That doesn’t matter. Your respect will be given no matter what, these are the rules of the Forum and if you’re not able to comply there will be consequences.
So broken of two years naval modes doesn’t matter. Yeah sure.
Alright it seems like you don’t get our point straight away… No matter the answers you’re given on the Forum, be it opinions that you like or that you find rather annoying, you’re not allowed to disrespect others in any way, shape or form. If you’re unsure about the rules I highly suggest giving them a look: FAQ - War Thunder — official forum
Regarding the answer that you’re looking for, it seems to me like the Tech mod has already given it to you.
Please feel free to continue and let’s cut this conversation short since it’s going off-topic. If you’ve got any more questions regarding rules please DM me or any other Forum mod.
Show the source of this, studies
Catalogue number 118052
Damage to S.M.S. von der Tann, Battle of Jutland
During the Battle of Jutland (Skagerrakschlacht in German), on 31st May, the German battlecruiser von der Tann (commissioned 1910) was hit four times by heavy-calibre shells fired by the British 5 Battle Squadron (first hit by H.M.S. Barham, then two from H.M.S. Tiger and finally one from H.M.S. Revenge). This photograph shows the damaged caused by the explosion of the first 13.5-inch shell from H.M.S. Tiger. The plunging shot penetrated the outer deck passing through the battery deck, a bulkhead and a horizontal bulkhead before exploding. The torn edges of the hole in the battery deck, with light coming in, can be seen directly above the sailor, at the top of the photograph. Extensive damage was made to the barbette of C turret which was out of action for the rest of the engagement. We can see the cracked and splintered armour around the hole in the turret base, center of the photograph. Debris prevented the turret from turning and we can see the efforts of the damage control party to free the jammed turret from the shattered barbette - a rope pulls back torn metal, above this, a rope has been tied around a metal beam and part of the barbette to free it from the turret base.
Recto: “Battlecruiser v.d. Tann effect of an exploding 34cm shell belowdecks, Battle of the Skagerrak” in German and in black ink
14cm x 10cm Matt gelatin silver print
Here some science for you
of course its not a bug cause i press J until a bots name appear instead of him i guess it worked
im famous now :pepeconfidentrizzed:
1 Like
if someone would be very mean he could get the idea of denying the soyuz players kills that way when they focus completely defenseless and chanceless 7.7 ships that cant damage the soyuz at all shrug Can’t be against the rules, can’t forbid me to j out whenever i want to, working as intended, not a bug
yeh working as intended to annoy people getting assists :skull:
1 Like
First you have to understand that HE and AP shells work very differently against ship structures. HE primarily relies on blast effect as most of the energy of explosives are released into the air, whereas the numerous small shrapnel has little penetration against bulkheads. AP on the other hand has limited blast effect because not only the smaller weight of explosives but also the energy has been mostly consumed in breaking the shells apart. It primarily relies on fragmentation to inflict damage, as the shell being disintegrated into a few very large nose debris and numerous large fragments splashing side ways.
And don’t forget blast effect follows cubic inverse rules over distance.
AP fragmentation:
HE:
Spoiler
Real life examples:
50mm armour withstood British WW1 12" HE (48kg Lyddite) exploded about 3ft overhead:
Experiment on HMS Edinburgh (1882), where 1.5~2.5" protective deck withstood explosion of 13.5in HE (80.1kg Lyddite) in a confined space:
50~31mm deck stopped the blast effect and fragmentation (including the most destructive nose debris) of German AP shell:
Spoiler
76mm plate was not damaged at all by AP shell detonated in close vicinity:
Spoiler
AP shell blown up 25mm plate, fragments were stopped by 8mm non armour-grade steel:
Spoiler
British 15" Greenboy APC, blast effect did not crack or hole the 30mm deck overhead, and nose debris was deflected by 30mm bulkhead:
15" APC exploded in funnel uptakes and armour gratings, fragments did not penetrated 20mm bulkheads ahead and the 30mm deck below:
Experimental 15" SAPC (~40kg Shellite), explosion blown off local superstructure and deck, fragments and blast effect did not penetrate the 8mm roof overhead and the 8mm deck underneath:
6 Likes
So you took this as a one of the proofs?
Armor Penetration Trials with Baden
In 1921 the British conducted a series of gunnery trials using the last battleship completed by the Germans during World War I, the surrendered Baden. These trials were conducted as a part of the design process for the next generation of capital ships, which were later cancelled as a result of the Washington Naval Limitation Treaty. During these gunnery trials, the monitors Erebus and Terror fired a total of 31 shells using reduced charges in order to obtain striking velocities equivalent to the expected battle ranges. Two primary striking velocities were used, 1,550 fps (472 mps) simulating a range of 15,500 yards (14,170 m) and 1,380 fps (421 mps) simulating a range of 21,800 yards (19,930 m).
Tests at 1,550 fps (472 mps) with 4crh “Greenboy” APC showed that these projectiles could penetrate turret face armor of 35 cm (13.8 in) when struck at an angle of 18.5 degrees and penetrate barbette armor of 35 cm (13.8 in) when struck at an angle of 11 degrees, but that this same armor thickness on the conning tower successfully defeated an APC striking at an angle of 30 degrees. Another test at this velocity saw an APC striking at an angle of 14.5 degrees penetrating the upper armor belt of 25 cm (10 in) and this shell then traveling some 38 feet (11.6 m) before bursting on the funnel casing and damaging two boilers, having first penetrated a 3 cm (1.2 in) splinter bulkhead and the 1.2 cm (0.5 in) main deck.
Five rounds of APC were fired at 1,550 fps (472 mps) at the 10 cm (3.9 in) turret roof armor, with four of these failing to penetrate.
Tests at 1,380 fps (421 mps) with CPC projectiles showed that armor of 17 cm (6.75 in) could be penetrated, but that these shells could neither penetrate nor significantly damage the 35 cm (13.8 in) barbette armor when striking at a 12 degree angle.
There is a cautionary note in ADM 186/251 that may apply to these trials:
Unsteadiness of shells at plate proof - When firing shells with reduced charges to obtain the required S.V. [striking velocity] for the proof or trial of shells or armour, particularly with the larger natures, there is a tendency for shells to be unsteady in flight, as shown by the shape of the hole made in a jump card erected in front of the armour plate. This unsteadiness tends to vitiate the result of the trial. As each round at thick armour may cost as much as £2,000 or more, it is a serious matter to reject the evidence of a round and to repeat it on the score of unsteadiness, although this has sometimes to be done.
The Admiralty’s overall conclusion from these trials was that the new “Greenboy” APC projectiles had satisfactory penetration characteristics, although their fuzing was not considered successful. Neither the experimental SAPC nor the older CPC used in these trials was considered to be effective. The penetration of the SAPC was disappointing and showed no advantage over APC. The CPC projectiles had considerable blast effect, but the fragments created by their thin walls were too small to cause significant damage.
Data in this section is primarily from “Washington’s Cherrytrees: The Evolution of the British 1921-22 Capital Ships” articles by John Campbell, from excerpts of ADM 186/251 provided to me and from “The Baden Trials” article in “Warship 2007” by William Schleihauf.
“Deck blown down” doesn’t concern you? Holes in 40lbs deck too?
Could you provide link on that exactly document?
btw. what is “lbs” cant find that it is the measure of thickness, is it inches, if so 320 inches barbet really? 8 meters of thickness not even Yamato have that?
ps. All my shells that got no damage literally exploding near the bulkhead or deck is right on it, so not even the distance form explosion could be considered. Just like this shot
Lbs is a common unit for the weight of armour per square feet, used in British shipbuilding.
40lbs correspond to a thickness of 1inch so thinner than most transverse bulkheads on battleships such as the QE class.
1 Like
You have exact same effect in the game, shells may destroy/damage/not damage the module behind the deck/bulkhead depending on position of detonation, even just a tiny shift in position can result in completely different outcome:
To put it simple, blast effect has high penetration up to 60~70mm but attenuates extremely quick over distance, fragmentation does not lose penetration over distance very much but can be stopped by virtually anything thicker than 1 inch. There’re plenty of hidden ship internal structures in the game that can stop these fragments, and crew compartments has thickness too so they can stop/contain fragments as well.
Most of them were scanned/photographed from UK National Archives and were not available to read online.
1 Like
No you can’t test shots in hangar is bugged and lying, that is what may proposal also about. Test in game also provide that there is big difference between test shots in hangar and in game matches.
literally this shell killed al the modules on the way and done no damage by explosion.
And here it in hangar Soyz you can’t do that in game armored deck will consume all shrapnel. In test shots there is no bulkheads or decks.
In test shot they penned but in game shots they don’t.
Then that is cherry-picking without access to sources. So can’t be rational to use them without context of whole research provided in those documents his goals and conclusions. And even if we use them they told use on this screen that and bulkheads and decks should be penned by explosions and shrapnel.
This is the problem too, it should be fixed. As that fact that armor penning in naval doesn’t provide shrapnel as in ground matches.
Where you’re pointing right now is under the armoured deck where shell room poisitions. Hitting there will do absoulte damage even in battle
1 Like
Shells in naval use this preset of shrapnel.
"ap_large_caliber": {
"residualPenetrationToArmorShatterPenetrationMult": [
20.0,
70.0,
0.2,
1.0
],
"residualPenetrationToArmorShatterDamageMult": [
20.0,
70.0,
0.1,
1.0
],
"residualPenetrationToShellShatterPenetrationMult": [
20.0,
70.0,
0.2,
1.0
],
"residualPenetrationToShellShatterDamageMult": [
20.0,
70.0,
0.1,
1.0
],
"armorMassToShatterCount": [
0.5,
10.0,
20.0,
100.0
],
"shellMassToShatterCount": [
1.0,
40.0,
10.0,
100.0
],
"section_shellShatters0": {
"angles": [
0.0,
10.0
],
"shatter": {
"shellShatter": true,
"distance": 6.0,
"size": 0.08,
"countPortion": 0.1,
"penetration": [
18.0,
15.0
],
"damage": [
45.0,
40.0
],
"onHitChanceMultFire": 3.0
}
},
"section_shellShatters1": {
"angles": [
0.0,
20.0
],
"shatter": {
"shellShatter": true,
"distance": 5.0,
"size": 0.03,
"countPortion": 0.3,
"penetration": [
12.0,
11.0
],
"damage": [
20.0,
17.0
],
"onHitChanceMultFire": 0.0
}
},
"section_shellShatters2": {
"angles": [
0.0,
45.0
],
"shatter": {
"shellShatter": true,
"distance": 3.0,
"size": 0.01,
"countPortion": 0.6,
"penetration": [
5.0,
4.0
],
"damage": [
7.0,
5.0
],
"onHitChanceMultFire": 0.0
}
},
"section_armorShatters0": {
"angles": [
0.0,
20.0
],
"shatter": {
"distance": 5.0,
"size": 0.05,
"countPortion": 0.4,
"penetration": [
15.0,
13.0
],
"damage": [
30.0,
25.0
],
"onHitChanceMultFire": 2.0
}
},
"section_armorShatters1": {
"angles": [
0.0,
40.0
],
"shatter": {
"distance": 3.0,
"size": 0.03,
"countPortion": 0.6,
"penetration": [
8.0,
7.0
],
"damage": [
15.0,
12.0
],
"onHitChanceMultFire": 2.0
}
}
},
while bombs and ground shells use this one(that’s why bombs damage way better that shells in naval modes)
"ap": {
"residualArmorPenetrationToShatterCountMult": [
20.0,
100.0,
0.5,
1.0
],
"residualArmorPenetrationToShatterPenetrationMult": [
20.0,
100.0,
0.6,
1.0
],
"residualArmorPenetrationToShatterDamageMult": [
20.0,
100.0,
0.4,
1.0
],
"caliberToArmorToShatterCountMult": [
0.5,
1.0,
0.5,
1.0
],
"section0": {
"angles": [
0.0,
10.0
],
"shatter": {
"distance": 5.0,
"size": 0.05,
"count": 8,
"penetration": [
11.0,
8.0
],
"damage": [
20.0,
15.0
],
"onHitChanceMultFire": 1.3
}
},
"section1": {
"angles": [
0.0,
25.0
],
"shatter": {
"distance": 3.0,
"size": 0.025,
"count": 20,
"penetration": [
7.0,
5.0
],
"damage": [
15.0,
12.0
],
"onHitChanceMultFire": 1.0
}
},
"section2": {
"angles": [
0.0,
40.0
],
"shatter": {
"size": 0.01,
"distance": 1.5,
"count": 40,
"penetration": [
4.0,
3.0
],
"damage": [
8.0,
6.0
],
"onHitChanceMultFire": 1.0
}
}
},
Clearly there is small pen on naval ones, and smaller coefficients.
It is not meaning of sharpnel, its where you pointed in hanagar is actually Soyuz’s shell room in dm. If you shoot there in game, it explodes too.
Also do note that ground shell and bombs’ sharpnel’s are exaggerated ingame.
Or naval underrated. Considering bombs were nerfed not so long ago.
Nah, they are still, especially in penetration, too high. I can’t remember how exactly old it was(as it was in legacy forum I can’t even find it onow), but developers saids HE penetration is overperfoming purposely.
considering that was on old forum that changed a lot during the passed years.
Penetration didn’t change much. Only at a shell of battleships. And still, as HK reporter upload real life test result, fragment and HE penetration is still too high compared to real life.
And as I said, your problem about Soyuz’s hangar view would come from where you point at hangar and where you really hit ingame. I don’t have problem exploding shell room ingame, as I posted screenshots.
1 Like