When it comes to the weakening of the USSR, they will consider gameplay and technology to reject it. Enhancements related to the USSR are achieved by respecting history. But when it comes to other countries, it is just the opposite.
3 Likes
Thank you for the info.
Still I think some type of standard should be made for guns with calibers above a certain threshold like they did with the De Marre to avoid all those conflicting sources.
Unlike destroyers and early cruisers that relay on fast paced combat heavy cruisers and BBs relay on alpha strike and patience, waiting for the best moment when someone gives you broadside or a good angle to strike.
Seeing more than half of your shells land short or all around your target not because of skill, but an artifical parameter, is pretty annoying.
This is even more noticeable in EC, where you fight at greater distances and the spread can leave you pretty baffled sometimes.
It can be another way to make all actual and future BBs and heavy cruisers appealing.
5 Likes
Using sequential fire mitigates this to an extent dependent on the ship used.
Then why do Yamato, Iowa, Bismarck and Soyuz have the exact same values despite significant differences in calibre, shell weight and muzzle velocities? It’s absolutely impossible that they’d have the exact same accuracy.
Also, this again prove the gigantic double standard problem that this approach creates: Ships that were never completed and never had the chance to prove if they had issues or not gets the most favorable stats possible while ships that were built gets burdened with their IRL issues.
Seriously, as far as War Thunder is concerned it’s better to not have completed a ship your were building. How does this make any kind of sense?
I’ll say it again: Both incomplete and completed ships needs to have their “as designed” stats. Anything less than that is pure double standards.
2 Likes
Then Soyuz can have better turning ability and faster reload!
1 Like
Sure
Naval weapon changes:
- 127 mm/50 3rd Year Type (Ayanami, Hatsuharu, Hayanami, Kiyoshimo, Nenohi, Shimakaze, Yukikaze, Yūdachi, Yūgumo), 127 mm/40 Type 89 (Fusō, Haguro, Haruna, IJN Shokaku, Ise, Isuzu, Kirishima, Kongō, Matsu, Mikuma, Mogami, Myōkō, Suzuya, Tone, Yamato): max horizontal dispersion: 0.185° → 0.21°,
- 127 mm/51 Mk. 7 (Mk. 13 mount) (Arizona (BB-39), Arkansas (BB-33), Colorado (BB-45), Texas (BB-35), Wyoming (BB-32)): max horizontal dispersion: 0.195° → 0.21°,
- 127 mm/25 Mk. 11 (Mk. 19 Mod. 2 mount) (Arizona (BB-39), Colorado (BB-45), Lexington (CV-2)), 127 mm/38 Mk. 12 (Mk. 21/1 mount) (Aylwin (DD-355)), 127 mm/38 Mk. 12 (Mk. 22 mount) (Bagley (DD-386), Davis (DD-395), Moffett (DD-362), Phelps (DD-360), Porter (DD-356), Somers (DD-381)), 127 mm/38 Mk. 12 (Mk. 29 mount) (Atlanta (CL-51), Cleveland (CL-55), Fargo (CL-106), Helena (CL-50), Iowa (BB-61)), 127 mm/38 Mk. 12 (Mk. 30 Mod. 33-36 mounts) (Saratoga (CV-6)), 127 mm/38 Mk. 12 (Mk. 30 Mod. 85 mount) (Bagley (DD-386), Bennion (DD-662), Coolbaugh (DE-217), Cowell (DD-547), Fletcher (DD-445), Zerstörer 4 (D 178), Harukaze (DD-101), Yūgure (DD-184), Geniere (D 555)), 127 mm/38 Mk. 12 (Mk. 32 mount) (Alaska (CB-1), Baltimore (CA-68), Des Moines (CA-134), Nevada (BB-36), Newport News (CA-148), Pittsburgh (CA-72), Tennessee (BB-43)), 127 mm/38 Mk. 12 (Mk. 32 Mod. 2 mount) (Saratoga (CV-6)), 127 mm/38 Mk. 12 (Mk. 38 mount) (Allen M. Sumner (DD-692), Frank Knox (DD-742), Gearing (DD-710), Impetuoso (D 558)), 127 mm/25 Mk. 13 (Mk. 19 mount) (Brooklyn (CL-40), Mississippi (BB-41), New Orleans (CA-32), Northampton (CA-26), Pensacola (CA-24), Portland (CA-33)), 127 mm/54 Mk. 16 (Mk. 39 mount) (Murasame (DD-107)), 127 mm/54 Mk. 18 (Mk. 42 mount) (Forrestal (CV-59), Mitscher (DL-2), Wilkinson (DL-5)): max horizontal dispersion: 0.17° → 0.23°,
- 133 mm/50 Q.F. Mk. I (Mk. II mount) (Dido (37), Vanguard (23)):
- max horizontal dispersion: 0.12° → 0.16°,
- max vertical dispersion: 0.29° → 0.26°,
- 135 mm/45 OTO Mod. 38 (Attilio Regolo, Comandante Margottini (MA), Conte di Cavour, Duilio, Etna), 138 mm/55 mle. 1910 (Amiens, Arras, Bretagne, Courbet, Lorraine, Paris), 138 mm/40 mle. 1927 (Aigle (X 13), Milan (X 111), Vauquelin (X 53), Vautour (X 71)), 138 mm/50 mle. 1929 (Le Malin (X 82), Le Triomphant (X 83)), 138 mm/50 mle. 1934 Mod. 1938 (Mogador (X 61)), 140 mm/50 3rd Year Type (Amagi, Hyūga, Ise, Mutsu, Sendai, Tama, Yūbari):
- max horizontal dispersion: 0.25° → 0.23°,
- max vertical dispersion: 0.29° → 0.28°,
- 152 mm/40 Armstrong Mod. 1899/16 (Aquila (AQ)), 152 mm/55 mle. 1930 (Émile Bertin, La Galissonnière, Richelieu), 152 mm/53 OTO Mod. 26 (Bartolomeo Colleoni), 152 mm/53 OTO Mod. 29 (Kerch, Eugenio di Savoia, Raimondo Montecuccoli), 152 mm/55 Ansaldo Mod. 34 (Luigi di Savoia Duca degli Abruzzi, Roma):
- max horizontal dispersion: 0.23° → 0.26°,
- max vertical dispersion: 0.31° → 0.33°,
- 152 mm/57 B-38 (Chapayev, Kronshtadt, Mikhail Kutuzov, Sevastopol, Shcherbakov, Sovetsky Soyuz, Sverdlov, Zheleznyakov), 152 mm M81 (Flagstaff (PGH-1)):
- max horizontal dispersion: 0.24° → 0.25°,
- max vertical dispersion: 0.3° → 0.31°,
- 152 mm/50 Q.F. Mk. N5 (Mk. 26 mount) (Tiger (C 20)): max vertical dispersion: 0.32° → 0.34°,
- 180 mm/57 B-1-P (Kirov, Maxim Gorky, Voroshilov), 180 mm/60 B-1-K (Krasny Kavkaz):
- max horizontal dispersion: 0.21° → 0.255°,
- max vertical dispersion: 0.32° → 0.36°,
- 190 mm/45 B.L. Mk. VI (C.P. Mk. V mount) (Hawkins (D 86)): max vertical dispersion: 0.32° → 0.36°,
- 283 mm/45 S.K. (Nassau, Von der Tann, Westfalen): max vertical dispersion: 0.26° → 0.28°,
- 283 mm/52 S.K. C/28 (Admiral Graf Spee), 283 mm/54 S.K. C/34 (Scharnhorst):
- max horizontal dispersion: 0.24° → 0.31°,
- max vertical dispersion: 0.32° → 0.33°,
- 305 mm/45 41st Year Type (Ikoma, Kurama, Settsu), 305 mm/50 41st Year Type (Settsu), 305 mm/45 B.L. Mk. X (Dreadnought, Invincible (85)), 305 mm/50 B.L. Mk. XI (B. Mk. XI mount) (Colossus), 305 mm/50 Mk. 7 (Mk. 9 mount) (Arkansas (BB-33), Wyoming (BB-32)), 305 mm/50 Mk. 8 (3-Gun Turret mount) (Alaska (CB-1)), 305 mm/45 mle. 1906/10 (Courbet, Paris), 305 mm/50 S.K. (Derfflinger, Helgoland, Kaiser, Ostfriesland): max horizontal dispersion: 0.24° → 0.25°
- 305 mm/55 B-50 (Kronshtadt), 305 mm/52 obr. 1907 g. (Imperatritsa Mariya, Marat, Parizhskaya Kommuna, Poltava): max horizontal dispersion: 0.2° → 0.27°,
- 305 mm/46 Elswick Mod. 1909 (Dante Alighieri, Leonardo da Vinci), 305 mm/45 Mk. 5 (Mk. 7 mount) (North Dakota (BB-29)), 305 mm/46 Vickers 305/46 Mod. 09 (Andrea Doria): max horizontal dispersion: 0.25° → 0.31°,
- 356 mm/45 41st Year Type (Fusō, Haruna, Hyūga, Ise, Kirishima, Kongō, Yamashiro), 356 mm/45 Mk. 8 (3-Gun Turret mount) (Arizona (BB-39)), 356 mm/45 Mk. 12 (Nevada (BB-36), Texas (BB-35)), 356 mm/52 obr. 1913 g. (Izmail):
- max horizontal dispersion: 0.34° → 0.31°,
- max vertical dispersion: 0.28° → 0.3°,
- 356 mm/50 Mk. 11 (Mississippi (BB-41), Tennessee (BB-43)): max vertical dispersion: 0.3° → 0.285°
1 Like
Oh wow, totally forgot about that part of the changelog.
So they are “somewhat” standardized, the only left out are the new ones at the top.
Looking only at the big guns we have ( best - worst)
- 305mm horizontal dispersion → 0.25 - 0.31 ( 0.06 difference)
- 356mm vertical dispersion → 0.285 - 0.3 ( 0.015 difference)
For the new ones:
-
380/381mm horizontal → 0.22 - 0.34 ( 0.12 difference )
-
380/381mm vertical → 0.24 - 0.39 ( 0.15 difference )
-
406mm+ → all equals
Why such a massive difference only at top tier when they have more comparable values on all the other guns?
Really feels like “let’s prioritize the big sellers first and then put them on par with the others in a future update”
Not really a fan of this.
2 Likes
Because according to real life data, these ships had smallest dispersion and were comparable with each other
Bs paper ship almost identical to paper ship. Yes I agree.
2 Likes
2.47.0.26 → 2.47.0.27
- battleships, battlecruisers: hull sections:
- damage multiplier against KE: 0.075 → 0.05,
- damage multiplier against explosions: 0.85 → 0.15
5 Likes
Nice, at least bots spamming HE only will stop murdering BBs with teir laser sight accuracy.
It was pure pain to shrug off all those cruiser or BBs bots that rained shells on you and destroyed your hull in a few minutes.
4 Likes
Better mobility is whatever considering that Soyuzs already spend their time angled to abuse their overperforming armor.
And even if that wasn’t the case, it wouldn’t be that big of a deal because 75% of games are “circle of death” maps and the other maps don’t allow for much maneuver combat anyway.
War Thunder doesn’t model RoF differences at different elevations, so no reason to change anything there. If there were to implement this to Soyuz (which they won’t considering that tanks don’t lower their barrels in ground battles), they’d have to do it to other ships as well.
Except Soyuz’s guns had dispersion issues during testing, so why does it gets the best possible dispersion?
And that doesn’t address the double standard problem I mentioned earlier, nor @Kweedko 's post.
Again, the same rules needs to be applied for everyone and not on a “for thee, not for me” basis.
1 Like
It is very great deal as angling is where turning ability is very important, and especially as developers deliberately choose Soyuz’s rudder of one(which is very early 1936 design), rather than 3(which real design of 1939 choose), it is a big deal.
They did choose between it some cases. For example, Mutsu/Amagi/Yamato/Wyoming/Arkansas has their reload at loading angle, while others not. So it is possible to reduce reload time of Iowa to 25 seconds, and Soyuz to 23 seconds on the same standard of Yamato at 30 seconds(or otherwise, Yamato should have 50 seconds reload)
The dispersion issue of Soviet B-37 naval gun started between 14 km to 21 km, which is not a big deal in game
Sorry for the late answer, I didn’t notice this one.
According to this logic this reasoninig doesn’t add up.
These are the representations of the dispersion tables collected in a 2020 article aimed to debunk the mith of italian bad dispersion of the 381mm gun using sources from 1941 and after:
Dispersion tables:
Direct comparison between the Italian 381mm and the German 380mm gun:
According to these you can see that the initial statement about real life dispersion only applies to Iowa ( that we all know was a tecnological marvel with its guns).
For all other navies:
- The Italian 381mm had worse dispersion above 20Km ( wich was the minimum engagement range on a clear day by the italian naval doctrine), but it gets really tight a shorter ranges, especially with the SAP round.
- The Royal Navy had its problems with the MKVII round ( 15" british 1929Lb on the table ) but solved it with the MkXXIIb (15" british 1938Lb ) getting extremely tight salvos.
- The germans had better vertical dispersion than the italian 381mm guns, but at 10Km they already suffered a more substantial horizontal dispersion than other navies.
Unfortunately I don’t have data for Richelieu to prove her improvement over time but the idea that germans had better dispersion on their guns is just a mith, like the bad dispersion on the italian guns due to the engagement ranges that their doctrine imposed ( mixed with the initial excessive rifiling strength of the guns that they fixed over time).
By this logic ( based on data) both Roma and Vanguard should have comparable dispersion to the other navies in game.
( please someone find some data on Richi to save her too).
The source:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27142967?seq=1
6 Likes
Yeah no. What Soyuz players do is stop then start reversing while slowly unmasking their rear battery.
It might not be the fastest way to do it, but with their armor, RoF and accuracy they are perfectly fine with 6 guns for a few minutes.
I don’t know why you’re so insistent on defending that ship but you know what? Fuck it, go ahead and do it. Gaijin already let the Scharnhorst wreck havoc for 3 years without much care, and I don’t see any reason why it would be different with Soyuz.
If Soyuz isn’t going to be nerfed, at least other ships should be buffed using the same standards.
4 Likes
There’s this (keep in mind that the barrels were worn and had exceeded their expected barrel life) :
1 Like
What’s the source for this?
Because I have “French battleships” by Robert Dumas and it’s basically a gigantic history book about french BBs, but he omits all tecnical data ( apart from the basic information )
We need something that shows a firing table or the results of a test with a simple graphical ( or numerical) evaluation at various ranges.
I know it can be difficult as there was a massive shortage of shells and charges for the 380mm guns after the escape of Richelieu and even trials were considered almost a luxury to avoid wasting the few reserves around.
Maybe there are some articles of brief essays that collected these type of data.
French Battleships 1922–1956 by John Jordan and… Robert Dumas 😃
I don’t think there’s a dispersion table unfortunately.
Nope, can confirm, a lot of good info about her construction, operational history and life after the war but no data on her tests.
I’m trying to find some articles that can help me out these days but it’s difficult.
Just like with the italians most of the documents about her trials are probably stored in some national archive somewhere.
1 Like
The soyuz? The fantasy ship whose single tested gun had such bad shell and propellant quality that it was horrifically inaccurate.
Sound similar to the Italian 15" that also suffered from dispersion issues, yet this is reflected ingame whereas the soviet fantasy ship’s flaws are not.
Not to mention said soviet shells (and most of their others) blatantly ignoring the laws of physics with ammunition that is more akin to an HE shell but with more penetration than other nations’ armour piercing. They should shatter the minute it comes up against armour even at the slightest angle with how thin the walls are.
2 Likes