Accuracy of Ordnance

Matrix Games Forums

Join the Matrix Team at Historicon!

Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!

Ageod takes you back to the Civil War

Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!

Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update

Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AAR

Conflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!

Pandora Beta Playthrough Videos

Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!

Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Accuracy of Ordnance

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Accuracy of Ordnance

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/9/2012 4:03:13 PM

Commander Stormwolf

Posts: 1531
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

Greetings AE community,

It is wished to know about the reasons for the different accuracy of
the size of ordnance.

Example: 800kg is more accurate than 250kg (75 versus 26 accuracy points)

Now i have never delivered ordnance in a fighter or bmr ac
(only have experience with amateur flying)

is it a matter of air resistance that makes the ordnance go off target?
it seems that it is better to have fewer, larger piece of ordnance
than many small ones in AE

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

Post #: 1

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/9/2012 4:24:47 PM

Shark7

Posts: 6341
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Consider this:

The greater accuracy of the larger ordnance may be to simulate 'splash damage'. A large weapon like the 800kg (17600lbs) AP would have a considerable blast radius. The splash damage from such ordnance can easily damage lighter ships, and (depending on proximity) even damage well armored ships like BBs.

While I can not say for certain this is the case, it is a safe assumption as to why it is the way it is.

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)

Post #: 2

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/9/2012 4:25:14 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12439
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

As to the actual numbers, they integrate with the formulae implemented in the code - which I have no idea of so I can't even comment on the numbers or the difference in them (differences might be exaggerated or mitigated by the code).

I do recall discussion that heavier ordnance is found to be more accurate because it is more stable in flight including stabilizing more rapidly after release. I'm sure the greater stability has to do with greater sectional density for opposing air resistance, including cross-winds and turbulence. By sectional density I mean consider looking at the ordnance from any angle; the ratio of the weight behind the area that you see is greater for larger ordnance if the shapes are roughly the same.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)

Post #: 3

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/9/2012 4:38:56 PM

Commander Stormwolf

Posts: 1531
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

Well a few questions:

1) the effect rating of larger ordnanace is bigger,
and so is penetration

.. seems to me like that is the advantage of larger ordnanace --> penetrates armor
so 20 x 100lb will have no effect on a battleship but 1x2000lb will penetrate (Arizona)

2) IJN Val pilots were able to score 80% hit rates with 250kg ordnance

seems to me like the mode of delivery needs to be more pronounced in the calculation
(dive > glide > level with bombsight > no bombsight)

3) both posts above might be correct, i have no idea on this subject
(but can ramble for hours about flight characteristics and wing loading

)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 4

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/9/2012 4:56:34 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12439
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

One point to remember is that we have no idea about the formulae used in the code. A difference of 100% in the values in the scenario data might only result in a difference of 20% in results in the game, or it might result in 500% difference in results in the game.

In DaBabes several months ago they recalculated lots of ordnance to be consistent and as developers/former developers they (or at least the one doing the calculating - JWE) had access to the formulae used by the code. So they were able to set their numbers in the scenario files in harmony with the code.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)

Post #: 5

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/9/2012 5:03:23 PM

Shark7

Posts: 6341
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Well a few questions:

1) the effect rating of larger ordnanace is bigger,
and so is penetration

.. seems to me like that is the advantage of larger ordnanace --> penetrates armor
so 20 x 100lb will have no effect on a battleship but 1x2000lb will penetrate (Arizona)

2) IJN Val pilots were able to score 80% hit rates with 250kg ordnance

seems to me like the mode of delivery needs to be more pronounced in the calculation
(dive > glide > level with bombsight > no bombsight)

3) both posts above might be correct, i have no idea on this subject
(but can ramble for hours about flight characteristics and wing loading )

On your point 1, this is not entirely true. I was able to cause a 'burn out' on an allied BB with multiple 250kg and 60kg hits. The BB did eventually sink, not from a single torpedo hit or ordnance penetration, but rather from raging fires and the inability to put them out before reaching port. There is a thread about it buried somewhere around here, showing just how the smaller ordnance hits completely stripped off the secondary weaponry and had fires at 99.

So the short of it is, yes every hit counts, no matter how small the ordnance. 1 or even a dozen 100kg hits might be shrugged off, but as those keep adding up, and as fires start there can be a significant effect on the target.

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)

Post #: 6

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/9/2012 5:22:12 PM

Commander Stormwolf

Posts: 1531
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

Then comes the question. Can fatal fire damage result from non-penetrating hits?
Remember some of those tiger tanks being hit by 20+ sherman rounds to no effect

Seems like that is the reason the battleship was created. Impervious to small caliber rounds.
And tanks do pretty well against HE artillery rounds that fail to penetrate.

I remember once my opponent complained that i sunk his yamato (and 3 other battleships)
with CL Boise and some destroyers gunfire

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 3/9/2012 5:27:32 PM >

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 7

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/10/2012 11:52:58 AM

Empire101

Posts: 1896
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Then comes the question. Can fatal fire damage result from non-penetrating hits?
Remember some of those tiger tanks being hit by 20+ sherman rounds to no effect

Seems like that is the reason the battleship was created. Impervious to small caliber rounds.
And tanks do pretty well against HE artillery rounds that fail to penetrate.

If an AP round bounced off a Tiger Tank, it would probably end up causing a fire and a possible explosion half a mile from its intended victim.
With a ship of any size, its almost certainly going to lodge somewhere in the superstructure and then do its diabolical task.
Ships were not completely covered in armour, as some of the superstructure had to be relatively lightly armoured or not armoured at all because of weight distribution and the design no-no of making them top heavy. Just look at the design of the Russian 'Borodino' class ( 1902 ), and the French 'Marceau' class ( 1891, known as 'The Hotel' ) of battleships, to realize the folly of armouring too much of the superstructure.

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)

Post #: 8

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/10/2012 11:57:34 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 3150
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Well a few questions:

1) the effect rating of larger ordnanace is bigger,
and so is penetration

.. seems to me like that is the advantage of larger ordnanace --> penetrates armor
so 20 x 100lb will have no effect on a battleship but 1x2000lb will penetrate (Arizona)

2) IJN Val pilots were able to score 80% hit rates with 250kg ordnance

seems to me like the mode of delivery needs to be more pronounced in the calculation
(dive > glide > level with bombsight > no bombsight)

3) both posts above might be correct, i have no idea on this subject
(but can ramble for hours about flight characteristics and wing loading )

On your point 1, this is not entirely true. I was able to cause a 'burn out' on an allied BB with multiple 250kg and 60kg hits. The BB did eventually sink, not from a single torpedo hit or ordnance penetration, but rather from raging fires and the inability to put them out before reaching port. There is a thread about it buried somewhere around here, showing just how the smaller ordnance hits completely stripped off the secondary weaponry and had fires at 99.

So the short of it is, yes every hit counts, no matter how small the ordnance. 1 or even a dozen 100kg hits might be shrugged off, but as those keep adding up, and as fires start there can be a significant effect on the target.

I have seen this multiple times.

It seems to take about 25 500 pounders, which never penetrate, to cause enough system/fire damage to leave the BB a burning hulk which equates to "sunk" in game terms.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 9

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/10/2012 10:07:27 PM

Dili

Posts: 2591
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

As it should be. About half of a BB is not armored. In superstructure only the conning tower is armored which is tiny part of the tower. Then main turrets, only in rare cases the secondaries are heavily armored. Then the armor starts not at main deck level but usually below it. So there are many places to penetrate.

Here is a good scheme of the Yamato protection: http://lioness-nala.deviantart.com/art/Yamato-protection-103924729
Shot the bow and the stern with enough destroyer caliber at it sinks.

quote:

Remember some of those tiger tanks being hit by 20+ sherman rounds to no effect

Maybe only in games... It is enough one hitting a track to make damage. A Tiger like a Battleship is not covered with heavy armor for example is vulnerable to side, rear and top hits.

< Message edited by Dili -- 3/10/2012 10:08:36 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 10

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/10/2012 10:37:43 PM

Commander Stormwolf

Posts: 1531
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

seems like a bit of creative history..

not a single battleship was ever sunk by DD fire
not a single battleship was ever sunk by 500lb hits

even carriers with a modest amount of deck armor were immune to 500lb and kamikaze hits (Illustrious class)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)

Post #: 11

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/10/2012 11:04:39 PM

Dili

Posts: 2591
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

not a single battleship was ever sunk by DD fire
not a single battleship was ever sunk by 500lb hits

Learn to read

quote:

enough

think, extrapolate, imagine.

quote:

even carriers with a modest amount of deck armor were immune to 500lb and kamikaze hits (Illustrious class)

Immune? I think you should choose better your words.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)

Post #: 12

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/11/2012 1:06:26 AM

Historiker

Posts: 4721
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

Give a good swimmer enough razor blades and enough time, and he'll sink the Yamato

(which of course doesn't turn that into a good anti-Yamato strategy)

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 13

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/11/2012 5:45:14 AM

btbw

Posts: 313
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili
Here is a good scheme of the Yamato protection: http://lioness-nala.deviantart.com/art/Yamato-protection-103924729
Shot the bow and the stern with enough destroyer caliber at it sinks.

Totally wrong. Armored part of ship prevent from sinking with flooded stern and bow.
DD can sunk BB only with one weapon - torpedoes. It why this class was invented.
Yamato died only after dozen torpedoes and wrong junction of armor belt and torpedo defence + not enough volume against new torpedo warheads. But 4-5 inches useless against central citadel and dont make enough flooding/listing in bow/stern.
South Dacota have same armor scheme but under heavy fire of Kirishima/Takao/Atago/DDs she dont sunk!

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 14

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/11/2012 3:16:16 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12439
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

SoDak did not get hit anything like Yamato got hit.

(in reply to btbw)

Post #: 15

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/11/2012 4:26:46 PM

Shark7

Posts: 6341
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Then comes the question. Can fatal fire damage result from non-penetrating hits?
Remember some of those tiger tanks being hit by 20+ sherman rounds to no effect

Seems like that is the reason the battleship was created. Impervious to small caliber rounds.
And tanks do pretty well against HE artillery rounds that fail to penetrate.

If an AP round bounced off a Tiger Tank, it would probably end up causing a fire and a possible explosion half a mile from its intended victim.
With a ship of any size, its almost certainly going to lodge somewhere in the superstructure and then do its diabolical task.
Ships were not completely covered in armour, as some of the superstructure had to be relatively lightly armoured or not armoured at all because of weight distribution and the design no-no of making them top heavy. Just look at the design of the Russian 'Borodino' class ( 1902 ), and the French 'Marceau' class ( 1891, known as 'The Hotel' ) of battleships, to realize the folly of armouring too much of the superstructure.

Or more to the point, only 'vital' areas of a ship are armored. That is the magazines, engineering, the tower and the turrets. Many ships do not even have an armored belt that extends the entire length of the ship (the forecastle and fantail may have no armor at all). These unarmored areas which are not considered vital can easily be penetrated by even the smallest ordnance, and a fire started in these areas will spread.

Also, there is the fact that many ships of that era had wooden (allies) or linoleum (japanese) decks...that is the covering of the armored deck. Those materials burn readily.

Then there is the fact that your small calibre guns (AAA for example) have a number of ready rounds at the gun site that are essentially open and exposed.

Paint will burn as well. Don't forget the crew accommodations...lots of fabric there from cot mattresses, sheets and clothing.

Most of the ordnance dropped from a WWII bomber was an HE type, even if it were an armor penetrating device it still made a boom. And once a fire gets hot enough, it will cause structural damage...weakened beams, buckling hull-plates, etc.

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to Empire101)

Post #: 16

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/11/2012 4:50:56 PM

msieving1

Posts: 315
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

As it should be. About half of a BB is not armored. In superstructure only the conning tower is armored which is tiny part of the tower. Then main turrets, only in rare cases the secondaries are heavily armored. Then the armor starts not at main deck level but usually below it. So there are many places to penetrate.

Here is a good scheme of the Yamato protection: http://lioness-nala.deviantart.com/art/Yamato-protection-103924729
Shot the bow and the stern with enough destroyer caliber at it sinks.

Maybe, if someone left all the watertight hatches open and there's no crew to do damage control.

Small caliber shells could do considerable topside damage to a battleship, and may be able to mission kill the ship. They're not going to sink it.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 17

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/11/2012 6:13:26 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline

Fire can sink any ship...as been seen in history.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to msieving1)

Post #: 18

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/11/2012 8:43:38 PM

JWE

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

I love it when Middle School kiddles try to tell us how things happened. I mean they are so deficient in math. They have to take remedial algebra, in college, for gosh sakes. So no wonder they don�t know jack.

Armor was designed for an immunity zone. Inside the zone, a smaller gun will penetrate. Sad to say to the little pre-teens, but ballistics is a science and it�s not hard to figure out. It just takes 9th grade mathemetics (7th grade when I went to school, but probably college remedial these days).

Any Allied gun, larger than 6�, WILL penetrate Yamato�s belt armor.
The US 6� Mk-27, base-fuzed shell, WILL penetrate Yamato�s belt armor.
Alas, the US 6� Mk-35 is damn close, but no cigar;
And smaller than that won�t do the deed.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 19

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 1:23:11 AM

Dili

Posts: 2591
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Yamato died only after dozen torpedoes

I am always surprised by this reasoning. The fact that 12 were put in her doesn't means that for example first 4 couldn't do the job. I am not saying that 4 will do just that we don't know the true strength of Yamato.

quote:

Totally wrong. Armored part of ship prevent from sinking with flooded stern and bow.

How much free armored board will have an Yamato with bow and stern full of water. With full hull integrity you have only one deck armored above water level, maybe 2 if the ship is lighter at end of mission.

This is a photo of HMS Nelson with a torpedo hit in bow. http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=9314 Imagine if the bow to turrets position was full of water.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 20

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 4:54:53 AM

btbw

Posts: 313
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

I love it when Middle School kiddles try to tell us how things happened. I mean they are so deficient in math. They have to take remedial algebra, in college, for gosh sakes. So no wonder they don�t know jack.

Armor was designed for an immunity zone. Inside the zone, a smaller gun will penetrate. Sad to say to the little pre-teens, but ballistics is a science and it�s not hard to figure out. It just takes 9th grade mathemetics (7th grade when I went to school, but probably college remedial these days).

Any Allied gun, larger than 6�, WILL penetrate Yamato�s belt armor.
The US 6� Mk-27, base-fuzed shell, WILL penetrate Yamato�s belt armor.
Alas, the US 6� Mk-35 is damn close, but no cigar;
And smaller than that won�t do the deed.

Sorry? Penetrate belt armor? 350mm with 6 inches shells? Stop use heavy drugs, please, please, please.

< Message edited by btbw -- 3/12/2012 5:03:23 AM >

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 21

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 4:59:56 AM

btbw

Posts: 313
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

How much free armored board will have an Yamato with bow and stern full of water. With full hull integrity you have only one deck armored above water level, maybe 2 if the ship is lighter at end of mission.

This is a photo of HMS Nelson with a torpedo hit in bow. http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=9314 Imagine if the bow to turrets position was full of water.

Nice try. Problem is Yamato designed as armored box in centership. It mean he stay floated even if turrets in water. BOX. Not armored fence like Nelson armor protection which mean if water touch damaged non-protected deck it PLOP.

< Message edited by btbw -- 3/12/2012 5:00:25 AM >

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 22

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 9:58:19 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 3887
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

I love it when Middle School kiddles try to tell us how things happened. I mean they are so deficient in math. They have to take remedial algebra, in college, for gosh sakes. So no wonder they don�t know jack.

Armor was designed for an immunity zone. Inside the zone, a smaller gun will penetrate. Sad to say to the little pre-teens, but ballistics is a science and it�s not hard to figure out. It just takes 9th grade mathemetics (7th grade when I went to school, but probably college remedial these days).

Any Allied gun, larger than 6�, WILL penetrate Yamato�s belt armor.
The US 6� Mk-27, base-fuzed shell, WILL penetrate Yamato�s belt armor.
Alas, the US 6� Mk-35 is damn close, but no cigar;
And smaller than that won�t do the deed.

Sorry? Penetrate belt armor? 350mm with 6 inches shells? Stop use heavy drugs, please, please, please.

Two small hints to prevent looking like a complete idiot on the forums:

- learn to read
- know to whom you are talking. JWE forgot more about ballistics than you will ever know

If it wasn�t so funny I would already have used the green button twice in 48 hours...

(though I think JWE meant "outside" instead of "inside")

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 3/12/2012 12:32:50 PM >

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to btbw)

Post #: 23

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 3:02:10 PM

USS America

Posts: 15203
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: online

quote:

Two small hints to prevent looking like a complete idiot on the forums:

- learn to read
- know to whom you are talking. JWE forgot more about ballistics than you will ever know

If it wasn�t so funny I would already have used the green button twice in 48 hours...

LoBaron, this is the exact reason why I hardly ever use the green button. It's just too hilarious watching some people make fools of themselves over and over again.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 24

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 4:54:11 PM

Shark7

Posts: 6341
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

Two small hints to prevent looking like a complete idiot on the forums:

- learn to read
- know to whom you are talking. JWE forgot more about ballistics than you will ever know

If it wasn�t so funny I would already have used the green button twice in 48 hours...

LoBaron, this is the exact reason why I hardly ever use the green button. It's just too hilarious watching some people make fools of themselves over and over again.

I will, when they finally get too annoying.

As far as the ballistics, JWE is right of course. Anyone arguing against it doesn't understand ballistics. Size is not what matters...

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 25

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 5:19:17 PM

btbw

Posts: 313
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Two small hints to prevent looking like a complete idiot on the forums:

- learn to read
- know to whom you are talking. JWE forgot more about ballistics than you will ever know

If it wasn�t so funny I would already have used the green button twice in 48 hours...

(though I think JWE meant "outside" instead of "inside")

Hilarios. So i must trust to a few elders on forum instead of Jacob de Marre?
Thank you, but my knowledge dont based on religion named " Few idiots said 6" shell can penetrate 350mm armor".

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 26

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 6:22:56 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 3887
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
LoBaron, this is the exact reason why I hardly ever use the green button. It's just too hilarious watching some people make fools of themselves over and over again.

Absolutely, in fact I only use it to prevent me from senseless debates in discussions I enjoy to participate in otherwise.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 27

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 7:06:39 PM

USS America

Posts: 15203
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Two small hints to prevent looking like a complete idiot on the forums:

- learn to read
- know to whom you are talking. JWE forgot more about ballistics than you will ever know

If it wasn�t so funny I would already have used the green button twice in 48 hours...

(though I think JWE meant "outside" instead of "inside")

Hilarios. So i must trust to a few elders on forum instead of Jacob de Marre?
Thank you, but my knowledge dont based on religion named " Few idiots said 6" shell can penetrate 350mm armor".

...and over, and over...

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to btbw)

Post #: 28

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 7:11:09 PM

Shark7

Posts: 6341
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

For those that want to deal in real statistics:

The 5"/38 Mk 16 gun (muzzle velocity 2600 fps (792 mps)) was capable of penetrating 127mm (5 inches) of armor at a range of 4000 yards.

That basically mean that should a battle close to a range of less than 4000 yards then the 5"/38 would have a chance to penetrate the belt armor on a Takao class heavy cruiser.

This also tells me that range, AOA, and muzzle velocity play a very large role in armor penetration.

Now while this still won't penetrate the belt of Yamato (barring some variable not accounted for), it could certainly do damage to the unarmored parts of the ship, the HE shells could start fires, and the gun could in fact damage the ship. Also don't count out the fact that airburst versions of the shell could damage electronics and optics (radars and gun directors) severely crippling even the largest of ships. They may not sink a capital ship, but they can surely hurt one.

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 29

RE: Accuracy of Ordnance - 3/12/2012 8:43:35 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 1402
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline

History shows (rather than classroom math, no matter what the grade level is) that near misses by ordinance can do more damage than an actual hit. A jammed rudder for example upon a Jap Fleet CV at Midway comes to mind. So the factor of accuracy might take that into consideration. The larger the ordinance the further away the "hit" which can still do damage. The water's ability to funnel force in a concussive manner is deadly.

But I do believe the tone of some posts on this thread is less than the minimum standards one can expect. Sad really. Hal

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 30