Yeesh, I was aware of the shell not being the correct type and the turret not having its historical split sections but man, I wasn’t expecting the ship to be that bad. And just like that, gaijin made me stop grinding the tree once again. I was already suffering with Colbert and Dupleix (speaking of which, Dupleix has no business being at a higher BR than Colbert and at the same BR as Hipper/Eugen) being limited to SAP shells, I am not doing through the same crap with a de facto top tier BB.
It’s pretty insane how whenever a French vehicle is concerned and there are some uncertainties, not matter how minor, gaijin will always chose the most negative option.
Turrets have split section. Actually, historical ‘bulkhead’ of French quadruple turrets are only 40 mm, which is unable to stop any kind of splinter made in-game(Well, not so different in real life too)
If im not wrong at mer el kebir ( ot it was the richelieu at dakar but it’s almost the same thickness) a shell penned the turret and killed everyone on the side of the splitter but not the other so actualy it is supposed to work
I don’t think Gaijin is going to make balance/gameplay decisions based on anecdotal evidence though.
If the bulkhead is 40mm, they’re going to model it with the effectiveness of 40mm. I can’t really blame them for that.
From my experiences in Naval Arcade, Dunkerque is actually performing pretty well, especially with the mobility and survivability upgrades. I haven’t touched the targeting upgrades yet because I just feel they’re not necessary. I don’t feel underpowered in the ship, in fact I feel like performs noticeably better than the other 6.7s. Maybe it’s just that enemy teams don’t know how to react to a battleship rushing straight at them instead of hiding behind cover though
guys bofors did a pretty solid bug report for the dunkerque shell that have all it’s chances to pass . if you guys want to help the dunkerque to get her proper APC shell then you know what to do . https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/zunkeeXHtKTf
That’s one amazing report, but I have a feeling it’ll go the same way as the usual super-detailed, solid, well reported and borderline confirmed French reports; ‘forwarded’ and never responded to
The splinters in game aren’t that destructive like you described. Their penetration mostly ranges from a few to a dozen millimetres depending on the shell’s C/M ratio.
However, the result would be the same, as the 40mm bulkhead would not stop the blast effect of most battleship shells which typically penetrate about 50-70mm depending on the weight of bursting charges.
It’s only 210mm. “Bow in” I can only see working if you go against heavy cruisers, or 6.3 capital ships but at the range. Otherwise they just gonna puch right through it. Even American 7.0 battleships with 330mm can’t go “bow in”.
Few times I tried both of them I got oneshoted very quickly. Reverse angling is the way. It can tank even japanese 410mm for a long time.
Reality disagrees with you. Dunkerque’s second turret’s roof was struck by Hood’s 15in/381mm guns on its right side, which resulted in everyone in that part of the turret being killed while the left part remained functional.
Speaking of reality we also have example of non penetration jammed the turret on Jean Bart. Having a shell explode directly inside the turret isn’t going to end up great for you regardless there’s a bulkhead or not as turrets are extremely complicated and delicate mechanism. You may expect a bulkhead inside the turret to save personnel or avoid ammo detonation, but believing the turret can still be functional is just naive to put it lightly. It’s not even a French specific issue, in reality there were so many examples of turrets getting jammed by non penetrations or hits taken somewhere else like barbette.
Remember whatever bulkhead you have or not inside a turret it’s still one turret that being served by one set of rotation mechanisms.
Then that damage model isn’t accurate, which leaves us with two options:
Fixing the damage model
Accepting that some concessions can be made for the sake of either balance or simplification of mechanics, in which case there’s no reason to not give Dunkerque a proper AP shell.
Sure, those makes perfect sense and I never said otherwise. What I’m talking about is damage that involves the split turrets, because it factually worked.
Hell, even the right half of the turret hit by Hood wasn’t rendered unusable:
While you are correct, that shell didn’t explode though. The damage was caused by a section of armor that was dislodged. Had the shell penetrated and exploded, the 40mm bulkhead would have made zero difference.
" The first shell hit the top of Dunkerque’s superfiring turret, the only one capable of firing at the British ships. The shell landed just above guns number 7 & 8 and shattered into two fragments instead of exploding; the first and smallest fragment continued its course east and hit Battleship Provence while the second, largest fragment bounced south, finally landing 2 kilometers further, 150 meters away from the small village of Saint Clotilde. Even though the shell did not penetrate, a huge chunk of armor was thrusted into the crew compartment, in between the two guns. The overheated debris pierced through the turret floor into the loading chamber where it detonated 2 propellant charges that were being prepared by the crew.
The explosion and following fire killed most of the sailors present in the loading chamber while the crewmen that had survived inside the turret right compartment were asphixiated by smoke. Gun number 8 was destroyed. However, as intended by the ship’s design, the turret left compartment was protected by a 40mm bulkhead, with guns 5 & 6 still operational and all hands alive."
i mean AP cap ? they made a mistake about it .
the HE filler ? way to low for a sap .
shell design ? it was an AP with a double fuze so where the problem ?
if i really wanted to be a bad tongue and "spit " on gaijin i would start to say that they refused that very solid bug report just because they wont admit that they made a very simple mistake .
( and by gaijin i hear the only naval dev (from what i heard) that dont want his ego to be hurt )
It was worth compiling all of our research into a single bug report to make it easier for anyone to understand the entire context of the discussion and I had to actually split it into 4 parts across the comments because the bug report site apparently has a text limit per post.
I really appreciate the diligence of the bug reporting manager who fairly evaluated the report and forwarded it to the developers within the same hour. Honestly, I was not expecting it to be resolved so quickly.
But at the end of the day, it’s all up to the developer’s discretion and there is nothing else we can do with the current evidence we have.
Although I cannot deny that I am terribly disappointed with the result, I have to admit that I enjoyed the entire research process and learned a lot about the ammunition history of French capital ships in the meantime. I haven’t read much about French naval history up to this point (mostly American and British) but I am grateful that I was able to learn more about it from this opportunity.
Literally this is on the level of ‘Igla can’t pull as hard as stinger is claimed, we do not see see how it is possible stinger pulls as hard as claimed’.
From a gameplay standpoint, I really dont understand the refusual to give Dunkerque its navweps penetration. It would essentially be the ultimate glass cannon, good guns but can be easily disabled thanks to its layout and poor armor protection.
Players have proved that it uses AP so this ardent refusual is headache inducing. All it would is make the battleship competitive.
Of course, when they have to make up a AP shell for a soviet ship it just so happens to be the best in class in almost everything. Double standards much?
