Like every player from his home country perhaps.
3 Likes
Sorry, we are talking about the game data or the history of ships?
Because the topic was started for the game, not the birth and destruction of honourable ships, it is confusing that we are talking about real-life things, meanwhile in game is another thing
7 Likes
I think is better to get on the topic, because from what I see all of the datamined stuff inflicts various changes for the ships mentioned
6 Likes
Please stay on topic instead of making pointless comments about X ship allegedly being better than Y ship
7 Likes
Substantial improvement on the last dev build!
Keep in mind that the first value on the statcard is at 1,000m, NOT 0m. Don’t commit the same mistake I did mixing up 0m and 1,000m values, we’ve just seen where such misunderstandings can lead xD.
1 Like
There was a 28 mm improvment and the coefficient applied Is still lower than 1 (0.91).
5 Likes
Returning to the topic.
I think the first thing to make sure is to fix the De Marre multiplier of both the SAP and AP shells.
SAP is quite obvious as, in the dev server, it has less performance than the 320mm one from the Cavour and Duilio while having almost double the weight and better speed.
Yup, small improvement as they changed the De Marre multiplier from 0.88 to 0.91 on the AP.
Don’t know why they don’t want to put it to 1 like other shells, maybe for balance reasons?
2 Likes
Edit: Nevermind, was trying to figure out something of which there’s already straight up datamines xD
1 Like
I don’t think It’s like that. You see, the armour loss for most new cannons is 24 mm, while for Roma It’s 103 mm (initially 130). How could It lose so much mm after 1 km then stabilize and lose less pen for longer ranges?
The coefficient Is still 0.91 too.
6 Likes
From datamines the penetration at 0m is 820mm
there are indeed improuvments but I think that we are still a bit far from the final value.
it is a mistery…
every other shell of this patch from the german 380mm to the 406mm of the soyuz (for example) lose 24mm between 0 and 1000m, the Italian 381mm is the only that loses much more (prior the recent changes 130mm). it is like when near 1000m the shell uses the airbrakes… I hope that we’ll see the 381mm in all its destructive potential.
about balance reasons…this shell indedd penetrates a lot…but it has also very small ammount of explosive, so this means less damage from detonation in non vital areas
7 Likes
I forgot about the datamines, hahah. Much easier than going around trying to calculate things, so disregard that.
Anyway, interesting. I have no idea what exactly they are doing with the efficiency values in this specific shell.
I just hope that, whatever they are doing, is in an attempt at approaching reality and NOT arbitrary changes to alter the performance of the shell.
1 Like
immagine if regia marina decided to keep the initial velocity of 870m/s XD
4 Likes
We’ll end up with 934 mm of pen at 0 m.
4 Likes
Also I forgot to add that this data looks like it was calculated using USN empirical formula, so it doesn’t have to be 100 percent correct.
5 Likes
That makes even more sense.
2 Likes
I think Roma deserves better dispersion
11 Likes
According to historical sources, Italy’s 381/50 guns were comparable to the U.S. 406 and the Japanese 460.
4 Likes
Oh wow this thread went a fair bit further than I’d have thought.
Now that I look at this, the penetration for Roma’s AP shell with a regular PenetrationK of 1 does seem a bit high, but still, the formula was meant to standardize these things. As far as I can see we still haven’t gotten a proper answer as to why the coefficient isn’t 1, but if it’s because of limitations of the calculator, then I wonder just how many shells “break” the calculator.
Anyways, I do want to show some things about Soyuz’s SAP.
If we once again try to use the calculator (just for demonstration purposes), we can see that it stops working at 44.4kg of filler, so about half the actual filler. That is, at filler weights higher than 44.4kg, the shell stops losing penetration (I’m guessing this limitation is part of the reason that K coefficient exists).
Still, Soyuz’s SAP shells still get a K coefficient of 0.87. So we get a near 100% increase in filler, but only a 13% decrease in penetration, which is kind of insane!
And Roma’s SAP does still work as is in the DeMarre calculator (and gives a point blank penetration of 728mm). It only stops working with a 33kg filler. 728mm does seem pretty high for a SAP shell but cutting nearly half its penetration is very harsh. Again, that’s just for the sake of comparison, 99% of SAP shells don’t fully adhere to the calculator.
[you can ignore the following, I’m not that confident in my results, it’s not that serious]
I did a silly little experiment, and scaled up Roma’s SAP shell to 16in while maintaining the C/M ratio and the 0.55 K value.
Shell weight → 824.3*((16/15)^3) = 1000kg
Bursting charge → 29.52*((16/15)^3) = 35.83kg
The shell ends up with 430mm of penetration at point blank, still far less than Soyuz, yet with less than half the filler!
Now of course, the Italian 381mm SAP did have that peculiar dual fuse, which does take a non-insignificant amount of space, and some weight, but it’s hard to believe that’d be enough to cripple its penetration.
4 Likes
I think Roma’s SAP shell is still heavy WIP as it underperforms even the 320mm one from Cavour and Duilio. ( and it almost weight double those shells and have higher muzzle velocity)
8 Likes