fishy
New Member
Posts: 43 
|
Post by fishy on Feb 25, 2018 19:59:56 GMT -6
I checked some old posts regarding SAP last night and did some experimenting with ammo choices. I had just researched SAP as France. In the late/mid 1910s Germany went to war with me (it saw an opening since my capital ships were getting a refit). I changed all small guns (6 inch to 3 inches) to 100% SAP ammo. I then observed two CL vs CL fights. On my side (France) was the Isly class CL 5800 ton 8x5" guns (6 in the centerline) with 2" belt armor. On the German side was the Thetis class CL which was 5400 tons 3" belt armor, 4x6 inch guns in the centerline with 2x3" secondary guns. Both had top speed of 28 knots.
In the first fight all the ammo was SAP and it took 36 hits on the Thetis class before it went down. In the 2nd fight, I switched back to all AP rounds and it took 21 hits on the Thetis before it went down (the last hit caused a flashfire that blewup the ship). In the early 1920s, Japan declared war on France.
The same or similar CL on the side of France fought the 4900 ton, 6x6" gun with 2x3" secondary Hashidate class CL. The Hashidate had 2.5" belt. Once again I was using SAP rounds. It took more than 40 hits for the Hashidate to go down. When reviewing the log, it looked like most of the SAP hits were penetrating or hitting stuff with no armor like superstructure. So there doesn't seem to be a problem with the penetration. This makes me think that the SAP rounds don't have enough explosive power. Which is weird since SAP was meant to have more explosive power.
The feeling I get has been that it takes way too long and too many hits for my CLs to win their fights. The sample size being so small and the fact that I am using 5" guns (because I researched quality 1 5" guns) instead of my usual 6" may have created bias. Also I got a lucky hit and caused a explosion with my AP round.
I know some of you use a lot of SAP rounds. Like Fredsanford uses 100% SAP rounds for his small guns. What is the general feeling you get about using them as compared to AP or HE rounds? Are they more effective? Has anyone experimented with them and gathered some data? Does SAP rounds scale with AP and HE technology?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 21:02:06 GMT -6
My settings
AmmoDoctrine=111011000001200220200220222000000000
AmmoLoadout=015075010050035015040035025075010015
...However for the 5" CL, IMO 5" are pea shooters. 6" is the gun for CLs if the aim is to sink ships.
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Feb 26, 2018 7:34:47 GMT -6
My experience/rule of thumb with SAP is if the penetration of the AP round is more than ~4 times the expected armour I use SAP, otherwise I stick with AP/HE. This usually means SAP rounds are restricted to >7" guns.
On the ship design question I agree with skwabie that 6" are preferable to 5" for hitting power, or you need a lot more guns (like 12-14 guns @5800t)
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Feb 26, 2018 9:47:12 GMT -6
I've actually had good luck with 5"-gunned cruisers. In my last game as Germany I needed a lot of colonial cruisers, so I built 6"-gunned 'fleet' style and then duplicated them (on same speed, scaled-down armor and a 5" main weapon) for colonial use. I lost a couple to surprise or submarine attacks, but none in surface combat. But I am more comfortable with having a 6"-gunned ship in critical areas.
|
|
Roumba
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by Roumba on Feb 26, 2018 18:20:17 GMT -6
Interesting, I set up my doctrines assuming SAP had 1/2 the penetration of normal AP shells. I can't say if this was good or bad policy for smaller guns, but I'm much more confident in saying that my 8" armed counter raiding/raiding cruisers were very effective with SAP. My 12x14" armed BCs were very successful and the slower 8x15" and later 17" all-forward BBs shattered the enemy battle line when ever ranges were even reasonably close.
|
|
fishy
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by fishy on Feb 27, 2018 8:35:37 GMT -6
My settings AmmoDoctrine=111011000001200220200220222000000000 AmmoLoadout=015075010050035015040035025075010015 ...However for the 5" CL, IMO 5" are pea shooters. 6" is the gun for CLs if the aim is to sink ships. I suspect that using 5" guns might be the issue. |
|
fishy
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by fishy on Feb 27, 2018 8:36:42 GMT -6
Interesting, I set up my doctrines assuming SAP had 1/2 the penetration of normal AP shells. I can't say if this was good or bad policy for smaller guns, but I'm much more confident in saying that my 8" armed counter raiding/raiding cruisers were very effective with SAP. My 12x14" armed BCs were very successful and the slower 8x15" and later 17" all-forward BBs shattered the enemy battle line when ever ranges were even reasonably close. You use 8" guns on your CLs? Isn't there a penalty to hitting DDs with anything larger than 6" guns? |
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Mar 21, 2018 19:24:39 GMT -6
My settings AmmoDoctrine=111011000001200220200220222000000000 AmmoLoadout=015075010050035015040035025075010015 ...However for the 5" CL, IMO 5" are pea shooters. 6" is the gun for CLs if the aim is to sink ships. What's that in English  I've just developed SAP for the first time and looking at the ammunition Doctrine options. Must admit my head is spinning a little I have no military background so have only a basic notion of what SAP does. So in simple terms. (Sorry I don't understand what the line of numbers mean skwabie) What would you recommend for different sized guns and target class. If I have Unarmoured and very lightly armoured targets and I'm using a 6" gun against DD's MS CL's. Should I use HE up close and SAP further away, No AP? Once I know the reasoning behind the types I can hopefully fill in the matrix against the varying gun size and target types. Many Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 21, 2018 21:58:07 GMT -6
If I have Unarmoured and very lightly armoured targets and I'm using a 6" gun against DD's MS CL's. Should I use HE up close and SAP further away, No AP? Once I know the reasoning behind the types I can hopefully fill in the matrix against the varying gun size and target types. Many Thanks The closer and less well armored a target is, the more likely it is that HE (large bursting charge for significant damage, but has poor armor penetration) is the right choice; the further away and better armored a target is, the more likely it is that AP (good armor penetration, but small bursting charge so relatively little damage) is the right choice. For things in between, consider SAP (smaller bursting change but better armor penetration than HE, worse armor penetration but larger bursting charge than AP). Against a target so heavily armored that even AP shells are unlikely to penetrate at the range in question, consider going back to HE again, because HE has better odds of starting fires and will do more damage to soft parts of the ship than AP or SAP will. Armor \ Range Short Medium Long
None HE HE HE
Light HE HE HE/SAP
Medium HE HE/SAP SAP
Heavy HE/SAP SAP/AP AP
Very Heavy SAP/AP AP AP/HE(Armor and range are dependent upon the gun; a target with a 3" belt, such as a light cruiser, might count as very heavily armored for early-game 5" or 6" guns but is at best lightly armored to 11" or 12" guns at any stage of the game.) |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 22, 2018 5:06:28 GMT -6
What's that in English I've just developed SAP for the first time and looking at the ammunition Doctrine options. Must admit my head is spinning a little I have no military background so have only a basic notion of what SAP does. So in simple terms. (Sorry I don't understand what the line of numbers mean skwabie) What would you recommend for different sized guns and target class. If I have Unarmoured and very lightly armoured targets and I'm using a 6" gun against DD's MS CL's. Should I use HE up close and SAP further away, No AP? Once I know the reasoning behind the types I can hopefully fill in the matrix against the varying gun size and target types. Many Thanks I copied skwabie 's numbers into the save game file I'm using to re-write the gun penetration and range tables. here is what the values look like in-game.    [Edit - I should point out he didn't specify what year it was in-game and I think that could make a significant difference. I change my settings as the game goes on.] In general you want to have armor penetration values greater than what you expect to find on your likely enemy but you also don't want to overpenetrate or you get issues like at Samar where the armor piercing shells went completely through the American jeep carriers and escorts before exploding (if they exploded at all) minimizing the damage done. CL's will have a maximum of 3 inches of belt armor and most AI designs are less than that. CA's can have a maximum of 12 inches of belt armor I believe but I'm not sure what the typical AI values are. It's interesting to see that others use a 1/2 AP or 1/4 AP rule for SAP. I always just went by a gut feeling of when SAP would be effective. I may try one of those two strategies. In general, I will use HE for any target that is impenetrable like early B's against pretty much any gun or if using light guns against a BB/BC to get maximum chance of causing fires or splinter damage to the intakes or gun crews or such. Once I start to see AP values greater than the typical belt armor carried I'll switch the short range shots to AP. Once I get Directors I'll switch the long range shots to AP for plunging fire. The middle will be HE until if and when I get SAP and then I'll switch it to SAP and then later in the game when I know I can penetrate even at medium ranges against BB/BC with large calibers it will be AP across the board. Against CL's with CL caliber weapons I follow the same rules as against B/BB/BC with capital ship caliber guns except once I have SAP, I always use SAP instead of AP in the late game because CL's don't typically carry that much armor and I want a bigger bang. Again , that is based on more of a gut feeling of what I should use rather than any real life or in-game analysis so it may not be entirely logical or optimal. |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 22, 2018 6:02:13 GMT -6
Sorry for the double post. I found this picture on the web and wanted to share for krankey . These shells are for the WW2 era 38cm (15 inch) guns of the Bismarck-class but they show the difference between the three shell types pretty well.  On the left is an AP shell. Heavy, thick steel body with a small cavity for the high explosive or bursting charge (the white area at the bottom of the shell) and a base fuse. The dark grey area between the windscreen at the top and the medium grey shell body is a ballistic cap that is researched in game. Later shells would have it, early game shells would not. On the right is a High Explosive type shell. Relatively thin steel body and a large cavity for the bursting charge. Also has a nose fuse so it's designed to explode on contact and will have little to no penetration once it hits a sufficiently dense target like an armor plate or the ship's hull. In the middle is effectively a semi-armor piercing shell although I don't think the Germans officially designated it as such. As you can see, it's closer to the AP shell in design than the HE. The shell wall is thinner and lighter to give it a larger bursting charge but it still has some penetrating capability, a ballistic cap (although a thinner one than the AP shell) and a base fuse which like the one for the AP shell is designed to delay the explosion until after the shell has (hopefully) penetrated the armor of the target. |
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Mar 22, 2018 6:46:18 GMT -6
The veil is lifting Thank-you for all of the information. Superb posts, lots of great advice o7 |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 22, 2019 13:39:02 GMT -6
I was quite suprised reading this log.
Bravo to NWS team as both ships choose best ammo for heavy guns, Wien with 4x2x12" using AP and Banat with 4x2x14" using SAP. The distance is point blank as battle was after the gale with very limited visibility.
log from enemy battleship
20 16:58 12 in 2801 yds Turret X hit T * Turret destroyed (BB Wien, AP)
20 16:58 14 in 1803 yds Hull hit B * (BB Banat, SAP)
20 16:58 5 in 1803 yds Turret X hit T (BB Banat, HE)
20 16:58 5 in 1803 yds Hull hit B (BB Banat, HE)
20 16:59 14 in 2723 yds Hull hit B * (BB Banat, SAP)
20 16:59 12 in 2460 yds Hull hit B (BB Wien, AP)
20 16:59 12 in 2460 yds Near miss! (BB Wien, AP)
Other things which I found interesting. I have 2 battleship that get really pounding at start of battle. Tegetthof (36.800 tons, designed in 1917, 4x2x14", AoN armor scheme, 16.5" belt armor, 4" deck armor, 18" turret armor). She was hit 12 times by heavy guns with almost no damage from point blank.
20 16:19 14 in 4068 yds Turret Y hit TT Turret disabled (BB Illustrious, AP)
20 16:19 14 in 4068 yds Critical hit! Fire control damaged (BB Illustrious, AP)
20 16:20 14 in 4229 yds Hull hit B (BB Illustrious, AP)
20 16:20 14 in 4229 yds Near miss! (BB Illustrious, AP)
20 16:20 14 in 4229 yds Turret B hit T * Turret disabled (BB Illustrious, AP)
20 16:20 14 in 4229 yds Turret Y hit T Turret disabled (BB Illustrious, AP)
20 16:43 Turret B back in action!
20 16:51 Tertiary battery scores 1 hit on CL Scylla
20 16:54 14 in 3100 yds Turret B hit T Turret disabled (BB Illustrious, AP)
20 16:54 14 in 3100 yds Near miss! (BB Illustrious, AP)
20 16:54 14 in 3100 yds Turret B hit T Turret disabled (BB Illustrious, AP) 20 16:56 15 in 2265 yds Hull hit B * (BB Canopus, AP)
20 16:56 15 in 2265 yds Turret B hit T Turret disabled (BB Canopus, AP)
20 16:57 15 in 2830 yds Turret X hit T (BB Canopus, AP)
20 16:57 15 in 2830 yds Secondary battery hit * (BB Canopus, AP)
Wien (22.700 tons, designed in 1910, 4x2x12", sloped deck, 13" belt, 3" BE, 2.5" D, 1" DE, 14" turret armor). She was hit 9 times by heavy guns and almost sunk. Quite difference as every hits do damage with comparison of Tegetthof.
20 17:00 15 in 2342 yds Turret X hit TT (BB Canopus, AP)
20 17:00 Main battery scores 1 hit on BB Canopus
20 17:01 15 in 2479 yds Fore/aft hull hit * (BB Canopus, AP)
20 17:01 15 in 2479 yds Hull hit B * (BB Canopus, AP)
20 17:01 15 in 2479 yds Superstructure hit * DE* Hull damaged by splinters SEC* Secondary guns knocked out by splinters (BB Canopus, AP)
20 17:01 4 in 2479 yds Superstructure hit BE * (BB Canopus, AP)
20 17:01 High speed increases flooding!
20 17:02 Main battery scores 1 hit on BB Canopus
20 17:02 15 in 2551 yds Turret X hit T Turret disabled (BB Canopus, HE)
20 17:03 Main battery scores 2 hits on BB Canopus
20 17:03 15 in 2728 yds Turret A hit T * Turret disabled (BB Canopus, AP)
20 17:03 15 in 2728 yds Hull hit B * (BB Canopus, AP)
20 17:03 15 in 2728 yds Superstructure passthrough hit * SEC* Secondary guns knocked out by splinters (BB Canopus, AP)
20 17:03 15 in 2728 yds Turret B hit T * Turret destroyed (BB Canopus, AP)
|
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 1, 2019 20:23:30 GMT -6
My reasoning for 100% SAP on guns 6" and lower is that SAP gives *reasonable* (not optimal, but reasonable results) against the full range of target types those guns will be fired at. Light caliber SAP will ruin a DD pretty much just as well as HE, and will also have an effect against CA/BC/BBs on the thinly armored sections that is IMO better than HE (for example against BE/DE and lightly armored secondaries). It will perform worse, but not *much* worse, than AP against CL Belts, but the later in the game the less this is so IMO (1925 SAP will get in against any CL armor). However, you'll have a full magazine worth of SAP to use, as opposed to getting into a guessing game about how often you'll encounter AP-suitable targets vs HE-suitable targets, and what your ammo load will be. You get a full magazine of decent ammo (especially later in the game), vesus a partial magazine of optimal ammo for what you encounter, along with a partial magazine of useless or near-useless ammo.
|
|
