@@titouanb1636 And also having proper implementation of the ammo racks on the vessel, split by floors (as it was historically) rather than having them all of them be single-piece, unaffected by ammo count.
@@SkywalkerWroc Yeah the ammmo is not sub-divided hence why all the ammo dissapears on detonation. Gaijin is just being lazy cause if you see the previous french battleships they have subdivided shellrooms.
5:25 "the designers of the actual ship IRL knew about this potential risk and therefore as we can also see in the design of the quad turret that it is actually two twin turrets, so the turret and barbett is split down the middle with an additional internal armor plate" Oh surprise surprise lmao, Gaijin took a survivability feature and completely borked it to make it a weakness.... what else is new lmao, if a vehicle has mechanical redundancy it actually makes it 2-3x more likely to be disabled from hits... most infamously is the A-10 in this game, IRL the plane has triple-redundant systems for all flight surfaces, lose two and the plane can still fly using the third. in THIS game however, they modeled the redundant systems as if they're all ONE PIECE, so if say a 12.7 hits *anywhere* in the tail it instantly severs the entire tail control in one hit (because redundant systems just make it so you have 3x the physically-damageable internal space to disable your plane)
Honestly, what did we expect out of a free to play game made by barely competent, rly greedy devs? Im a SIM pilot, and one of my fav things to do is to fly Mosquito ground pound missions. But surprise again, the plane handles like a brick, doesn't accelerate as fast IRL, its missing 40km/h top speed, and worst of all? Its missing half of its bomb load. DCS and IL2 stand as prime examples of why paying for a game is better than hoping quality from something free. In those games, the Mossie feels just right while having all its details and ordinance re-created to the rivet. Its just a shame we cant have nice things in WT, and it all boils down to Gaijin. They are the biggest problem of this game.
Dunkerque historically used an omni purpose shell that fulfilled both roles of SAP and AP through a unique variable impact fuse. Unfortunately, Gaijin interpreted the shell as SAP only while in reality, it was an AP shell that could act like SAP when it struck a lightly armored target.
@arczer2519 Actually there is no evidence to support the idea that the cap was too small for it to be an AP shell. A worst case analysis of the shell cap volume using the method of approximation puts it close to the range of AP shells and even further away from SAP.
@@admiralbofors9958 nvm i stand corrected, i looked at Richelieu 9.4% shell mass % cap mass instead of Dunkerque 16.05% i seen the forum calculations, "identification of the parameters of naval artillery " has the cap mass % if another source is needed (aforementioned 16.05% of shell mass)
@@arczer2519 dunkerque shell with 16.0.5% of AP cap ????? im pretty sure you are very far from the truth my good sir ... also what you saw about the richelieu oen is probably the crucible steel Shell not the original one .
@@thibautsaye6391 Unfortunately the issue with that is that Kronshtadt was actually laid down, Alsace wasn't. That said Alsace was at least ordered for construction and 2 of the planned designs reused the existing 15" guns from Richelieu (one even reused the turrets, just having an extra on in the rear), both of which are more than can be said for some other 'planned' designs like H-44 or the Super Yamatos. Personally I think it should be added, but Gaijin can be stingy about things sometimes.
@@Stinky-f9m true but unlike super yamato or the h44 it wont be an op beast the alsace would be around iowa class it term of firepower. If we dont add some late design top tier would only be yamato vs iowa class i think. Btw i think the h39 could be added along these ship it was planned to have 406mm same as iowa and a 320mm armor belt. Not anything really game breaking
I was about to request the Dunkerque for the update CC vehicle, but then I remembered, its naval battles and I likely will do absolutely nothing before the battle ends beacuse some cayak captured a point
A 40 mm plate for dividing the working chamber of the turret won't always save the whole turret. It was only there for mitigating the risk of knocking the whole turret out, but it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed. Huge difference. But the mechanic is there. Only half of barrels are black when the turret is knocked out, as there is a technical limitation to achieve this. Scharnhorst dying left and right is because of a bug where a knocked out barbette renders the armour non-existent, and shrapnel can freely travel down to the magazines, destroying it. Your turret(s) losing ammunition is not a bug. When the shell rooms are hit, you lose all your shell in that module, having nothing left to load.
That ship should have been introduced with the french fleet, instead they offered Bretange, probably worst 6.7 in game. Now they add Dunkerque, but in a nerfed state for whatever reason.
Actually the internal bulckhead of the turret is modeled and featured in game and prevent you from losing 4 out of 4 guns when the hit damages the breaches behind armor; but when turret is killed whole turret actually is killed which actually is historical. Also there was no pure AP shell for the french 330mm irl so...
It's not implemented properly. Right now it disables one pair of guns, but also will always disable the entire turret, no matter the caliber or explosive filler, which is totally ahistorical. That shell was AP in real life, with explosive filler typical for AP shells, it just had a special fuse that prevented overpenetrations on a soft targets (which again: isn't properly implemented)
@SkywalkerWroc the whole central bulckhead is indeed fully present etc but it doesnt prevent turret to be knocked out like irl; should be noted that for it to totally work we would need the turret to still be able to fire while it cant move (just like tanks) other wise it would change much. Secondly the shell irl isnt specified as an APCBC or SAPBC in particular and fit definitions of both. As for the fuse it was made to work as HE; SAP and AP and in anycase was a shell and gun meant to deal with cruisers so... and well the shell still does also fit SAP perf and still has rather high pens at range for what it is even if its far from the best.
@@castelainteva8082 The whole point you are missing is that the central bulkhead IS NOT fully represented. It does exist in a 3D model, but it's meaningless, because the Turret is a single-piece model. Look up on the forum - one of the technical moderators said that they won't implement it properly, because it's not worth it for a single vessel. # "the shell irl isnt specified as an APCBC or SAPBC in particular and fit definitions of both." - in french nomenclature it's specified as AP. # "As for the fuse it was made to work as HE;" - no, it didn't. In fact, that fuse shouldn't be compared to either of the three, as it was quite a unique design, working unlike the other, but if you want to compare it to something, you should compare it to AP fuze, from which it was derived.
@SkywalkerWroc french nomenclature from 1930s onwards dont make differences between AP and SAP type of shell and are all referred to as "obus penetrant" or other générique name but no "obus SAP or AP" specifically.
The shell penetrated more with test but their argument was , must be false cause its only 40 or 20 mm less than the 380mm of richelieux . Yest they are completely fine with the 283mm from scharnorst to pierce way more than some bigger caliber
@@TheNicestPig That seems very unlikely, given that the ship detonates right as the shells penetrates inside. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be just shrapnel from the explosive filler breaking through decks and into ammo racks. I would love to see the post-game inspection of the hit, with the new hit analysis feature.
@@SkywalkerWroc actually I've done similar thing to alot them this update it seems they changed how damage works because it used be pain to deal with ships with similar armour set up now it isn't u can actually focus fire them to death
If Dunkerque had come to the game a few months ago it would have been right at home, but it came into the game when there is already bigger fishes in the pond. Add on that some questionable development decisions and you have the current situation. They better bring Richelieu sooner than later or the same will happen when Iowas and Yamato are running around
I'm not interested in the ship for fighting. I'm interested for technical reasons. It is designed to hunt down smaller faster ships. Like heavy cruisers and 'pocket' battleships. Not for going toe to toe with battleships. So we knew it would suffer in game.
but being a video game the all forward layout loses its disadvantage of not being able to return fire when withdrawing from battle, and gains a new advantage of being able to island hump and only expose the front 1/3 of the ship. or being able to keep the bow pointed at the enemy and using islands to hide the bulkhead from fire. Both things napalm did in the video.
Hi Napalm, have quite a dilema here: want to buy some new vessel, but struggle to decide what is better for account and my nerv system. So I would appreciate your current opinion on this three: USS Newport News: but I alredy have USS Helena, Moffett and Baltimore, and planing to grind new events with them, moreover, Newport News will add 0.3 to that 6.0 BR. SMS Baden: I plan on bying KMS Prinz Eugene, absolutely adore her, but thats in another 3 month at least (more like 13). And seems like Eugene won't like 7.0 BR. IJN Haruna: have all old destroyers in techtree, but no premium or just good vessels for this stage of grind. Also I've been thinking about HMS Barham, but those 1916 complectation is just atrocious, so big no.
@@beatricevonkircheisen5300 well, Newport News: fantastic heavy cruiser but prominent front magazine facing BBs and BCs. Not good. SMS Baden: good punchy guns but just 8 and armour hast gaps. Slow no AA. IJN Haruna: lower DPM than SMS Baden, AA not effective, Armour Not that strong. Go with Premium ships at lower BR with Discounts (Christmas)
G'day Napalmratte, Ahh the Battleship Dunkerque, Ohhh how I cannot wait to research it. On the bright side at least the quad 130 mm have HE-DF shells so if you're good with those you can defend against high levelliers & if the need arises the main quad 330 mm guns could be used against aircraft (not sure what its elevation is for them), Funny I once downed a Pe-8 at 6000 metres with the 283 mm guns of the Battleship Scharnhorst. Say question, have you ever thought about getting a decal made for WT? or if they allow it as some extra spice having your outro flag made into a flag heh. Soooo what warship is next to be reviewed?
Not sure if dunkerque would have had an AP round, it was designed to chase down German and Italian cruisers and destroyers and be able to run from anything bigger, avoiding gun fights with battleships. On the dev server the bulkhead is there you just couldn't see it on the armour viewer. The armour holds up best when well angled. If your too acute an angle or bow on its paper. And ideally stay about 12km. At those ranges even British 15 inch plunging fire struggles to get through deck and side armour.
@icetea1455 battleship or not, that wasn't her role. She was specificly built to take on German heavy cruiser and smaller while being able to run from EB everything else. That was literally her purpose.
@@solreaver83 but she wouldnt be called a BB withought a reason 🙂 its like saying a bb is only made to destroy other bbs while ignoring cruisers and anything in combat? Theres plenty of warships in history that did more than their intended roles👍
@icetea1455 bb for every country is different as is battlecruiser. If she had been built by the British she would have been a battle cruiser for example. Americans at the time would likely have called it an armoured cruiser at that time iirc. Basicly her guns got her the battleship title being greater then 11 inches.
![IJN Kirishima, 1942- Oh Boy Does it Hurt [War Thunder]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iAyIynfn_54/mqdefault.jpg)
![IJN Kirishima, 1942- Oh Boy Does it Hurt [War Thunder]](/img/tr.png)
![Izmail Is Surprisingly... Fair [War Thunder]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DSapnixuSYY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Scharnhorst is alive, WT Naval not so much [War Thunder]](/img/n.gif)
People fought toe to toe in the forum regarding giving Dunkerque AP, but Gaijin dismissed every argument and calculations.
They also dismiss the split turret for some reason.
@@titouanb1636 they are morons. what else could we expect?
@@titouanb1636 And also having proper implementation of the ammo racks on the vessel, split by floors (as it was historically) rather than having them all of them be single-piece, unaffected by ammo count.
@@SkywalkerWroc Yeah the ammmo is not sub-divided hence why all the ammo dissapears on detonation. Gaijin is just being lazy cause if you see the previous french battleships they have subdivided shellrooms.
They did put the correct pen
this ship feels so late we should have already been seeing ships like Strasbourg, algerie, and de grasse
5:25 "the designers of the actual ship IRL knew about this potential risk and therefore as we can also see in the design of the quad turret that it is actually two twin turrets, so the turret and barbett is split down the middle with an additional internal armor plate"
Oh surprise surprise lmao, Gaijin took a survivability feature and completely borked it to make it a weakness.... what else is new lmao, if a vehicle has mechanical redundancy it actually makes it 2-3x more likely to be disabled from hits... most infamously is the A-10 in this game, IRL the plane has triple-redundant systems for all flight surfaces, lose two and the plane can still fly using the third. in THIS game however, they modeled the redundant systems as if they're all ONE PIECE, so if say a 12.7 hits *anywhere* in the tail it instantly severs the entire tail control in one hit (because redundant systems just make it so you have 3x the physically-damageable internal space to disable your plane)
Honestly, what did we expect out of a free to play game made by barely competent, rly greedy devs? Im a SIM pilot, and one of my fav things to do is to fly Mosquito ground pound missions.
But surprise again, the plane handles like a brick, doesn't accelerate as fast IRL, its missing 40km/h top speed, and worst of all? Its missing half of its bomb load.
DCS and IL2 stand as prime examples of why paying for a game is better than hoping quality from something free. In those games, the Mossie feels just right while having all its details and ordinance re-created to the rivet.
Its just a shame we cant have nice things in WT, and it all boils down to Gaijin. They are the biggest problem of this game.
Dunkerque historically used an omni purpose shell that fulfilled both roles of SAP and AP through a unique variable impact fuse. Unfortunately, Gaijin interpreted the shell as SAP only while in reality, it was an AP shell that could act like SAP when it struck a lightly armored target.
nvm
@arczer2519 Actually there is no evidence to support the idea that the cap was too small for it to be an AP shell. A worst case analysis of the shell cap volume using the method of approximation puts it close to the range of AP shells and even further away from SAP.
@@admiralbofors9958 nvm i stand corrected, i looked at Richelieu 9.4% shell mass % cap mass instead of Dunkerque 16.05%
i seen the forum calculations, "identification of the parameters of naval artillery " has the cap mass % if another source is needed (aforementioned 16.05% of shell mass)
@@arczer2519 dunkerque shell with 16.0.5% of AP cap ????? im pretty sure you are very far from the truth my good sir ... also what you saw about the richelieu oen is probably the crucible steel Shell not the original one .
@@a.french.guy4 Yeah, Richelieu's 1936 APC shell supposedly took up 9.5% of shell weight while the Crucible round was around 14%
And now the wait begins for the Richarlieu; The true last hope for French Bluewater
i just want my jean bart to be honest
Richelieu*
Unless they add the planned ship after the richelieux , i mean they already have never build ship in the russian tech tree why not in the french one
@@thibautsaye6391 Unfortunately the issue with that is that Kronshtadt was actually laid down, Alsace wasn't. That said Alsace was at least ordered for construction and 2 of the planned designs reused the existing 15" guns from Richelieu (one even reused the turrets, just having an extra on in the rear), both of which are more than can be said for some other 'planned' designs like H-44 or the Super Yamatos. Personally I think it should be added, but Gaijin can be stingy about things sometimes.
@@Stinky-f9m true but unlike super yamato or the h44 it wont be an op beast the alsace would be around iowa class it term of firepower.
If we dont add some late design top tier would only be yamato vs iowa class i think.
Btw i think the h39 could be added along these ship it was planned to have 406mm same as iowa and a 320mm armor belt. Not anything really game breaking
I was about to request the Dunkerque for the update CC vehicle, but then I remembered, its naval battles and I likely will do absolutely nothing before the battle ends beacuse some cayak captured a point
Well there ist also open sea battle Version which ist 50/50 the case
A 40 mm plate for dividing the working chamber of the turret won't always save the whole turret. It was only there for mitigating the risk of knocking the whole turret out, but it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed. Huge difference. But the mechanic is there. Only half of barrels are black when the turret is knocked out, as there is a technical limitation to achieve this.
Scharnhorst dying left and right is because of a bug where a knocked out barbette renders the armour non-existent, and shrapnel can freely travel down to the magazines, destroying it.
Your turret(s) losing ammunition is not a bug. When the shell rooms are hit, you lose all your shell in that module, having nothing left to load.
That ship should have been introduced with the french fleet, instead they offered Bretange, probably worst 6.7 in game. Now they add Dunkerque, but in a nerfed state for whatever reason.
it's sad we have to consider 500m pen shell "high penetration" for the French
Having a castrated French vessel arriving 3 year late to the party. SHOCKERS! 😮💨
Now give us the HMS Nelson XD
next vid better be on my precious francesco
yes pls!
gaijins french hatred spree continues
Actually the internal bulckhead of the turret is modeled and featured in game and prevent you from losing 4 out of 4 guns when the hit damages the breaches behind armor; but when turret is killed whole turret actually is killed which actually is historical. Also there was no pure AP shell for the french 330mm irl so...
It's not implemented properly. Right now it disables one pair of guns, but also will always disable the entire turret, no matter the caliber or explosive filler, which is totally ahistorical.
That shell was AP in real life, with explosive filler typical for AP shells, it just had a special fuse that prevented overpenetrations on a soft targets (which again: isn't properly implemented)
@SkywalkerWroc the whole central bulckhead is indeed fully present etc but it doesnt prevent turret to be knocked out like irl; should be noted that for it to totally work we would need the turret to still be able to fire while it cant move (just like tanks) other wise it would change much. Secondly the shell irl isnt specified as an APCBC or SAPBC in particular and fit definitions of both. As for the fuse it was made to work as HE; SAP and AP and in anycase was a shell and gun meant to deal with cruisers so... and well the shell still does also fit SAP perf and still has rather high pens at range for what it is even if its far from the best.
@@castelainteva8082 The whole point you are missing is that the central bulkhead IS NOT fully represented. It does exist in a 3D model, but it's meaningless, because the Turret is a single-piece model. Look up on the forum - one of the technical moderators said that they won't implement it properly, because it's not worth it for a single vessel.
#
"the shell irl isnt specified as an APCBC or SAPBC in particular and fit definitions of both." - in french nomenclature it's specified as AP.
#
"As for the fuse it was made to work as HE;" - no, it didn't. In fact, that fuse shouldn't be compared to either of the three, as it was quite a unique design, working unlike the other, but if you want to compare it to something, you should compare it to AP fuze, from which it was derived.
@SkywalkerWroc french nomenclature from 1930s onwards dont make differences between AP and SAP type of shell and are all referred to as "obus penetrant" or other générique name but no "obus SAP or AP" specifically.
The shell penetrated more with test but their argument was , must be false cause its only 40 or 20 mm less than the 380mm of richelieux .
Yest they are completely fine with the 283mm from scharnorst to pierce way more than some bigger caliber
3:29 I’m sorry, did you just ammo rack Scharnhorst at close range with SECONDARIES!?
That's hilarious but i think it's just the fire coinciding with the shots lol
@@TheNicestPig That seems very unlikely, given that the ship detonates right as the shells penetrates inside.
I wouldn't be surprised if it would be just shrapnel from the explosive filler breaking through decks and into ammo racks. I would love to see the post-game inspection of the hit, with the new hit analysis feature.
@@SkywalkerWroc actually I've done similar thing to alot them this update it seems they changed how damage works because it used be pain to deal with ships with similar armour set up now it isn't u can actually focus fire them to death
If Dunkerque had come to the game a few months ago it would have been right at home, but it came into the game when there is already bigger fishes in the pond.
Add on that some questionable development decisions and you have the current situation.
They better bring Richelieu sooner than later or the same will happen when Iowas and Yamato are running around
thank you for this nice video :)
It'll be nice if they ad the Normandie class battleship
I'm not interested in the ship for fighting. I'm interested for technical reasons. It is designed to hunt down smaller faster ships. Like heavy cruisers and 'pocket' battleships. Not for going toe to toe with battleships. So we knew it would suffer in game.
yes, and will suffee because battleship was rare in comparison with numbers of smaller ships
but being a video game the all forward layout loses its disadvantage of not being able to return fire when withdrawing from battle, and gains a new advantage of being able to island hump and only expose the front 1/3 of the ship. or being able to keep the bow pointed at the enemy and using islands to hide the bulkhead from fire. Both things napalm did in the video.
Used to love my dunk in wows but alas the game was killed by dev strike.
Hi Napalm, have quite a dilema here: want to buy some new vessel, but struggle to decide what is better for account and my nerv system. So I would appreciate your current opinion on this three:
USS Newport News: but I alredy have USS Helena, Moffett and Baltimore, and planing to grind new events with them, moreover, Newport News will add 0.3 to that 6.0 BR.
SMS Baden: I plan on bying KMS Prinz Eugene, absolutely adore her, but thats in another 3 month at least (more like 13). And seems like Eugene won't like 7.0 BR.
IJN Haruna: have all old destroyers in techtree, but no premium or just good vessels for this stage of grind.
Also I've been thinking about HMS Barham, but those 1916 complectation is just atrocious, so big no.
@@beatricevonkircheisen5300 well, Newport News: fantastic heavy cruiser but prominent front magazine facing BBs and BCs. Not good.
SMS Baden: good punchy guns but just 8 and armour hast gaps. Slow no AA.
IJN Haruna: lower DPM than SMS Baden, AA not effective, Armour Not that strong.
Go with Premium ships at lower BR with Discounts (Christmas)
What plane does the Dunkirk ship carry?
G'day Napalmratte, Ahh the Battleship Dunkerque, Ohhh how I cannot wait to research it.
On the bright side at least the quad 130 mm have HE-DF shells so if you're good with those you can defend against high levelliers & if the need arises the main quad 330 mm guns could be used against aircraft (not sure what its elevation is for them), Funny I once downed a Pe-8 at 6000 metres with the 283 mm guns of the Battleship Scharnhorst.
Say question, have you ever thought about getting a decal made for WT? or if they allow it as some extra spice having your outro flag made into a flag heh.
Soooo what warship is next to be reviewed?
its fine against cruisers :)
Can it fight the Russian BBs?
Bretagne class is good
Dunkerque is shxt right now
Full of bugs needs to be fixed
Not sure if dunkerque would have had an AP round, it was designed to chase down German and Italian cruisers and destroyers and be able to run from anything bigger, avoiding gun fights with battleships. On the dev server the bulkhead is there you just couldn't see it on the armour viewer. The armour holds up best when well angled. If your too acute an angle or bow on its paper. And ideally stay about 12km. At those ranges even British 15 inch plunging fire struggles to get through deck and side armour.
Guns are overqualified for anti cruiser role and she considered a battleship by everyone
@icetea1455 battleship or not, that wasn't her role. She was specificly built to take on German heavy cruiser and smaller while being able to run from EB everything else. That was literally her purpose.
@@solreaver83 but she wouldnt be called a BB withought a reason 🙂 its like saying a bb is only made to destroy other bbs while ignoring cruisers and anything in combat? Theres plenty of warships in history that did more than their intended roles👍
@icetea1455 bb for every country is different as is battlecruiser. If she had been built by the British she would have been a battle cruiser for example. Americans at the time would likely have called it an armoured cruiser at that time iirc. Basicly her guns got her the battleship title being greater then 11 inches.
xn
Paris💩