Nerf Scharnhorst Armor or make it 8.0

Machinery of War Discussion Navy
,
347

Honestly not sure how much i agree with this. The real primary reason the scharn performs so well isnt its tankyness imo, its the gun characteristics. The thing is incredible at dealing with cruisers and smaller ships. Between its fast firing guns and extremely good turret traverse, it rips through most things that arent BB’s. It does struggle significantly more with BB’s though, to the point where sometimes the only actual reasonable recourse is to close the distance and torp them. THATS where the armor comes in. It can be hard to sink fast enough if its rushing you, at that point though, you focus more on the 2 forward turrets and the conning tower to limit its firepower and maneuvers, and then use HE to knock out the torps, and you’ll chew through its crew.

I think if it went up in BR and faced more fast battleships, its effectiveness would tank to the bottom and lead to it getting downtiered back to 7.0

2 Likes
348

Funniest part is the modernisation is about AA, one of the main turret is removed xD

1 Like
349

And the Bretagne still has a bug that makes its secondary guns shoot off target by a wide margin. The bug report’s been around for 3 months now.

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZjFdJMyAXICy

3 Likes
350

Damn still here?

Guess if Scharnorst on its release got this problem it would have been resolved in 3 days.

2 Likes
351

Exactly. We don’t need Scharnhorst nerfed into uselessness, we need counterparts for everyone.

Sadly, Haijin keeps giving U.S DDs and CCs, other nations WW1 dreadnoughts/BCs and PT boats, none of which serves as a counterpart.

For some reason it’s like they forgot Top Tier BBs exist- even years after implementing Scharnhorst and, now, after implementing a damn Nagato class ship.

I have no idea how they can implement such stuff without counterparts for months and even years… but last thing we need is artificial needs that would never be reverted.

3 Likes
352

USN’s time will come. As soon as they start to add US fast battleships, the issue will be gone for good. Right now its just the US WW1 designs…you can’t expect these to be on paar with Scharnhorst/Gneisenau. Which had a reputation to soak up damage (Torpedo hits, mines, bombs, BB main gun shells during their countless battles and operations).

2 Likes
353

Interestingly though, the modern U.S BBs will be more glass canons than anything else.

On the one hand, their super heavy 406mm shells will devastate everything… but on the other hand, their mere 307mm thick belts won’t do much to protect them.

I think that, in War Thunder, Bismarck will be the peak performance apex, at least in the standard Naval mode.

Bismarck’s armor was designed for engagement ranges found currently in the standard Naval modes’ maps, while the armor on fast American BBs was designed for longer engagement ranges, which would give them an edge on EC or larger maps.

1 Like
354

I would like to see how can Alaska or Kron “easily” out tank Scharnhorst in current WT settings even if it is sometimes.

But in general I agree Scharnhorst could be quite balance even with current ships but we would need one thing for that and thats range and long range accuracy. If we got larger maps the Scharnhorst would quickly got major disadvantage since its light guns wouldn´t be potent enough to punch through the armor of other and some others would get some slight chance to pierce through the armor at that range.

I mean I would say that the aditions are not that bad at least when we get cruisers and DDs, since the USN BBs are simply not that good even if Gaijin adds the Colorado. US would need South Dakota (the unfinished one) or North Carolina which would then very likely prompt adition of Bismarck.

I wouldn´t hold my hopes too high yes the pen on the guns will be great but even they will sometime struggle with angled Bismarck or Scharnhorst and the bursting charge isn´t that great so I doupt that they will some kind of magic bullet.

And I really thing that that is precisely what is needed - larger maps since with adition of more powerful guns I have feeling that the BB meta will quickly evolve in camping meta since sticking out your nose will mean detonation.

1 Like
355

Literally never lol

2 Likes
356

Lmao alaska cant tank a thing. It is oversized heavy cruiser and easiest battlecruiser/battleship to be ammoracked, Kronstadt currently is 2nd easiest

1 Like
357

“Mere 307mm”

Except that belt is inclined with 19 deg to normal which equals to the effectiveness of 350-400+mm of vertical armour depending on range and attacking shells. You can observe their effectiveness via Hood which has 305mm armour inclined at 12 deg, making it one of the most survivable ship in game along with Scharnhorst. 307mm@19deg would only be much better than that.

1 Like
358

Isn’t he talking about mere 307 mm for USS Iowa and her sisters? In that age 307 mm would be ‘mere’ even with 19 degree compared to escalating penetration compared to nowadays. And we know, American battleships’ shell and magazine loadout is not the worst but not the best.

359

Still I wouldn’t use the world “mere” as Iowa is arguably the 2nd best protected battleship class behind Yamato. Perhaps Richelieu would be slightly better on paper but she lacks sufficient protection against diving shells as Iowa does. Maybe in other words, anything that is not Yamato was insufficiently protected if using “mere” for Iowa

360

The thing is, those sloped 307mm were optimised against the plunging fire angles of longer ranges;

At long ranges, indeed, the combined angle of attack of the shell trajectory + the angling made up for an angle of up to 45º, in which case it would go up to 435mm of effectiveness from ranges where the shells would have lost up to 50% of their penetration power already, dropping them to values on the 440mm pen range.

However, in War Thunder, typical engagement ranges are actually <10km, which means the shell trajectories are essentially flat, making the angle of attack way lower, and the shells retain up to 66% of their penetration power.

For example, let’s say:

Mutsu’s No.5 APC shell vs Iowa, 20,000m;

No.5 APC shell penetration at 20,000m: 460mm
USS Iowa’s effective belt at 20,000m: 435mm + 40mm (external hull) = 475mm

Quite impressive! Iowa’s armor actually withstands Mutsu’s shell. Right?

Well… except that’s at 20,000m, the range Iowa was designed to fight from.

This is not the case in War Thunder. In War Thunder, they will face each other from 10,000m away… and this is what happens then:

No.5 APC shell penetration at 10,000m: 555mm
USS Iowa’s effective belt at 10,000m: 340mm + 30mm (external hull) = 370mm

So… while Iowa’s armor is nearly impenetrable at 20,000m, it just doesn’t work at War Thunder’s current engagement ranges. See what I mean?

Always remember; an armor being excellent in real life under the circumstances it was designed for doesn’t mean it would be as effective in War Thunder when it would be forced to function under circumstances it wasn’t designed for.

1 Like
361

King George V and Litorrio: excuse me what?
And on non-commissioned we have to remember Project 23

Personal expectation of future battleship ‘protection’ and ‘survivability’ is that ‘module layout’ precede ‘armor’. Already penetration is more than enough to penetrate enemy capital ship in 7.0. And while penetration would get bigger of at least 100 mm, armor won’t be much thicker than nowadays Scharnhorst and Mississipi. Yes angling could maximize the effectiveness of armor, but you cannot always angle against every enemy, and some ships(especially US battleships) has some obstacle when trying to angle.

362

You’re serious? KGV is one of the worst protected post 1930 designs that can’t even immune UK’s own 15" 6crh at nearly 30kyd due to the conservative vertical belt design. The only advantage KGV has among other designs was the generous width of the belt offered which gives sufficient height of protected volume even under full load condition.

As for Littorio if you count the decapping system as 100% reliable then it might be a good candidate for the 2nd place but again decapping is something very random and the idea itself hasn’t been fully battle tested. And also she lacks sufficient diving shell protection as most of contemporary European designs.

363

You’re overestimating the 16" Mark 7’s for WT purposes.

The guns will have some of the highest pen ingame, with floaty arcs leading to them having a better chance of falling into the magazines instead of sailing over them, but they also arent exactly special bursting charge-wise, at around 18kg tnt equivalent and a 30 sec reload.

For compairison, the Bismark classes 15" guns are also 18kg bursting charge. They have flatter arcs, and worst pen, bust still more pen than anything currently ingame, and have as low as a 20 second reload.

The flatter arc on the bismark guns are also interesting to note. On one hand, floaty arcs like the USN’s superheavy shells are better for penning magazines and the likes, on the other, they make shots annoyingly hard to hit on occaision.

Im sure the Iowa class will be good ingame, but mostly as a mix of all-around performance and incredible AA (which will be needed as these ships will begin to see jet bombers and the likes…)

On the gun side of things though, the Sovestky Soyuz class the russians will get will have similar pen with flatter arcs and better bursting charges (25.7kg on AP, and a whopping 88kg on SAP…), likely giving them the best guns ingame. Likely also just the best overall BB tbh, russian dreamboat style.

2 Likes
364

Ive had situations where the Alaska were weirdly hard to kill, but yeah usually they pop if you get a decent shot on them.

Weirdly enough, those “super tanky” situations were always when the Alaskas were super super close range

365

Don’t try to hide the simple fact that KGV has sole 343~374 mm armor, which is surpassing the minimum effectiveness of Iowa class armor in simple mathematic calculation.
And when counting ‘overmatching’ mechanism, things become worse. War Thunder’s sloped armor got it’s effectiveness reduced when shell’s caliber is 1.3 or more bigger than the armor. And 307 mm means that every 16’’ will get this ‘reduced sloping effect’ on Iowa’s armor.

Actually, when I calculate, 400 mm RHAe is what Iowa could gain with all its STS(de capping plate, back plate, etc) implemented. pretty much the same with KGV and Lion’s main belt. And when angling started, Iowa’s effectiveness become even worse than those two.

1 Like
366

I’m not of the Opinion that the Post WW1 Mutsu 16.1 AP rounds are inferior to the Duke of Yorks 14" AP rounds that flat out killed the Scharnhorst.