Game Balence and Armor piercing

[KaiserinStark]

I was just looking through some photos of a ship that should eventually be a Tier 7 or 8, and I thought about what the penetration system will be like. Of course world of tanks had values but the variables in naval warfare are far different; I know that plunging fire will be the game (or so we've been told) but what about shell size to armor? Sure 5 in'ers can't go through a battleship but will a 15in from a Bismarck still be able to critically injure a Yamato or Iowa or will the shell simply "bounce" like in WoT due to the armor? Whats your guy's take on how it should be? Or maybe I'm just going crazy and overthinking this :Smile_teethhappy:

[Elouda]

Roy2341, on 03 October 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

I was just looking through some photos of a ship that should eventually be a Tier 7 or 8, and I thought about what the penetration system will be like. Of course world of tanks had values but the variables in naval warfare are far different; I know that plunging fire will be the game (or so we've been told) but what about shell size to armor? Sure 5 in'ers can't go through a battleship but will a 15in from a Bismarck still be able to critically injure a Yamato or Iowa or will the shell simply "bounce" like in WoT due to the armor? Whats your guy's take on how it should be? Or maybe I'm just going crazy and overthinking this :Smile_teethhappy:

If we go by reality, and assume 'critically injure' require a citadel penetration?

Against Bismarck's 38cm/52;
Iowa's belt is capable of rejecting it beyond ~20500m (23000yds).
Yamato's belt is capable of rejecting it beyond ~15500m (17500yds). This is reduced to ~14500m if we ignore armour quality (which the game apparently will).

Below ~15000yards, not much is stopping a large shell. At even shorter ranges, the more lightly armoured battleships and battlecruisers will be vulnerable to even heavy cruiser guns.

I predict pretty much any short range fight between comparable opponents turning ugly, fast. Torpedoes just make this even more fun.

(Note that you can 'mission kill' ships without defeating the armoured citadel, but most of the modern all or nothing schemes were designed to be combat capable even with extensive damage to areas outside the citadel, though this varied ship to ship.)

[Coldt]

I wouldn't say critically injuring a ship REQUIRES a citadel hit.  A pair of heavy cruisers can, relatively, easily knock out the main guns of even the most heavily armored battleships if they can get in range.  I'd like to see a battleship be a serious threat without its big guns.

[JeeWeeJ]

Coldt, on 03 October 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

I wouldn't say critically injuring a ship REQUIRES a citadel hit.  A pair of heavy cruisers can, relatively, easily knock out the main guns of even the most heavily armored battleships if they can get in range.  I'd like to see a battleship be a serious threat without its big guns.

Sure, but just line in WoT it'll be impossible to permanently silence a BB's guns. And if i were a CA i wouldn't want a large number of large caliber barrels turning my way.. :Smile_ohmy:

[Elouda]

Coldt, on 03 October 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

I wouldn't say critically injuring a ship REQUIRES a citadel hit.  A pair of heavy cruisers can, relatively, easily knock out the main guns of even the most heavily armored battleships if they can get in range.  I'd like to see a battleship be a serious threat without its big guns.

A heavy cruiser can do little to the turret or barbette of a properly armoured battleship at typical engagement ranges, especially if said turret is pointing at the cruiser. Turret faceplates were almost always the thickest armour peices onboard ships, and were generally sloped too. Turret sides and roof were weaker (though how much varies by design), so conceivably a pair of cruisers able to both close to near point blank range, split up so as to open an angle on something other than a faceplate, and hit said target, could put a turret out of action. I would hardly call this 'easily' however.

For example, the US 8in/55 Mk15 with its 335lbs shell is capable of defeating ~13.6in of armour at 2000 yards, at an angle of fall of ~1.5 degrees. North Carolina's turrets have 16in faces, 10in sides and 12in rears. So at this range the turret is vulnerable assuming it isnt pointed at the shooting ship. At beyond 7000 yards it is pretty much entirely protected.

Of course, superficial damage (wrecked rangefinders, etc) is possible even without defeating the armour on the turret, but these are small targets and generally redundant (said North Carolina class has 1 main rangefinder in the superstructure, a secondary one in the superstructure, 3 'local' rangefinders (1 in each turret), and 3 simple backup ones (1 per turret)). Lucky hits might land a shell in such a way that it ends up jamming the rotating gear of the turret, but this was exceptionally rare.

Also, I'd hate to be the heavy cruiser exposed at those ranges to any of the larger BBs secondary batteries. 10 5in/38 (North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa) or 6 6.1in/60 and 12 5in/40 (Yamato) at that range is enough to turn a heavy cruiser into swiss cheese. Unlike battleships, heavy cruisers did not carry enough armour to protect all their vitals and sufficient reserve bouyancy to remain afloat if the rest was shot full of holes (aka no proper citadel).

[Mathayus]

Elouda, on 03 October 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

For example, the US 8in/55 Mk15 with its 335lbs shell is capable of defeating ~13.6in of armour at 2000 yards, at an angle of fall of ~1.5 degrees. North Carolina's turrets have 16in faces, 10in sides and 12in rears. So at this range the turret is vulnerable assuming it isnt pointed at the shooting ship. At beyond 7000 yards it is pretty much entirely protected.

Why would you shoot only at the turrets? To critical damage the guns? If you know you probably wont damage anything it is time to shoot somewere else.
If I know Wargaming they will make enough weakspots to do damage.

[_DK_]

Mathayus, on 03 October 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Why would you shoot only at the turrets? To critical damage the guns? If you know you probably wont damage anything it is time to shoot somewere else.
If I know Wargaming they will make enough weakspots to do damage.

Agreed, killing officers in the bridge, damaging fire control systems, hitting ammunition (underneath the turrets, can be detonated by penetrating the deck/belt) are probably equally important in disabling and sinking a ship.

At Leyte Gulf - Battle of Surigao Strait, officers on HMAS Shropshire recounted that their battery of 8" and secondary 4" guns were very effective at causing fires to the citadel of the battleships Yamashiro and Fusō. Such fire can completely render the enemies crew very ineffective and although you may not be able to sink their ship, you effectively put it out of action.

[Ninja_Shark]

The other factor is going to be the speed of the target ship vs turret rotation of the big ships. Just like the T-50s  and T-52s in WOT, Fast as hell and really hard to hit! They run circles arount the big tanks and shoot them from all sides, sure little damage with each hit... but it does add up, and lets not forget that the T-50s victim is now an arty target. I am sure the same scenario will apply to this game.

[_DK_]

Ninja_Shark, on 03 October 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

The other factor is going to be the speed of the target ship vs turret rotation of the big ships. Just like the T-50s  and T-52s in WOT, Fast as hell and really hard to hit! They run circles arount the big tanks and shoot them from all sides, sure little damage with each hit... but it does add up, and lets not forget that the T-50s victim is now an arty target. I am sure the same scenario will apply to this game.

You forget all battleships have secondary batteries...... for the exact purpose of taking down smaller ships such as destroyers at close ranges.

[Mathayus]

That might be good targets to do critical damage to.

[DrN0s]

Elouda, on 03 October 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

Against Bismarck's 38cm/52;
Iowa's belt is capable of rejecting it beyond ~20500m (23000yds).
Yamato's belt is capable of rejecting it beyond ~15500m (17500yds). This is reduced to ~14500m if we ignore armour quality (which the game apparently will).

At that range you are most likely to hit the DECK, not the belt because at that range the shell is descending almost vertically

[Capcon]

By way of example in WoT the 88mm L/56 gun on the Tiger still is limited by the sight range in the game. The longest range hit I've ever scored in the game (and noted the range) 614 meters. This even though we know that the 88mm L/56 is good for hits on tank sized targets out to 2000 meters and more. 2000 meter is twice the size of the map in WoT. The 88mm L/71 on the Nashorn had sights to 5000 meters and when terrain and ammunition supply permitted shots of 2500 meters were made. But, the game sight range gives out at something near 500 meters.

 

And though I can't prove it, experience says that the penetration reduction due to range is greater in the game than in reality, perhaps in support of the reduced sight range.

 

 

Things will be a little different in WoWs as that the map for this game is not a whole lot longer than the max range of the largest guns but it is not smaller than the gun range as in WoT.

 

I do wonder:

 

What will the sight range be?

 

Will the real world penetration reduction based on range be tweaked to support a shorter sight range?

[Elouda]

DrN0s, on 03 October 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

At that range you are most likely to hit the DECK, not the belt because at that range the shell is descending almost vertically

For the German 38cm/52;
At ~15500m angle of fall is ~11 degrees. For a target with Yamato's dimensions this means ~58% of hits will strike the belt.

At ~20500m angle of fall is ~17 degrees. For a target with Yamato's dimensions this means ~47% of hits will strike the belt.

This is hardly 'almost vertical'.

In both cases the angle of fall is so shallow that armour penetration suffers as a result.

Deck penetration for the 38cm/52 at those ranges is ~3.1in of Class B at ~20500m and ~2.4in of Class B at ~15500m for those interested.

[DementedMind]

Will our AI-controlled Dual Purpose guns deal with trespassing enemy ships?

[JeeWeeJ]

DementedMind, on 04 October 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Will our AI-controlled Dual Purpose guns deal with trespassing enemy ships?

Yes, you'll be able to give your DP guns surface targets.

[DrN0s]

Elouda, on 04 October 2012 - 03:45 AM, said:

For the German 38cm/52;
At ~15500m angle of fall is ~11 degrees. For a target with Yamato's dimensions this means ~58% of hits will strike the belt.

At ~20500m angle of fall is ~17 degrees. For a target with Yamato's dimensions this means ~47% of hits will strike the belt.

This is hardly 'almost vertical'.

In both cases the angle of fall is so shallow that armour penetration suffers as a result.

Deck penetration for the 38cm/52 at those ranges is ~3.1in of Class B at ~20500m and ~2.4in of Class B at ~15500m for those interested.

Well I swear I saw a documentary about the bismarck vs hood fight and the shell hit almost verticaly..

[Elouda]

DrN0s, on 04 October 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Well I swear I saw a documentary about the bismarck vs hood fight and the shell hit almost verticaly..

Most exhaustive analysis of Denmark Strait and the loss of HMS Hood place the angle of fall for that fateful shot around ~12 degrees.

What may be a source of some confusion however, is that Hood had a rather unusual deck armour arrangement, as shown here;
http://www.warship.o...987-Midship.jpg

The steeply sloped sides of the armoured deck present a near vertical target relative to a projectiles motion, for a shell which hits just above the main belt. This is however a design deficiency in the armour scheme, and has nothing to do with the performance or angle of fall of the weapon being used.

Of course, I've also read speculation that the shell actually struck below the main belt, after passing through several meters of water. This is theoretically possible, as even though German AP shells were not designed for extended underwater travel, the blunt AP cap and fragile windshield compared to British or US shells might permit this to happen without being intentionally designed for it (like the Japanese Type 91 AP was).

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

One on one, probably not.  However, historically speaking, engagements on large battleships consisted of many ships, and so will that dynamic exist in WoW.  Attrition is paramount in seizes, especially in such actions.  Obviously, those that swarm a battleship have a higher chance to wear its HP down to zero.  On the other hand, a battleship with escorts is another matter.

 

Roy2341, on 03 October 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

I was just looking through some photos of a ship that should eventually be a Tier 7 or 8, and I thought about what the penetration system will be like. Of course world of tanks had values but the variables in naval warfare are far different; I know that plunging fire will be the game (or so we've been told) but what about shell size to armor? Sure 5 in'ers can't go through a battleship but will a 15in from a Bismarck still be able to critically injure a Yamato or Iowa or will the shell simply "bounce" like in WoT due to the armor? Whats your guy's take on how it should be? Or maybe I'm just going crazy and overthinking this :Smile_teethhappy:

[Sturmflieger]

One thing to remember is that the closer you get to a target, the lower your angle of fire is going to be. So even if a BB's turrets could track on a DD circling it (which they can't follow it fast enough), That DD can get in "under" the shortest range at which they can fire. The secondary batteries however have a very short minimum range (varies per type of gun/gun mount). It will be very interesting to see how this is worked with. If a BB is all alone without escorts and two BBs are at a short range (say 1000 meters) and slugging it out, they will be shooting at their belt armor (above or below the water). Vertical or steep angle shots will only be possible from longer distances.

[Crag_r]

DrN0s, on 04 October 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Well I swear I saw a documentary about the bismarck vs hood fight and the shell hit almost verticaly..

Effectively vertically yes, not sure who -1 that but i fixed it for you.

[Gigaton]

Crag_r, on 06 October 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Effectively vertically yes, not sure who -1 that but i fixed it for you.

Effectively vertically is still wrong way to put it. It's a case of close to horizontally flying shell hitting close to vertical part of the deck which results in somewhat perpendicular hit. To clarify, we are talking about the sloped sides of the main deck, not of the curved forcastle and upper decks. Ie. a hit like depicted in the following drawing was possibly the reason for Hood's loss (certain cause for her loss is unknown, as is Bismarck's role in the sinking):



Regarding the rep, I took away the +1 you gave him. Unlike at WoT forums, you can view details of reputation here by clicking on the icon that displays the amount of reputation on given post, including who gave what and the order it was given in. I found it odd that the post had positive reputation, particularily since it was basically citing a Bismarck documentary as a source (those documentaries being hyperbolic entertainment on the whole)