Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Teostra

citadel design

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
295 posts
6,823 battles

as we know in the game almost all ww1 era Battleships have their citadel completely underwater or at waterline, which makes it hard to penetrate their citadel, but as the design goes to the modern ones, their citadel are more exposed, which ingame make them more vulnerable to heavy damage, anyone know the reason behind this from historical point of view? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
4,798 posts
1,924 battles

The citadel was also expanded to include more "essential" areas of the ships.

The original citadels only covered the very basics (magazines and some engineering spaces).

Later citadels also includes electronics spaces to protect the workings for radar/sonar etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
434 posts
3,227 battles

The game also horribly simplifies the critical areas of the ship that are protected by an armoured box. Please don't take the colour coded areas on the Armour Viewer as being exactly how a ship was armoured.

 

Bigger Shells = More room needed for storage.

 

This is incorrect. WW1 ended with 15" gunned dreadnoughts. Similar in size to the 16" shells on classes that entered WW2.

 

Tee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
295 posts
6,823 battles

The citadel was also expanded to include more "essential" areas of the ships.

The original citadels only covered the very basics (magazines and some engineering spaces).

Later citadels also includes electronics spaces to protect the workings for radar/sonar etc.

 

i see, would be great if wg didn't consider upper citadel boxes as 'citadel', maybe that way in high tier showing your broadside wouldn't be instant ticket to port, which make player very passive

 

The game also horribly simplifies the critical areas of the ship that are protected by an armoured box. Please don't take the colour coded areas on the Armour Viewer as being exactly how a ship was armoured.

 

yeah, there are many threads in NA or EU forum discussing multiple ships that might be modeled wrong by WG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,110 posts
7,850 battles

as we know in the game almost all ww1 era Battleships have their citadel completely underwater or at waterline, which makes it hard to penetrate their citadel, but as the design goes to the modern ones, their citadel are more exposed, which ingame make them more vulnerable to heavy damage, anyone know the reason behind this from historical point of view? 

 

it can be summarized with this

Last Generation of Battleship were Fast battleship Generation - Instead of Traditional Ship of the Line (Standard Battleship) that have tactical and strategic mobility to outmanuver the enemy

So they have Bigger, more powerfull engine, the New Plotting room also make apperance as Critical place that must be protected.

So the Citadel Area become significantly grow larger than previus generation, but it dont make them more exposed - as the ship designer will avoid that at all cost

 

Battleship Armor were designed upon theoritical "Immunity Zone" - a Doughnut circular area, where the ship protection works at it best (where direct shoot dont have enough penetration, and plunging shell dont drop at steep enough angle to penetrate). from both 2, Plunging shoot is more dangerous - as no Armor can withstand 16 inch shell fall at steep enough angle

Late war battleship, that emphasize on Long range Gunnery protection, tried to expand "Immunity Zone" outwards

While late war Gunnery technology (along with higher caliber shells), push the Inner ring of the "Immunity Zone" back.

 

What this Translate to WoW ?

For example historical Immunity Zone of Yamato 20 to 35 kilometers. and Iowa is around 16 to 32 km .

This was, the area where they expected to trade shells, where they would lingger around punching each other 

However in WoW, the engagement range is much shorter and outside the  protection Doughnut 

 

Earlier Battleship were expected to fight at closer range. so Their Gunnery performance and Immunity Zone were closer to ingame engagement range - than Higher Tier battleship

 

Historicly, The advancement of Gunnery is Ridiculusly Powerfull - thats why Caliber size race is real 

For Example, Nagato have 15 to 25km Immunity Zone against 14inch shell. When US launch North Carolina - with her powerfull 16inch American Shell - The Immunity of Nagato reduced to.......... none, seriusly none, Nada, NC can pen Nagato Citadel at any range.

 

OFC WG, would adjust that number (probably)

But historicly, on High tier we fighting each other outside the ship Immunity Zone (maybe thats why you have that sense)

 

also keep remind, that this were arcade.

We play ships like tanks, showing Ship Frontal Armor to enemy Fire.

in Real life, the Ship would get rekt by Raked Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
434 posts
3,227 battles

 

Earlier Battleship were expected to fight at closer range. so Their Gunnery performance and Immunity Zone were closer to ingame engagement range - than Higher Tier battleship

 

A good post but this part I had to comment on.

Accurate (relatively) long range fire was an aspiration right up to the few years preceding WW2. Increasing gun range on the first and second gen of dreadnoughts was most often a case of increasing the firing angle and/or charge.

It was a situation where the guns could fire at long ranges but couldn't reliably hit anything so wasting tonnage on horizontal armour versus vertical armour which more likely to be hit by shells.

 

Tee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,110 posts
7,850 battles

A good post but this part I had to comment on.

Accurate (relatively) long range fire was an aspiration right up to the few years preceding WW2. Increasing gun range on the first and second gen of dreadnoughts was most often a case of increasing the firing angle and/or charge.

It was a situation where the guns could fire at long ranges but couldn't reliably hit anything so wasting tonnage on horizontal armour versus vertical armour which more likely to be hit by shells.

 

Tee

 

Historicly, the main reason for long range fire aspiration. for early Battleship designer were to stay out of range of  Torpedoes armed ships.

Torpedo Boat were real threat for 1st and 2nd generation dreadnought. The development of Long range gunnery were to adress that growing threat of increased Torpedoes range (and the fast boat that carry it)

infact The main reason on Long lances torpedoes development were to outrange other nation treaty standard 203mm Gun on Cruiser. thus IJN (theoraticly) cruiser can equalize their diffrence with USN that fielded more number

 

increasing the firing angle (elevation) as you said were early battleship option to hit further were true

but the usage of increase of charging propelant is not.

Artillery use, slow burning Proplant that slowly build up pressure in the barrel to launch shells. 

adding  extra Propelant charges often reffered as Supercharged/Full Charge works by adding catalyst (mostly gunpowder) to accelerate pressure burning process

 

however without longer barrel "encase" the extra buildup pressure, most of its energy will go to waste. 

so it Giving huge boost to muzzle velocity, which is more usefull in Closer range fight -  but dont give much range (longer Barrel incorrelation to shell calliber is needed)

 

The higher and more violent Burning process, wear the barrel faster. and unsafe for sustained operation (which in naval battle can last for hours)

Royal Navy actualy prefer Low Charge, so they can achive Plunging shoot from closer range - bypassing the need to bruteforcing belt armor completly

 

 

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×