So this would mean British 15-inch guns are the most accurate of the guns shown here I converted from yards to metres and at 10,000 its ~73 metres.
I never bothered looking for hard data but that might be worth a bug report, I was using HMS Glorious today and the dispersion was in a different postcode.
I’ve been passing these information internally about a year ago, unfortunately rework of gun accuracy doesn’t seem to be a high priority matter at this moment.
Well thanks anyway, I appreciate the work.
Perhaps its not high priority but at the very least its known to them.
What would Temeraire (1944) look like in general?
Its an iffy one, in my opinion the Lion class should be split into two sub-categories, the originals as they were laid up until vanguard was laid down in 1941. This was the original design but with a few wartime mods (AA) so Lion would be that design.
Temeraire was the sister to Lion and laid down to that original spec, however both were cancelled. But the development of battleship 16-inch 45-calibre guns proceeded until even 1948. The Lion class design was modified until 1945. Which would mean a late Lion (like the O-class battlecruiser), would be a viable suggestion. Guns were ordered in 1944.
A Montana style ‘Lion 16e-38’ which had 4x3 16-inch Mk.3 guns. I asked a naval historian and this was the most favoured however he thinks it would’ve used the Mk.4 guns as those were ordered just after the ship was finished, but those were never officially slated however these would take the already larger projectile and make it heavier and flashless.
It had 15-inches of armour but that is 25% more effective than its LoS thickness equivalent due to better British manufacturing techniques so you get circa 16.5-17.5 inches of armour depending on which source.
There are a few designs by Tzoli. Not official though.
I want to make it clear, Temeraire wouldn’t be necessary unless the US received the Montana and Germany received something like H-41 (as neither were laid down), in which case it would be more than fair to ask for it. But if not a 1942 Lion (which was their estimated completion year) would be more than satisfactory.
So I was delving for a little bit and I finally found what I think is the inspiration for HMS Thunderer.
Introducing the L2 class Battleship armed with 8, 18-inch guns in twin turrets.
so… effectively a Montana equivalent. neat!
Yeah but knowing Gaijin we ain’t gonna get that armour thickness buff so way less armour. Although there are sources so its worth a try
Imagine the artificial shell dispersal on that. You will be able to take out 2 different targets on the opposite sides of the map
Given the Hood of which L2 was (in very basic terms) a scaled up version, I wouldn’t be surprised, superior British engineering can engage 2 targets with one turret.
Given the Lion’s guns won’t be as punchy (unless we get the MK.4 gun) they had better be accurate as that was the entire purpose they were designed.
My concern for Britain is that there’s not much better shells left to get in the future, namely the 15" 6crh. Worse still, the 6crh is going to be significantly underperforming in this game as penetration is handled by a uniformed formula without taking consider of the shell quality. Irl Britain focused on improving the quality and design of their AP shells (such as hardness and shape designs) so they can penetrate thicker armour while having relatively lower kinetic energy. This was very different to the approach to increase shell weight and muzzle velocities for higher KE as many other navies did, as Royal Navy was obsessed with long barrel life. But in this game the penetration formula doesn’t take the shell quality into account as it greatly favours those shell with roaring KE. I’ve been recently found some real life trial results of the 15" Mk XVIIb APC and compared it with the gaijin formula output, it turns out that gaijin’s formula will underestimate the shell’s penetration by 30~40% when calculated with given velocities.
Same goes for the 14-inch on the KGV. Not fantastic news and unfortunately very much a common British Navy L. I truly wish they’d at least take into account historical sources when deciding on penetration characteristics.
Its similar to armour, the KGV had 14-inches LoS of armour but it was such high quality that it had effective thickness of up to 17.5 inches of US/French/Italian or Japanese armour depending on the source.
Its going to mean ships that aren’t armed with the 16-incher’s are going to be pretty shit. And even with the Lion’s they will pale in comparison to Iowa/H-39 without the armour and penetration considerations. For a late Lion luckily the Mk.4 mounting with heavier, longer and higher pressures might improve the penetration characteristics but that’s only valid if they let us have the late Lion at all and with the Mk.4 mountings which a prototype was made.
Will probably be better off playing other tree’s.
if its a primary source could you do a bug report? It would also help to finally fix the dispersion of those guns
Everything is done with penetration calculator. L27A1 should have more than 700mm of penetration and was roughly equal to M829A2 according to reports. Nothing has been done because the calculator says no.
I’m sure HK can tell you more than I can but thats what i’ve seen with near all penetration reports.
It is a primary source but penetration in game had long since been calculated with the formula and no longer meant to be matching historical values
cant they make an exeption when its really necesary for the future of a tech tree, because until we get superchargers (which i belive only Vanguard and one of the late war QEs had) the 15" will just not be viable especially if they not fix the dispersion
Couldn’t Gaijin just use some kind of modifier to improve the performance of the shells? Like they have modifier for APCBC?
If I look at Navweaps I guess the pen tables based on the USN formula dont take the quality into account, right? So 1,3x that numbers? Because the numbers based on USN are quite dreadful when compared to other nations.
I don’t know where you got the information but according the very same document about the 15" 6crh performance, the quality of armour manufactured for Rodney in 1920s and Vanguard in 1940s didn’t display any significant difference other than the later one having a slightly better quality control. Given at time of 1920s British cemented armour didn’t really stand out of others afaik I don’t think the armour on KGV would have had any significant superiority over others in quality.
I have had written an internal suggestion already, but maybe more pressure from the community will also help dragging developers’ attention. The point is that basically all post WW1 naval shells in game are underestimated by about 10~20% when calculated with historical ballistic parameters, and that British 15" suffered the most in this regard due to its overall design philosophy. This is probably because the formula’s parameters are more based on tank shells which are generally inferior in quality than expensive naval shells.
Yes, actually I calculated the ballistic limit with USN formula myself and it turned out the trial results demonstrated the 15" 6crh would require about 87% of velocity to penetrate the same thickness compare to what calculated with default parameters of the formula.
The armour resistance to KGV comes more down to her excellent armour layout which made her according to some sources the most protected battleship after yamato, than the armour quality alone
