survivability is all it has
Thank you :)
1 Like
Also do note that navweap’s range table of 15’’ supercharge is of ‘average’ gun, not ‘new’ gun, which is about 34 m/s faster
1 Like
Is there any discussion on swapping the demarre formula with another for naval weapons?
1 Like
1 Like
14" for those interested
1 Like
Reading this made my day better, let’s hope Gaijin gets it right
1 Like
It’s wrong unrealistic formula.
more realistic (even compare between gun)
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_Germany.php
I mean you can take the problem with whatever formula you want, the shell is quite lighter compared to other 380mm ones, and the muzzle velocity isn’t stellar as well, with the HE filler being quite large, so it will have less pen
That and the unusual turret disposition makes the 8.3 BR they gave it not so surprising i guess
Gaijin doesn’t seem to understand that any armor can be penetrated with enough speed — whether it’s a ballistic vest or ship armor. I thought that was common knowledge. For example, in the USN empirical formula, velocity is raised to the power of 1.1, while mass is only raised to 0.55.
Compare Okun’s calculations to what Gaijin uses — just look at the penetration ratios of the shells they’ve modeled. It’s clear as day.
Figures at 0 meters and 14,600 meters (almost 15,000), all versus British Cemented Armor, for example — and effective pen (shell not broken):
- Yamato: 31.7 and 19.3
- Iowa: 32.8 and 21
- Bismarck: 31.1 and 18.5
- Richelieu: 32.9 and 18.8
- Roma: 31.9 and 20.4
Gaijin’s values (first one for 1000 m):
- Yamato: 870 and 630
- Iowa: 857 and 583
- Bismarck: 708 and 439
- Richelieu: 738 and 491
- Roma: 771 and 513
You get it, right?
In the end, it’s clear the Germans are nerfed — as usual — in this ‘game’.
Iowa and Yamato obviously have overestimated penetration values. Or, more likely, the 380 mm guns are heavily underrated.
Iowa’s penetration matches what’s in Battleships: United States Battleships 1935–1992, calculated using the USN empirical formula. But using the same formula, Bismarck’s penetration is actually significantly higher.
Double standards, perhaps?
That formula gives more weight to velocity than to shell mass.
Yet in Gaijin’s model, Richelieu — with the same caliber, 10% more shell mass, and 2.5% less velocity — has higher penetration.
According to Okun, close-range penetrations are nearly identical across these calibers, but heavier shells lose velocity more slowly — which makes sense.
So either the penetration values for the 406–460 mm guns are inflated (except for Rodney’s 406 mm for some reason — although SS also show inflated values in the same pattern), or the 380 mm guns are massively underrated — most notably Bismarck’s.
And all these ships will be matched against each other anyway — as we all know, BR 8.7 vs. 8.3 makes no real difference
Now let’s talk about the Sovetsky Soyuz.
Its shell, with the same caliber and penetration on par with Iowa’s, somehow has twice the explosive filler. And it’s also significantly faster. How is that even possible??
And its semi-AP shell is somehow more powerful than comparable HE shells — while still having penetration close to that of 380 mm AP shells. What kind of magic is this?
2 Likes
I get it, but how do you know which one is more correct than the other ?
The pen difference between those two might as well be ignored (30mm difference at 0m ant 45mm at 10000m, since Richielieu’s shell keeps its energy better). This seems reasonable, 10% mass difference is after all not a small difference.
It’s possible because Gaijin decided to give it a gun that would be unusable after 80 shot, and the barrel would progressively lose accuracy in the mean time.
The Sovetsky Soyuz is complete fantasy, and just like the KH38, Gaijin decided to be very generous with the russians, for no good reason really. I won’t disagree with you on that point : Sovetsky’s firepower is more of a dream thing than anything else.
Note for example that they didn’t give the 830m/s on Richelieu’s gun because it eventually caused the gun to malfunction and explode IRL, and i’m fine with it, but somehow did not apply the same reasoning to the Sovetsky, because why not
Real army and military expert formula > game formula
Jacob de Marre’s formula isn’t a “game formula” but a formula implemented by a french navy engieneer at the end of the XIXth century, after he did some testing. Gaijin just implemented a tool to run it quickly
Regarding NavWeaps, same source as you used in your link :
Richelieu :
Bismark :
748 vs 742 @ 0m, in game it’s 710 vs 708 (710 being the shell going 785m/s on Richelieu)
Note that the source is not clear on the matter of Richelieu’s shell speed : 820m/s or 785m/s, but considering Richelieu never fired AP shell going 820m/s (it was either 830 pre-war, 785 after the accident, and 800 with US shells and post war), i’m going to go with the first value. Both seems a bit under their respective values in game, other than that, they match quite well in game
Cool
Bismarck and Rich maybe right.
But campare with Iowa for example.
So either the penetration values for the 406–460 mm guns are inflated (except for Rodney’s 406 mm for some reason — although SS also show inflated values in the same pattern), or the 380 mm guns are massively underrated
heh i didn’t check Iowa to be fair
Yeah ok, i see your point.
I’ll give you that 38cm might be a bit underrated in game, while 406mm might be overrated, and this leads to a non negligible difference
For 0 m :
829 mm for Iowa and 742 for Bismark according to Navweaps (87mm difference)
857 mm for Iowa and 708 for Bismark according to Gaijin (149mm difference)
3 Likes
It’s not small.
But yeah, what really gets me is the Sovetsky Soyuz — it’s about as fantastical as it gets.
2 Likes
If they switch SS to face hardened and add the ability for the plates to crack I’d be happy with it
I think it’s already starting to get on a lot of naval players nerves X)
Bismarck’s armour is now finished on DEV server, although it needs to be corrected at some places, the overall impression of its protection can be examined by protection analysis:
Turns out to be even weaker than I expected.
6 Likes
Should be noted that the values given in navweaps about the armor penetration of the Mark 8 are specifically for the early one used in 1943 and 1944, while the Mark 8 Mods. 6-8 used since 1945 had enhanced armor penetration. This is why the value in WT doesn’t fit the one given by navweaps