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

How does plunging BB gun AP fire hit torpedo protection?!?

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

67
[-SYN-]
[-SYN-]
Members
230 posts
10,181 battles

OK -- this is starting to be annoying. Mmany, many times now I'm engaging a BB at 20km+ range and I get "torpedo protection" hit notifications. This is plunging fire coming down at a sharp angle, not a flat shot at the sides of the ship -- so how the heck is it hitting torpedo protection?!? 

Torpedo protection was designed to be an additional blister of armor from the main hull, filled with water, so if the ship got torpedoed the warhead would detonate prematurely and be dampened by the water and not expend its full energy on the main hull. It protects the waterline sides of a ship from torpedoes, not plunging fire from high caliber AP shells...

Any ideas?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,766 posts
36,457 battles
33 minutes ago, EasyEight said:

OK -- this is starting to be annoying. Mmany, many times now I'm engaging a BB at 20km+ range and I get "torpedo protection" hit notifications. This is plunging fire coming down at a sharp angle, not a flat shot at the sides of the ship -- so how the heck is it hitting torpedo protection?!? 

Torpedo protection was designed to be an additional blister of armor from the main hull, filled with water, so if the ship got torpedoed the warhead would detonate prematurely and be dampened by the water and not expend its full energy on the main hull. It protects the waterline sides of a ship from torpedoes, not plunging fire from high caliber AP shells...

Any ideas?

 

The thing is if you somehow landed the shell at the plate of steel that the bulkhead happens to be in then the shell goes in, detonates prematurely, and due to water, has its angle manipulated.

If you ever see a video of guns fired in to gelatin and water, the velocity and trajectory start to change dramatically.

US Navy torpedo protection on Colorado class and before was added on. It changed the ship's handling characteristics. But it behaves quite like a splinter deck.

The splinter deck is a feature commonly found on many large US Navy Warships. The original concept was to mitigate damage from plunging fire on deck. A special section between decks serves this purpose. Later designs integrated it well. It was also useful against bombs to an extent.

The way that worked was pre-detonation of incoming fire by this deck and the explosion is vented.

On the torpedo blister, the water does that for torpedoes and most AP at range. 

The US Navy originally had it very close to waterline but opted to change it later to above and keep it up the belt some.

However it's thinnest above the waterline and thickest at waterline.

Post Colorado ships went with a newer innovative design, but it's there, often not visible to the unkeen eye.

At range, you want the AP to hit the side or top of deck above the seam where the blister ends. If any of the shell hits part of that seam, it passes through water. At the lower velocity of range akin to shooting below waterline and hitting the protection. Very little pen. But at around (redacted) range, the velocity is high enough to go through the thin bit and at obviously close range, the waterline can be penned well.

Superdreadnaughts, have good belts, the blister, and the added splinter deck. In ships like Texas, they took an old service deck and closed it off during refit. We can't even see it today because panels close it off.

This was in response to Jutland. While slugging it out at mid range was all belt dependent, long range plunging fire was mitigated by using the torpedo blister and splinter deck. US Navy got it mostly right, save for Arizona. After Pearl Harbor, Texas and all dreadnaughts had additional fixes since bombs did go in too deep. In Texas case, they outfit her more AA than Colorado could hold. Texas was literally a no fly zone.

Every BB since Pennsylvania class had significant upgrades since Pearl Harbor.

So, yeah. Your shot grazed the torpedo blister enough to limit the pen.

I wouldn't call it anything more than WG trying to make shooting at ships with obvious torpedo protection harder to penetrate at range.

The best place to land a good shot is any turret that has a tall casemate. Usually turrets 2 and 3 on four turret BBs. Otherwise, amidships or go for that legendary Long range bow pen citadel.

All ships have a soft spot, studying armor models in port is excellent resource material.

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,268
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,083 posts
7,978 battles

Plunging fire in this game is not really a thing. This is an image of a Yamato firing at a GK at long range:

image.thumb.png.da97759653768f256d24575e0e142baa.png

A protractor on my screen gives me an angle of 30° between the shell tracer on the left and the horizon. Now guess the range~

Answer:

Spoiler

Almost 34km

image.thumb.png.f0b48110648b7a5d819fafb63b5ba0fb.png

Not that absurd to hit the torpedo defense when the shells still hit at a relatively shallow angle, and would be more likely to bounce from the deck than penetrate it (can even see one bounce from the turret roof).

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,497
[RKLES]
Members
12,551 posts
14,267 battles
3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Plunging fire in this game is not really a thing. This is an image of a Yamato firing at a GK at long range:

image.thumb.png.da97759653768f256d24575e0e142baa.png

A protractor on my screen gives me an angle of 30° between the shell tracer on the left and the horizon. Now guess the range~

Answer:

  Reveal hidden contents

Almost 34km

image.thumb.png.f0b48110648b7a5d819fafb63b5ba0fb.png

Not that absurd to hit the torpedo defense when the shells still hit at a relatively shallow angle, and would be more likely to bounce from the deck than penetrate it (can even see one bounce from the turret roof).

I would also like to add that some ships have massive torpedo torpedo bulges which would only increase the odds of at least some shells hitting them. But that being said it’s actually fairly rare to have happen if you look though your shell hits carefully. Like a recent battle I had scored only about 4 torpedo protection hits, out of maybe 100 hits in a battle? And who knows how many thousands of hits I score without hitting torpedo protection with shells.

And since the torpedo protection can also save my ships from shells as they can hinder my shells at times when in combat against an enemy warship. I would say it’s quite a fair trade off for me. Particularly when my favorite nation to use, the IJN, typically has good torpedo protection on their ships so the odds are often in my favor of the mechanic working in my favor instead of against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
467
[ICBM]
Members
820 posts
9,317 battles

I notice an earlier poster recommending shooting turret casemate. Does this mean landing shells in a barbette will yield citadels?

Also, would it be better to aim at superstructure at range to increase chance of plunging the shell through the deck as opposed to aiming waterline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,268
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,083 posts
7,978 battles
4 hours ago, mrieder79 said:

I notice an earlier poster recommending shooting turret casemate. Does this mean landing shells in a barbette will yield citadels?

Also, would it be better to aim at superstructure at range to increase chance of plunging the shell through the deck as opposed to aiming waterline?

No, neither barbettes nor turrets nor the conning tower count as citadel space. Only the box that is lit when looking at the armor viewer with all but citadel removed counts as citadel. You can theoretically get into the citadel through the barbette by having a shell bounce down from there. But it's not a reliable method.

As pointed out earlier for most practical purposes there is no plunging fire, so aiming for the deck would not do you any favors. At range aim at the center of mass of the battleship, so that you get as many hits as you can. There's little point in trying to aim waterline or anything, get as many hits in as possible and with how dispersion will treat you at range more hits will also result in a higher chance of a citadel hit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,120
[CVA16]
Members
5,372 posts
16,117 battles

Hitting the torpedo protection should be relatively easy. It is at or close to the point you are aiming to get citadels. Having that actually block your AP shell  that should be punching thru 16" of armor is highly questionable. Should just add an inch or so to the steel needed to penetrate to get to the citadel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
103 posts
5,589 battles
14 hours ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

The thing is if you somehow landed the shell at the plate of steel that the bulkhead happens to be in then the shell goes in, detonates prematurely, and due to water, has its angle manipulated.

If you ever see a video of guns fired in to gelatin and water, the velocity and trajectory start to change dramatically.

US Navy torpedo protection on Colorado class and before was added on. It changed the ship's handling characteristics. But it behaves quite like a splinter deck.

The splinter deck is a feature commonly found on many large US Navy Warships. The original concept was to mitigate damage from plunging fire on deck. A special section between decks serves this purpose. Later designs integrated it well. It was also useful against bombs to an extent.

The way that worked was pre-detonation of incoming fire by this deck and the explosion is vented.

On the torpedo blister, the water does that for torpedoes and most AP at range. 

The US Navy originally had it very close to waterline but opted to change it later to above and keep it up the belt some.

However it's thinnest above the waterline and thickest at waterline.

Post Colorado ships went with a newer innovative design, but it's there, often not visible to the unkeen eye.

At range, you want the AP to hit the side or top of deck above the seam where the blister ends. If any of the shell hits part of that seam, it passes through water. At the lower velocity of range akin to shooting below waterline and hitting the protection. Very little pen. But at around (redacted) range, the velocity is high enough to go through the thin bit and at obviously close range, the waterline can be penned well.

Superdreadnaughts, have good belts, the blister, and the added splinter deck. In ships like Texas, they took an old service deck and closed it off during refit. We can't even see it today because panels close it off.

This was in response to Jutland. While slugging it out at mid range was all belt dependent, long range plunging fire was mitigated by using the torpedo blister and splinter deck. US Navy got it mostly right, save for Arizona. After Pearl Harbor, Texas and all dreadnaughts had additional fixes since bombs did go in too deep. In Texas case, they outfit her more AA than Colorado could hold. Texas was literally a no fly zone.

Every BB since Pennsylvania class had significant upgrades since Pearl Harbor.

So, yeah. Your shot grazed the torpedo blister enough to limit the pen.

I wouldn't call it anything more than WG trying to make shooting at ships with obvious torpedo protection harder to penetrate at range.

The best place to land a good shot is any turret that has a tall casemate. Usually turrets 2 and 3 on four turret BBs. Otherwise, amidships or go for that legendary Long range bow pen citadel.

All ships have a soft spot, studying armor models in port is excellent resource material.

 

 

A lot of your post is accurate in a sense but it is not why the TDS is hit. The belt on a given ship has 3 dimensions; length from stem to stern, thickness, which often varied from the waterline to the upper and lower extremes and the depth of the belt - this is the height of the belt from the top edge to the bottom edge. US battleships had very tall belts meaning that from the top edge to the bottom edge they covered 2 and sometimes 3 deck heights with roughly 1/3 below the water line and 2/3 above. Much of this was due to the wave formation along a hull moving at speed where the water would curve up and down as it passed along the length of the ship. When that wave dipped, more of the side was exposed then it would be when the ship was idle.

 

Many Europe designs, most notably the British opted for very short belts or staggered belts. These belts were seldom more than 1 deck in height and often not even a full deck height for maximum thickness. They tapered in both directions drastically. Some even tapered fore and aft. A ship with this sort of belt, even sitting idle probably has 1 to 2 feet below the water line, or less. A shell does not have to have a steep angle - usually just 25 degrees to get under that belt and land in the TDS which protected by very little armor on these ships, 1 to 2 inches at most. American ships like Colorado had a TDS that was in multiple layers of void and liquid filled with 4 to 5 inches of armor. Later when bulges were added the TDS systems had a depth of 27 feet from outer skin to inner bulkhead. 

Italian ships also had shallow belts and some of the Japanese ships, French ships sometimes had no belt and Russian ships, well, maybe best we do not critique Russian naval engineering - it was horrendous. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,766 posts
36,457 battles
2 hours ago, _Stormcloud_ said:

A lot of your post is accurate in a sense but it is not why the TDS is hit. The belt on a given ship has 3 dimensions; length from stem to stern, thickness, which often varied from the waterline to the upper and lower extremes and the depth of the belt - this is the height of the belt from the top edge to the bottom edge. US battleships had very tall belts meaning that from the top edge to the bottom edge they covered 2 and sometimes 3 deck heights with roughly 1/3 below the water line and 2/3 above. Much of this was due to the wave formation along a hull moving at speed where the water would curve up and down as it passed along the length of the ship. When that wave dipped, more of the side was exposed then it would be when the ship was idle.

 

Many Europe designs, most notably the British opted for very short belts or staggered belts. These belts were seldom more than 1 deck in height and often not even a full deck height for maximum thickness. They tapered in both directions drastically. Some even tapered fore and aft. A ship with this sort of belt, even sitting idle probably has 1 to 2 feet below the water line, or less. A shell does not have to have a steep angle - usually just 25 degrees to get under that belt and land in the TDS which protected by very little armor on these ships, 1 to 2 inches at most. American ships like Colorado had a TDS that was in multiple layers of void and liquid filled with 4 to 5 inches of armor. Later when bulges were added the TDS systems had a depth of 27 feet from outer skin to inner bulkhead. 

Italian ships also had shallow belts and some of the Japanese ships, French ships sometimes had no belt and Russian ships, well, maybe best we do not critique Russian naval engineering - it was horrendous. 

I agree, every nation had their own idea on how to protect a ship.  Yep, I should have brought up your point of the thicknesses.

But I was on lunch break at work. It's hard to bring most of the pertinent stuff and copy it when your lunch is getting cold. My bad.

You have done your homework and I applaud that. You are well on your way to being quite the Warships researcher.

I urge everyone to read what is above by this person. It's the concise information that explains the function of the ship protection.

However, WG does not fully simulate all of it realistically for balance reasons.

And yeah, Russian Navy is staunchly immobile to ship design only because their best engineers built tanks.

But WG seemed to try to at least indulge the childhood dream of Russian citizens of a Russian Navy that while it didn't exist, it was really cool to play.

I can't blame them. Sometimes, boys never grow up and when they own a company that makes shooty botes, wants his Homeland represented well.

Even if it means rummaging through Khrushchev's sock drawer for the drawings.

You have to admit, the man had an imagination. WG, just brought it to life.

 

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
103 posts
5,589 battles
2 hours ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

I agree, every nation had their own idea on how to protect a ship.  Yep, I should have brought up your point of the thicknesses.

But I was on lunch break at work. It's hard to bring most of the pertinent stuff and copy it when your lunch is getting cold. My bad.

You have done your homework and I applaud that. You are well on your way to being quite the Warships researcher.

I urge everyone to read what is above by this person. It's the concise information that explains the function of the ship protection.

However, WG does not fully simulate all of it realistically for balance reasons.

And yeah, Russian Navy is staunchly immobile to ship design only because their best engineers built tanks.

But WG seemed to try to at least indulge the childhood dream of Russian citizens of a Russian Navy that while it didn't exist, it was really cool to play.

I can't blame them. Sometimes, boys never grow up and when they own a company that makes shooty botes, wants his Homeland represented well.

Even if it means rummaging through Khrushchev's sock drawer for the drawings.

You have to admit, the man had an imagination. WG, just brought it to life.

 

 

 

I have no problem with the Russian fantasy wank fleet. My issue with that is if you are going to fantasy wank one navy, do them all. Of course other navies have a lot of ships to chose from and there is a wide difference in never built but laid or ordered US  and UK ships and projected design exercises in other navies. Both the US and the British had very organized and controlled ship building industries, they knew what the ship was going to be like when ti commissioned as they had expertise. All other navies were kind of figuring it out as the ship progressed, often changing the design so many times that the final product bore no resemblance to the plans. Because of this, WG pegs US and British ships with 'this is how they really were, such as USN slow speeds for battleships and the British battleships having universally poor accuracy just because a KGV's and Nelson's could not hit anything to save their life, but the 15"/42 was dead on target. We have battleships pushing 40 knots and battleships shooting like they have rail guns. No problem, give it to everyone, but they don't. 

 

WG has created a game that had no master plan and it has the 'add-on' feel to it with past mistakes magnified as time goes on. In stead of fixing those mistakes, they create conditions or new aspects that try to bring the mistake into acceptability. It never works. I think if I were running WG I would inventory the system and Do a WoWs Mark 2. I would junk a lot of stuff known to be flawed and retain what worked. I would make it a planned scheme that suited the gamer, not the demographic of one market - Russia. WG has yet to learn their game could appeal to everyone across the globe and that while they believe the Russian market is their driver, in economic terms it is a tiny unsophisticated market that is relatively poor.  But, WG plays to the home crowd and their product wallows in mediocrity. Someone will come up with a better version in the near future and people in 5 years will be tossing at a game that is better planned and never know WoWs existed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,575
[WOLF3]
Members
26,963 posts
23,767 battles
On 4/23/2020 at 12:37 AM, SireneRacker said:

Plunging fire in this game is not really a thing. This is an image of a Yamato firing at a GK at long range:

image.thumb.png.da97759653768f256d24575e0e142baa.png

A protractor on my screen gives me an angle of 30° between the shell tracer on the left and the horizon. Now guess the range~

Answer:

  Hide contents

Almost 34km

image.thumb.png.f0b48110648b7a5d819fafb63b5ba0fb.png

Not that absurd to hit the torpedo defense when the shells still hit at a relatively shallow angle, and would be more likely to bounce from the deck than penetrate it (can even see one bounce from the turret roof).

Very much.  Considering that most of the fighting we do in WoWS is 15km, give or take a few, it's quite frequent to hit TDS systems since all our attacks are pretty level at these ranges.  Bookmarking this because the subject of Plunging Fire pops up every now and then around the boards.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
Grammar.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,766 posts
36,457 battles

I try to land AP at an elevated turret casemate from scout plane range.

On the topic of plunging fire, LWM stated it to be possible, but highly improbable because of the rarity of players shooting that far, actually hitting the spot where it would go in and, scoring a citadel.

But in the 5 years since open Beta, I have performed the phenomenon quite a few times. The most devastating was hitting a Mutsu's deck in front of turret 1 and detonated the ship from scout plane max range. I dropped an AP round down the funnel at Yamato's back for a detonation. I hit GK, FDG from 23km with Ohio and got a total of 5 citadels between the two ships.

It's just rare. It is the lowest percentage shot out there, but if you get it, you don't complain. The other guy does.

And recently, a player posted a replay of a crazy out of range shot from their Exeter. They guessed the impact and fired ahead of the target to land the shot and citadel, then the targeting kicked in after. A heck of a guess, but you could see the shell arc in and drop right onto the front of a turret and hit the deck before it. The angle was around 60 degrees, but that's a guess as you can barely see the ship. Every other shot from the broadside missed, but that 1 shell did go in and it was amazing.

You often don't see it because players don't take the risk. Some don't use the spotter, and others are more comfortable with mid-range play.

I am not saying that you try it. But only that it's not impossible, just improbable.

Just remember that there same physics with AP bombers is also the same for AP shells. Velocity, angle, and placement.

It's why a low drop on a CL overpens and a high drop citadels. One uses speed and the other floats it in.

If your guns have a good drop in velocity at long range, then you most likely have already known that you can citadel CLs from another postal code.

And that is why CL players are wary of Long range fire and take evasive immediately. They float in and you are not paying attention, you get paddled like an Aoba sailing wide.

There are advantages and disadvantages at long range. The trick is you know what you can do at that range with your guns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[-SYN-]
[-SYN-]
Members
230 posts
10,181 battles
 
Quote

 

Plunging fire in this game is not really a thing. This is an image of a Yamato firing at a GK at long range:

 

THAT makes sense, so at range the shells are still coming in at a relatively shallow angle. So I wonder what the optimal range is for plunging fire to coe in at a high angle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,130
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,626 posts
4,984 battles
On 4/23/2020 at 3:19 PM, Sabot_100 said:

Hitting the torpedo protection should be relatively easy. It is at or close to the point you are aiming to get citadels. Having that actually block your AP shell  that should be punching thru 16" of armor is highly questionable. Should just add an inch or so to the steel needed to penetrate to get to the citadel.

It does.  Then it hits the belt and doesn't penetrate because it either shatters (fails to penetrate) or bounces off.  That is what a torpedo belt hit for 0 damage is.  If it hits the torpedo belt and then penetrates the belt to get inside the ship it will be a citadel, penetration or overpenetration for 100% damage, 33.33% damage or 10% damage respectively.

These are the things that used to be shown as a penetration for 0 damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
316
[BIER]
Members
463 posts
6,918 battles

The primary cause of torpedo protection hits is shells landing SHORT of the target.

WoWS do model shell flight through water.  So you will get BBs shells that land 20m or so short of the ship travelling through the water to hit the torpedo protection, which is, on many BBs, from essentially the waterline down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,130
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,626 posts
4,984 battles

Oops.

Edited by Helstrem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
884
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,028 posts
12,710 battles
On 4/23/2020 at 12:51 AM, EasyEight said:

OK -- this is starting to be annoying. Mmany, many times now I'm engaging a BB at 20km+ range and I get "torpedo protection" hit notifications. This is plunging fire coming down at a sharp angle, not a flat shot at the sides of the ship -- so how the heck is it hitting torpedo protection?!? 

Torpedo protection was designed to be an additional blister of armor from the main hull, filled with water, so if the ship got torpedoed the warhead would detonate prematurely and be dampened by the water and not expend its full energy on the main hull. It protects the waterline sides of a ship from torpedoes, not plunging fire from high caliber AP shells...

Any ideas?

 

A lot of the torpedo bulges overlap the main armored belt, and actually extend out from the sides. So, you can land just short of the armor belt, hit the top of the bulge, and actually keep going all the way out the bottom of the bulge without connecting with the rest of the ship. Kongo, Nagato, Warspite, US Navy Standards, and many others with a TDS that was added after the ships were built feature this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,265
[ALL41]
Beta Testers
2,168 posts
9,416 battles
On 4/23/2020 at 12:51 AM, EasyEight said:

OK -- this is starting to be annoying. Mmany, many times now I'm engaging a BB at 20km+ range and I get "torpedo protection" hit notifications. This is plunging fire coming down at a sharp angle, not a flat shot at the sides of the ship -- so how the heck is it hitting torpedo protection?!? 

Torpedo protection was designed to be an additional blister of armor from the main hull, filled with water, so if the ship got torpedoed the warhead would detonate prematurely and be dampened by the water and not expend its full energy on the main hull. It protects the waterline sides of a ship from torpedoes, not plunging fire from high caliber AP shells...

Any ideas?

 

Ignore the wegee'splaining posts above. 

The reason is this:

WG has not fixed the 'zero damage pen' bug that affects BB AP. Instead, they decided to cover it up with the 'torpedo protection hit' ribbon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,265
[ALL41]
Beta Testers
2,168 posts
9,416 battles
On 5/6/2020 at 9:36 PM, SgtBeltfed said:

A lot of the torpedo bulges overlap the main armored belt, and actually extend out from the sides. So, you can land just short of the armor belt, hit the top of the bulge, and actually keep going all the way out the bottom of the bulge without connecting with the rest of the ship. Kongo, Nagato, Warspite, US Navy Standards, and many others with a TDS that was added after the ships were built feature this.

Doesn't matter. Torp bulge were a relatively thin armor layer with an empty buffer zone where the torpedo would be made to detonate early and the blast damage be minimized. 

An AP shell with overkill pen capability vs that thin armor would just go through, travel through the empty space and pen the actual armor beneath it regardless. 

Problem is this game treats the first layer of armor as if it was the deciding factor. That's why instead of a zero damage pen which we used to get, we now get a silly ribbon saying an AP shell was stopped by a thin armor layer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
884
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,028 posts
12,710 battles
9 hours ago, Skyfaller said:

Doesn't matter. Torp bulge were a relatively thin armor layer with an empty buffer zone where the torpedo would be made to detonate early and the blast damage be minimized. 

An AP shell with overkill pen capability vs that thin armor would just go through, travel through the empty space and pen the actual armor beneath it regardless. 

Problem is this game treats the first layer of armor as if it was the deciding factor. That's why instead of a zero damage pen which we used to get, we now get a silly ribbon saying an AP shell was stopped by a thin armor layer. 

That would be the case if the round was traveling horizontally, which may or may not be the case.

Look at Warspite's armor model.

She's got massive bulges, almost completely covering her belt, and going clear to the bottom of the ship. Her Citadel is much narrower, and is behind and under the belt armor.

The bulge is 26mm,, her main belt is 330mm.

At close range, with a fairly shallow trajectory, a shell hitting the upper part of the bulge will go through it, and hit the 330mm belt. If it can pen 356mm's of armor (330+26), you get a penetration.

At longer ranges, with a steeper trajectory, you can hit the bulge, go underneath the 330mm belt, and fail to hit the citadel (because in Warspite's case, the Citadel is only about as wide as the 02 level superstructure) and go out the bottom of the ship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,575
[WOLF3]
Members
26,963 posts
23,767 battles
6 hours ago, SgtBeltfed said:

That would be the case if the round was traveling horizontally, which may or may not be the case.

Look at Warspite's armor model.

She's got massive bulges, almost completely covering her belt, and going clear to the bottom of the ship. Her Citadel is much narrower, and is behind and under the belt armor.

The bulge is 26mm,, her main belt is 330mm.

At close range, with a fairly shallow trajectory, a shell hitting the upper part of the bulge will go through it, and hit the 330mm belt. If it can pen 356mm's of armor (330+26), you get a penetration.

At longer ranges, with a steeper trajectory, you can hit the bulge, go underneath the 330mm belt, and fail to hit the citadel (because in Warspite's case, the Citadel is only about as wide as the 02 level superstructure) and go out the bottom of the ship.

 

The guy you're talking with is a conspiracy guy, including "WG secretly nerfed muh Yamato accuracy!" and other fun stuff.  He's the type of guy to go around and say stuff like Nevsky has Smoke and Radar combo.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×