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

Why do cruisers even have armor anymore...

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

170
[CRMSN]
Members
183 posts
15,920 battles

With the number of battleships that over-match every cruiser, and new cruiser lines that with their improved penetration angles, why do we even have armor on cruisers anymore?

This game gets worse every updated...

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
[D-PN]
Members
169 posts
16,684 battles

The armour is to slow then down. If they all went as fast as a khaba the poor BB's couldn't hit them.

 

  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[INTEL]
Members
1,780 posts
16,429 battles

Cruisers have armor so BB AP can arm. :fish_palm:

  • Funny 6
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,942
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,330 posts
14,924 battles

Historically the treaty and the earlier scout cruisers were very brittle. In game you need to be where their shells are not. Rope a Dope like Ali...

s58TTiw.gif?noredirect

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,363
[WORX]
Members
13,291 posts
20,135 battles

Power Creep products will be the end of the game eventually... I want to see the numbers of players who like the power creep Era (2018- current) VS fair play gaming experience. (pre 2017 - Beta/alpha),..

Its not getting any better...

  • Slava
  • And more CVs (German and American)

Are coming just around the corner..

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,457
[PVE]
Members
11,072 posts
19,193 battles

I know it's better to be paper thin at this time and way better to be broadside so the shells fly through you, instead of over-matching the bow and penetrating you while angled going through multiple layers of armor and exploding while inside. Maybe WG is trying to modify the broadside is death no matter what mechanic, like it used to be. In WW1 and WW2, and I know it has been said numerous time on this forum, being broadside was the position to be in. It was called crossing the T. Having all guns possible firing was the preferred method of combat.

image.png.100fba39874c5b9aef11eb51441ae954.png
image.png.6a9d2c1c7b95f3f682c56e606bdb49f1.png
image.png.0bb7576ea4303aadd3ec7ea0d94197d0.png

 


 
Crossing the T or Capping the T is a classic naval warfare tactic attempted from the late 19th to mid 20th century, in which a line of warships crossed in front of a line of enemy ships, allowing the crossing line to bring all their guns to bear while receiving fire from only the forward guns of the enemy. It only became possible to bring all of a ship's main guns to bear in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the advent of steam-powered battleships with rotating gun turrets, which were able to move faster and turn quicker than sailing ships, which had fixed guns facing sideways. The tactic became obsolete with the introduction of missiles and aircraft as long-range strikes are not dependent on the direction the ships are facing.
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
9,099 posts
7,995 battles

So that people with a sense of game mechanics can use the armor to autobounce BB shells. If you constantly die via shells overmatching your nose, try to adjust your angling. But when you use the belt properly you can reliably negate a lot of damage from battleships.

  • Cool 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,809 posts
1,478 battles

Kind of weird that he has over 10k battles but still can’t angle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,679 posts
45,494 battles
27 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I know it's better to be paper thin at this time and way better to be broadside so the shells fly through you, instead of over-matching the bow and penetrating you while angled going through multiple layers of armor and exploding while inside. Maybe WG is trying to modify the broadside is death no matter what mechanic, like it used to be. In WW1 and WW2, and I know it has been said numerous time on this forum, being broadside was the position to be in. It was called crossing the T. Having all guns possible firing was the preferred method of combat.

image.png.100fba39874c5b9aef11eb51441ae954.png
image.png.6a9d2c1c7b95f3f682c56e606bdb49f1.png
image.png.0bb7576ea4303aadd3ec7ea0d94197d0.png

 


 
Crossing the T or Capping the T is a classic naval warfare tactic attempted from the late 19th to mid 20th century, in which a line of warships crossed in front of a line of enemy ships, allowing the crossing line to bring all their guns to bear while receiving fire from only the forward guns of the enemy. It only became possible to bring all of a ship's main guns to bear in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the advent of steam-powered battleships with rotating gun turrets, which were able to move faster and turn quicker than sailing ships, which had fixed guns facing sideways. The tactic became obsolete with the introduction of missiles and aircraft as long-range strikes are not dependent on the direction the ships are facing.

Nelson actually used as variation of this tactic at Trafalgar, only he wanted both sides of his ship to use the guns. To do that he crossed the lead ship, then cut in behind it and across the second ship of the enemy battle line.

He believed he could cut off the commands from the lead flagship and create chaos to the enemy battle line.

The best way to describe this is imagine the enemy battle line as a line. Nelson formed 2 columns and sailed in between the enemy single column. The idea was to break the battle line in thirds. This allowed his fleet to fire all guns from port and starboard with devastating effect. This was the case because Nelson knew his guns were far superior to the enemy. Knowing his opponent had guns unable to do significant damage at close range, Nelson was confident his tactic would break up the enemy fleet and a decisive victory.

I actually do a version of this in game with Massachusetts and other BBs whenever I face a straight battle line of BBs. I just weave in and out between the BBs and it sure is fun to do.

What I haven't been able to do is get a 4 on 4 battle line situation where I can get 3 other BBs to perform the same maneuver.

They key is sailing in the spacing created by the BBs and then cutting in and out until you reach the end.

Usually, by the time you reach the end, you get at least one ship sunk. Each pass  as you start out allows you only time to unleash one broadside and then move on to the next ship in the line but the second target will only get your front guns and the third ship all of them again. During this maneuver, your secondaries fire from all sides and set quite a few fires and massive damage.

The rest of your squadron gets their broadsides in and similar damage done with their secondaries. As your squadron sails in they progress through and eventually the rest of the enemy battle line crumbles.

This weaving in and out pattern was adopted by Togo with a slight variation of his own at Tsushima. He called it The Dragon 🐉.

Again a serpentine maneuver that disrupts a battle line and allows all guns to fire. While Togo did his with a little more complexity, he simply adapted Nelson's maneuver to modern times.

Tne crossing T maneuver was executed at Jutland and in some ways was a more conservative approach to Nelson's maneuver because both sides really didn't want to lose any ships and the modified version basically allowed both sides to break off safely.

Had Jutland been executed per Nelson's original intent, it would be more brutal, bloodied, and extremely decisive because it would in fact be close quarters.

The losses would be significant for both sides.

The lesson learned at Tsushima convinced modern naval scholars to not get that down and dirty. The IJN went for the big win and the Imperial Russian Navy was decisively crushed.

You might say the sheer brutality of the battle was disturbing. But had Nelson been alive, he would have loved it. Jutland, Nelson would have hated it. He would think not decisive enough.

However, saying that, crossing the T did become modern doctrine. But only because there was an option to have an exit strategy.

Nelson's tactics were all in, get some, or die trying. But he did it smart. He made sure all his weapons were brought to bear on the enemy at a time when sailing was done with fixed guns.

He probably would come up with something if he witnessed the modern era.  We may never know. The man was a genius.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[INTEL]
Members
1,780 posts
16,429 battles
20 minutes ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

Nelson actually used as variation of this tactic at Trafalgar, only he wanted both sides of his ship to use the guns. To do that he crossed the lead ship, then cut in behind it and across the second ship of the enemy battle line.

He believed he could cut off the commands from the lead flagship and create chaos to the enemy battle line.

The best way to describe this is imagine the enemy battle line as a line. Nelson formed 2 columns and sailed in between the enemy single column. The idea was to break the battle line in thirds. This allowed his fleet to fire all guns from port and starboard with devastating effect. This was the case because Nelson knew his guns were far superior to the enemy. Knowing his opponent had guns unable to do significant damage at close range, Nelson was confident his tactic would break up the enemy fleet and a decisive victory.

I actually do a version of this in game with Massachusetts and other BBs whenever I face a straight battle line of BBs. I just weave in and out between the BBs and it sure is fun to do.

What I haven't been able to do is get a 4 on 4 battle line situation where I can get 3 other BBs to perform the same maneuver.

They key is sailing in the spacing created by the BBs and then cutting in and out until you reach the end.

Usually, by the time you reach the end, you get at least one ship sunk. Each pass  as you start out allows you only time to unleash one broadside and then move on to the next ship in the line but the second target will only get your front guns and the third ship all of them again. During this maneuver, your secondaries fire from all sides and set quite a few fires and massive damage.

The rest of your squadron gets their broadsides in and similar damage done with their secondaries. As your squadron sails in they progress through and eventually the rest of the enemy battle line crumbles.

This weaving in and out pattern was adopted by Togo with a slight variation of his own at Tsushima. He called it The Dragon 🐉.

Again a serpentine maneuver that disrupts a battle line and allows all guns to fire. While Togo did his with a little more complexity, he simply adapted Nelson's maneuver to modern times.

Tne crossing T maneuver was executed at Jutland and in some ways was a more conservative approach to Nelson's maneuver because both sides really didn't want to lose any ships and the modified version basically allowed both sides to break off safely.

Had Jutland been executed per Nelson's original intent, it would be more brutal, bloodied, and extremely decisive because it would in fact be close quarters.

The losses would be significant for both sides.

The lesson learned at Tsushima convinced modern naval scholars to not get that down and dirty. The IJN went for the big win and the Imperial Russian Navy was decisively crushed.

You might say the sheer brutality of the battle was disturbing. But had Nelson been alive, he would have loved it. Jutland, Nelson would have hated it. He would think not decisive enough.

However, saying that, crossing the T did become modern doctrine. But only because there was an option to have an exit strategy.

Nelson's tactics were all in, get some, or die trying. But he did it smart. He made sure all his weapons were brought to bear on the enemy at a time when sailing was done with fixed guns.

He probably would come up with something if he witnessed the modern era.  We may never know. The man was a genius.

 

 

 

 Nelson's Royal Navy was wooden sailing ships that could be replaced in months. Many of them had been in service for decades and any replacements could be expected to stay in service for as long. New ships could be built nearly anywhere enough wood was available as well

 The ships at Jutland represented a significant portion of the wealth of the empire and would take years to replace. Britain being a global empire larger and with more real local threats than existed in Nelson's time made losing ships a much bigger potential problem. I'm sure Nelson would have been very understanding of the need to not go all in at Jutland. He was a product of a different era. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,736
[O7]
Members
1,037 posts
6,162 battles

Did you know that the majority of your armor can not be over matched?

Hermlin, a T1, can bounce a Yamato shell

Much like guns, armor is only effective if the captain have the brains to make use of it.

  • Cool 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
6 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

Power Creep products will be the end of the game eventually... I want to see the numbers of players who like the power creep Era (2018- current) VS fair play gaming experience. (pre 2017 - Beta/alpha),..

Its not getting any better...

  • Slava
  • And more CVs (German and American)

Are coming just around the corner..

HAHAHAHAHA! You think the game was 'fair play' before? Hahahaha, it wasn't it was just as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,275
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Alpha Tester
2,876 posts
27,161 battles
5 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I know it's better to be paper thin at this time and way better to be broadside so the shells fly through you, instead of over-matching the bow and penetrating you while angled going through multiple layers of armor and exploding while inside. Maybe WG is trying to modify the broadside is death no matter what mechanic, like it used to be. In WW1 and WW2, and I know it has been said numerous time on this forum, being broadside was the position to be in. It was called crossing the T. Having all guns possible firing was the preferred method of combat.

image.png.100fba39874c5b9aef11eb51441ae954.png
image.png.6a9d2c1c7b95f3f682c56e606bdb49f1.png
image.png.0bb7576ea4303aadd3ec7ea0d94197d0.png

 


 
Crossing the T or Capping the T is a classic naval warfare tactic attempted from the late 19th to mid 20th century, in which a line of warships crossed in front of a line of enemy ships, allowing the crossing line to bring all their guns to bear while receiving fire from only the forward guns of the enemy. It only became possible to bring all of a ship's main guns to bear in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the advent of steam-powered battleships with rotating gun turrets, which were able to move faster and turn quicker than sailing ships, which had fixed guns facing sideways. The tactic became obsolete with the introduction of missiles and aircraft as long-range strikes are not dependent on the direction the ships are facing.

Just remnants of the game being so heavily based on WoT is what we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,363
[WORX]
Members
13,291 posts
20,135 battles
47 minutes ago, Neko_Ship_Akashi said:

HAHAHAHAHA! You think the game was 'fair play' before? Hahahaha, it wasn't it was just as bad.

YT video from 2017 and before, disagree with you ( especially at high tiers). To say its "just as bad" I disagree.

Power creep at high tiers have changed the rules of engagement for certain ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts

Huh.  I've found that the armor still works on my ships, but then, I use a lot of movement to maximize the armor via angles and turning dead-on hits into glancing hits.  

Maybe the problem isn't the armor, but the way so many players like to park somewhere or sit in reverse, and make themselves easy targets for anything that has a shot at them.  

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[ICLAD]
[ICLAD]
Beta Testers
132 posts
14,942 battles
17 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Huh.  I've found that the armor still works on my ships, but then, I use a lot of movement to maximize the armor via angles and turning dead-on hits into glancing hits.  

Maybe the problem isn't the armor, but the way so many players like to park somewhere or sit in reverse, and make themselves easy targets for anything that has a shot at them.  

 

This!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[CRMSN]
Members
183 posts
15,920 battles
7 hours ago, alex08060 said:

Kind of weird that he has over 10k battles but still can’t angle. 

I know how to angle and understand the concept, I'm just tired of having to angle so much your ship basically becomes useless

 

7 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

So that people with a sense of game mechanics can use the armor to autobounce BB shells. If you constantly die via shells overmatching your nose, try to adjust your angling. But when you use the belt properly you can reliably negate a lot of damage from battleships.

Who said I was nose in?  I'm just getting tired of kiting away, angling, and adjusting speed/coarse and having 1 errant shell citadel me.

Like I said, this game is getting worse every patch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[CRMSN]
Members
183 posts
15,920 battles
4 hours ago, DolphinPrincess said:

Did you know that the majority of your armor can not be over matched?

Hermlin, a T1, can bounce a Yamato shell

Much like guns, armor is only effective if the captain have the brains to make use of it.

I've seen the video, how many tries did it take Flamu to get to the angle where a Hermlin bounced Yammy shells, and he was specifically aiming at the ship to purposefully bounce shells, not a very game-time realistic exercise because if I was that Yammy I'd aim elsewhere on the cruiser, or wait until the angle got better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
9,099 posts
7,995 battles
4 minutes ago, FacePalming said:

Who said I was nose in?  I'm just getting tired of kiting away, angling, and adjusting speed/coarse and having 1 errant shell citadel me. 

Who said you were nose in? I certainly didn't. As I said, when you play properly, you have little to fear. My advise is playing a ship that is both rewarding and punishing in that regard, so you'll quickly learn what the proper angle is. I did that with Abruzzi, well famed for her huge citadel, and those 1 errant shells were of no concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,736
[O7]
Members
1,037 posts
6,162 battles
34 minutes ago, FacePalming said:

I've seen the video, how many tries did it take Flamu to get to the angle where a Hermlin bounced Yammy shells, and he was specifically aiming at the ship to purposefully bounce shells, not a very game-time realistic exercise because if I was that Yammy I'd aim elsewhere on the cruiser, or wait until the angle got better.

1: Hermlin's belt armor where it can bounce Yamato's shell is rather small, it was shown as an extreme example because of how a T1 can bounce even a 460mm shell. More realistically, if you look at a T10 cruiser, then the area in which the armor is greater than 32mm is far more massive.

2: It doesn't matter where the Yamato aims, the whole point is to position yourself such that the shell would hit your armored belt. If someone thru a rock at you, you don't thrust out your head to "tank" the rock, you move your arm to block it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
610
[BOTO]
Members
1,460 posts
18,201 battles
56 minutes ago, FacePalming said:

I've seen the video, how many tries did it take Flamu to get to the angle where a Hermlin bounced Yammy shells, and he was specifically aiming at the ship to purposefully bounce shells, not a very game-time realistic exercise because if I was that Yammy I'd aim elsewhere on the cruiser, or wait until the angle got better.

I'm a cruiser main and battleships shooting HE scares me more than when they shoot AP.  I can angle against AP, HE doesn't care anything about angling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[DENY]
Members
641 posts
9,912 battles
8 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

So that people with a sense of game mechanics can use the armor to autobounce BB shells. If you constantly die via shells overmatching your nose, try to adjust your angling. But when you use the belt properly you can reliably negate a lot of damage from battleships.

You can't really angle well anymore because BB dispersion is such that quite often even if you do everything right, a stray shell will cripple you, and plenty of newer BB have such tight dispersion that it's near impossible to dodge their shells, and people have simply gotten much better at aiming and knowing where to aim.

Once upon a time, I had no fear of taking a Hindenburg nose in against a Yamato, two older ships. I won almost all these encounters, because I could dodge between their shells. No, that's pretty much suicide years later, because they will simply over match on your nose and even bad players have an idea where to aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[DENY]
Members
641 posts
9,912 battles
5 hours ago, DolphinPrincess said:

Did you know that the majority of your armor can not be over matched?

Hermlin, a T1, can bounce a Yamato shell

Much like guns, armor is only effective if the captain have the brains to make use of it.

That's auto bounce and has literally NOTHING to do with hitting the deck or nose. Any AP shell in the auto bounce zone hitting the armor belt will bounce, it cannot be over matched, but that is a completely different mechanic than the over match mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×