Good this is 30 cycle for Iowa class do we have same thing for US standards saying it takes 50 seconds? I can’t find OP 309 which should at least cover Arizona and Pennsylvania.
But even Gaijin as I recall argues that the reason for the reload is the elevators not the actual loading cycle.
Edit (20:06 CET): Also you can see that the “reload cycle” handeled in turret is 29 seconds in Iowas case but the reload is extended by thy shell handling the handling rooms and getting them into hoists. So by the US convention the reload cycle for Nelsons would be 50 to 40 seconds.
I have to admit I haven’t really tried the SAP a lot. I’m often fighting at ranges around 10km where I mainly use AP. At that range the bad dispersion really becomes frustrating when of your entire salvo maybe 1-2 shells hit the ship.
But yeah I will definitely try the SAP more now
The SAP is phenomenal, particularly at 10km or below. I take half and half SAP and APC as some ships are stupidly hard to kill(Scharnhorst, Marat/Paris (these one SAP does not seem to effect) and Mississipi’s (if you don’t get that consistent barbette shot) Bayerns at 10km+).
But the SAP genuinely is great. IIRC 500mm pen at 10km with the benefit of the ridiculous HE filler.
I’d keep an eye open on that since irl this shell was designed to deal with armour of 100mm-ish, as long as the information has been passed to dev, the overblown performance could be fixed sooner or later so in the long run you would have to count on the APC when talking about British ships coming in the future.
Tests at 1,380 fps (421 mps) with CPC projectiles showed that armor of 17 cm (6.75 in) could be penetrated, but that these shells could neither penetrate nor significantly damage the 35 cm (13.8 in) barbette armor when striking at a 12 degree angle.
It should be noted that the high calibre CPC shells were not considered by the Royal Navy to be “piercing shells”, i.e. they were not designed to deal with any significant armour, unlike the 8" SAPC which was considered to be a piercing shell. The latter had a complete cap structure and had decent penetration at normal and low angle of attack. To put it in the context of the game, the 15" CPC was more like an HE with a base fuze, while the 8" SAPC was a bit more like an APCBC, but with a slightly higher filler percentage, although both were arbitrarily placed in the SAP category by Gaijin.
maybe because there are no APC on 8’’ but exist on 15’‘. Monitors on WW2 carry both CPC and HE while 15’’ HE in WW2 can be fit with both nose fuze and base fuze. If 15’’ CPC is just HE with base fuze, they won’t need to carry CPC imo.
The actual HE rounds, even when fitted with a base fuze, could not be used against anything with minimal armour, as their body was made of untreated steel, and the nose fuze further weakened the design. In most cases they were expected to disintegrate after punching a hole or to detonate on impact. On the other hand, the CPC’s lack of a nose fuze and thin cap allows it to remain in a fit-to-burst state after penetrating thin armour. So the CPC is a bit more of an “HE but can penetrate something”, while the 8" SAPC is designed to be an “AP but with a bit more HE”. In the game context, gaijin use a parameter “demarrepPenetrationK” to reduce the penetration of a shell as they wish, for example the 8" SAPC in game was given 89.5% penetration of regular APCBC, the US 6" HEBF was given 40%. Currently, the 15" CPC has been given 87% penetration. From this perspective, it should have received something similar to HEBF (~40%) rather than 87%, which should only be given to real “piercing shells”.
Iirc there are some HE-BF shells in game modeled as SAP shells, such as the Japanese 152mm Type 4 HE-BF (SAP), German 203mm L/4.7 HE-BF (SAPBC), German 150mm L/4.4 HE-BF (SAPBC), and maybe some others I can’t remember. I don’t know if there’s a big performance difference (penetration modifiers, angle modifiers, etc.) between HE-BF and SAP but I think that it’s something they should look at, if not address, unless it was specifically implemented for a reason
Kronshtadt at 13km out, it took me 7 straddles to hit him with just one shell clearly not my poor aim if they were all straddles, in the meantime, he peppered me with his hyper accurate 12" shells from 13km out and did not miss one salvo.
John had a similar experience for the first few salvos before he switched to something closer but the Kron was focusing me hence why I kept going.
How is this supposed to be playable? Its absolutely insane this artificial dispersion. There is no naval gun applicable in-game that does not have available dispersion data somewhere.
More importantly
I finally was able to get the Greenwich Maritime Museum to send me over the range table for a community-side bug report on the dispersion of the 15" as well as the 13.5". This I should receive within 10 working days or so.
When it comes through I will make a bug report on it that the community can see, but I would very much appreciate it if anyone and everyone who plays naval can support this report as that sets a precedent for other ships who will have similarly poor dispersion.
If the report is rejected I will see about making it a suggestion that they implement historical dispersion statistics for naval guns above 10", and also potentially that they model naval shells according to historical performance figures.
Eh, if they gonna add paper to other nations then they should add super Yamato. Either way Japan will have top battleship and nothing will come close. But not like adding op paper or unfinished stuff to one nation like is happening to russian navy and not to the others. I would personally prefer only things that were finished, but who am I to change minds of devs. If they gonna add unfinished or paper ships then add some unfisnished or paper tanks too for balance in japanese tank tree.
Fixing gun accuracy would be nice (have you tried toggling the realistic aiming setting?) but clearly the one true fix is adding submarines with wire guided torpedoes, and missile destroyers with AShM’s
Yeah quided torpedos would be terrible. Its already hard to dodge normal torpedos if they are send in large numbers. Sumbmarines would be fine to add tho. So the top tier would have reason to use lighter vessel to hunt those subs down and not just everyone battleships.
I’m all for having authentic dispersion (RIP Littorios), though extreme accuracy is an issue as a whole too. While this is partly due to most real battles being at further ranges, it’s really silly that we can easily manage hits with basically every shot in every salvo, when in reality something like a 15% hit rate was considered absurdly, extremely good.
This crazy precision is why we then in turn have crazy fast repairs, meaning guns and other systems barely stay offline for more than a salvo, creating “wack a mole” sort of gameplay…
all im saying is dont hold your hopes up, HK_reporter (think thats their name); the community guy thats more involved with naval, yeah iirc they tried submitting a private report for british, german and american gun accuracy and it didnt really go anywhere.
you’ll still have my 100% support though, after all it hurts no one to try again
Yeah, but we cannot vote on that change or say ‘I have the same issue’.
And as HK said, perhaps more pressure from the community side would help so a bug report that we can support with an undeniable, primary historical source might help.
They will probably just ignore it…
But at least if the community can vote on it our feelings can be made more obvious. Also as the CM’s have said each mode has its own development teams and given the pace of naval additions… they can’t be that busy right now compared to ARB or GRB.
(Also means we can ask CM’s to give it a nudge in 4 months when it gets an acknowledged tag and then left to rot)
