Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
zubalkabir

Overmatching question

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

322
[DOG]
Members
1,220 posts
12,663 battles

Okay, so Wiki says overmatching is calculated by dividing the gun's caliber by 14.3.  This determines the size gun you need in order to ignore any angling by the target ship.  Logically, it seems like range should be a factor, but that doesn't seem to enter into it, either by what I've experienced in 9k+ battles, or in any documentation I've found.  I'm not a ballistics expert or physicist, and I ain't got no fancy G.E.D., but it seems to me that a 15" shell would have more punch at 4km than at 18km, and that should be factored in.  Or do I completely misunderstand how armor penetration should work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,683
[WORX]
Members
11,966 posts
19,495 battles

Weight of the shell is factored in... For example... The QE has the biggest guns in her tier, but it also has the lightest shells in her tier..

Its one of the reason, the QE is not known aa long range threat. 

Since the game is an arcade and not a sim.. BB have/enjoy unrealistic ballistics. In A real life scenario, BB shells never sank a ship unless they struck an ammo storage space.

If you you really wanted to sink a ship, you send torps and create holes below the water line.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,711
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,319 posts
5,803 battles
6 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Since the game is an arcade and not a sim.. BB have/enjoy unrealistic ballistics. In A real life scenario, BB shells never sank a ship unless they struck an ammo storage space.

1) All ships have unrealistic ballistics in WoWS.  BBs are not singled out for special treatment.

2) BBs sank numerous ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,683
[WORX]
Members
11,966 posts
19,495 battles
4 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

1) All ships have unrealistic ballistics in WoWS.  BBs are not singled out for special treatment.

2) BBs sank numerous ships.

  1. BBs are singled out because its more pronounced... BB ballistics are the must grossly unrealistic part of the game.They're also picked on because its creating must of the problems with ordnance discrimination.... Also, the wide disparity or disproportional performance of high caliber guns VS any other ordnance...
  2. Torps sunk more military and non military ships as a whole (by tonnage) in both World Wars. Guns or BB guns rarely sunk ships on their own.  In fact, BBs were good at shooting on shore battery installations... Its one of the reasons the navy retired the BB ships... After the World Wars, they were utterly obsolete/useless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,711
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,319 posts
5,803 battles
1 minute ago, Navalpride33 said:
  1. BBs are singled out because its more pronounced... BB ballistics are the must grossly unrealistic part of the game.They're also picked on because its creating must of the problems with ordnance discrimination.... Also, the wide disparity or disproportional performance of high caliber guns VS any other ordnance...
  2. Torps sunk more military and non military ships as a whole (by tonnage) in both World Wars. Guns or BB guns rarely sunk ships on their own.  In fact, BBs were good at shooting on shore battery installations... Its one of the reasons the navy retired the BB ships... After the World Wars, they were utterly obsolete/useless.

 

1) It is not more pronounced.  The ballistics are modified in the exact same way for every gun.

2) That isn't what you said.  You said "BB shells never sank a ship", which is factually incorrect.

 

I know you have a massive anti-BB issue, but lying about history in order to justify your rampant bias is ridiculous. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
372
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Members
1,358 posts
3 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

1) It is not more pronounced.  The ballistics are modified in the exact same way for every gun.

2) That isn't what you said.  You said "BB shells never sank a ship", which is factually incorrect.

 

I know you have a massive anti-BB issue, but lying about history in order to justify your rampant bias is ridiculous. 

gotta remember he's got a real hate on for BBs ,read his other posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,711
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,319 posts
5,803 battles
Just now, bosco1111 said:

gotta remember he's got a real hate on for BBs ,read his other posts

Yes, hence the third line in the post you quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
317
[HSD]
Members
747 posts
12,657 battles

Overmatch does not care about range.

If your gun caliber can overmatch at 4km it will also overmatch at 20km.

Range makes a difference for penetration for non overmatched armour, so for example even if you overmatch the outermost layer there might be an interior plate that is too thick at long ranges to punch through.

Against ships like Yamato which can punch through the nose of most equal BBs range is used as a defence because the dispersion is larger creating more outright misses and other sections of armour can absorb the shells better than they could up close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,683
[WORX]
Members
11,966 posts
19,495 battles
8 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

1) It is not more pronounced.  The ballistics are modified in the exact same way for every gun.

2) That isn't what you said.

You said "BB shells never sank a ship", which is factually incorrect.

 

I know you have a massive anti-BB issue, but lying about history in order to justify your rampant bias is ridiculous. 

You did ask for clarification... So I gave it to you...

My BB biased is out weighed by your insistence of making WOWS a one ordnance (gun) platform..

As I noted in this thread, torps not guns were the dominate ordnance in both World Wars...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,711
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,319 posts
5,803 battles
1 minute ago, Navalpride33 said:

As I noted in this thread, torps not guns were the dominate ordnance in both World Wars...

Only if you count submarines sinking merchant ships as "combat".

In actual combat, where both ships can fight, guns dominated in WWI and were still a major factor in WWII.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,683
[WORX]
Members
11,966 posts
19,495 battles
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

Only if you count submarines sinking merchant ships as "combat".

In actual combat, where both ships can fight, guns dominated in WWI and were still a major factor in WWII.

I'll put it this way...

If Mr. Hitler, didn't had a psychological disorder on insisting on building the Bismarck or the TIrpitz... (This was his gravest naval mistake ever made.) 

If Hitler was of sound mind (which he was not), and produced a fleet of U boats instead... I have no question in my mind.. Great Britain would be learning German today.

Of course, this is not questioning Hitler's other tactical disasters of invading Russia in the winter time...

Because Hitler had a obsession with bigger ships with guns... It ended up costing him the opportunity of taking Great Britain out of the war... U boats would've choked Great Britain into a surrender position... 


Now this is not the only example in where tactics were questionable... The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, was the other... If the Japanese, would've bombed the strategic oil reserves on the Island instead of the  ships in port...

The odds would've been evened out... I would not say Japan would've won but man, it would've made a US victory very costly and difficult one.

In war, its not the combat it self that can turn the tide... Its this mentality, Germany and Japan lost...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,546
[WOLF3]
Members
28,813 posts
25,049 battles
1 hour ago, zubalkabir said:

Okay, so Wiki says overmatching is calculated by dividing the gun's caliber by 14.3.  This determines the size gun you need in order to ignore any angling by the target ship.  Logically, it seems like range should be a factor, but that doesn't seem to enter into it, either by what I've experienced in 9k+ battles, or in any documentation I've found.  I'm not a ballistics expert or physicist, and I ain't got no fancy G.E.D., but it seems to me that a 15" shell would have more punch at 4km than at 18km, and that should be factored in.  Or do I completely misunderstand how armor penetration should work?

Range is a factor in penetration.  For example, here are some of the Tier VIII BBs:  Amagi, North Carolina, Bismarck, Richelieu.

E2AapTF.jpg

 

The closer you are, the higher the penetration.  You'll also see the different shells start behaving quite differently with the varying guns.

In this selection:

Amagi's 410mm AP has the highest AP Pen when at about 13km or less, but it drops sharply in penetration power once at 14km.

The French 380mm AP and USN AP from the 16"/45 guns have in the middle penetration power but get better just below the 14km mark.

The French 380mm AP actually starts having better penetration power than the USN BB guns this tier as you get further, but the USN guns are 406mm which have a lot better Overmatch capability than the French 380s.

 

There is also the matter of angle of impact relative to range, etc.  Whether you're getting Penetration damage or it's coming out the other side of the target for mere Overpenetration damage.

 

Interesting history with the French 380mm guns, BTW, and what their Navy felt about the all forward design.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,711
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,319 posts
5,803 battles
15 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I'll put it this way...

If Mr. Hitler, didn't had a psychological disorder on insisting on building the Bismarck or the TIrpitz... (This was his gravest naval mistake ever made.) 

If Hitler was of sound mind (which he was not), and produced a fleet of U boats instead... I have no question in my mind.. Great Britain would be learning German today.

Of course, this is not questioning Hitler's other tactical disasters of invading Russia in the winter time...

Because Hitler had a obsession with bigger ships with guns... It ended up costing him the opportunity of taking Great Britain out of the war... U boats would've choked Great Britain into a surrender position... 


Now this is not the only example in where tactics were questionable... The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, was the other... If the Japanese, would've bombed the strategic oil reserves on the Island instead of the  ships in port...

The odds would've been evened out... I would not say Japan would've won but man, it would've made a US victory very costly and difficult one.

In war, its not the combat it self that can turn the tide... Its this mentality, Germany and Japan lost...

What does any of that have to do with the subject?

There are two options.  Either you stated something as fact when you didn't actually know that much about it or you actively lied.  You claimed that no ship had ever been sunk by BB guns.  This is factually false, no matter how you try to rephrase or repurpose your position.

You also seem to be one of those who mistakes the sparring use of BBs as an indication of their inefficacy rather than, as it was, their extreme cost.  In WWI Germany tried to strangle Britain using submarines and Britain tried to strangle Germany using BBs.  Guess which was more effective.  Preceding the maturity of the CV as a weapon system BBs and CCs were, by far, the most effective naval combat units.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that BBs and CCs should be dominant in WoWS.  This is an arcade game and not historical.  BBs and CCs in WoWS don't cost dozens of times what other ships cost to buy and operate.

Edited by Helstrem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
729 posts
10,104 battles
2 hours ago, zubalkabir said:

Okay, so Wiki says overmatching is calculated by dividing the gun's caliber by 14.3.  This determines the size gun you need in order to ignore any angling by the target ship.  Logically, it seems like range should be a factor, but that doesn't seem to enter into it, either by what I've experienced in 9k+ battles, or in any documentation I've found.  I'm not a ballistics expert or physicist, and I ain't got no fancy G.E.D., but it seems to me that a 15" shell would have more punch at 4km than at 18km, and that should be factored in.  Or do I completely misunderstand how armor penetration should work?

I think people misunderstand what overmatch means. It's not just 'an 18" shell should go straight through 10 mm of armor'. That's just penetration, the 18" shell penetrates way more than 10 mm. And your 15" shell does have more penetration at 4 km than 18 km.

 

But the way armor angling normally works, you use the 'line of sight thickness' of the armor. 100 mm of armor at a 60 degree angle to the shell is equivalent to 200 mm of flat armor, because if you trace the flight path the shell goes through 200 mm of armor either way.

In order for that line of sight thickness assumption to make sense in real world physics, you have to make certain assumptions. One of those assumptions is that the diameter of the shell is relatively small compared to the size of the armor plate, so you can treat it as a point. If the shell is bigger, you have to take other things into account and the angle won't make as much of a difference.

Edited by WernerHerzdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
322
[DOG]
Members
1,220 posts
12,663 battles
16 hours ago, Meatshield_No13 said:

Overmatch does not care about range.

If your gun caliber can overmatch at 4km it will also overmatch at 20km.

Range makes a difference for penetration for non overmatched armour, so for example even if you overmatch the outermost layer there might be an interior plate that is too thick at long ranges to punch through.

Against ships like Yamato which can punch through the nose of most equal BBs range is used as a defence because the dispersion is larger creating more outright misses and other sections of armour can absorb the shells better than they could up close.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking.  Usually it comes to me when I'm bow-on to a Yamato or Stalingrad at 4-5 km and my 15"-16" shells are bouncing.  Seems to me overmatching should be on a sliding curve based on range.  Was in a clan battle last week where my Puerto Rico and the red Stalingrad were the last two ships in the game.  I was inside the B cap on the map where the B cap is inside the C cap, and we were slightly ahead on points.  So he had to come in and get me.  We both had our bows facing each other, and were pounding away at 4-5 km without doing much damage to each other.  When I figured out he wasn't planning a ram, I moved forward so our starboard sides were facing each other.  I was reasoning that broadside to broadside I had 12 guns to his 9, and my secondaries were better.  It worked.  But if we'd just kept our bows toward each other, we could have traded 6-8 salvoes without accomplishing anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×