Welcome to Wargaming.net Wiki!
World of Warships

Gunnery & Armor Penetration

Jump to: navigation, search

Identical HE & AP ballistics?

It says "The ballistic models for AP and HE shells are identical." I distinctly remember several videos mentioning different ballistics of HE and AP on certain ships, like Jingles on the Bogatyr and also a Flamu video though I don't remember the ship.--Nautical_Metaphor:eu (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

HE and AP shell performance varies by ship and by shell; shell weight, velocity, barrel length, etc. all contribute to how certain shells perform ballistically. You'll see this spelled out in-game and in the wiki as for some ships, the exit velocity of their HE shells is different than that of their AP shells. This is due to the weight of the shell, how much propellant is behind it, and the caliber of the barrel. With all of that said, though, the ballistic model for both AP and HE shells is the same; that is to say, the ballistic curves of both shell types operate from the same formula. The key thing to remember is that not all ships input the same variables into the equation for their HE and AP rounds, and it's not uncommon to see performance differences between the two. SeaRaptor00:na (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
That's just what I was saying: It seems to be plain wrong. These two youtubers at least mention that HP and AP on certain ships do not follow the same kind of arcs.
Reading more of it, the whole article seems to be in need of overhaul. For example it still mentions "a tier 5 captain skill" in the Modules section when commander skills have been revised and have only been going up to four any more for quite some time. In the AP section, patch version 0.3.1 is quoted. We're at now. --Nautical_Metaphor:eu (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ricochet contradiction

At the start of the second paragraph in the AP section, it says "Non-penetrations (bounce/ricochet) will always deal 0 damage, regardless of AP or HE"

But then, in the fourth paragraph, it says "A shell may still cause damage after the ricochet, but only to the same ship."

Only one of those can be correct.--Nautical_Metaphor:eu (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


In the AP section, the sentence "(plunging-fire still need more testing, the issue with the capped ranges causing the shells were benefit from it being "auto-bounce" against deck armor)" does not make any sense to me. It was probably meant as a reminder or an annotation. It should be removed or reformatted as an annotation, or else clarified and properly incorporated.--Nautical_Metaphor:eu (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


Translating the wiki into German (which is the reason for all these dumb questions and remarks ;-) it has come to light that in the secondaries chapter, it used to say the secondaries fail to open up as long as the target is even partially obscured. It doesn't say that any longer, has that been changed? Does anybody happen to remember when?--Nautical_Metaphor:eu (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wording problem

In the compartmentalization section, there is the sentence

"If the midsection's second threshold has been reached, all other sections will take damage as if it had passed the first threshold even if it hasn't taken any damage yet."

What is meant by "midsection" here? I'm fairly sure it is the citadel (in which case it should say so) but could it be the casemate? Or all the sections in the middle, like all except bow end and aft end?--Nautical_Metaphor:eu (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)