World of Warships - Captain's Academy #39 - Spaced Armor = Black Hole Generator

[@karulean]

It as if the enemy is shooting baguette at it and the sailor on board just ate it.

[@ichasegaming]

Oui, oui, real shells are a myth. Only baguette is the truth

[@Takarde]

Here from France I tell you the truth : SURRENDER TO THE POWER OF BAGUETTE !

[@MrSnakeCake]

The no damage penetration is the AP shell exploding in the spaced section of armour, this section does not have any HP and as such it can not do any damage and isn't a bug, same with HE it hits the spaced armour and explodes as HE does but because the space behind it does not have any HP it does zero damage. If works especially well against British Cruiser AP with its low fuse time. And its basically the same as torpedo bulges. Stuntman9630 did some test when the French were released and there were some funny results.

[@ichasegaming]

Problem here is, when I talked to the dev, he seemed to think that the shell exploding in spaced area is supposed to do pen damage. So that's where my question lies. Either it was an oversight or it was meant to be, if it's meant to be, then fantastic lol

[@MrSnakeCake]

Well what is working as intended one moment can be changed into this isn't what we wanted by WG at the drop of a hat. Still if you want to shoot Frenchies its best to go for either upper belt shots or the weakpoint under the front 2 turrets were there isn't any spaced armour.

[@ringowunderlich2241]

Yep, was thinking or rather posting this myself, but then i saw your post. Wargaming has to make the spaced armor area as a damage zone. This way it might prevent citadel hits better, yet the hits count as normal penetration hits. Otherwise we are being left with a completely rigged cruiser line.

[@krostouin]

Ringo Wunderlich The French cruiser line isnt strong, in practice its citadel carnaval.

[@HaqqAttak]

What it should really do is burst open the spaced armor, since the explosion is mostly happening in a contained space.

[@emilsoderman3691]

My understanding is what happens: Your shell hits the armour, penetrates, but the "space" in the "spaced armour" doesen't take *any* damage. If the shell explodes there. So what happens is the shell arms, explodesinside the "space" and does no damage. You basically need to penetrate outer armour-pass through internal space-penetrate inner armour in ordr to actually do damage.

[@emilsoderman3691]

I know someone talked about this when the french cruisers were new. Flamu maybe?

[@thebeastlytincan2413]

A shell exploding in a non critical area like the mess hall will not do a great deal of damage, but there will be damage to the ship's structure. You could also expect a good deal of flooding with the shell blasting away the outer hull and damaging watertight compartments. More damage than an over penetration. Less damage than a hit to the magazines or the engine room. This is why "penetrations" are modeled in the game.

[@lubossoltes321]

not exactly ... you penetrate the outer armor, the game registers a penetration and displays the pen ribbon. then your shell hits the next armor layer, does not pen so it effectively shatters/bounces, game calculates 0 damage but the pen ribbon is not updated. the same works on ships with outer torpedo bulges .... damage and penetration are the same only on single armor layer ships. there are several checks while the shell travels (arming, fuse time, penetration) but damage is calculated at the last check while the ribbon is selected at the first check....

[@emilsoderman3691]

That's what you'd expect, yes. But the space between the armours have no HP and so does not take any damage, unlike regular ship sections.

[@USSEnterpriseA1701]

I've seen AP shells get pens and do no damage plenty of times. I always thought it was pens on things like secondary turrets and AA mountings, but seeing this, I'm not so sure anymore. I can't always watch every shell hit when I fire, so anything is possible. I do have to say though, that my main problem with Izumo and Yamato against cruisers is actually overpens. I have been in several situations where a Dimitri Donskoi, Minotaur, or other high tier cruiser is broadside on at 10 km or less and the shells just overpen with the occasional citadel thrown in every once in awhile. I do get that this is just a fact of life with high pen guns and lightly armored cruisers and I've been known to use it to my advantage when I play such cruisers. I do think that spaced armor is why Amagi is much more durable than Nagato despite having less belt armor, I used to wonder why that was the case, but this pretty well offers an explanation.

[@ichasegaming]

For the Amagi vs Nagato, I think it's mostly because Nagato citadel actually does come up above waterline, while Amagi is fully underwater :)

[@USSEnterpriseA1701]

Fair enough. I love 'em both though and can't wait for the Kii (or Ashitaka, if she ever shows up).

[@USSEnterpriseA1701]

I do use Z from time to time, but most high tier cruisers have pretty low cits, so you tend to get misses and overpens more often than citadel hits. Regular pens are kind of hard to come by on lightly armored cruisers with guns that can punch holes through 16+ inches of armor plate out to 10 km. Hindenburgs take regular pens plenty, but that's because of that German armor scheme.

[@hatework4282]

This actually helps explain a lot of the incidence I have experienced in my Duca. Thanks for the info.

[@bigman6871]

A simple fix to it would be to allow the first penetration to cause minimal damage to the ship even if it doesn't fully penetrate the other layers of armor and fail the subsequent autobounce checks, at least you're able to do some damage instead of nothing which is infinitely better.

[@Wombatmetal]

You see the same effect in World of Tanks. You shoot spaced armor to no affect because there is no hit box assigned. Tracks are famous for eating shells, but some tanks have fenders that eat shells as well. Devs have said they have no hitbox. Which is a bug in design. I bet it is the same

[@l00n4t1k262]

Nice to see this series back. I've missed some of your older content lately

[@BayushiTawa]

Yet another great, didactic video with useful and easy to follow content delivered to us the WoWs community by you Chase. I do not think there is any other content creator capable of such dedication and attention to detail in order to dive into the mechanics in such a way and then manage to transfer this knowledge to the community (other than Stuntman9630, data mine interpreter expert). I am sure you will do fine and that WG has lost way more than you with the CC termination, someone in WG should be really ashamed right now. Regarding the 0 damage AP pens: As stated in another comment, Stuntman9630 did once a lot of RN CL "AP" vs French cruisers test and yes, the most reasonable explanation is that the AP shell gets armed (in your example maybe because of the impact against the water being an underwater penetration) and detonates inside the black hole volume between the belt and the citadel which has no associated HP. But you state that a developer told you there should be damage nonetheless... Could it be possible to test some small AP shells (Khaba) aiming at the bulge of something big from bow or stern at very sharp angles so that the small AP penetrates the bulge, but ricochets off the belt, and see whether there is any damage when the AP, hopefully, detonates inside the bulge? If there is no damage, why should there be damage inside the black hole?

[@Schmeethe88]

Spaced armor is super weird for that, but I still feel that citadel overpens are a more serious problem. It lowers the skill ceiling that enemies can make terrible plays, go full broadside at certain-death ranges and only take a handful of overpens. If they want to model it that way, fine, but then citadel overpens should still do bonus damage in some way. Maybe 50% nominal shell value, or cause flooding since they're exiting below the waterline. It wouldn't apply to destroyers, of course, because they don't have a citadel, but a Nagato dumping a full salvo into an Omaha broadside at 8km range shouldn't deal 6k damage and let him happily sail away.

[@crazylarryjr]

I have found that angles, where you can tag the Bow or stern and hit the citadel, are the best possible places to hit

[@MrDadhhg]

On a ship with 3 layers of armor there are twelve spots the shell can be located to detonate. On the first layer, inside the first layer, on the second layer, inside the second layer, on the third layer, inside the third layer, then on the opposite side of the ship, inside the third layer, on the third layer, inside the second layer, on the second layer, inside the first layer, on the first layer. Shells that explode "outside the ship" are considered shatters, shells that penetrate at least one armor layer on the ship are considered penetrations, shells that go through the ship's damage boxes and penetrate to the outside without exploding are considered over-penetrations. Spaced armor is not considered to be a damage hitbox, but are considered inside the ship, meaning any shell that explodes inside the spaced armor, or on the outside of the main armor are considered detonations, even though they are effectively shatters.

[@lubossoltes321]

basically any space between 2 layers of armor that is not the innermost hitbox is a penetration without damage ?

[@kurtderknispel6607]

Nice to see You back with CA !

[@Platinumsniper]

The no damage AP Pens might be one of two bugs. A bug with the AP shells or a Bug with detailed ribbons according to Pigeon of War the detailed ribbons need work because they only record the first action that the shells do. Ex: if the AP shell over pens superstructure and then pens the deck, the ribbons will only show an Over pen and the ribbons will only show an Over pen and you will get normal pen damage.

[@snavsmatiq]

Ap penn not doing damage can be from damage saturation. each section of the ship has its own HP, and if you reach that limit that part of the ship will not take any damage

[@terranceroff8113]

Ichase; I wonder if it's something as simple as the spaced armor effect chopping the damage zones into smaller chunks that can be rapidly damage capped/saturated. Looking at the center "zone" of french shps, the layers of armor would tend to break the ships center are into core citidel, outer hull, torpedo hull, and then there's the recessed inner armor above the water line, with and outer hull armor..in some cases up to 8-12 separate area's that can be damaged on some of the ships amidships counting from the keel to the superstructure. how those hit points get divvied up might have a lot to do with the effect being seen. The armor doesn't go away. Once a sub zone is saturated it's going to soak up any damage from a shell that detonates in it's zone. I can see the "short fused" shells having some issue dealing with that.

[@aprilwhitemouse1593]

Great video, Chase. I'll bring it up with some of the devs and see what they say.

[@Wildboy0001]

Thanks for giving your content up & alive!

[@baldwintheleper]

What about against USN cruiser AP? Do the trajectory and better autobounce angles help them get citadels? Its funny how people say that cruisers are COMPLETELY powerless in this game - they can 1v1 any BB and burn them down, all they need to do is kite away; they are nearly immune to CVs when they have defensive AA on, and now an entire line has new troll armour and the only way you can citadel them is by going under the turrets. Good luck with doing that at 14 km with an Henry moving at 40+ knots and running double rudder shift mods.

[@joedanker3267]

Thanks for the info iChase - well researched and tremendously useful!

[@PsyArkron]

I look at the armor viewer *a lot*. And I mean really a lot, looking what kind of armor ships have, where to penetrate them, etc. However, I never really knew/noticed that the Henri IV has three layers of armor! (Although I already thought that seemed too weak and there should be more armor.) Even after watching this video I checked the model and was like "he talked BS, there are only two layers after all". Like the bulge and citadel. But then I thought you wouldn't make video and everything if that's wrong, there's something I'm missing.... So I moved the camera all around searching. Then I finally saw that layer behind the bulge! You have to like to remove the casemate section, leave the plating on and then move the camera way above to even spot that. While I'm really glad that WG implemented the armor viewer into the game, I never really was happy with how they did it. Just having basically five buttons to switch on and off the sections just isn't enough! There should be ways to remove individual layers, so that we can really check what's behind a specific layer of armor. Anyway, thanks for making another good video about the game mechanics.

[@williamampuero2841]

I appricare you doing these again....very informative.

[@imright9957]

Awesome vid. Chase you do some of the most instructive videos on KZbin. Thanks

[@keroppiandyyuen]

What I am thinking is that bulge might NOT count as part of ship. Instead, it is considered a module. Therefore, similar to shots penetrating the main guns/ torp tube or whatever module, penetration icon is displayed but no damage occur.

[@shapiro5000]

I don't believe that shells that detonate between spaced armor plates do anything. Even before French cruisers, battleships had torpedo bulges. He wouldn't do damage to their main belt. As far as AP goes, I've always thought that this is the armor working as intended - arming the fuse and giving it time to detonate before it got to the next layer of armor.

[@KittyFoxKitsune]

in B4 russian BB's introduced with 11 layer armor making it next to impossible to land a solid pen

[@exaltdragon]

AP fail: the explanation is quite simple, really. It's exactly the same as many fighting game mechanics. The hitbox of many ship sections doesn't include every single part of the rendered 3d structure. If you were to examine the hitboxes for most ships, they resemble a chunk of lego-like rectangular boxes of various sizes stuck together. If the AP shell penetrates the hull, doesn't exit but doesn't explode inside one of those boxes, the shell does zero damage, which is even worse than an overpen that does 10% damage. This technicality has been in the game since closed beta, surprised that so many people are unaware. The easiest way to look at the hitboxes of the ship is to look open a viewer like gamemodels3d and browse to the modules section. Basically, if a shell pens the armour and explodes within the rectangular block, it does pen/cit damage. If it doesn't, it does nothing. It's not just the french cruiser midships that have this "bug" btw... many superstructures and bows and sterns have this too. In general the curvier a bow or stern is, the less representative the lego blocks are of the internal spaces. Hence there will naturally be more zero damage pens. The same applies to many smokestacks and superstructure features: sometimes the developers simply did not model in hitboxes into certain parts.

[@exaltdragon]

It has nothing to do with whether the armour, be it spaced or not, and everything to do with the hitboxes. Many spaced armoured cruisers like nurnberg and yorck will take full 33% pens when the AP shell explodes in their midships but outside the citadel.

[@YumeMegami]

ah so basically same as WoT spaced troll armor. Spaced armor reduces the pen of AP rounds which then has to go through another player of armor... Thus when you angle it has to go through that 2nd armor, 3rd armor with reduced pen and increased armor due to angling leading to no dmg.

[@fnglert]

I might not be recalling this correctly but wasn't the spaced / troll armor a touted feature when the FRCL were introduced? As in, Wargaming specifically mentioned it in a presentation video? If so, then it's likely not a bug but a feature.

[@preacher3d801]

Good video ) nice to see the captains academy is back

[@jvhoef5372]

Good to know, if you happen to get developer confirmation an update would be great.

[@Mark_Bickerton]

I get "Pen - zero damage" hits all the time in ALL my BB's. they started a few patches ago. You used to get them in WoT too, but eventually WG fixed it. I hope they fix this soon cos it's so frustrating.

[@kylermcreynolds3146]

Shells often failed to detonate in combat so that may explain why you have AP not causing damage.

[@bazejkurdya9831]

Hey Chase, I think I read somewhere that shell can overmach only first piece of armour it encounters, and all further platings can autobounce/be penetrated normally regardless of thickness. Correct me if I am wrong.

[@redtitan75]

Thanks for that video, spaced armour is something i was wondering about for a while. Having been on the receiving end of battleships shells with my Duca d'Aosta and also fighting other ships with spaced armour, i did notice what happened when i took hits that i was certain i should'n be able to take with another cruiser like. Also i missed your captain academy. Please don't take offense but since you are now a independent world of warship/video game streamer, you seem to have that flame back when you do your videos. for a while, it felt to me like you were weary and considering what you explained in your what next video, that kind of make sense.

[@Jognt]

Awesome! A new captain's academy vid :D

[@MM-lv8ib]

Ichase can you do a follow up video regarding this? I know devs tosses up reasons for this and changed ribbons. Great videos!

[@TheJohnmurphy516]

you fire your north cal guns get 4 overpens and one pen and 5k damage and you just ask yourself "math hard but that doesnt add up"

[@fjbayt]

Well, they had to give french cruisers some advantage, in my case i stopped at the Emile Bertin because it had better speed than a destroyer, and from 38 knots coming down to 32 in the galissoniere, but now that you speak of this advantage maybe ill try them again, unless they take it away after this video.... But thank you

[@jagsdomain203]

This is what the ruasian bb will have and that will truly be the most op of op things. I know we have said that about everything. The british did not ruine thr game but this. They should just give the russian bb a clocking devise. This might, might be how they are going to let us cruiser drivers live longer I really want the putumpkin to mutney once it gets to say half life.

[@jayc1048]

Jerry Glaze turtle back?

[@smcdoug11]

I love you ichase, you make my warships happier with every video 😍

[@airplanemaster1]

Is that an euphemism for something?

[@blankmoment2]

jesus i thought the colorado shell went crazy again who know is because the new "spaced armour"

[@rutilius83]

Ok, so the space armor works like or almost like it should in real life. the Iowa class had spaced armor. what really happens is the outer plate strips the AP cap off the shell and slows it down turning it into HE common with a damaged nose. this would increase the shell shattering when it hit the next plate in line. it is also why getting closer or too close should make for more broken shells, not more penetrations. the U.S. was 1 of the few countries that could afford to make hulls of many ships out of armor steel. thank Pittsburg and Cleveland for that. for that matter, most U.S cruisers were the same way. i would love to see the armor and naval rifles modeled as real life instead of like tank guns. i get why they did it at 1st, but that would be an upgrade i would like to see. it might make cruisers fun to play. some might even not play BBs as much.

[@IsopropylRecordings]

Thnx for good video. I hope there is a lot of buggs because a Zao not being able to kill a boat is going to be a issue with me.

[@SDZ675]

This explains why I never get cit when 45 degrees to BBs on my Charles Martel

[@thomasbernecky2078]

Chase, does the ships tonnage go up when these shells are rattling around the hull? what ships have spaced armour other than the Duca and Henri?

[@Synpax]

In the armor viewer., I can't see any part of the HIV that the torp bulges cover the main belt; I only see them covering the cit armor. So I don't see where there is 3x autobounce checks.

[@Edi_J]

Thanks, very informative vid. It really seems much more interesting to focus on the mechanics rather than devote all the time to yet another cash-grabbing pre-released very-alpha-soon-to-be-changed premium ;) This black hole armor is totally trolly thing, I am sure most of effects are a surprise for WG, they completely lose the balance in this game. T8 heavy cruiser doing zero damage when firing full 203mm HE salvo on a broadside, paper low-tier baguette at point blank range? Really? What were they smoking "designing" this?

[@a36538]

ichase, love your content! keep up the great work! Was wondering if you could do an episode on plunging fire? I hear it exists and doesn't exist in this game? Whenever I try to test with a yam at max range + spotting planes my shells just autobounce

[@dekeropanzer1673]

Awesome video dude! Can you do in the future captain's academy videos showcasing guides on various tech trees? You did 1 about US cruisers but 1-2 years ago, maybe like update it and do more of it for other tech trees.That would be super helpful and nice to watch.Please think about it. ☺

[@MiMosDude]

I agree that could be super helpful

[@RobertBriggsTheTech]

I've been wondering for a long time now why some Penetrations do no damage. .. I hope we find the answer soon!

[@Overlord72]

Assault Destroyer proud to serve.

[@mikep3180]

you gave me a reason to start playing with French again

[@arczer2519]

there are spaced armor parts that aren't part of the HP for example main belt of Wyoming class battleship behind its main 279mm belt don't have anything until citadel, exactly the same apply to La Galissonniere you can check on gamemodels3d.com AP shells have fuse settings and due to fact that game simulates velocity loss they can detonate before reaching section of ship that is taken by consideration by damage check still there are issues, spaced armor generally offered less resistance than equivalent solid armor plate, unless when build in special way. 2 we have horribly inconstant way in with Citadels are modeled, some ships have entire citadel box as citadel, some have upper belt and holding bulkhead, some have just have deck on are magazines and machinery spaces and lastly some have just magazines and machinery spaces. just simple tour around ships show that, but if you look closely at North Carolina you will see something strange if you turn on only extremities in armor viewer you will see thats behind torpedo bulges there is a armor plate with when you turn citadel view is hidden behind that part of the citadel that extends to main belt, that plate is extension of the holding bulkhead and for some reason its not considered in citadel protection with is bit of the nonsense. i.imgur.com/Yjb9QRB.jpg i.imgur.com/Y1neibp.jpg i.imgur.com/rTz46yc.jpg i.imgur.com/V7IZPxl.jpg i.imgur.com/6e5MJ33.jpg that's why there are emblems with things like citadel UK battleships as they have just primarily modeled is at magazines and machinery spaces (except of Nelson) with are not to heavy armored neither to wide, making shell more likely to overpenetrate them while on other ships shells can still hit belt on second side with will most likely stop them causing citadel damage.

[@T0ffik1]

For 53% bounce chances the number of bounces vs pens is extreamly wierd (over 90% of bounces vs +-10% pens)... smell WG manipulations. To it considering the spaced armor - you overmatch the 19mm of henry IV but i suspect you bounce on the 2nd layer so thats why you get 0 dmg pens - as they then expload in empty space between armor layers.

[@giwrgos19802]

Spaced armor just protects the ship from HE explosion (like world of taks spaced armor there protects from HE explosion) it can help on AP to bounce but the layer cannot hold back the shell so i assume it's a bug......

[@fendelphi]

About the 0 damage pen, could it be that the compartment hit was fully saturated? I know that the mid section did not change colour, but it could be an internal compartment, right?

[@fraginz]

so more angled spaced armor= more RNG of no citadel

[@ganges852]

What about the Iowa class battleships, namely the Iowa and Missouri? Does it also have more auto bounce checks like the French cruisers?

[@maygayming5275]

AP that pens a torpedo bulge but not the hull doing no damage makes sense to me, that's the point of the torpedo bulge and they are not relevant to the ship's buoyancy or operation.

[@TremereTT]

We should ask notser about the details and mechanics of amunition.

[@somerandomguyfromthebeyond1821]

wait there space armor in this game like in WoT? holy moly that explains some of the non dmg pens i have been getting....

[@BurainGTrailNFish]

Nice video IchasePenguins, but still makes no sense like shells hit on the ship and makes a big holes and deals no damage. The only historical about this game is the ships, but the mechanics makes no sense(they should also make it like a WW2 battle vibe mechanics XD ). I never heard a story were the captain ordered his battleships to angle and sit in bow in so the AP shells will bounce haha I hope WG will change this and make it a little more complicated becuz the simplicity of this game for me is killing it.

[@emilsoderman3691]

It especially makes no sense since the broadside areas are the heavily armored ones... IE: Where they expected shells.

[@fg3893]

So this is the reason why my french cruisers are extremely survivable. More reason to love them

[@jagsdomain203]

Nguyen Ba Nhat Minh i started playing french and seem to be good, when i shoot at them its hard to get a pen like the pency and atlanta. Are you saying that this armor is all ready there? What teir firench are you.

[@fg3893]

Im on t8 right now. The french have space armor all the way from t3 or 4 i think. However that armor only starts to shine at t7 where they starts to become thick enough

[@jagsdomain203]

Nguyen Ba Nhat Minh I thought this was something that was coming out, know wonder why there so hard to kill. How do you know this is the armor, and why did it just come out. I never see any french ships anymore maybe this could bring them back out.

[@fg3893]

Its always in the game ever since the french ships got released

[@harold562]

So if i get this right? No more pew pew he from pesky destroyers hidden inside the smoke? And no damage kill from he secondaries on german ships, like the tirpits? And he would only work to set fires?

[@ClawGr]

Well indeed its weird. I knew that on Battleships you can get pens that do no damage. (Those tend to be for example when you penetrate guns or modules, but have enough HP that you dont destroy them. When they get destroyed you get some dmg from module). On french cruisers usually i was getting overpens as if they are DD. The only way i was getting a citadel was only when they angled! (from the nose), i guess shell ricochet inside the ship to do dmg). Very anoying that they get away when playing stupid. The whole situation about most ships having lowered citadels (especially BBs like reaally underwater) is BS.

[@relhimp]

That called void shields in wh40k lore

[@KWRapple]

i have noticed some of that was there a change to fire or is it just all the RN BB seems like a lot more fire going around

[@federicoklade4906]

Ichase can you make a video about the turtle deck armor ( I think this is the name,probably,I'm not 100% sure ) and how it works. I love your Captain Academy's video :)

[@la_potat6065]

Stupid 60 degree autobounce is your answer... German Turtlebacks have their armour inclined at 68-70 degrees, which is why shells fired pointblank - will always autobounce to the turtleback... When if you do the math you should be able to pen the citadel, but you can't thanks to the 60 degree autobounce. The only way to Citadel a German BB - is to fire long range - so the shells "plunge more" at about just over 60 degrees from Normal, slicing through both the belt, turtleback and citadel armour- without autobounce bouncing it... or it issues a plunging fire deep underwater pen - where it penetrates deep below waterline - where there is no armour belt. And the shell just has to go through the thin torpedo bulge armour and lightly armour citadel armour. Please note IJN and USN (excluding mikasa) - also have a form of turtleback - but its angled at 45 degrees - so it will not autobounce shells - but have a form of "troll armour" during pointblank fights, where you are likely to miss the citadel (as it is very low on the water line) - and only deal pen dmg... and is also extremely vulnerable to plunging fire.

[@frankvc5899]

Can you do a Khab armor test?? To prove to all that 50mm plating is idiotic on a DD which can shatter 203/8inch shells

[@TeteBruleeFR]

I don't understand... How can multiple autobounce check help? If the angle is good enough to pen once, it should still be good enough to pen twice, doesn't it? Are space armor any effectif when not angled? Does USN AP and their notorious penetration are affected by space armor aswell?

[@ichasegaming]

It helps because you basically have 2 autobounce rolls vs only 1. With 1, if autobounce fails, you get penned. With 2, if one fails, the second one might not fail and you bounce a shell instead of taking citadel dmg. USN AP is affected as well, but less so

[@emilsoderman3691]

Despite the name Autobounce isn't automatic, basically unless you can overmatch a shell has a chance to bounce. If you overmatch then it just goes through, no check required. (until you get to thicker armour anyways) having several autobounce checks increases the chance of the shell bouncing because it first has to pass one check, then the other.

[@johansmifthelry9307]

Great vid! i was missing those

[@GintaPPE1000]

Doesn't the Moskva have a 110mm internal torpedo bulkhead (which is the citadel bouncing box) behind that 155mm outer belt? Doubt it makes a difference as it's not at a noticeably-different angle from the main belt like Henri IV's armor, but still.

[@ichasegaming]

Yes, but that's underwater, the Moskva's 155mm armour belt is above water and the citadel is there, so once that gets breached, bam citadel hit

[@budak_korporat]

actually moskva is one of the weakest citadel's protection on cruiser

[@linkdeous3928]

France's quality engineering :DDD

[@Mantodeavideos]

For shells penetrating multiple layers, do the normalisation apply when the shells pass through one layer of armour (ie shell path is not straight) or can we assume shell path to be straight. Like does the normalisation affect the shell path or does it just affect the penetration calculations?

[@ichasegaming]

Only affects penetration calculations from what I've been told :)

[@iron_side5674]

Isn´t that just saturation? I think the Midship sektion only held 50% of the ships total HP, not counting the Citadel which always takes full dmg. Maybe thats it?

[@_montagne4793]

You haven't done a Midway guide yet.( Other one is too old now) Ichase i know u want to do it :P

[@Sherman007]

Spaced Armor = Black Hole Generator, LUL, this has been confimed top Sekrit DokumentS Komrades, But the question is how did WG get their grubby mits on the Sekrit dokuments for the Black Hole Generator.

[@tragedyofwind]

what if your angle inside and outer is differnt, and the auto-bounce angle over lap qnd make the ship unable to get citedaled. That would be a good way to make a ship OP!

[@ChevyCorvetteBoy]

I get quite a bit of no damage AP hits in battleships and Cruisers.

[@zed11634]

nice content as always. what is the enemy ship angle mod?

[@M5YUILL]

Could it be the Shell fuse is detonating in the space or on the edge of the armour kinda like an HE shell.

[@raptordoesyoutube107]

so which ships have spaced armor? I know the French cruisers have it but at what teir do they start having it?

[@captain_loeffel]

I have 0 damage AP penetration hits for about 8 month now? I don't think that this has something to do with the spaced armor.

[@bullreeves1109]

First Any ways granted I haven't watched it yet spaced armor is so weird...

[@KineticRhyme]

Sooo I'm guessing spaced armor works roughly the same as it does in world of tanks? Oh wait, rounds there behave differently than in warships because theres more than two kinds of ammo. T^T

[@malguskerensky]

Would spaced armor apply to some the RN battleships? Or is that a different type of armor configuration?

[@tommeakin1732]

I believe Nelson has "spaced armour".... It's either 40mm or 32mm plating and then the main angled 356mm/330mm armour belt.

[@demonph_]

What’s the mod with the compass thing at the middle when aimed at a target?

[@Dumb-Comment]

I'm MVP every time with my paper boat

[@spacecadet2827]

i've noticed the zero damage AP problem for a while on a lot of ships. i don't get how it's possible. how does an AP work exactly as designed, and explode inside the ship, and do zero damage. i just don't get it. bulkheads levelled, hull expanded and shattered, fires started, flooding, how the fck could it possibly do zero damage??? what are they thinking???

[@dawsonwoods169]

what modpack do you use that shows the angling of the enemy? Also is it a legal mod to use in battle? or just in training rooms?

[@ichasegaming]

It's called the Navigator mod in Aslain's. I only use it when I'm doing these kinds of training room/replay analysis videos

[@dawsonwoods169]

iChaseGaming Alright awesome! Thanks for the info! -DBawsy

[@TheFanplayer]

More Naval Tales?

[@elmateo77]

How are two autobounce checks better than one? If the thicker armor doesn't autobounce it the thinner armor doesn't stand any chance right?

[@ichasegaming]

As long as the armour doesn't get overmatched, an autobounce check is done. And it's based on a % chance based on what the angle is. So 45mm of armour has the same autobounce % chance as 140mm of armour at x amount of angling.

[@flinthawkins13]

Does anyone think that wargaming are aware of this and have built in spaced armor as a "hidden" specialty of certain ships or lines, like the french it seems from this video

[@NathanOkun]

Then IOWA and SOUTH DAKOTA Class ships should have the same advantage, with 1.25-1.5" (32-38mm) STS hull armor spaced 3-12' (1-4m), minimum at the top even with the armored 2nd deck) in front of the 12.1-12.2" (308-310mm) inclined belt. Side hits should not do anything, from your logic. If this is not true, then the armor is not being handled correctly. Why do you think that these ships had such thin belts? Because their belts were even THICKER, in effectiveness against projectiles, than the solid armor designs used previously by US BBs, that's why!!!

[@rutilius83]

go sir! you do great work. i would love to see a crusier write up like you did for BB guns vs armor.

[@NathanOkun]

The problem is I do not know how this game handles the various projectiles. Nose-fuzed HE is instantaneous and has a very small armor penetration ability directly in front of it (I use "penetration" here to mean that the shell gets its nose -- just the nose and maybe upper body -- through to the other side of the plate before it detonates, greatly enlarging the hole and throwing much more projectile pieces into the area just behind the plate). I have a formula for this in my NAVWEAPS.COM article on miscellaneous other formulae involved with armor penetration problems, which has a very large power with the velocity, requiring it to be near muzzle velocity to punch through most light armor. The SIDEWAYS armor penetration ability of an average HE-filled "HE" nose-fuzed projectile (as opposed to smaller-cavity AP and SAP types) is roughly 0.156 x projectile diameter ("caliber") of WWII-period high-quality homogeneous, ductile (deck/turret roof/light protection) plate, on the average, within 5 calibers of the shell, dropping off to 0.11 caliber as a step-function at just above 5 calibers distance and dropping off smoothly and rapidly from there with larger distances (that is, fewer and fewer fragments still large enough to have enough velocity to penetrate anything significant) until no more chance of damage at about 200 calibers. For example, a 14" (356mm) HE shell detonating just above a deck within 5 calibers (14" x 5 = 5.83' (1.78m)) of its side could punch most of its pieces moving directly downward into the deck through an armor plate of the above type of 0.156 x 14" = 2.18" (55.5mm) -- this decreases as the fan-shaped spread has the pieces hitting the deck at a higher and higher obliquity to the sides (the drop off of penetration using the COSINE(Obliquity) rule is good enough here). Thus, a 14" HE shell could blow a large hole through the weather deck of most battleships, with the pieces being greatly slowed down so that they have little ability to penetrate even thin, non-armored bulkheads or decks further into the ship (fragments are not very streamlined either in the air or during punching through any kind of steel plates). AP and SAP are degraded from this due to much thicker bodies that soak up energy to break them up and due to much smaller explosive charges inside to do that breakup, especially strongly-built AP shells. Older black-powder-filled shells are much less capable of penetrating steel plates with their fragments, though having a much greater incendiary capability from the burning powder thrown about, but these shells also tend to have their upper bodies and noses remain intact even when they blow up, so they form a "shotgun blast" of a cone of heavy, though somewhat slow-moving, fragments moving forward to tear through unarmored or lightly-armored internal decks and bulkheads in their path (British post-Jutland analysis showed that the black-powder-filler shells, if they remained intact against thinner armor and blew up to their maximum (rather low by HE standards) power, they were superior to the non-delay-fuzed AP shells then in use, doing more deep internal hull damage (not much difference against turrets, though). Base-fuzed HE shells, termed "Common" or SAP, vary in cavity size, but act like AP shells with weaker bodies. Some have cavities only moderately larger than AP (most of the "SAP" types), but a few, such as British WWI Common, Pointed, Capped (CPC) shells were filled with 10-12% black powder filler and were unable to penetrate armor over about 0.33-caliber intact at even under 20 degrees obliquity. They had AP caps, though, and acted just like AP shells against thick armor, though with inferior penetration ability due to fragile bodies and no ability to remain intact after penetrating such armor, though shooting a flaming blast out the plate back when they did penetrate that was highly incendiary to that space. CPC seems to to be the basis of the game's "inertially-fuzed" HE shells (post-WWI British CPC, though rapidly replaced by stronger, lower-filler-weight HE-filled SAP shells in cruiser-sized British post-WWI guns, had HE fillers in place of their old black powder and a delay-action AP-shell-type base fuze and were very dangerous to smaller ships when hit by large BB-sized CPC shells -- their reduced capability against large armored warships compared to the greatly-improved post-Jutland British AP projectiles and better secondary gun ammo and fire-control meant that their use in BB main armament against cruisers and destroyers would be rare and thus the shells used up needed space for AP shells in the main gun magazines). Most HE-filled SAP shells -- CPC, when HE filled, is included in the large-cavity, nose-fuzed HE shell category as to blast and filler effects -- had only a penetration in the under-5-caliber distance of 0.135 caliber plate (0.095 just above 5 calibers and dropping off even more rapidly with distance than with an HE shell due to the slower average fragment velocity to start with). SAP and AP shells usually had their nose remain more-or-less in one piece even after the filler detonated, reducing the weight to only about 20-33% of the original body weight, but still mov8ing forward as fast as its remaining velocity after penetrating any plates prior to the detonation, so the CPC-like shotgun effect also occurs, though with much fewer large pieces moving forward (mostly just the nose chunk by itself).. For AP shells, this average plate penetration to the side at under 5 calibers dropped to 0.113 caliber plate (0.08 just above 5 calibers and dropping off the fastest of all of these shells as distance increased). So-called "over-penetrations" occur when the plating in the path of the shell is too thin to set off the base fuze of an AP or SAP shell or the target is so small that even if the fuze is set off, if it has the typical post-WWI 0.025-0.033-second delay, the shell will pass through the target and blow up only after it has exited the other side. These hits act like cannon ball penetrations. Older base-fuzed, HE-filled shells, with a couple of exceptions, had non-delay base fuzes until late in WWI or even a few years thereafter, so if they were set off, they only moved a few feet (5' (1.5m) or less) before detonating, so there is no such thing as an "over-penetration" with these shells unless the fuze never gets set off at all. The plate thickness to set off the typical base fuze at any obliquity -- based on actual US WWII tests of its latest base fuzes for HC and AP shells and other information that I have -- is given in the above-mentioned miscellaneous formula article. Some (most, but not all, US and British post-WWI) base fuzes needed a single solid jolt to set them off, while most others could be set off by a couple of rapidly-timed lower shocks against a pair of somewhat thinner plates (this last was by far the majority of older base fuzes, including all non-delay base fuzes). Hits on engines or the machinery that moves gun mounts (even secondary mounts) and similar heavy, reinforced structures would also usually be sharp enough to set off the base fuze of any shell. I can go on and on about such things, but the above gives some idea of how shells should work in this game. If not, it is fantasy, not science...

[@rutilius83]

yes basically. the belt armor was sloped 19degrees after the de capping plate. so most shells would deflect into the torp protection voids and do little damage. note that Yamato also had this slope and some of the Italian BBs as well. add in shell build and you get something. it won't hurt DDs in game. it will help the cruisers and just change how BBs play a bit. it would stop this silly bow tank idea and you could drive your ship like was really done.

[@kylestoddard2881]

I think the salient point of this discussion, particularly in the face of Mr. Okun's outstanding work, is that World of Waships has very little to do with reality. It is not a simulator, it is an arcade game. It's fun to play, but does not reflect how real warships are employed, how they react to damage or how real naval combat plays out. Having said that, a computer game that does reflect reality would be really interesting. And a great deal of fun for we "rivet counters" out here in the world.

[@falloutghoul1]

Do de-capping plates count as spaced armor?

[@MrBandholm]

Very interesting!

[@rvfharrier]

Wait, so is the autobounce chance just RNG or is it actually calculated?

[@holdencpecb]

i wish this armor worked for me when i played through the line...... nothing but cits it seemed

[@Poctyk]

WG: so we made a line that laughs at AP.. Shame, if next line would have stupidly powerful HE and didn't care