I don’t know enough about the French shells to comment here, 800 m/s seems about right for the French 381mm gun though?
I’m mainly just hoping to see Gaijin clarify which refit is ingame? Seems very bizarre that they’d add a 1949 shell and then say its a 1945 configuration…
Speak of gameplay - yes, for realism - no
It is interesting that many people scream “uNhIsToRiCaL” when a fix is in favour of the vehicle’s performance in game, whilst becoming silent when a historical fix can turn against them.
This is an entirely unhistorical buff - these turrets would have been not operational if the upper ammoracks are empty. Now there’s no one calling for historical accuracy and let’s praise the unhistorical change.
Seems like a weird straw man argument. I don’t see any evidence of your claims. As long as changes are applied equally to each nation, I don’t see a problem, and I don’t think others will either.
The 800 m/s( 1943) shell is the one made by crucible steel with US propelant charges. Im talking about the one with 785m/s ( 1936 ) .
The richelieu left france in a rush because of the germans and the boat wasnt 100% completed ( some missing secondaries AA and ammo) .
when she fire for her first battle at dakar , one of the gun blew up because the design of the breach was not well designed to wistand the power of the SD21 propelant charges ( very spicy ) .
So after the incident by precaution the commander ordered to load the SD 19 charges left by the dunkerque previously at the base and to fire with it .
The SD 19 being way less spicy gave the round way slower velocity than with the SD21 ( 785m/s instead of 830 m/s !! ) .
It kinda make sens in a certain way since it’s the refit version but it’s pretty hypocrites knowing that the soyouz is getting the very very veryyy optimal theoretical numbers .
even weirder gaijin seems to have direct sources for the pen value since they didnt seem to have respected the jacob de marre formula … ( update im stupid it’s 1000 m in game so it realistic so now we have to show them that we want the SD21 stats for historical and gameplay purposes)
idealy the french shell + SD21 charges 795 mm of pen ( at 0m 0° ofc )
I was wondering why the French AP had a slower velocity than the American Crucible…
Havn’t played that in about half a year. Still absolutely atrocious. As soon as the enemies fire at you, you know this think will explode any second. And if not, it usually sinks after 1-2 salvos anyway…
when angled it’s pretty good tho
I always angled 45 degree. I even think now it’s better to not angle at all and just show the side. The armor just sucks because it’s nothing more than a box. The angle doesn’t even matter. All shots go right into the magazine. Also why can’t the secondaries of all french ships not be calibrated to the main gun designator? The quite powerful secondaries of the Dunkerque hit 500 meters further and about 100 meters after the target. Where is the point in fireing anything with one button, if the secondaries take a trip to the next map?
If Gaijin was willing to model the “half turret” design solely in this respect, sure. I think it would be very cool for each half turret to be supplied by a separate ammo room on each level, as they did historically, in order to represent the redundancy of this design where if an incident happened in one shell room, it wouldn’t affect the other, thus ensuring the other “half turret” to continue operation.
But so far, all the answers we were given regarding this “split turret” idea was that it would be very unlikely for the developers to model such a system just for one ship. So if Gaijin isn’t willing to model the split turrets having their own separate ammunition supply, what are we supposed to ask for, one single shell room module that removes the ammo for the entire turret when the upper level gets penned, or split shell rooms that supply the entire turret? Admittedly, both options are equally unhistorical, just one has more benefits than the other.
Three ships…
Back when it was discussed, Dunkerque was the only one around. Perhaps they’ll be more willing to reconsider with three.
I have my doubts. Probably would be too much hassle implementing that into the engine. We probably see a 3 axis stabilised Turms III before that…
Exactly. We can’t have a historical ammunition layout without the implementation of historical “half turrets” where each one has its dedicated shell room for supply.
Although, I would argue that current subdivision of ammunition is one step closer to this. We can’t have “half turrets” without subdivided ammo rooms. The solution to implement is to have the upper ammo room linked to the right pair of guns and the lower ammo room linked to the left. Like you, I have my doubts on whether Gaijin will implement this at all, even for three ships.
Done !
I think it’s indeed better to not mix the discussion regarding the different ships, especially since they are so similar but so different at the same time, it could be confusing ^^’
Thank you my good sir . Now i can complain for hour about the nerf velocity of the richelieu shell
Look how low the dunkerque class is supposed to sit in the water compared to what we got ingame…
How deep does she sit in games as I got told that ships can sit higher in the water than in live games
This is a photo of Strasbourg right after its scuttling in Toulon in 1942. It’s not just low on water : It’s resting at the bottom of the port because it was sabotaged.
Press and hold J for 3 sec and you will have this waterline
