TBF, from what ive learnt so far from my binge watching vidoes about naval armour, gunnery and so forth i would say the littorio and roma were pretty good for the day. I would rate them (personally mind you) above the bismark. The italians knew what they were doing with them at least. Just a shame the quality of italian munition was so low considering the accuracy of the ranging the roma had with its 20 or so range finders lol.
From what ive found out, the accuracy issue was a problem with the ammunition rather than the cannons, with poor quality being an issue. So if this would be seen as something that can be fixed in game i have no clue.
Here is my question. Lets forget for a moment Vanguards armor isn’t right and the pen of the 15 inch shells is way too low. Explain instead why you have this ship riding so high that most of her armor is out of the water? Both this ship and the KGV class were designed so that 15ft of their 23.5ft belt was below their waterline to protect against deep under water hits. Yet you have this ship floating at a height only possible if she were devoid of all fuel and most of her ammunition. Seems like a deliberate attempt to nerf an already unfairly nerfed ship.
There are a number of issues including draft, gun handling, reload, angle of arc and penetration performance with all of the British ships added since Rodney. Unfortunately it just has made all of them flawed to play in some way or another.
It’s going to be one of my projects once I’ve actually finished grinding/spading all of them.
Draft and reload is quite controversial, but angle of arc and penetration performance is not.
British battleships, especially fast battleships of 1930s and 40 desgins actually have very bad angle of arc that ingame arc is somewhat better.
Penetration is according to same formula for every nation, and as moderator once saids, even USN emphirical formula is not 100% accurate formula, as it can’t apply to modern APC of 1930s design. And even with USN emphirical formula, British APs are never the high penetrating ones.
No British shell penetration was not the highest, but nor was it as ridiculously low as it is in this game. Okun and many other sources have very accurate tables on this, which clearly show penetration of the British guns to be far greater, in the case of the 15 and 16 inch guns 100-120mm greater, than they are in game. In addition its worth noting that the penetration given soviet shells for the Soyuz is far greater than was possible for their shell weight/velocity and shell quality.
In addition, no accounting is made for the fact that, as proven by actual tests, British Cemented Armor and German Krupp Cemented (new type) had far superior resistance (18-20 percent) to US Class A and Japanese Hardened armor. In addition some armor is arbitrarily omitted on certain ships but included on others.
I disagree that draft is controversial, all ships should be sitting at their full load displacement. Instead the dev’s pick and choose at what height they want a ship to sit based on whether they want to help or hurt it. But it is particularly bad on the Vanguard, as the ship was designed so as her oil tanks were emptied, sea water was pumped into the tanks to maintain the liquid filled layer of the torpedo protection (same with the KGV) thus they would operate at their full load displacement most of the time during war time.
Even those Soviet shell has penetration reduced compared to calculated on USN emphirical formula. It is not British ship hated, but all ships on game got ‘reduced’ penetration compared to USN emphirical for some reason.
Also, ‘possible’? You can say the reason why you don’t think it’s impossible? Please don’t say me ‘because it’s soviet’ as they don’t have problem making APHE shell, and had been decades of making 14’’ shells.
I don’t say anything about armor. I know that, and well, Gaijin saids they don’t want new code about armor type. I want D steel to be implemented too, and D steel would be primary before diverging Cemented Armor type.
I say of ‘controversial’ as current draft standard is controversial. Same meaning for reload.
My apologies I meant to say the Soviet CPC shell penetration was far over what it should be, I mistyped. However I will note the Encyclopedia of Russian Artillery lists the penetrations of the 1108kg APC as 406mm at 14,870 yards based on shell quality, weight velocity.
I was unaware they had refused to code any additional armor types including the much needed D-Steel and better cemented armor types, thank you for that info. I am hardly surprised however as that would not benefit the Russian ships.
I interpreted what you said incorrectly, my fault. The decisions they make about draft seem to be completely arbitrary based on how they want a ship to perform.
If my frustration seemed directed at you, I’m sorry. I’ll be honest, I and several friends have played War Thunder since its beginning, and this is the first time have taken to a forum. Because I watched this game go from reasonably decent to complete hash of lies and misrepresentations clearly designed to show bias in favor of certain nations and against others (not just British, American also which I actually am, German to a lesser extent etc.) As someone who has studied the history of warfare down to the details for over 30 years, I find the current state of this game shameful and bearing no resemblance at all to the way most of the units in naval (and ground and air to some extent) would actually perform.
Top tier is frustrating as hell at the moment. Vanguard should be a fun upgrade over Hood, but just doesnt feel like that big of an upgrade. Even small things like faster ranging updates would be awesome, but it has identical stats to Hood in that regard and whilst you can happily compete with most ships. Others you might as well just J out and go onto the next match
But its not just Vanguard. Rodney, Hood and Warspite are all unplayable ships currently if they get uptiered and thats just a shame. What was so close to being a win for naval ended up destroying top tier naval for years. If it can ever truly recover.
Actually, that is the most critical part where english translation of that book made mistake(yes, the navweaps thing). What book originally saids is that AP round was ‘required’ to penetrate 406 mm armor angled 25 degree, at 13.6 km. There’s no mention what actual test result was.
Бронебойный снаряд по ТТЗ должен был пробивать бортовую броню толЩИНОЙ 406 мм под углом 25° от нормали на расстоя-нии 13,6 км.
-А.Б.Широкорад. Энциклопедия отечественной артиллерии, page 975
I suppose I’m probably wasting my breath here as far as dev’s listening, but I’m going to try anyways. Shell penetration cannot be solely based on any single formula for armor penetration, because they do not take into account shell design quality. Regarding the shells used during WWII, British designed shells were at the top, having been specifically designed based on testing to survive impact with thick heavy armor. US and German shells were next, followed closes by the Italians, with French, Japanese and yes Russian shells being the lowest.
The issue with penetration of armor is that a shell has to be able to penetrate the face of the plate, and then be able move/deform the mass of the thousands of pounds of armor around the impact point to be able to penetrate (moment of inertia). The inferior or superior quality of shell plays a huge part in this. If this isn’t taken into account, then we will continue to have a game where ships dramatically over or under perform. I don’t know how the game is coded of course, but if they are performing the armor penetrations’ calculation using the formula for each shot, then this could be solved by adding a percentage modifier at the end of the calculation to increase or decrease the amount of penetration based on which shell type was being used.
Coincidentally, it occurred to me that the same type of percent age multiplier could be added to increase or decrease the effective thickness of armor for a given nation/armor type without recoding the whole armor (we coded a similar trick when doing performance rating calculations for an algorithm to grade motor carriers when we wanted the different size of companies to be taken into account).
I have spent sometime now reading some of the other forums regarding these issues, and I realize it is likely nothing will change based on what I have seen, but its worth getting it on record. I could site many examples of flaws in game justified by non-sense, but I doubt it would get any where at this point. The best thing now might simply be to scrap naval as so few play it now sadly, largely as result of its major design flaws.
Vanguards pretty good, hasn’t replaced Nelson class as my favourite in the game but Nelson is very tough. Probably the hardest British ship to kill and the guns though slow traverse and not the best pen just work and are the most consistent of all the top tiers in terms of accuracy so you can rely on them despite the 8 guns.
as a starting point, but I still have yet to do any meaningful damage to a Soyuz, which is pretty much all you seem to face, at least whenever Ive tried to play it
I’ve literally one shot 3 of them. Once was Japanese 14 inch guns, the other 2 were Warspite. I just target the front turrets and deck now for everything lol
Surely this battleship is outclassed by all the other BBs thatwere added this update? Although I’ve no ida if the N3 is going to be added… Although to be fair most of current Russian BBs are just as paper