Question about Scharnhorst

[Lert]

According to this thread, battlecruiser Scharnhorst is planned for tier 7. What I'm curious about is her fully upgraded gun configuration. Will she have the 9x 11" rifles she had IRL or the 6x 15" rifles that were planned for her but never installed?

[hmcs_2015]

Good question.  We just have to wait and see.

[Vaultin]

9x 11" as a stock config and then the 6x 15"? If I had to guess I'd say the 6x 15" just because the tier it's at. Then againn I'm not a genius.

[Lert]

9x 11" as a stock config and then the 6x 15"?

 

That would make some sense and fit with WG's modus operandi.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

6 x 15" will almost certainly be an upgrade. It's not like she'd be amazingly OP with those, I might add. If anything, I see players sticking with the 9 x 11" for two reasons: 3 more guns, and an obscene 17 second reload.

[Overwatch1701]

Im guessing she her upgraded guns will be the 15 inchers. Obviously you sacrafice the rounds per min and gun count with more damage/penitration. 

[Demon93IT]

According to this thread, battlecruiser Scharnhorst is planned for tier 7. What I'm curious about is her fully upgraded gun configuration. Will she have the 9x 11" rifles she had IRL or the 6x 15" rifles that were planned for her but never installed?

 

I think both since the original guns were still decent with all considered(you can check here the stats of the guns). Personally i would most likely stick with the 11" guns

[Argh_My_Liver]

Cant check right now but isnt there a japanese BB/HC (Cant recall which) that has the same thing going? Starting with a larger number of smaller calibre guns with the option to upgrade to fewer larger guns.

[Lert]

(you can check here the stats of the guns)

 

That is a very interesting link, thank you.

 

However, one thing drew my attention-

 

"The high muzzle velocity of this weapon gave its relatively light-weight projectiles long range and good penetration power against belt armor, at a cost of relatively poor performance against deck armor."

 

It makes sense really with relatively small-but-fast shells. This will mean that the 11" rifles will be relatively weaker at long range with plunging fire against armored opponents, but decent to good at short range with direct fire.

[Vaultin]

It makes sense really with relatively small-but-fast shells. This will mean that the 11" rifles will be relatively weaker at long range with plunging fire against armored opponents, but decent to good at short range with direct fire.

 

I don't know why but that's confusing me, can someone explain to me why it would be worse at long range?

[Battleship_Unknown2]

As I recall, none of the hits scored by Scharnhorst during North Cape managed to pen Duke of York. The Scharnhorsts were really designed with commerce raiding in mind -- not full fledged fleet engagements. They were fine ships (superbly armored, too), and would have done well against heavy cruisers, many WWI era BBs, and all BCs (I think they might perform alright against an Alaska, but I'd still pick the American in that fight). But against a modern battleship? No chance. Scharnhorst's only shot was to run, and she tried to do just that.

[Lert]

 

I don't know why but that's confusing me, can someone explain to me why it would be worse at long range?

 

At short range the sheer velocity of the shell counters its relatively light weight to give it sufficient penetration against armored belts.

 

At long range the forward velocity of the shell as for the most part eroded away and it's just plunging down under gravity, where the light weight of the shell means it doesn't have as much kinetic energy as much heavier shells falling down at the same rate - gravity pulls all objects down at the same rate.

 

Compare it to hitting someone in the face with a thrown tennisball at 10 ft and at 50 ft. At 10 ft it'll hurt a lot more and at 50 ft hardly. Now throw a brick. You'll find the brick flies slower and takes longer to reach your buddy's face, but hurt more when it finally does. That's the difference between a 11" shell and a 15" shell, heavier ordnance will retain their kinetic energy better at range.

 

As I recall, none of the hits scored by Scharnhorst during North Cape managed to pen Duke of York.

 

Historically maybe, but in this game 8" shells from a tier 7 CA can do harm to a BB, so I imagine 11" shells from Scharnhorst could as well. Though maybe not as reliably as 15" ones.

 

[Noth]

 

I don't know why but that's confusing me, can someone explain to me why it would be worse at long range?

 

Smaller lighter projectiles lose velocity faster, thus can end up being weaker at penetration at longer ranges. Further with ships, there is a thing called plunging fire where the arc makes the shell strike at a vertical angle. This has the advantage of hitting the weaker deck armor (in comparison to the belt armor). Lighter shells are worse for this, and adding in a flatter trajectory makes them much worse at such things.

[Vaultin]

Compare it to hitting someone in the face with a thrown tennisball at 10 ft and at 50 ft. At 10 ft it'll hurt a lot more and at 50 ft hardly. Now throw a brick. You'll find the brick flies slower and takes longer to reach your buddy's face, but hurt more when it finally does. That's the difference between a 11" shell and a 15" shell, heavier ordnance will retain their kinetic energy better at range.

 

Smaller lighter projectiles lose velocity faster, thus can end up being weaker at penetration at longer ranges. Further with ships, there is a thing called plunging fire where the arc makes the shell strike at a vertical angle. This has the advantage of hitting the weaker deck armor (in comparison to the belt armor). Lighter shells are worse for this, and adding in a flatter trajectory makes them much worse at such things.

 

Alrighhtt, I understand now. I was over thinking the whole thing. Thanks for the help.

[Demon93IT]

Scharnhorst with the 11" guns would be more of a cruiser killer: a lot of large(ish) guns with crazy RoF(for the caliber) and good speed(she almost matches the speed of the slowest cruisers). Granted she won't be strong against BBs but does that really matter?

[Lert]

Granted she won't be strong against BBs but does that really matter?

 

If she's the only ship in position to take out a red team BB, yes.

[mr3awsome]

 

If she's the only ship in position to take out a red team BB, yes.

 

She's primarily weak at range, and in a prolonged fight. Basically an ambusher. Just have to hope Scharnhorst is played to be strengths in that situation.

[Red_Raven_168]

 

She's primarily weak at range, and in a prolonged fight. Basically an ambusher. Just have to hope Scharnhorst is played to be strengths in that situation.

you just described a perfect premium

[Demon93IT]

 

If she's the only ship in position to take out a red team BB, yes.

 

At close range she can pen BBs, granted the shell isn't heavy but with a RoF of 3.5 rpm it still hurts. She isn't supposed to fight against a BB in a straight up fight, she would lose without proper support.

 

you just described a perfect premium

 

Possibly but who knows. She's complicated to place in a line, just like Deutschland&co.

[Kristoffer]

 

I hope no 15s, IMO, judging from how this game works the 11s would be funner to play with its good reload and a decent number of barrels, I simply wish that the 11s be balanced to be able to compete against other tier 7.

 

I say this because 6 shells in the air with a longer reload just doesn't seem as fun as having more guns with faster reloads, as we've seen in this game with the Cleveland, which is a prime example of lots of guns +  fast reloads = lots of fun.

 

[Battleship_Unknown2]

I hope no 15s, IMO, judging from how this game works the 11s would be funner to play with its good reload and a decent number of barrels, I simply wish that the 11s be balanced to be able to compete against other tier 7.

 

I say this because 6 shells in the air with a longer reload just doesn't seem as fun as having more guns with faster reloads, as we've seen in this game with the Cleveland, which is a prime example of lots of guns +  fast reloads = lots of fun.

 

A 17 second reload time for shells that heavy is broken... I seriously doubt you're going to find yourself wanting. Obviously, despite the historical inaccuracy, they will be able to pen other BBs in that tier... which means you're going to be cycling through two salvoes in almost the same timeframe that other BBs shoot once. Trust me: people are going to be calling for a Scharnhorst nerf long before they're pleading for it to be buffed.

[Kristoffer]

 

A 17 second reload time for shells that heavy is broken... I seriously doubt you're going to find yourself wanting. Obviously, despite the historical inaccuracy, they will be able to pen other BBs in that tier... which means you're going to be cycling through two salvoes in almost the same timeframe that other BBs shoot once. Trust me: people are going to be calling for a Scharnhorst nerf long before they're pleading for it to be buffed.

 

There are larger predators out there actually, for example, the Alaska Class-'Large Cruiser'.

 

She's armed with 9 x 12 inch guns firing 518 kg shells (compared to Scharnhorst's 336kg shells) at a round every 20 seconds. The Alaska also has better protection, her decks cannot be penetrated by Scharnhorst's 11s, she's 2 knots faster and her AA is second to none at her weight class. 

 

Other advantages are RADAR FCS for both her main guns and DPs, which would have afforded the Alaska a longer engagement envelope in comparison to the Scharnhorst, probably reasonably accurate up to 35-38,000 yards (32.5 - 34.7 km).

 

[Battleship_Unknown2]

 

There are larger predators out there actually, for example, the Alaska Class-'Large Cruiser'.

 

She's armed with 9 x 12 inch guns firing 518 kg shells (compared to Scharnhorst's 336kg shells) at a round every 20 seconds. The Alaska also has better protection, her decks cannot be penetrated by Scharnhorst's 11s, she's 2 knots faster and her AA is second to none at her weight class. 

 

Other advantages are RADAR FCS for both her main guns and DPs, which would have afforded the Alaska a longer engagement envelope in comparison to the Scharnhorst, probably reasonably accurate up to 35-38,000 yards (32.5 - 34.7 km).

 

 

Radar doesn't matter in WoWs. Nor does, really, armor, since you can be penned in a battleship by the 6" guns of a light cruiser. I expect that Scharnhorst will stand up well to Alaska in this game (and I don't think she would have done that badly IRL, either... it would really depend on the weather conditions when they engaged).

[Kristoffer]

 

Radar doesn't matter in WoWs. Nor does, really, armor, since you can be penned in a battleship by the 6" guns of a light cruiser. I expect that Scharnhorst will stand up well to Alaska in this game (and I don't think she would have done that badly IRL, either... it would really depend on the weather conditions when they engaged).

 

As far as radars perhaps they would take it into account as 'longer range' than other comparatively tiered ship (They are technically already doing this with the DDs and CLs/CAs).

 

Sharnhorst can probably win if she can get close enough to start hitting the Alaska's belt reliably, it might be impossibly difficult to do this in an open sea environment, but might be possible in the Baltics where Islands and cliffs may hide a ship from her radars.

[RococoEra989]

Germans will suffer from wot syndrome.