier German BBs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,574
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,488 posts
3,895 battles
1 hour ago, Raven114 said:

Armour values and gun performance are designed from the what the ships actually had. They follow the blueprints with little adjustments for balance. They are not just made up.. Gun arc's are determined by the size and weight of the shell used...

Never mind the fact that neither Montana or Kurfurst existed, and Kurfurst's guns in particular were never built, and we're not talking about the artillery arcs of the shells fired--

 

Gameplay trumps history every time.

 

I'm OK with improvements to the traverse arcs on Kurfurst. Seems unnecessarily restricted.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Clan Supertest Coordinator
4,624 posts
6,965 battles
50 minutes ago, axyarthur said:

Both the Frederick the Great and the Great Elector has better firing arcs to the rear than in front, which ironically makes them better kiting ships than pushing ships. Improving firing arc, as well as dispersion (+0.1 - 0.2 sigma) can greatly improve these high tier German BBs 

Hot take....if the GK could get all its guns and secondaries on target without having to give flat broadside it would easily be able to rival the Kreml in close quarters combat.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
929 posts
4,003 battles

Yes, gun arcs are something the top tier German BB's aren't really good at with my experience of the Bismarck and FDG. 

You have to show a lot of your side and at that angle, you will take tons of damage from a volley of shells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
505
[-BRS-]
Members
1,847 posts
9,651 battles
50 minutes ago, yashma said:

Hot take....if the GK could get all its guns and secondaries on target without having to give flat broadside it would easily be able to rival the Kreml in close quarters combat.

Isn't it supposed to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,059 posts
6,020 battles

Both are solid for their roles and tier...

montana has solid armor, solid accuracy, super heavy shells, and the floatiness actually aids her versus turtlebacks... hindenburgs worst nightmare at range. And lets not forget the aa.

GK is what it has always been... a cap pushing burning fireworks death barge to valhalla. Its accuracy drastically improves at close range. Give it sigma and it just becomes another boring watered down meta friendly sniper. Yarbles to that. Great big bouncy yarblockos.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[ANKER]
Members
11 posts
5,814 battles
On 7/22/2019 at 2:06 AM, Xanshin said:

Both are solid for their roles and tier...

montana has solid armor, solid accuracy, super heavy shells, and the floatiness actually aids her versus turtlebacks... hindenburgs worst nightmare at range. And lets not forget the aa.

GK is what it has always been... a cap pushing burning fireworks death barge to valhalla. Its accuracy drastically improves at close range. Give it sigma and it just becomes another boring watered down meta friendly sniper. Yarbles to that. Great big bouncy yarblockos.

I said, Montana does not have solid armor. Also SHS has very little pros then cons. It gains what like 1.1k more dmg/shell and loses shell velocity.

you will find out little 263mm part citadel belt armor under thick 400mm part. That is what I pointed. Battlecruiser level of protection there. This unnecessary part makes her very vulnerable to long range AP shells and close range accurate shells when angled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,175
[-K-]
Supertester
3,229 posts
7,820 battles

There's nothing wrong withe either the Monty or GK that necessitates changes.  Montana's citadels are fine.  If you go broadside, you get spanked, which is the way things should be driving a ship that, when angled, it nigh on impossible to reliably damage, except if you're driving a Yamato.  The GK doesn't even have an exposed citadel.  Making the GK go more broadside to bring her guns on target is a perfectly reasonable tradeoff for not having to risk a double or triple citadel shot from an opposing BB.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,101
[INTEL]
Members
11,334 posts
31,780 battles
29 minutes ago, WardedForbidden said:

I said, Montana does not have solid armor. Also SHS has very little pros then cons. It gains what like 1.1k more dmg/shell and loses shell velocity.

you will find out little 263mm part citadel belt armor under thick 400mm part. That is what I pointed. Battlecruiser level of protection there. This unnecessary part makes her very vulnerable to long range AP shells and close range accurate shells when angled. 

I have 300 games in Montana, including games from before her citadel was lowered. This minor defect is not a problem. There is no need to make armor changes, she's a joy to play just as she is. 

Speaking of citadels, what's the word on the Conk? Are we getting the raised citadel version? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,059 posts
6,020 battles
1 hour ago, WardedForbidden said:

I said, Montana does not have solid armor. Also SHS has very little pros then cons. It gains what like 1.1k more dmg/shell and loses shell velocity.

you will find out little 263mm part citadel belt armor under thick 400mm part. That is what I pointed. Battlecruiser level of protection there. This unnecessary part makes her very vulnerable to long range AP shells and close range accurate shells when angled. 

You say the armor is bad. I disagree. It doesnt eat pens like gk/conq, it doesnt fill up on a banquet of cits like yammie via cheek/sides. It angles well and bounces often. As for the SHS they dont gain damage so much as punching power... the weight gives you solid hits where you should be expecting less. The lower velocity and weird floaty shells obliterate turtlebacks at range.

Gk is easy to pen but a nightmare to cit up close. Aside from MO its the only bb lolibotes dread at t10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[ANKER]
Members
11 posts
5,814 battles
21 hours ago, Xanshin said:

You say the armor is bad. I disagree. It doesnt eat pens like gk/conq, it doesnt fill up on a banquet of cits like yammie via cheek/sides. It angles well and bounces often. As for the SHS they dont gain damage so much as punching power... the weight gives you solid hits where you should be expecting less. The lower velocity and weird floaty shells obliterate turtlebacks at range.

Gk is easy to pen but a nightmare to cit up close. Aside from MO its the only bb lolibotes dread at t10.

Who said Montana has bad armor? 

Montana angles and bounce well. I agree. GK, bounce all of AP shells hit except her superstructure.

What I am questioning mainly is, again, she has unreliable citadel protection and gets unnecessary citadel penetration from weirdest angle on Main armor belt(except Yamato's cheek).

Which T10 Battleships have this armor scheme like that; You do not ensure blocking any heavy AP from all range; slightly angled

I bet it is not a concept that Montana was given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×