My thinking as to the tactical implications of this phenomenon is the following:
One must decide on one's primary aim. If it is to achieve the greatest number of penetrating hits against the enemy's citadel, then:
- Belt hits are unlikely to penetrate even at close range, as even hits which are well within theoretical penetrating range are unlikely to penetrate.
- In order to avoid this, ideally you would want to bring your line alongside the enemy and hit him broadside-to-broadside, within your zone of immunity and outside of his.
- However, in practical combat situations, this is likely to be extremely difficult to achieve. Because of different ideal engagement ranges for either side, and the fact that the superior force will usually be trying to press the engagement while the other tries to disengage, your target is likely to be angled unfavourably for a penetrating belt hit.
- Therefore, one's goal should be to
maximise the number of penetrating deck hits. - There are three competing considerations at play: greater ranges should decrease the likelihood of hits, but increase the likelihood of deck hits relative to belt hits, and increase deck penetration.
If on the other hand one's strategy is to simply kill an enemy by destroying everything around his citadel, then wouldn't the main concern be to maximise the volume of fire, (damage per shell * number of shells) with little to no consideration for armour penetration? Turrets don't need to be penetrated to be disabled. Why not use small, quick firing guns with HE shells?
