Or would, it may be survivor mistake. Everybody talks about capitals but how many DDs HC LC being blown up to smithereens during war(and not always by BB). IRL even capitals withstand crucial damage just from less then dozens of big hits while in game the can consume hundreds of them.
Have you actually read the information in the picture?
It is quite clear how different shell types would behave and what caliber this hit is. (In short: a 12 inch HE shell)
Also this isn’t a hit from a Test but a damage report of a hit received by HMS Tiger during the battle of Jutland.
The bigger thing is the short engagement range and way easier aim which leads to more hits being scored. IRL Battleship on Battleship engagements were conducted at longer range but more importantly range finding and fire control were obvious not as easy and accurate as in game so hits scored were way rarer
1 Like
Quiet clear by the 5 pictures from the internet without original source, yeah sure. It just like consider SU metallurgy during the WW2 by single pamphlet from the 90 about one armor test for Soyz(btw. it was done for the metallurgists, to check and improve quality of plates production methods).
Current ingame damage model of the ships is far from ideal and should be improved. As for shells performance too.
Most of them are sunk by torpedoes, not gunfire, only strengthning my opinion.
I’ll put more on the exaggerated shell damage, existence of crew compartment, shell room detonation(which happen irl by continuous fire, not with direct hit of shell) than ‘short engagement range’.
Case of Kirishima and Bismarck clearly shows engagement range doesn’t relate to ship’s unsinkability against shell.
Well it does, mainly because the way a ships protection is designed. In game battles usually take place well within ranges the protection systems were not designed for, therefore the ships are generally more vulnerable.
Like I said before the major part is the volume of shells. If you look at battle reports, you will never read a number of hits you can achieve in game. Per example during the battle of the North cape Scharnhorst recived 13 14" hits which took her completely out of action, in a time span of multiple hours. If you would play this battle out in game you would get to 13 hits in 2 minutes max.
If you look at the battle of Jutland, it’s rare to see a ship receive over 10 hits. Yet in game receiving >10 hits to your ship is nothing special
1 Like
Ingame the ship would be mostly out of action as well (after 10+ main cal hits), but there’s the repair funktion to fix everything in a few secs. Its a game.
In what reality? In game you could receive hundreds of them in a long match and still survive.
The dimensions of flooding compartment of hull is not only relevant to damage model but also the physical behaviour of the ship. Changing that will require major rework on physical parameters such as the centre of gravity, flooding parameters etc for every ship. This would take too much resource so developer do not have plan to change that.
1 Like
You can think whatever you like without solid proof. If you want to read the source, you can order digital copies from the National Archives website, or like me traveling to Kew and read the documents in person and take photographs. I do not have the liability to publish these documents in full which I have invested huge amount of time in travelling, reading and photo shooting. I gave the courtesy of showing a few pages because they are the most relevant to the very question you have asked:
Sure those studies told us that 30 mm bulkhead or deck should protect from 1 ton AP round exploding on the floor
The famous Baden trial report is from CB1640 1922~23, Jutland ship damage reports and live ammunition testing are from the Projectile Committee final report 1917 and Shell Committee interim report 1917. All catalogued in UK National Archives online.
The Baden trial was done with post WW1 shells, which you can even see in the pages where shells were filled with 70/30 Shellite. WW1 AP shells were filled with Lyddite. And I don’t see why experimental shells are irrelevant. Do they follow different physical rules from another universe?
If you still have disagreement, or are doubtful about the documents I posted, get a copy and read by yourself, I have already give you the title of documents which you can find in NA catalogue. There’s no point to discuss when you can only make assumptions.
4 Likes
For the way naval matches work, or even more what the win conditions are ships need to be somewhat survivable. If most ships would be completely out of action with 10 hits of main caliber guns (beyond repair in a somewhat doable time) i want to see the madman that is going to push one of the objectives right in the middle of the map, even closer to the enemy spawn or sit inside one of the giant circle maps on the cap. No one could and would go for the objectives, which is already a big risk for the ships that arent exactly the most survivable or dont have the best armor. Everone would just sit in the back trying not to make him/herself the main and closest target for all enemy players spawning right in front of you.
Take Japanese Port for example, its an absolute suicide mission to get from the spawns anywhere close to any of the caps. Doing that in the Yamato atm is asking for the whole enemy team to shoot you unless maybe your whole team sails out together. If your team (or most of them) stays in spawn, which is usually the case (can’t blame them, who wants to be shot by 5 players at once) youll show up as one of 3 ships of which 2 of them are bots and youre dead before you even made it 1 km out of spawn. While a couple of pt boats cap 2 points and win the match. You’d need to be in a soyuz or an iowa focussing mainly on dodging enemy shells to even have a slight chance of getting there. Anything else is just gambling. and your odds are 0
1 Like
Could you give us your copy? Is there a Barham damage received in it?
Considering
There were many lessons learned on both the technical and operational sides by the British. The destruction of the battlecruisers was obviously worrying, and Jellicoe and Beatty both blamed inadequate ship design instead of the true culprit. They also discovered that to the point where some German 8” plates had survived hits from 15” shells at much closer ranges than they should have been able to. Improved shells were developed, but did not reach the fleet until April of 1918, the captain of Iron Duke at Jutland, estimated that an additional 6 German ships would have been sunk if these ‘Greenboy’ shells had been available there based on the hits made.
and
One of the great scandals to come out of the Battle of Jutland was the relative ineffectiveness of the British armor-piercing shells. For a variety of reasons, the British had been well behind the other European powers in shell design for at least a decade, and at Jutland, only one of the 17 heavy shells that struck thick German armor penetrated successfully.
The answer is a tangled mix of learning the wrong lessons from war and trials, problems with organizational structure, and the unusual way British procurement took place in the early years of the 20th century.
and
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/28mUU9e0lu1y
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/XteZVGJvsK41
Looks like gaijin is really serious into making Roma unplayable
4 Likes
Bad news…
Some ship has ‘realistic’ hull flooding compartment and having superiority on survival than others seems not good…
I wish every ships would have flooding compartment of Marat/Kommuna/Nevada one day, in the near future.
1 Like
I think they loopholed you with the second one.
You focused on the compartments but the real problem is that the crew is not in “battle ready” positions like with other ships.
Crew should be manning machinery and such during combat, not strolling around in compartments.
As they don’t know how to code overlapping hitboxes ( see the volumetric hell in GRB ) I suggest you redo the report focusing on the crew position, explaining how they should be linked to the boilers, radio stations, transmissions and ammo modules rather than external compartments.
They did a devblog sometime ago explaining this but I can’t manage to find it.
Right now the crew is litterally on the wrong deck and those colors should be flipped ( as it was IRL)
1 Like
I wasnt the one that made the reports tho, just looking into the reports to see what the status of the bug reports are
Sorry, didn’t notice.
@LafayеtteGPool, I’ll ping you here.
If you’ll ever read this try rewriting your report focusing on crew placement in a “battle ready” state instead of the compartments, I’ll paste a possible solution just below:
If you’ll ever want to redo the report I suggest starting from this point to avoid possible loopholes.
Hi.
I understand what you are talking about, but there is one catch - the standard for the distribution of the crew across the modules.
For example, there are 20 people in the main guns turret, 70 in the engine rooms, and so on.
Therefore, the excess crew that is not distributed among the modules is allocated into crew compartment.Another problem is the modeling of the module by compartment - even if the boiler takes up less space, in the model it occupies a whole compartment and there is no space left under the armor deck.
Although I can use this space in the engine room.
1 Like
If we can’t move more crew into the engine room for coding issues splitting the mid ship compartment can be a possible solution as you hinted.
It can solve the bizzarre problem where Roma is, right now, the only new BB with the mid compartment above the main armored deck:
Iowa:
Yamato:
Richelieu:
Vanguard:
Roma:
Basically a random heavy HE shell or a bomb can take out a good chunk of the crew with no difficulty, not really the safest place to be in a combat scenario.
2 Likes