Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
geser98

IJN turtleback - why even bother?

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,326 posts
95 battles

Having most of ship lines at least to T9, I finally decided to grind out that Yamato and playing Fuso to my great surprise I realised that she has a turtleback and so does Nagato, Amagi and Izumo. 

So I went into a training room and decided to test whether it does work at all, or maybe all standard idea of IJN BBs being easy to citadel at close range. And then of course I found that the turtleback doesn't work at all, ships being able to citadel with ease at any ranges from 5-15 km. 

The problem is that this turtleback design is stupid, I'm not even sure why WG even bothered, because it simple doesn't work. On paper, say Fuso's turtleback sounds pretty interesting - you have 25mm of torpedo belt, 245mm of main armor belt and then 76mm of 45o sloped citadel wall. Sounds like a lot of protection but it really isn't. The total amount of citadel protection is 376mm taking into account the slope of the citadel wall. At the same time, most BBs of the same tier have this amount of AP pen at most ranges up to 15km and battleships of higher tiers/calibres will be able to pen at all ranges, period.

At the same time, angling works like with all other BBs, but I'm still disappointed in such a waste of an interesting option to make IJN BBs not only long-range spammers, but also to be useful in pushing, more than what they currently are.

 

  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,103
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,032 posts
17,184 battles

Stay 15 to 20 km out... turtleback works there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
641
[KAPPA]
Members
2,123 posts
7,006 battles

Wasn't turtleback historically pretty useless overall, though? My boyfriend always goes on about that, at least when it comes to KM BBs, anywho. And, honestly, the only reason KM BBs get any use out of theirs is the hilariously short engagement ranges the game has, as well as how short the gun ranges have been reduced to to get that brawling. Heck, the engagement ranges are so short that people say you simply can't even get true plunging fire.

And, honestly, the reason they bother is accuracy for accuracy's sake, just like a lot of stuff. Look at the deck of any given ship. Look at how detailed it all is! It's amazing the detail they put into these things! Why bother? More like why not bother? Heck, I remember a thread a while ago about people shooting at historical flaws in ships and them being actually effective ways to damage a given ship. Talk about dedication in accuracy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Privateers, Members
8,909 posts
7,837 battles
55 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

Wasn't turtleback historically pretty useless overall, though? My boyfriend always goes on about that, at least when it comes to KM BBs, anywho. And, honestly, the only reason KM BBs get any use out of theirs is the hilariously short engagement ranges the game has, as well as how short the gun ranges have been reduced to to get that brawling. Heck, the engagement ranges are so short that people say you simply can't even get true plunging fire.

Turtleback historically had some uses, especially under the conditions that you would usually face in the Atlantic. There you'd see engagement ranges of a maximum of 25km. German turtleback if you look at some scheme gives you a rather steeply angled deck where it is impossible to bypass the main belt and hit the turtleback at a normalized angle, at least at the engagement ranges you'd usually see.

For example this is Nagato's armor scheme:

Bildergebnis für nagato armor

It doesn't take much plunge for a shell to penetrate the hull through plate H, and then hit the turtleback L at a normalized angle. 

Now Bismarck in comparison:

image.png.1aa5f94453dc5a3841efdc261226467d.png

It would take a shell at least a 30° angle of fall to bypass the main belt, and then hit the turtleback. For example the British 356mm gun that would be found on the KGV-class would only get this angle of fall at a range of ~28km.

 

Gotta differenciate a bit between turtleback and turtleback :p

Edited by SireneRacker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[SIC]
Members
89 posts
4,882 battles
3 hours ago, geser98 said:

Having most of ship lines at least to T9, I finally decided to grind out that Yamato and playing Fuso to my great surprise I realised that she has a turtleback and so does Nagato, Amagi and Izumo. 

So I went into a training room and decided to test whether it does work at all, or maybe all standard idea of IJN BBs being easy to citadel at close range. And then of course I found that the turtleback doesn't work at all, ships being able to citadel with ease at any ranges from 5-15 km. 

The problem is that this turtleback design is stupid, I'm not even sure why WG even bothered, because it simple doesn't work. On paper, say Fuso's turtleback sounds pretty interesting - you have 25mm of torpedo belt, 245mm of main armor belt and then 76mm of 45o sloped citadel wall. Sounds like a lot of protection but it really isn't. The total amount of citadel protection is 376mm taking into account the slope of the citadel wall. At the same time, most BBs of the same tier have this amount of AP pen at most ranges up to 15km and battleships of higher tiers/calibres will be able to pen at all ranges, period.

At the same time, angling works like with all other BBs, but I'm still disappointed in such a waste of an interesting option to make IJN BBs not only long-range spammers, but also to be useful in pushing, more than what they currently are.

 

Having turtleback doesn't make you immune to citadel hits. Anything can be cit. 

376mm is a whole lot more than even some t8 BBs get. Other BBs might be able to pen it, but every other type of ship is gonna have an awful time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,326 posts
95 battles
46 minutes ago, emmapulido said:

376mm is a whole lot more than even some t8 BBs get. Other BBs might be able to pen it, but every other type of ship is gonna have an awful time.

But then every other ship type will struggle to pen any other BB as well. Even ships like Furutaka with reasonably powerful AP will only be able to citadel BBs on a completely flat broadside and at point blank ranges under 5km.

48 minutes ago, emmapulido said:

Having turtleback doesn't make you immune to citadel hits. Anything can be cit. 

I agree. The problem is that usually the way turtleback is implemented in wows is that ships having it will have less chance of giving up citadel hits at medium-close ranges. But that's not the case with IJN BBs. They are equally easy to citadel from close and from afar. I'd really like to be able to use my Japanese BBs at closer ranges, because I hate long range sniping. I did it quite well in Fuso, but not thanks to citadel, just by being very angled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,506
[RKLES]
Members
10,751 posts
12,377 battles
2 hours ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

Wasn't turtleback historically pretty useless overall, though? My boyfriend always goes on about that, at least when it comes to KM BBs, anywho. And, honestly, the only reason KM BBs get any use out of theirs is the hilariously short engagement ranges the game has, as well as how short the gun ranges have been reduced to to get that brawling. Heck, the engagement ranges are so short that people say you simply can't even get true plunging fire.

And, honestly, the reason they bother is accuracy for accuracy's sake, just like a lot of stuff. Look at the deck of any given ship. Look at how detailed it all is! It's amazing the detail they put into these things! Why bother? More like why not bother? Heck, I remember a thread a while ago about people shooting at historical flaws in ships and them being actually effective ways to damage a given ship. Talk about dedication in accuracy...

Bismarck took a lot of punishment before finally being scuttled if you add up everything that she was hit with once her mission started. Yamato, Tirpitz, Nagato, as well as many of the Jutland era ships also took a lot of punishment. So their armor did something for them.

Lol and Wargaming trying to put historical accuracy into their games when possible can be rather fun, WOT Blitz a friend and I went into training rooms to test just how much attention to historical data was done by Wargaming. The results were rather amusing and allowed us to have historical tank books sitting nearby and use them to hit critical modules in enemy tanks or exploit armor weak spots. But it does help Wargaming give the game more of a realistic feel to have what ever real world data they can have added into their games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
641
[KAPPA]
Members
2,123 posts
7,006 battles
2 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Turtleback historically had some uses, especially under the conditions that you would usually face in the Atlantic. There you'd see engagement ranges of a maximum of 25km. German turtleback if you look at some scheme gives you a rather steeply angled deck where it is impossible to bypass the main belt and hit the turtleback at a normalized angle, at least at the engagement ranges you'd usually see.

For example this is Nagato's armor scheme:

Bildergebnis für nagato armor

It doesn't take much plunge for a shell to penetrate the hull through plate H, and then hit the turtleback L at a normalized angle. 

Now Bismarck in comparison:

image.png.1aa5f94453dc5a3841efdc261226467d.png

It would take a shell at least a 30° angle of fall to bypass the main belt, and then hit the turtleback. For example the British 356mm gun that would be found on the KGV-class would only get this angle of fall at a range of ~28km.

 

Gotta differenciate a bit between turtleback and turtleback :p

Interesting read, and thanks for the info. Also part of why I mentioned the KM BBs specifically, as they are the go-to example of an effective turtleback in WoWS, what with just how hard they are to cit. Also the ones I'm most familiar with for the reasons stated.

My talking about theirs was more an aside, that said, with my main focus being the why itself. I just tend to ramble till I make sense to me is all, so I end up with a lack of focus in my messages. :Smile_veryhappy: Still, digressing. What fun is life if one just goes for the bare minimum? The little things are important, too, especially in a recreation of historical ships, even if some of them are made more of paper than steel.

26 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Bismarck took a lot of punishment before finally being scuttled if you add up everything that she was hit with once her mission started. Yamato, Tirpitz, Nagato, as well as many of the Jutland era ships also took a lot of punishment. So their armor did something for them.

Lol and Wargaming trying to put historical accuracy into their games when possible can be rather fun, WOT Blitz a friend and I went into training rooms to test just how much attention to historical data was done by Wargaming. The results were rather amusing and allowed us to have historical tank books sitting nearby and use them to hit critical modules in enemy tanks or exploit armor weak spots. But it does help Wargaming give the game more of a realistic feel to have what ever real world data they can have added into their games. 

Ohh! I think you were the guy I was actually talking about! I just didn't remember as well as I'd hoped. :Smile_veryhappy: Tanks, ships... same difference, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
324
[NMKJT]
Members
2,256 posts
6,249 battles
12 hours ago, geser98 said:

I agree. The problem is that usually the way turtleback is implemented in wows is that ships having it will have less chance of giving up citadel hits at medium-close ranges. But that's not the case with IJN BBs. They are equally easy to citadel from close and from afar. I'd really like to be able to use my Japanese BBs at closer ranges, because I hate long range sniping. I did it quite well in Fuso, but not thanks to citadel, just by being very angled.

Fusou's armor scheme is overall pretty weak, but Nagato and Izumo can be pretty resilient/trolly with theirs. Fusou was just an underprotected ship for her displacement IRL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,326 posts
95 battles
9 hours ago, MnemonScarlet said:

Fusou's armor scheme is overall pretty weak, but Nagato and Izumo can be pretty resilient/trolly with theirs. Fusou was just an underprotected ship for her displacement IRL.

When I played her I thought she was deceptively well protected. Her firing angles are surprisingly decent and it's easy to stay well angled. At one time I single-handedly managed to stall an enemy push on a flank by just reversing for the most of the battle facing against a Nagato, Gneisenau, Fuso, Furutaka and Omaha (that one didn't last very long). Got 2.5 mil of potential damage, barely managed to stay alive, but we won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,200 posts
4,322 battles
On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 7:37 PM, geser98 said:

Having most of ship lines at least to T9, I finally decided to grind out that Yamato and playing Fuso to my great surprise I realised that she has a turtleback and so does Nagato, Amagi and Izumo. 

So I went into a training room and decided to test whether it does work at all, or maybe all standard idea of IJN BBs being easy to citadel at close range. And then of course I found that the turtleback doesn't work at all, ships being able to citadel with ease at any ranges from 5-15 km. 

The problem is that this turtleback design is stupid, I'm not even sure why WG even bothered, because it simple doesn't work. On paper, say Fuso's turtleback sounds pretty interesting - you have 25mm of torpedo belt, 245mm of main armor belt and then 76mm of 45o sloped citadel wall. Sounds like a lot of protection but it really isn't. The total amount of citadel protection is 376mm taking into account the slope of the citadel wall. At the same time, most BBs of the same tier have this amount of AP pen at most ranges up to 15km and battleships of higher tiers/calibres will be able to pen at all ranges, period.

At the same time, angling works like with all other BBs, but I'm still disappointed in such a waste of an interesting option to make IJN BBs not only long-range spammers, but also to be useful in pushing, more than what they currently are.

 

It adds an extra bounce check when angled.

Myogi - Izumo are actually deceptively trolly when angled properly. Especially at mid ranges, but can get hammered if you make a mistake at close range. I did run into a problem with Kongo but that was because she has a lighter forward bulkhead than Myogi and Armor viewer did not exist at the time.

The KM turtlebacks are just auto bounce easy mode armor within normal engagement ranges.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×