Belt hit at 22000 yards... seven times.

Belt hit at 22000 yards... seven times. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Yamamoto -> Belt hit at 22000 yards... seven times. (5/22/2003 9:15:36 AM)
I just watched a surface fight at 22000 (later 23000) yards. The CL I was fighting was hit seven times with 8" shells. All seven hit the belt armor and none penetrated. I find it strange to hit belt armor at such an extreme range. I also find it strange that none of hte hits penetrated. Yamamoto

Nikademus -> (5/22/2003 10:51:53 AM)
Belt hits at 22,000 yards are very possible though at around that range you would start seeing a greater tendancy for plunging hits. In wargame terms that translates to a greater tendancy for horizontal surfaces being chosen as the "hit location" For larger armored warships this plays to it's advantage due to the increased AoI from the shell striking vertical armor. Some modern BB's sported inclined belts to worsen this AoI more so increasing resistance.

Feinder -> (5/22/2003 9:51:53 PM)
Still seems a little "lucky" tho. I wouldn't think you'd be hitting much at 22,000 yards. That's 12.5 miles. Yes, you can hit, but 8 hits is very impressive. The length of time it takes the salvo to travel 12.5 miles (about 1 minute at the speed of sound), the target (travelling at 29kts) has already travelled 850 yds. I's pretty tough to hit anything at that range. I realize the discussion also relates to the trajectory of the shells. Shells coming in at that range would have a much higher trajectory (lobbed), and more likely to hit the deck because they're coming in at such a steep angle. Considering the surface are presented to a high trajectory shell... -------- ..........\| You'd be much more likely to hit the deck than the side of the ship. Could you hit the side? Certainly, but I'd think that you'd get 7 deck hits, and maybe 1 belt hit. Just my 2 pfennigs. -F-

Apollo11 -> (5/22/2003 11:07:44 PM)
Hi all, As far as I understand naval gunnery (and I read quite many historic books about naval combat) the longer the range the bigger the chance of very dangerous "plunging" hits (i.e. hits on deck instead hits on the side). This was big problem for naval ship designers (many different armour positioning settings were tried in different nation designs). BTW, with shorter range the possibility of "plunging" hits lessens dramatically and this is why some admirals in WWII wanted to close to enemy as soon as possible to avoid those "plunging" hits (i.e. side armour on their ships was much stronger than their deck armour)... Leo "Apollo11" P.S. (Edit - supplemental) Longer range means higher gun barrel elevation and thus this means that trajectory would be parabolic (i.e. "plunging" hits). Shorter range means lower gun barrel elevation and thus this means that trajectory would be flat (i.e. expected hits on belt and/or superstructure)

Nikademus -> (5/22/2003 11:28:59 PM)
correct. However the point i was trying to make was that even in "plunging" down at 22k, a shell might still strike the side of the ship, albeit at a much greater angle vs a flatter trajectory shell-path. 22K for a modern Treaty BB would be considered close to the lower edge of the ship's "immunity zone" which defines a minimum range at which vertical hits would be stopped (Belt armor etc) and a maximum range where hits would be stopped by horizontal armor (Deck.....turret tops, etc) I agree that statistically, that repeated hits on a vertical surface are low but not impossible. To use a tactical wargame as an example......determining "Vertical/Horizontal" hit locations would be determined by % ratio. At close ranges (such as under 10K), it would probably look something like 90%/10% while at medium to medium-long range, more like 40/60. At extreme ranges (25K+) more like 25/75 The above figures are meerly examples. In UV....i've often seen alot of horizontal HL strikes even at very close range. Reminds me of the slight problem that "Warship" had in that area as well.....a minor tendancy to award too many horizontal HL's at close ranges where the probability would be very slight. Another example would be bomb strikes......UV tends to award a higher than what i would expect % of them to vertical surfaces. They 'are' possible of course (i "interpret" them as a substitute for missing "Near Miss" HL i feel should be incorporated into the damage model) They just tend to happen a bit much IMO in ratio to horizontal hits.

AmiralLaurent -> (5/23/2003 5:01:56 PM)
Regarding near misses, the more I know of naval losses of WWII, especially by air attack, the more they seem to be damaging. And yes they don't seem to be included in UV model. Or maybe they are registered as bombs hits ?

Mr.Frag -> (5/23/2003 11:29:44 PM)
A near miss from a large shell is still going to split welds at seams. There will be no explosive type damage, but there is still damage. Look at the BB's with their huge guns. There are very few BB's that were built that could stand up to the shock damage from their own guns being fired forget about enemy shells exploding nearby. This is one of the little things that bugs me in UV to a certain extent, I view general SYS damage as too high and combat SYS damage as too low. Ships wear out too fast yet do not wear out in combat fast enough. Just my opinion and this is probably one of those topics that no two folks will ever agree on exactly whats the right blend/mix...

Apollo11 -> Near misses... heck... just fire your own guns... :-) (5/23/2003 11:48:12 PM)
Hi all, Near misses are dangerous because they can loose welds/rivets and cause water leakage. BTW, I remember reading that when Rodney participated in sinking of the Bismarck it had to undergo months and months of repairs in USA because the rivets/welds (and armour plates) were so damaged because of firing it's own guns... Leo "Apollo11"

Nikademus -> (5/24/2003 12:35:52 AM)
Near misses from GP bomb blasts were in general the most dangerous types of hits for cruisers and destroyers because of their "mining" effect, opening up their hulls to the sea. Flooding is always a ship's worst enemy followed by Fire...particularily for ships with slim beams, less compartentation and lack of armor to absorb some of the kinetic force. A ship with an intact hull at the waterline, even smaller less armored types can often survive a remarkable amount of punishment as long as fire damage does not pass beyond the DC's ability to contain. Near misses though are not an absolute of course......a good number of near misses did nothing more than wash the decks and rattle the hulls of various attacked ships. To get anal, (:) ) The damaging type described would be more accurately described as a "close near miss" where the bomb detonates very close to the hull helping to create that mine/torp effect. Detonations under water get magnified and the least path of resistance for the blast is into the ship's hull GP bomb hits that actually struck the ships in some ways were better in terms of survivability as they often 'only' caused topside damage. crew casualties were the worst aspect. CA Chikuma had her topsides battered in this way but she steamed away under her own power despite being hit by two big 1000ILB GP bombs on either side of her bridge. The bombs detonated almost instantly and wrecked the control space but did not cause FLT damage. No 'armor' was penetrated. CA Furutaka was crippled by a GP that detonated at the inner edge of the hull skin and opened the hull to the water. Progressive flooding eventually took her down A BB would be less vulnerable to near misses due to greater beam and subdivision but any FLT damage at sea is still a pain and a possible mission kill. UV's damage model is a tad bit inaccurate in this area in that any and all minor to medium (esp if USN) FLT damage, like FIRE damage will be drained to 0 after a few turns. While ships could in limited circumstances plug and drain compartments outside of drydock, often the flooded compartments stayed that way until a ship reached a major repair facility. It depends on severity of the damage, location and inner hull structure/fittings. A BB does indeed get rattled about by it's own guns salvoing but Rodney's case was an extreme one and she was not in the best of repair even by the time of the Bismark engagement. Not every BB will "shake itself to pieces" when firing it's guns. In the 30's the USN conducted an experiment with the Mississippi in which the BB's entire shell mags were expended in one continuous trial. The object of the trial was to test "actual" ROF issues vs "theoretical" ROF issues. By the end of it the ship was not all 'shaken to bits' and did not require months of repair Biggest issues with mass firing by the big guns for BB's are, wearing out of the barrels (accuracy and MV decreases as the guns are fired more and more) and in modern times, sensitive electronics such as Radar were often vulnerable to shock damage from the ship firing it's own guns. For example, Oklahoma's 14 inch barrels were salvaged during the wartime and used as replacements for her sister Nevada and the Pennsylvania. USN old BB's used as gun platforms for amphib ops became routine by late war. I dont think SYS damage from combat is too low....if anything it's too high, because currently the ship damage models have no non critical hit locations. Every hit strikes a critical area....with only the armor and weapon size as defenses against it. It used to be worse when every penetrating hit caused a ratio of FLT/FIRE/SYS damage but this has been toned down greatly and is not as big an issue. Also, weapons mount hits are not full HL's so ship fragility is increased further......it also leads to odd situations, such as when a main or secondary turret gets hit and knocked out, then the weapon goes on to hit the "belt armor" :eek: SYS damage from incidental i agree has always been too high but this has been addressed in WitP.

crsutton -> (5/24/2003 1:33:48 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag [B]A near miss from a large shell is still going to split welds at seams. There will be no explosive type damage, but there is still damage. Look at the BB's with their huge guns. There are very few BB's that were built that could stand up to the shock damage from their own guns being fired forget about enemy shells exploding nearby. This is one of the little things that bugs me in UV to a certain extent, I view general SYS damage as too high and combat SYS damage as too low. Ships wear out too fast yet do not wear out in combat fast enough. Just my opinion and this is probably one of those topics that no two folks will ever agree on exactly whats the right blend/mix... [/B][/QUOTE] I agree with you 100% and have posted this some months before. A BB or CA that had fired its full compliment of shells. (Perhaps in one or two actions) would show some serious wear. I posted an account from one of the Houston's officers noting that after a few actions the linings of the 8 inch guns were hanging out of the barrels by 2 inches. (She also managed to blow up her float planes-there's a little system damage for you). After her action with the Bismark, the BB Rodney (not the best ship design) had to go into an American ship yard for a major refit taking some months. She sufferec little or no battle damage but the concussion from her own guns just wrecked her. As for non battle system damage, I feel that it is accurate as far as the game goes. Most ships of the era had high pressure steam turbine systems. These are very complicated systems and are highly prone to breakdown under the best of conditions. Even lowly merchant ships (my former job) are full of complicated systems all of which can and do break with alarming frequency. Forced draft fans, evaporators, burners, boilers, condensers, tubes, high pressure valves, inductors, steering gear, pumps, winches, auxilary motors, complex electrical systems, communication systems and navagational systems. Not to mention gear such as booms, windlasses, winches, cranes and such. Add to these factors the wartime necessity of sometimes pushing the envelope on these systems and the ever increasing demand for repair and spare parts. Well, lets just say that it seems about right.

Nikademus -> (5/24/2003 1:47:24 AM)
Ship propulsion systems were IMO much more reliable than the UV engine was giving them credit for. I agree that over a lengthy period of time (without a refit) that a ship would suffer an increasing loss of efficiency. This was one of the factors that impacted IJN DD preformance during the Solomons campaign. But the degree of degradation would not be so high as to warrent 5-8% SYS damage after only one or two FT runs for example. Granted for DD's, its not as bad as they repair fairly quickly, but cruisers and larger ships....aiee. The clincher for me was reading up on USN carrier ops after PH and prior to Coral Sea. Due to concerns over a repeat attack, CINCPAC never allowed more than one CV battlegroup into PH at a time and then only for the absolute minimum period of time (something like 48 hours) Then it was off to sea again for patrol and dispersal. During the first half of 42, the USN carriers were more or less constantly at sea with their escort attendants. Using the UV model, such ops would be impossible. Some good suggestions regarding 'breakdowns' were made by Mogami over in the WitP board based on length of time between refits, but i dont know if such a feature will be added into the game. (doubt it) As mentioned though, at least incidental damage has been toned down in general for that game...otherwise it'd be impossible to traverse the vast distances of the Pacific (thats alot of 60mile hexes!)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.953125