Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

The french were a weird bunch, we don't talk about the, they even put 8" guns on a submarine :3

Yes yes, the French are one of a kind,  but to me at least, it's what makes them so very fun!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 439
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Admirals,   We would like to share news about the progress we have so far and the status of the upcoming update.   The team’s reorganizat

We clearly need information about ongoing things. Personaly I want to know whats going on. We waited a lot. Just a small announcement would be great. We need hype.

Guys, please do not worry. Patch is under testing   The final changelog will be released as soon as we release the update.

Posted Images

7 hours ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

The french were a weird bunch, we don't talk about the, they even put 8" guns on a submarine :3

I'd like to believe the concept of the cruiser submarine could've taken off if the treaties hadn't killed it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuze activation required a resistance equal to 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) of armor at 0 degrees obliquity or 0.375 inches (1 cm) at 65 degrees obliquity.

That's the fusing information from the so-called superheavy USN 16" AP shell, more accurately the 16" AP mk 8 mods 0-8, and the Mark 21 Base Detonating Fuze (which featured a delay of 0.033 seconds).

Gee, a 16" AP shell, and its fuse will be activated by resistance offered by a mere 1cm of armour struck at 65 degrees of obliquity? It DOESN'T ricochet harmlessly even at THAT angle?

A question: I wonder had I asked how much armour and at what angles would provide sufficient resistance to trigger the fuse of the USN superheavy 16" AP shell what people might have guessed? I also wonder if it might lead people to consider how the current armour/penetration/damage system compares with easily discoverable facts and, if substantially different, whether that's necessary or a good thing.

As an aside, anyone know how easy it is to find that info? It's a site I would assume anyone posting about any of these sorts of topics would know intimately (and indeed doubtless has bookmarked).

Cheers

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Fuze activation required a resistance equal to 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) of armor at 0 degrees obliquity or 0.375 inches (1 cm) at 65 degrees obliquity.

That's the fusing information from the so-called superheavy USN 16" AP shell, more accurately the 16" AP mk 8 mods 0-8, and the Mark 21 Base Detonating Fuze (which featured a delay of 0.033 seconds).

Gee, a 16" AP shell, and its fuse will be activated by resistance offered by a mere 1cm of armour struck at 65 degrees of obliquity? It DOESN'T ricochet harmlessly even at THAT angle?

A question: I wonder had I asked how much armour and at what angles would provide sufficient resistance to trigger the fuse of the USN superheavy 16" AP shell what people might have guessed? I also wonder if it might lead people to consider how the current armour/penetration/damage system compares with easily discoverable facts and, if substantially different, whether that's necessary or a good thing.

As an aside, anyone know how easy it is to find that info? It's a site I would assume anyone posting about any of these sorts of topics would know intimately (and indeed doubtless has bookmarked).

Cheers

Im guessing this place http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

The armour would have to be stupidly thin, like half a cm or something. Makes me wonder if the Super-heavy was intended for its power and charge rather than the weight as it only weighed an extra 200 or so kg compared to the 'Light' round.

I don't know if an angle of 80 degrees or higher would prevent it from fusing regardless of armour thickness.

Also saw nuke shells. Oh dear lol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a simple rule for solid shot deflection - If Projectile diameter is larger than armor thickness, then shell will not bounce despite the angle, but instead will dug into armor.. so even if slope wont trigger the fuse, shell will dig into armor and explode (once fuse makes full contact with the armor)

 

Same thing was the case for tank combat - Soviet 122mm APHE projectiles were supposedly on paper no able to penetrate 80mm face hardened armor sloped at 50 degrees (Panther front hull), yet in reality, these projectiles managed to do so even at quite extreme ranges... 80mm plate was just simply overmatched by 122mm projectile.... same thing applies for german 75mm shell penetrating T34 hull which was 45mm thick sloped at 60 degrees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I assume when the campaign drops (when ever that will be) we will be able to scrap ships. If ship has served for I don't know 25 years I'm guessing it cant keep up with new ships unless you give a massive refit (which I hope will be a thing). But suppose you don't want to spend money on a refit or scrap it. So the other option is to make it a museum ship. So my idea is if you give your ship to a museum it will give a slight boost to your finances and if you want to go further boost your crew morale as well. Now the boost will depend on what the ship has achieved. If said ship won 50 battles you get a big boost. But if your ships as lost too many battles the boost will be very little. I think this make decision making more complex and make it don't have to get rid of a ship you really like. Oh and if this does become a thing the Devs got to add a view museum option.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2020 at 8:36 PM, Bluishdoor76 said:

The backlash was too severe that it would of been their biggest mistake yet to stick to that. And props to them, they have actually worked towards bringing the heavier ships in.

Biggest mistake is quite a bold statement to make for a game that has made so many and still refuses to fix the ones that have been plaging the game for years.also i hope the seven  people that play naval in warthunder are going to enjoy the dreadnoughts. Naval was death on arrival.

 

On 10/23/2020 at 9:48 PM, Mikey29211 said:

How about port holes? These ships had rows of them along the hull and superstructure

download (6).jpg

Probably going to be low priority to add as it is more aesthetic then it has a practical use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JaM said:

There is a simple rule for solid shot deflection - If Projectile diameter is larger than armor thickness, then shell will not bounce despite the angle, but instead will dug into armor.. so even if slope wont trigger the fuse, shell will dig into armor and explode (once fuse makes full contact with the armor)

Just curious, how would you explain the RN 13.5" AP shell performance at Jutland, for example, with respect to this simple rule? How would you define "solid shot" in the context of large calibre naval rifles?

Have you a general source to which you might direct me for a more detailed explanation of this "over-match" rule? I'm always keen to read more on the topic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Just curious, how would you explain the RN 13.5" AP shell performance at Jutland, for example, with respect to this simple rule? How would you define "solid shot" in the context of large calibre naval rifles?

Have you a general source to which you might direct me for a more detailed explanation of this "over-match" rule? I'm always keen to read more on the topic.

WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Ok so I assume when the campaign drops (when ever that will be) we will be able to scrap ships. If ship has served for I don't know 25 years I'm guessing it cant keep up with new ships unless you give a massive refit (which I hope will be a thing). But suppose you don't want to spend money on a refit or scrap it. So the other option is to make it a museum ship. So my idea is if you give your ship to a museum it will give a slight boost to your finances and if you want to go further boost your crew morale as well. Now the boost will depend on what the ship has achieved. If said ship won 50 battles you get a big boost. But if your ships as lost too many battles the boost will be very little. I think this make decision making more complex and make it don't have to get rid of a ship you really like. Oh and if this does become a thing the Devs got to add a view museum option.

 

 

This idea I like allot, especially as I had that kind of idea whenever I played a from the depths campaign with a few tweaks, where the ships would serve in a "museum fleet" but could be reactivated if needed. They were surprisingly effective against the final factions. Anyway I expect this to be great if say you have a pre-dreadnought that had one hell of a combat record, but don't want to keep it in your navy or scrap it, and refitting it wouldn't be worth it as it would still be horribly outdated.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

IdAe TiMe. So when your creating your ship you can pick distance it can travel. Now in the campaign fuel is definitely is going to be a major factor. So my idea is to allow to see how many nautical miles each ship go and the distance it can go is altered by whatever ever specs the player has on it. In the game help menu it said that when your on the map you can pick a place to move your ships. So when complete your ship you get a preview of the world map and it shows how far the ship can travel and speed can it get maximum performance.

Edited by CapnAvont1015
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

IdAe TiMe. So when your creating your ship you can pick distance it can travel. Now in the campaign fuel is definitely is going to be a major factor. So my idea is to allow to see how many nautical miles each ship go and the distance it can go is altered by whatever ever specs the player has on it. In the game help menu it said that when your on the map you can pick a place to move your ships. So when complete your ship you get a preview of the world map and it shows how far the ship can travel and speed can it get maximum performance.

I like it.  Just expanding a bit maybe you could add a different type of boiler system to the ship it adds more fuel efficiency but if you add more weight to the ship or say your ships is not balance correctly and the bow is like 5% over it burns more fuel. It would make people have to be very careful when designing ships that might have plenty of fuel but then they also have to be careful they dont design a ship that would burn to much fuel off. 

Edited by TotalRampage
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TotalRampage said:

I like it.  Just expanding a bit maybe you could add a different type of boiler system to the ship it adds more fuel efficiency but if you add more weight to the ship or say your ships is not balance correctly and the bow is like 5% over it burns more fuel. It would make people have to be very careful when designing ships that might have plenty of fuel but then they also have to be careful they dont design a ship that would burn to much fuel off. 

I like the idea of a different boiler system to add more fuel and weight to  the ship but the only issue I have is balancing. You say if the ship is not balanced correctly it will make it burn more fuel. Now the only issue I have is this makes it a lot harder to make Nelson types. For instance I make Izumo from WOWS and all of its turrets are in the front. To counter the forward weight I reckon all the heavy machinery is placed in the back. So until the Devs give us the option to place boilers and engines where ever we want the ship a lot of forward gun ships are gonna burn a ton of fuel.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CapnAvont1015 said:

I like the idea of a different boiler system to add more fuel and weight to  the ship but the only issue I have is balancing. You say if the ship is not balanced correctly it will make it burn more fuel. Now the only issue I have is this makes it a lot harder to make Nelson types. For instance I make Izumo from WOWS and all of its turrets are in the front. To counter the forward weight I reckon all the heavy machinery is placed in the back. So until the Devs give us the option to place boilers and engines where ever we want the ship a lot of forward gun ships are gonna burn a ton of fuel.

Im making a thread about this right now with some ideas I have!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Double/triple bottoms don't seem to add oil fuel capacity and neither do the higher levels of SPS (side protection system; the fancy name for torpedo protection), so be sure to include those in your thread.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2020 at 8:19 AM, CapnAvont1015 said:

Now in the campaign fuel is definitely is going to be a major factor. So my idea is to allow to see how many nautical miles each ship go

I was hoping for Naval Battle Simulator style global map where we plot our fleet/s courses, set the makeup of those fleets and converge them against the enemy. In this case "how many miles", usage and fuel conveys would be a thing, like suppling fuel to ports to re-supply fleets/ships thereafter (logistics).

But no, best guess is it's going to be arbitrary like, more to do with how far away a region you can send a ship, as described in there regional fleet type system, even possibly how long ships can stay in that region. And as described we are more likely to get only auto-generated missions with convey ships. But who knows or more to the point, we don't know, if such things as fuel conveys will be a thing.

 

PS: Actually none of us really know the what's, where's, why's, who's (starting) in the campaign. Here's a thought, how about Dev's start posting screenshots and teasers about the campaign, surely there's enough work done to start letting some of it out into the community, would keep things alive until it's available.

You know it helps to be informed. 

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

I was hoping for Naval Battle Simulator style global map where we plot our fleet/s courses, set the makeup of those fleets and converge them against the enemy. In this case "how many miles", usage and fuel conveys would be a thing, like suppling fuel to ports to re-supply fleets/ships thereafter (logistics).

But no, best guess is it's going to be arbitrary like, more to do with how far away a region you can sent a ship, as described in there regional fleet type system, even possibly how long ships can stay in that region. And as described we are more likely to get only auto-generated missions with convey ships. But who knows or more to the point, we don't, if such things as fuel conveys will be a thing.

 

PS: Actually none of us really know the what's, where's, why's, who's in the campaign. Here's a thought, how about Dev's start posting screenshots and teasers about the campaign, surely there's enough work done to start letting some of it out into the community, would keep things alive until it's available.

You know it helps to be informed. 

I would love teasers and screenies, even of just menus and random screenshots as well, would give us a bit of info and keep us excited as well.

I hope these things get added in at somepoint.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is no in depth fuel system then yeah, there will be no balancing factor towards building a full fleet of nothing but battleships. Battleships are a huge constraint on resources, thus why compared to the other classes battleships were built on very limited numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

I would love teasers and screenies, even of just menus and random screenshots as well, would give us a bit of info and keep us excited as well.

I hope these things get added in at somepoint.

The funny thing is. In this Steam picture if you look way in the back you can a island of sorts in the fog. So either the campaign has been worked on since the beginning or this is just a background texture.

ss_cb73ecc7a2819680493809e306caa437c60804c4.600x338.jpg?t=1603109280

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

The funny thing is. In this Steam picture if you look way in the back you can a island of sorts in the fog. So either the campaign has been worked on since the beginning or this is just a background texture.

ss_cb73ecc7a2819680493809e306caa437c60804c4.600x338.jpg?t=1603109280

Thanks, for posting it. I haven't notice it before. It really fits into the Devs descryption of the land in battle (they said that it will be present in some battles as ,,distant terrain'').

Edited by Aceituna
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an issue I brought up a while ago that makes sense to post here since the British (quad turrets) are coming.

Any plans to group the aiming of main and secondary batteries by calibre alone, not by calibre + turret type + turret location? Building a KGV-type arrangement with these new turrets will be nerfed significantly if the single twin turret has separate targeting to the double quad turrets.

Even the whole point of a uniform main battery in Dreadnought herself is faulty because the game requires centreline and side 12" turrets to aim separately.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...