pcasey
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by pcasey on Aug 6, 2019 15:21:21 GMT -6
I'll preface this with:
I have not done an extensive survey of the actual rate at which main battery turrets were disabled by gunfire in this time period.
It definitely happened (I think Tiger lost a turrent both at Dogger bank and at Jutland), but I just don't think it happened as frequently as it does in game.
Observationally though, in game, I lose turrets *a lot* ... Any **** under fire seems to lose at least half its turrets in the first couple of salvos, even to non penetrating hits.
My non scientific statements would be:
It appears that turrets are struck too often e.g. in excess of the actual percentage of the ships abovewater profile.
It appears that turrets, which are struck, are disabled too easily by non penetrating hits.
If the ship as a whole can (and does) shrug off non penetrating hits on the main armor belt, I can't see why non penetrating hits on the turrets have a much larger impact.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Aug 6, 2019 15:49:55 GMT -6
The weight of the turret causes gravity wave distortions. They can warp time and space and cause more hits. You heard it from me first.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 6, 2019 16:45:31 GMT -6
Turrets got hit a fair bit historically, and I've never felt them getting hit inappropriately so in RtW/RtW2 (and assuming same model for both, that's more than 500 hours of play). That said, I haven't done any stats on it either. I'd just suggest looking out for the impact of "noticing the things that hurt" and "not noticing those that don't" - so the turret hits stand out in your mind more, but the belt hits that don't penetrate don't, leading to the feeling turrets are getting hit more often than they are (it's a common human thing - we're wired that way so we pay more attention to downside risk, but it makes humans terrible statistical judges where there's a variation in emotional response to the things being measured).
Also keep an eye out for turrets jamming - a lot of turret stoppages (particularly early in the game, and moreso with triple/quadruple turrets) are due to jams, rather than hits. This also happened a fair bit historically.
|
|
|
Post by xt6wagon on Aug 6, 2019 17:03:10 GMT -6
I don't think so. Plenty of ships had extreme damage to turrets in gun battles, but many of the best examples ended up at the bottom of the ocean for good reason. IE if someone has you ranged good enough for a turret hit, they have you ranged. Thus you are going to be taking a further pounding.
Also history has shown non-penetrating hits can affect a turret either by jamming its ability to rotate, or damage to mechainicals and crew by way of shock.
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Aug 7, 2019 1:45:17 GMT -6
I started uparmoring my turrets and turret tops in NY last game after losing a bunch of battles to turret top hits making my ships useless. Since I do that the problem has definitely reduced
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Aug 7, 2019 4:43:12 GMT -6
I feel the amount of turret hits could be toned down a little.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 7, 2019 10:51:44 GMT -6
It seems that it is a little higher than should be.
I started to doing statistics from logs some time ago as I have same feeling. As I play very small fleet from 40s there is no capital ships battle. So far I have 663 hits from heavy guns to capital ship. Near misses are not counted as hits. The percentage is 22 % hits. Just gross avarege capital ships has about 3 turrets per ship.
It seems quite large as if you look at any capital ship with 3 turrets from vertical view you can see that turret are less than 10 %, similar from top view.
663 hits are still not high to give conclusion but enough to see that they are probably more turret hits than should be.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Aug 7, 2019 11:02:27 GMT -6
It seems that it is a little higher than should be.
I started to doing statistics from logs some time ago as I have same feeling. As I play very small fleet from 40s there is no capital ships battle. So far I have 663 hits from heavy guns to capital ship. Near misses are not counted as hits. The percentage is 22 % hits. Just gross avarege capital ships has about 3 turrets per ship.
It seems quite large as if you look at any capital ship with 3 turrets from vertical view you can see that turret are less than 10 %, similar from top view.
663 hits are still not high to give conclusion but enough to see that they are probably more turret hits than should be.
I suspect range and angling are also in play here. We know from the discussion about angling that angling of the ship and possibly range will affect hit location. A turret takes up a lot of a ship's profile(especially if you count the barbette/superfiring arrangement) if say, you are firing at closer range (so near horizontal trajectory) towards the bow or aft of the ship. Where as at long range turret hit should become comparatively rarer in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 7, 2019 11:23:07 GMT -6
It seems that it is a little higher than should be.
I started to doing statistics from logs some time ago as I have same feeling. As I play very small fleet from 40s there is no capital ships battle. So far I have 663 hits from heavy guns to capital ship. Near misses are not counted as hits. The percentage is 22 % hits. Just gross avarege capital ships has about 3 turrets per ship.
It seems quite large as if you look at any capital ship with 3 turrets from vertical view you can see that turret are less than 10 %, similar from top view.
663 hits are still not high to give conclusion but enough to see that they are probably more turret hits than should be.
I suspect range and angling are also in play here. We know from the discussion about angling that angling of the ship and possibly range will affect hit location. A turret takes up a lot of a ship's profile(especially if you count the barbette/superfiring arrangement) if say, you are firing at closer range (so near horizontal trajectory) towards the bow or aft of the ship. Where as at long range turret hit should become comparatively rarer in comparison. You are right that angle has effect but still look at ship profile from bow. Still low profile.
Stern view of HMS Queen Elizabeth
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Aug 7, 2019 11:59:37 GMT -6
I suspect range and angling are also in play here. We know from the discussion about angling that angling of the ship and possibly range will affect hit location. A turret takes up a lot of a ship's profile(especially if you count the barbette/superfiring arrangement) if say, you are firing at closer range (so near horizontal trajectory) towards the bow or aft of the ship. Where as at long range turret hit should become comparatively rarer in comparison. You are right that angle has effect but still look at ship profile from bow. Still low profile.
It depends on if the game models the turret barbette as part of the "Turret hit", Since the shell can penetrate the upper structural steel/upper streak of the belt and hit the barbette, potentially damage/disable the turret as seen with Kirishima's hit on South Dakota In the above pictures, if we disregard the Mast I'd say the turret can take up about 20~% of the frontal profile, still makes the number of hit slightly higher than expected but can maybe partly explain the discrepancy.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 7, 2019 12:16:15 GMT -6
You are right that angle has effect but still look at ship profile from bow. Still low profile.
It depends on if the game models the turret barbette as part of the "Turret hit", Since the shell can penetrate the upper structural steel/upper streak of the belt and hit the barbette, potentially damage/disable the turret as seen with Kirishima's hit on South Dakota In the above pictures, if we disregard the Mast I'd say the turret can take up about 20~% of the frontal profile, still makes the number of hit slightly higher than expected but can maybe partly explain the discrepancy. Good point about barbette.
I agree that it is probably not high but still about 20 % should be max. not avarege. But as I told I think that at least 2000 hits is needed.
The second thing is that battleship usually use broadsides and this means larger profile ....
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Aug 7, 2019 13:36:17 GMT -6
I believe barbettes have the same armor as turret faces and barbette hits are counted as turret hits. Also turret top hits are more common than deck hits, especially at clsoe range, because they are assumed to be angled, rather than perfectly flat and thus can still be hit ba a relatively flat trajectory shell. I have found that it's best for TT to have at least 0.5 in thicker armor than D, and I tend to have turret armor 1 inch thicker than the belt (belt can be angled, turrets cannot).
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Aug 7, 2019 14:28:35 GMT -6
I only skimmed through the bottom/latest comments, but what I would say is this: I have definitely had too many "two turrets damaged/destroyed by same hit" events.
It's very neat that this can happen (bravo!). It seems that it should not be happening multiple times in a battle or even in a high frequency of battles. I'm sure there is a historical precedence for this, but it's rare enough that skin-deep naval historians like myself do not know of it.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 7, 2019 14:33:23 GMT -6
I only skimmed through the bottom/latest comments, but what I would say is this: I have definitely had too many "two turrets damaged/destroyed by same hit" events. It's very neat that this can happen (bravo!). It seems that it should not be happening multiple times in a battle or even in a high frequency of battles. I'm sure there is a historical precedence for this, but it's rare enough that skin-deep naval historians like myself do not know of it. SMS Seydlitz lost both of its after turrets to a shell that struck the rearmost barbette and detonated powder charges inside of it at the Battle of the Dogger Bank (24 January 1915).
Edit: Also, regarding the effect of range on turret hits, note that turrets may well appear larger to high-trajectory shells than to low-trajectory shells, because the turret top starts to become visible and the turret top is a much larger surface than the turret face. A turret's projection into plane normal to the shell trajectory will become larger as the shell trajectory gets higher, at least up to a certain point, as can be seen in the above images of the battleship Richelieu.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 7, 2019 15:14:10 GMT -6
Side and top view Dunkerque: Relating side view even with barbetes the turrets have much less than even 10 %, just gross estimation is less than 5 %. From top view it is question of guns themselves. But I think we should count that space too as except bombs trajectory is under angle so chance hitting guns in that are is quite high. Even with that space it is less than 10 %. Another picture: 46 % of hits only over weather deck. So turret hit would be much lower percentage as by lenght is just fraction of the ship.
So 20 % seems to be on edge firing directly at bow but this means you do not count underwater hits at all. Any other angle decreases probability of turret hits even more, sometimes even less than 5 %.
I will continue with statistic but it seems that turret hit is too often. The second thing as turret hit disable/destroy even other turret, this is much more difficult as it would need to do real history calculation how many hits turrets get and how many times other turret was disabled/destroyed and how it changed between WW1 and WW2. It seem almost impossible. Right now this is relatively often that I limit only AB arrangement for large fleets when I have more ships and this type of ships is mainly build to be cheap with lower combat value.
|
|