why arent they comparble manic their both lvl 37/38 ships

You can't include the japs in this. The mogami cl has tons more range then a brit cl. The only gun a the Edin can put on that comes close is the dual 8"N and that is with only one bind of ammo and 1 gun mount short.

york and NH aren't even comparable ships. and York doesn't fit armor... unlike US AW CA.

Brits have crappy range? Get a NH and get blockshotted by a York you can't see then tell me about crappy range.

if your defence in real life that brits had good guns then
get ride of their extra damge im pretty sure that brit shell technology wasnt any better then that of other nations
and then they too would have the same armor as other nations

also to the person that says brit dds have bad range have you heard of a 6"q?
you could got crapy range with the trip 4"

I agree (being a brit player myself) we do have a bit too many advantages. Armor + (equal)Range = too much. Recommended.

During my number crunching, it seems apparent to me that many guns exhibit range characteristics similar to their real-life counterparts. If you take the number on Papajohns' site, divide it by .00075 you should get the real range in yards. This held true for almost all the US battleship guns as well as some others I spot checked (Brit 14", German 11"/54.5, German 14.96" 1st set, US 4"/50, Japanese 5.5", you get the picture).

The US 14"/50 Mark 4 is an outlier... the NF range seems to coincide from the real range at 15 degrees, except the NF gun elevates to 30 degrees. That gun was mounted on the New Mexico and Tennessee... the New Mex was limited to 15, the Tenn could elevate to 30. Later both ships had new turrets for the 14"/50 (Mark 7 and Mark 11)

The next one that's problematic is the British 15"/42 RP12. If you guy by the N-model and use Papajohns' site, it would've fired 44,000 yards in reality according to my ratio. The only historical source I have on range is www.navweaps.com (I'm asking for more if you have them. Read the Royal Navy forum). Here is the link to that: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm

If you look at the Navweaps chart, even WITH super-charges to augement range (which were never issued to the 15"/42s that could elevate to 30 degrees) it would only be 36,000 yards at 30 degrees... 44,000 at 50 degrees. The 15"/42 Mark II (turret used on HMS Hood, elevated to 30 degrees) seems to also have assumed supercharges, as the ratio yields 36,000 yards for it, and that's exactly what the chart shows for 30 degrees with supercharges. And the 15"/42 Mark I, limited to 20 degrees shows about 24,000 yards which would be WITHOUT supercharges. So the guns that DID get them are modelled in NavyField without them? (supercharges would give it 28,000 yards, or 21.00 on the NF range chart).

For the record, 32,000 yards (30 degrees w/o supercharges) would be 24.00 on the chart and 36,000 yards (30 deg w/ supercharges) would be 27.00.

I can only conclude that the 15"/42 Mark I is understated and the Mark II and Mark I/N RP12 are overstated.

BTW, the British 8" Triple (never mounted on any ship) had about equivalent range to the US 8" Mark 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14. That being just under 32,000 yards. The N-models are these guns are understated a bit, but what the British 8" really has going for it, is that the L and D offer a 13% increase/reduction whereas the US guns only offer a 9%.

That is, if the tables are actually correct.

Formula:

NF Range = Real Range * .00075
Apply to Papajohns' range chart

Brits got crappy range as it is...

Sounds to me like Crash64 got gang banged by a brit and he has throw teddy right out of the pram. grow up and adapt you battle tactics to suit your enemy, what you think in real life the brits have bad Guns? er no, try telling that to the navy's of the world including the US who buy guns from the Brits.

wow,cant belive what im hearing...brit DD range is rediculus. its absolutly horrible! the only reason brits have good armor is because they have to go right beside them and then shoot them!