You want to take a trip to Les Invalides?
330mm shell for French Battleship Dunkerque and Strasbourg. Taken by me in September 2006 at the French Army Museum at Les Invalides.
Edit: added picture and link description.
It looks like there are some ammo in the elevator, at least in the plans. But I don’t know of it model in game.
It is from a book name “Cent ans de Cuirassés Français”
and for the canon:
Yea, that same graphic is in the Les cuirasses Dunkerque et Strasbourg - my interpretation is that it just illustrates the process, it doesn’t mean that the ammunition handling procedures on the vessels allowed for the shells to be being permanently stored in the elevator. Also, I said “In the game there is no ammo directly in the ammo elevators.”
HK says that the “handling rooms below the barbette being included as part of the magazine/shell room’s hitboxes. This allow shells penetrate the barbette to detonate magazines with blast and splinter damage”
But the way Gaijin implemented it, seems to be actually quite beneficial to the vessel, as I do not see her to store any ammo in the elevators (barbettes or directly below the barbettes), so I’m not sure what he is referring to.
I think he refer to this discussion about the shell room:
Where they talk about shell room under the barbette exploding on the american BB iirc.
The visual appearance of the X-ray model is not relevant to the hitbox’s dimension. The space you’re looking at is part of the hitbox of the magazine and shell room even if there’s nothing visually present there.
You can inspect the actual hitbox of modules in CDK:
I hope for add ap sheel, the dunkerque never have the sap, onely AP, it’s an abuse of langage
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_projectiles.php
and
oooohhhh… that looks like a clear bug to me. Would be good to playtest it and report, because I tried to recreate what you are saying in the Protection Analysis, and either I don’t know what I should be looking for, or I can’t consistently reproduce it.
If I interpret the image correctly, it looks like one of the boxes for the ammo racks got accidentally put into the space where the bottom of the ammo elevator is. The box is in exactly the same shape as the magazines, and in seemingly exact same height above the waterline as the other magazines, so this cannot be intentional.
Even if it could change their minds, the devs clearly don’t deserve we bothered the people who work in this museum.
Until they take our complains more seriously and stop hide behind some foolish arguments, I won’t waste any minute of my time to do the search for them.
They don’t give a damn, because anyway, they know better than the naval historians.
Hi. Do you know why Dunkerque SAP pen is so underwhelming on the dev server?
Is it still work in progress or the devs consider it as finished?
Because Navywep states that the SAP should have around 713mm at 0m. This is a huge difference from what we have on the dev server. In fact they’re not 100% sure if it’s a SAP or AP.
How did devs come up with these numbers?
330mm is the best gun French gonna have till we get Richelieu class (won’t be soon), and this is barely an improvement from older 340mm guns.
They need better than this unless current pen performance are historical… then we can’t do much.
Reports on it had been filed, although it was swiftly rejected because the mod stated that it’s not a reliable source.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IpFPSqCeC7hI
Well, we don’t have penetration at 0m. It starts from 1,000 m in this game. While wishing Dunkerque would have better gun in-game, wrong is wrong.
Because the data on Navweaps is an estimation made with the USN Empirical Formula for Armour Penetration, and generally we don’t accept websites as a source. Besides, the game uses it’s own penetration calculator, so what other calculations say is meaningless.
The 330 mm OPF follows the same principles such as the 305 mm and 340 mm shells since the Danton’s, - which are too be reclassified as SAP - with a similar, much smaller AP cap design as a percentage of the overall shell weight (3-4% vs. 10-15% in other AP designs), compared to other nations AP caps.
So far, no official French documentation has been made public about the penetration performance of this shell, so it’s everybody’s best guess.
Now it seems our only hope is Bretagne/Lorraine at 6.3 and Dunkerque at 6.7
When you say “it’s everybody’s best guess”… Does that include Gaijin’s ? Because if that’s the case, the penetration values chosen seem a little arbitrary… Though it’s understandable given the lack of data, for sure.
It was unpredictable, didn’t it …
It makes me sad that some of you still believe …
Don’t waste your time guys.
Well obviously penetration would be lower at 1000m, but still the shell would have ~700mm
Thanks for the response.
So since no one really know real penetration values, wouldn’t be better to use USN Empirical Formula in France case?
Especially if both formulas are guessing penetration values, I see no harm by using USN Empirical Formula since 330mm is the best gun France will have till Richelieu class, and they need something to make them competitive.
“A proposal has been made to revise the type of projectiles for 305 and 340 mm.” Does it mean they’re working on different values for these type of shells? Since it seems like this shell is nor real AP nor real SAP.
May I ask where you found the 3-4% AP cap figure? I’m just curious as I have a difficult time finding a source that mentions it.
No.
I was just saying you can’t claim the penetration is low when the value is already an estimation. And the USN made their shells differently to that of France, so pretending that a USN design and a French shell is the same is foolish.
To match the classification of Dunkerque’s SAP as they were constructed to the same principles.
AP → SAP.
Developer’s estimation.
