Send the hit replay file if you can find it. There isn’t much plunging fire going on at the usual warthunder ranges.
Just been ammo racked in my latest game again. Destroyed both forward turrets and left number 3 turret with a 2 minute reload.
But naval doesnt appear to actually generate replay links
IRL the zone of plunging fire, defined as >20 degree angle of fall, if you weren’t heeled toward an Amagi starts at around 22 km (link). Game is different, but I understood it has a flatter trajectory than actual.
Well. Something hit me, the front half of my ship exploded. I was tucked against an island, so wasnt a level shot and I wasnt on fire. So something penned me then at a shallow angle and hit my ammo racks
Just go here:
Find the game, and then click “Hit Analysis”. Find the hit that messed you up and you’ll see exactly what happened. (It’s a bit annoying to find the exact hit)
I tried that. I was also rushing a cap in this last match and had 10 BBs firing at me.
So no chance of finding the hit.
But Ill see about the earlier one
You were showing flat broadside to your enemy at point blank range, even Rodney won’t be tank any AP shells if you do that, and shell room can receive splinter damage from penetrations above waterline
Funny note,
As new diaries from italian officers and trials are being translated the cause of the bad dispersion shifted from bad shells to an excessive rifling strength of the barrels that caused the shell to overspin and create additional lift during flight.
This was a more transitory problem as after a dozen of salvos the rifling of the guns lost its grip and the shell reached the correct spin to follow a more nominal trajectory.
Still…if they wanted to use the “perfect condition” of those guns they could have used the presentation trials by OTO/Ansaldo when they demostrated excellent accuracy with “state of the art” barrels that didn’t have this problem.
If they really want to balance ships with dispersion at least change only the orizontal values, as the vertical ones can lead to a full miss even at close ranges.
1 Like
Sure, not saying otherwise. The same can be applied (perhaps even more so) to Richelieu.
My point wasn’t to dunk on PoW or the KGVs in general, just to show that there can be a gap between design specs on paper and what actually happens in reality. Sometimes you have teething issues that can be resolved down the line through various means (like PoW and the Richelieu-class), while some are so deeply flawed that they’re just unfix-able.
But whatever it is, this will only show up once a ship is completed, not before. This means that gaijin’s current approach vastly favors unfinished ships because they never get the opportunity to show whether they had flaws or not.
So looking at these both Richelieu and Roma get fucked on that front. Meanwhile Gneisenau and Sevastopol gets higher RoF than they should because they lacked some of the hardware used on the Bismarck-class.
Very cool, thanks gaijin. No double standards here at all.
This is exactly what I was saying about completed ships needing to get their “as designed” stats. Clearly gaijin didn’t chose these numbers for balance purpose but because of their IRL issues (even though in Richelieu’s case it was fixed and in Roma’s case better quality control on the shells would’ve solved the issue), and it’s screwing them over for absolutely no reason.
As I said above this is turning out to be a false mith created by the lack of info regarding those guns.
As new documents are being translated the problem seems to relate to an excessive strenght of the gun’s rifling. An issue that solved itself after a dozen salvos as the guns lost their initial grip.
In that match yes, because I was capping the point, not a lot else I could do.
I dont have side thruster and so cant crab walk in Rodney.
But the notion “rodney cannot be ammo racked” is wrong.
Also, I’ve taken massive damage even angling. and the B turret on Rodney is bugging out like mad if firing straight forward. It will fire with extra elevation and miss by multiple KM
It was either an Amagi at 13km or a Richelieu at 14km and it is not clear which was it. I think the Amagi
Checking the replay, I go from ammo, to no ammo at 27.40.228 but I sustain no hits at that exact time. but this salvo from Amagi was the closest. So if it was, it was one of these 2 hits.
Though even watching the replay again. I dont take a single notciable shell. I just… get ammo racked by thin air
Possibly worth comparing to historical:
| Ship | Range | TMD | 8 gun group |
|---|---|---|---|
| North Carolina | 20000 | 0.383 | 295 |
| Iowa | 20000 | 0.429 | 330 |
| Yamato | 20000 | 0.44 | 339 |
| Bismarck | 20000 | 0.458 | 353 |
| Hood | 20000 | 0.544 | 419 |
| Colorado | 20000 | 0.55 | 424 |
| King George V | 20000 | 0.566 | 436 |
| Rodney | 20000 | 0.57 | 439 |
| Richelieu (postwar) | 20000 | 0.71 | 547 |
| Littorio | 20000 | 0.74 | 570 |
| Scharnhorst | 20000 | 0.76 | 585 |
| Vittorio Veneto | 20000 | 0.98 | 755 |
| Richelieu (WW2) | 20000 | 1.25 | 963 |
Seems like game values on your graph are quite generous. Bismarck and Scharnhorst groups at 20km are about 35% tighter than what was measured on trial; Hood is doing about 40% better than real life. Iowa is quite close to its trial-measured value (at 20km). (link)
5 Likes
Is NCal better than Iowa?
Looks like it’s some kind of bug then.
The graph is not for values in game, it’s historical values obtained from test firing (US 16" and UK 15") or official curves (the rest)
2 Likes
Even if already known, I personally never saw this happening. Hull torpedos detonating. Better unload them all. It blacks out a whole section and in this example the detonation helped me alot to prevail. Despite my Gneis was already mauled from massive enemy fire. Was towards end of the match.
The question is how this happened, imho some ships are just too high in the water.
1 Like
Ah, I see. In that case the difference between the two data sets I commented on is likely just differing test conditions, “bench” shooting vs “range” shooting.
Might be worth clarifying that it’s not that naval guns are getting “less accurate” at shorter range, exactly. Sport shooters will be familiar with the idea of measuring accuracy in minutes of arc (MoA or arcmin) with MoA=1 equivalent to shooting a 1-inch group at 100 yards (metric equivalent is mils, with 1 arcmin = 0.30 mil, or a 3 cm group at 100m, but I digress). That’s against a target in the vertical plane however. Against vertical targets, most small arms dispersion patterns are going to be roughly circular around the mean point of impact.
HMD is a measurement of horizontal-plane dispersion; if we used it for rifles, it would be a measurement of when the round hits the ground again at the other end. Because the round is arcing in flight this “beaten zone” will be an ellipse with its main axis along the G-T (gun-target) line, even though it would still have been a circle if the same dispersion pattern had been measured vertically (in flight) like a paper target would do. Ballistic arcs mean small errors in the vertical will lead to larger drift on the ground pattern than in the horizontal.
This means that vertical error is more pronounced at closer range. Basically the ellipse is longer when the trajectory is flatter, so the vertical component of the error makes a bigger difference. As the round’s fall to earth gets farther away, it has a greater vertical component, so the ellipse becomes more circular.
For naval shooting, horizontal ballistic error (just based on the gun’s ballistics, nothing else factored in) is basically linear, but the vertical ballistic error is going to be a non-linear function for this reason. And because the TMD is related to the product of both the length and width of the ellipse (the horizontal and vertical errors), it also becomes non-linear, and you’ll get graphs like those shown. Here’s another one I had which shows some of the same base data I think:
Spoiler
It appears to show some guns get more accurate with range, but a better way of thinking about it might be their dispersion-pattern ellipses are really just getting relatively fatter and more circular, even as they’re growing in overall size with range. Because of this aspect of how TMD is calculated, on this kind of TMD y-axis one should expect a good gun (like Bismarck’s) to curve down and then basically go flat-line with range, whereas an increasingly inaccurate gun (like some of the WW1 weapons shown here) will actually start to curve up at longer ranges.
It’s also worth noting that there’s a lot of graph fitting to not a lot of actual real world data points, as Jurens warned frequently. And that all this is purely the ballistics of an otherwise perfect shot. This is the baseline accuracy which is confounded by all the other factors (particularly fire control system factors, which introduce a whole new error variable).
That said, it can be fun to extrapolate, as Jurens did, from TMD to probability-of-hit, as a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the absolute number of hits one should expect from naval guns, removing all other factor besides ballistics, which for him produced an absolute maximum of a 12% probability of hit by a single gun on a 60m target (that’s about the length of a Flower-class corvette, for reference) at 25000m. Using the same way he did his rough estimate on the same chart above (for 20000m HMDs), you get:
| Ship | Range | TMD | 8 gun group | Hit Probability (corvette) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Carolina | 20000 | 0.383 | 295 | 0.19 |
| Iowa | 20000 | 0.429 | 330 | 0.17 |
| Yamato | 20000 | 0.44 | 339 | 0.16 |
| Bismarck | 20000 | 0.458 | 353 | 0.16 |
| Hood | 20000 | 0.544 | 419 | 0.13 |
| Colorado | 20000 | 0.55 | 424 | 0.13 |
| King George V | 20000 | 0.566 | 436 | 0.13 |
| Rodney | 20000 | 0.57 | 439 | 0.13 |
| Richelieu (postwar) | 20000 | 0.71 | 547 | 0.10 |
| Littorio | 20000 | 0.74 | 570 | 0.10 |
| Scharnhorst | 20000 | 0.76 | 585 | 0.10 |
| Vittorio Veneto | 20000 | 0.98 | 755 | 0.07 |
| Richelieu (WW2) | 20000 | 1.25 | 963 | 0.06 |
Again, that is purely ballistics under otherwise perfect conditions (and also likely has huge error bars on any specific ship considering the data behind it). It would be interesting to know from in-game tests how closely WT gets to this, or whether the prospect of hitting (at most!) 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 rounds in some cases was just too depressingly random and they’ve goosed it to keep battleship games from lasting basically forever.
4 Likes
Question.
I want to get Iowa to play it (only) in EC.
With Alaska and generaly I like to play defensive/survive style where I try to keep distance from blob and fight at around 14+ km range rather than get in furball for kills and risk death.
This new fantasy copium ship, is there any room to breathe and to have any chance of some meaningful game time in EC or is he just wiping everything around him?