Richelieu and sisterships discussion

If that can ever be relevant at one point or another, we had this sketch from the Dunkerque discussion.

1 Like

Should this amount of crew be concentrated in the crew quarters during battle?

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c3MtQowqza6k

Am I the only one who noticed the Richelieu got a pretty significant nerf to survivability ?

It lost the front part of fuel tank recently and I don’t know why…

Can someone backup this change ?

2 Likes

IIRC - a general rule of thumb from my stage 1 chemistry (a few decades ago) an increase in temperature of 10 deg C doubles the speed of a chemical reaction.

So warmer charges might be just burning significantly faster, giving a much sharper rise in pressures since the shell will not have moved as far down the barrel at any given stage of burning, so less volume to fill.

1 Like

Speaking of:

2 Likes

Do someone know why Richelieu max speed is 56km/h? In Devblog it was written it should be “higher than 59km/h”?
And also how about the dispersion of guns, it’s still the worst out of top BB?

After the refit in the US, her speed decreased because of the additional weight.

1 Like

Yes it’s still quite bad (idk if it is the worst), but it’s quite historical tbf

Don’t quote me on that, but i think dispersion is wrong for all ships in game either way, for balancing reasons

IMHO whether dispersion should be “historical” for ALL ships without exceptions, or it should be completely balancing characteristics, no excuses for “historical” things, but idk what is developer’s approach here

Anyway even if they want to make it historical - Richelieu showed one of the worst results of guns dispersion in real life, it’s true, but it seems there were some nuances and we can discuss that

  1. Cause quad turrets had the worst dispersion, BUT if you will shoot from each gun with a little delay - then it should be more accurate, right? So I think then developers should give us ability to shoot from each gun with delay and with less dispersion OR - just to make dispersion for salvos as if it has a little delay between shots. I think last one is kinda good and simple decision, so turret’s dispersion will basically depend only of type of gun’s dispersion

  2. I also found interesting quote in the Internet in discussion about dispersions of 15-18inch guns from WW2
    “Richelieu’s guns were actually very good guns, design of quadruple turret was basically a double twin turret (not too complex design, however with small distances between a pair of guns, that were to be fired together). To make things worse, wartime and France invasion forced Richelieu (and Jean Bart) to leave French dockyards with poor powder and shell quality. Powder bags had even to be manufactured while in Dakar and in Casablanca, mixing Dunkerque’s class powder bags, with huge differences between one charge and another. Problem was only partially solved when ammunition was provided by US manufacturers for Richelieu”

IMHO it seems the problem with powder bags probably really was so, those ships could barely run away from Germans and many systems were not ready, same problem with shells and powders production. So we should research this topic, and then I hope someone will transfer these thoughts to developers and they will notice it. So maybe that’s the reason why we can’t always rely on guns real testing results

So maybe dispersion should depend only on basic characteristics - shell’s size, speed, length of barrel and etc, not turrets characteristics and not based on results on real shooting

1 Like

It can’t, because delay coil mechanism was not installed on Richelieu until postwar. Without delay coil, a full gun salvo can give over 1700m dispersion at about 25km, and even with half salvo its dispersion was still almost twice as much as the 15"/42 on QE.

Developers have been already very kind to Richelieu by giving her “only” 0.39 vertical spread angle.

By the way, developers had already taken the presence of delay coil into account when they consider the dispersion values for ships. For example, the US standard battleships and Japanese 14" gun battleships all get pretty decent accuracy given they received delay coil upgrades before WW2

But well, if there was no delay, it may be considered that we shoot from each gun by one (it was possible I suppose?) So then again no need to make dispersion for whole turret. Anyway I would rather shoot by each gun with better dispersion, but game just doesn’t give me such an opportunity

As I have said, you also rely on result from real shooting tests, but we are not considering the fact about powders and shells quality, which is important and really could change the results. I would rather suggest game dispersion system, based on real objective parameters, such as caliber, shell’s speed, shell’s weight, considering as it was shoot by one gun. Really objective, simple and united system of dispersion for every ship

Cause overall it’s sad, cause Richelieu guns considered as very good guns, but still they have really awful dispersion, considering “quad turret” (and no chances to improve it when u shoot by each gun) and shooting results, when France was about one week to capitulate

“Developers have been already very kind to Richelieu by giving her “only” 0.39 vertical spread angle.”

Did you only played the Richi on the live server ? Because it’s painfully bad dispersion level.

I don’t know what you’would have wanted sincerely. To have an unplayable ship ? Or is this some kind of french bashing ? Idk ?

Richelieu just has the worst dipersion of all BBs and I by a pretty large margin.
Take off some of that AA, call it “Richelieu, 1946” and we are good to go. Give us a decent accuracy !

I guess we will have to wait for the JB to finally have some fun playing french BBs.

1 Like

Because they offer Richelieu actually smaller dispersion that real life records suggest, because they offered Richelieu rate of fire only achievable with post war upgrade, because they allow Richelieu to clear the upper shell room and magazines which she can’t irl.

I don’t know what else can be called as kind, she could have arrived with even worse dispersion, same rate of fire as Roma, and waterline magazine

Not saying it is untrue, but you got a source ?

That’s a max though, not an average

The average dispersion as measured in Mers El Kebir in 1948 was 525m @ 26.5km, 1700m would be your most unlucky scenario

After the delay was installed, that 525m avg spread went down to 300

Also, note that the barrels had already shot 200 rounds by the time that test was done

I submitted a bug report concerning this a while back and included some sources you can check here:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xILYdMTmGvKJ

The reason the upper shell room and magazines could not be fully emptied was that each level of ammunition was directly supplied to one side of the half turret. The separation for the half-turret design for Richelieu not only applies to the turret itself, but also to the ammo rooms and the elevators that supply the turret. From the perspective of looking directly at the turret face, the top level supplies the right pair of guns in the turret, while the bottom level supplies the left pair.

image

Funnily enough, while having the bottom ammunition room supply both pairs of guns is not accurate to real life, let’s not pretend that the previous implementation was historical at all, with the top and bottom levels being merged in as a single shell room and detonating all your shells when only the top level was damaged. The only way to implement the loading system accurately is to have the left and right pair of guns draw ammunition from different rooms. However, for the time being, it appears that the developers do not plan to introduce turret module subdivision to achieve this.

2 Likes

i see

strange design indeed.

So then the turret would have to be properly subdivided and the shell room as well, so a shell penetrating the upper level does not destroy the entire shell room, including the lower level

Upper shell room also seems to be filled with bulkheads, but i’ve yet to see how effective it could be

Well, someone made report about Richelieu’s low speed (56km/h now), send some sources and… Report was closed in couple minutes, cause “it’s not a bug”))

Just freaking noncense, it’s just blowing my mind, really??

They could make Richelieu’s speed 45 km/h and then after people made bug reports with documents with proofs that Richelieu is freaking 2d fastest Battleship in WW2 and could go higher than 31.5knt, it doesn’t matter cause after that all they may just answer “Not a bug))” and close report, and set whatever speed they want. Great, gayjins, wow, bravo. No explanation, but just cause you want so in terms of “balance”, but it seems “balance” in your opinion means Russian paper bias kicking everything out (you can check and compare statistics of Yamato, Richelieu, Roma with Soyuz, GOOD LUCK TO YOU THERE!), while France, Italy and others non popular nations should freaking fight for their usual technical stats for YEARS (Hello Dunkerque’s AP shell). Just freaking tired of it

1 Like

In the absence of non-forcing speed trial data, the second fastest option was chosen by the developers for the refit.

Consider yourself lucky as it should otherwise have been 29 knots.

1 Like