Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2018 22:08:21 GMT -6
Excuse me, but how much is the battle-end detail summary abstracted? Did things listed here really happen, or is it just something approximate? My battle (3 BCs vs 3 BCs) just ended, one of enemy ships was clearly supperior to any of mine, but my ships managed to smash all 3 enemy BCs in an hour, so I felt kinda OP and looked into the details. I made some notes for the future: number of 15in hits on BC Red Kiev: 23. Penetrations: 11 (but 4 times it was superstructure, 3 times it was superstructure passthrough and 2 times it had something to do with BE or DE, so not the thickest armor really)  Well, enemy ship had 16in belt armour, unknown BE, unknown damage control level, estimated armor scheme is sloped deck. As you can see, my 15in (-1) guns struggled with their job to penetrate main armor belt even at 7 000 yards. But on my other ships, 12in (-1 as well) guns managed to penetrate almost everything, went right through belt armour etc, even my 6in (+1) guns managed to strike a critical hit feeding enemy engines with salt water. So is it just a horrible bad luck that my 12in (and maybe even 6in) guns can do much bigger damage than my 15in guns, or is the "details" list wrong? I suppose that * means penetration, and no * means no penetration... (fun fact: that ship has 16in main guns even when no nation ((especially not Soviet Union)) can make such a big guns) |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Dec 30, 2018 22:27:50 GMT -6
If it helps to know, the angle of impact of a shell relative to the armor makes a difference...for example, if you strike the belt at exactly 90 degrees you have its base thickness only to deal with, while if you strike the belt at a 45 degree angle then the armor is effectively about 40% thicker due to the LOS through the slope. The angle-of-impact of each hit is not recorded in the AAR, so it can be difficult to sort out exact net penetration values there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 31, 2018 1:06:49 GMT -6
@pavelsvt , there are some discrepancies built into some of the post battle numbers. I'm not at home but this morning I'll go through some old battle reports and give you a more detailed answer.
Essentially some of the reports have data that comes from your spotters. Those tend to have inflated hit numbers. For example, the general log that updates during the battle (the one you can review by clicking the button at the top of the screen) will record near misses as hits. Near misses are the biggest discrepancy. Sometimes you will see torpedo hits in the general log that actually ended up being duds.
In contrast, the individual ship logs are closer to 100 percent accurate (I have to doublecheck if they record near misses against enemy ships as hits as well Edit - It does so that part of the ship's log isn't 100% but the rest should be) and are more like that unit's after action report where the crew has had a chance to review their own ship's damage and assess which hits penetrated and which didn't and if it caused any critical damage.
I'll be able to give you a more specific answer later if someone doesn't do it for me before I get home.
[Edit - It's hard for me to be 100% sure because I'm not at war right now. But from what I can tell, hits scored counts near misses and hits as hits while the hits taken summary only count actual hits. That's why the two numbers might not add up in say a one vs. one duel. I noticed that on at least one battle, 5 inch and 6 inch rounds were being counted as Medium Hits when I thought those were technically light guns. Not sure what's going on there.]
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 31, 2018 3:49:35 GMT -6
I'm not actually seeing any indication in that screenshot that anything smaller than 15" actually penetrated the belt proper (main belt hits are indicated with B).
|
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Dec 31, 2018 4:17:02 GMT -6
My eye was drawn to the level of flooding. She's lost both submerged torpedo flats, her entire port secondary battery, and her rudder is jammed. Something was punching holes in her and the damage log as displayed just shows all of the latest hits.
The 6" Critical Hit allowing salt water damage in the machinery may have been both a "golden BB" granted by the RNG and immaterial by that point. At that flooding level speed is the last thing she needed as salt water must have been entering everything!
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 31, 2018 8:07:08 GMT -6
@pavelsvt, are you by chance using Skwabie's 18+ Armor mod?
|
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Dec 31, 2018 14:38:22 GMT -6
My eye was drawn to the level of flooding. She's lost both submerged torpedo flats, her entire port secondary battery, and her rudder is jammed. Something was punching holes in her and the damage log as displayed just shows all of the latest hits. The 6" Critical Hit allowing salt water damage in the machinery may have been both a "golden BB" granted by the RNG and immaterial by that point. At that flooding level speed is the last thing she needed as salt water must have been entering everything! Sitting duck is right - this level of flooding is a killer. IMHO belt armour stopped all/almost all shells, but other areas that were less protected and were completely demolished.
If the ship had turtle deck scheme, very probable for late teens era ship, it could easily sink through enough penetrations to BE. Near misses also may generate flooding if they come from large shells. Plus destroyed underwater tubes, if unlucky, can generate devastating flooding.
I also noticed this "salt water enter feed tanks" critical, from the shells that should not scratch the belt. Where/how does the shell hit to cause this kind of damage? Cutting some salt water piping somewhere? Ore those feed tanks with freshwater are outside the citadel?
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 31, 2018 15:12:05 GMT -6
I also noticed this "salt water enter feed tanks" critical, from the shells that should not scratch the belt. Where/how does the shell hit to cause this kind of damage? Cutting some salt water piping somewhere? Ore those feed tanks with freshwater are outside the citadel? Armor can protect against direct damage from shell hits, but it cannot protect against shock, and shock can rupture pipes, seals, and seams. I don't know that the shock from a 6" hit on a 40,000t battlecruiser would really be enough to cause problems in the battlecruiser's feedwater tanks, though. |
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Dec 31, 2018 16:31:25 GMT -6
I also noticed this "salt water enter feed tanks" critical, from the shells that should not scratch the belt. Where/how does the shell hit to cause this kind of damage? Cutting some salt water piping somewhere? Ore those feed tanks with freshwater are outside the citadel? Armor can protect against direct damage from shell hits, but it cannot protect against shock, and shock can rupture pipes, seals, and seams. I don't know that the shock from a 6" hit on a 40,000t battlecruiser would really be enough to cause problems in the battlecruiser's feedwater tanks, though. This thread brings up a few questions: Does the AI model actual damage from near misses? Does damage to casemate mounted guns cause flooding or superstructure damage? Would the rate of fire difference between the 12" and 15" guns not be one of the reasons for the number of 12" hits being higher in the Kiev's damage log? Are those the last entries in the damage log? The Kiev's design screen doesn't show the disabled X turret or any of those XXX indicators for damage done on a sinking ship. The Kiev isn't using Oil Firing and at least one hit (6" again) was soaked up by the Coal Bunker. Would this kind of HE damage cause fire or flooding? Is it possible the Kiev's AI design used narrow armor to keep her weight down? That would result in more hits getting around her 16" belt. Could the Design Team look into indicating the severity of the target ship's listing? Could the Design Team look into providing an option of rate of fire to the Player? Rapid, or Fire for Effect, Deliberate, Restricted or similar so that the Player can control the number of rounds expended? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2018 20:55:07 GMT -6
@pavelsvt , are you by chance using Skwabie's 18+ Armor mod? Yeah, Im using the 18+ armor. IMHO it would not be possible to build 16in B armor on BC. The list I posted is just a mini/mikro part of total hits scored on that ships. Yeah, there were 2 cases when 15in (-1) shell went through B armor, and another one was a bit higher, but that was only twice. 12in (-1) guns punched about 16 holes right through the B armor. And if I remember correctly, the ships were going parallely in columns just like a ships of the line for almost all the time, so the impact-on-armor angle was cca 90 degrees for both 12in (-1) and 15in (-1). There is another thing I really dont understand: as you can see, enemy T armor is 19in, my guns has penetration of 18,8in at 8 000 yards, so it is about 19 (+ a bit)in at 7 000 yards. So that is the critical range for penetrating the turrets. But the end-of-battle detail log showed that there were no penetration even when at the final 4 700 yards, when my guns had penetration over 21,1in. Strangely, my "secondary" battlecruiser with 12in (-1) main guns managed to disable enemy B turret at 4800 yards with a TT hit (my 12(-1) horizontal armor penetration at less than 5 000 yards is cca 0in, and I think that those turrets really had more than 0in TT armor). At such range, the shell should not even crack the armor to kill the crew inside, instead it should just slide off and then into the sea. I didnt save whole log, just wrote down a few notes, especially those I didnt understand... That 6in shell lucky pentration must have been just for the LOLs, just like the double-ammo rack explosion a few real months ago  |
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on Dec 31, 2018 23:02:24 GMT -6
@pavelsvt , are you by chance using Skwabie's 18+ Armor mod? Yeah, Im using the 18+ armor. IMHO it would not be possible to build 16in B armor on BC. The list I posted is just a mini/mikro part of total hits scored on that ships. Yeah, there were 2 cases when 15in (-1) shell went through B armor, and another one was a bit higher, but that was only twice. 12in (-1) guns punched about 16 holes right through the B armor. And if I remember correctly, the ships were going parallely in columns just like a ships of the line for almost all the time, so the impact-on-armor angle was cca 90 degrees for both 12in (-1) and 15in (-1). There is another thing I really dont understand: as you can see, enemy T armor is 19in, my guns has penetration of 18,8in at 8 000 yards, so it is about 19 (+ a bit)in at 7 000 yards. So that is the critical range for penetrating the turrets. But the end-of-battle detail log showed that there were no penetration even when at the final 4 700 yards, when my guns had penetration over 21,1in. Strangely, my "secondary" battlecruiser with 12in (-1) main guns managed to disable enemy B turret at 4800 yards with a TT hit (my 12(-1) horizontal armor penetration at less than 5 000 yards is cca 0in, and I think that those turrets really had more than 0in TT armor). At such range, the shell should not even crack the armor to kill the crew inside, instead it should just slide off and then into the sea. I didnt save whole log, just wrote down a few notes, especially those I didnt understand... That 6in shell lucky pentration must have been just for the LOLs, just like the double-ammo rack explosion a few real months ago I'm probably wrong, but isn't the turtleback armor scheme extremely vulnerable at some ranges because of the slope of the armored deck? It's nearly impossible to punch through at close range, but fairly easy to get through at long range, right? It was really only employed by the KMS, mainly because they thought any engagement with the Home fleet would take place at close range and planned an armor layout to match.
It might explain why your heavy guns couldn't punch through the armor at such a close range. Their shells were ricocheting off the sloped deck behind the belt (is sloped deck counted as belt armor? If it is, then it's 16" thick and sloped at some angle) and off into the superstructure. Do you know the range that those 12" shells penetrated? If its long range that might be your answer. They came in, hit the sloped armor deck, and punched through. But as the range dropped they hit at a shallower angle and couldn't pen.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 1, 2019 3:02:14 GMT -6
@pavelsvt , are you by chance using Skwabie's 18+ Armor mod? Yeah, Im using the 18+ armor. IMHO it would not be possible to build 16in B armor on BC. The list I posted is just a mini/mikro part of total hits scored on that ships. Yeah, there were 2 cases when 15in (-1) shell went through B armor, and another one was a bit higher, but that was only twice. 12in (-1) guns punched about 16 holes right through the B armor. And if I remember correctly, the ships were going parallely in columns just like a ships of the line for almost all the time, so the impact-on-armor angle was cca 90 degrees for both 12in (-1) and 15in (-1). There is another thing I really dont understand: as you can see, enemy T armor is 19in, my guns has penetration of 18,8in at 8 000 yards, so it is about 19 (+ a bit)in at 7 000 yards. So that is the critical range for penetrating the turrets. But the end-of-battle detail log showed that there were no penetration even when at the final 4 700 yards, when my guns had penetration over 21,1in. Strangely, my "secondary" battlecruiser with 12in (-1) main guns managed to disable enemy B turret at 4800 yards with a TT hit (my 12(-1) horizontal armor penetration at less than 5 000 yards is cca 0in, and I think that those turrets really had more than 0in TT armor). At such range, the shell should not even crack the armor to kill the crew inside, instead it should just slide off and then into the sea. I didnt save whole log, just wrote down a few notes, especially those I didnt understand... That 6in shell lucky pentration must have been just for the LOLs, just like the double-ammo rack explosion a few real months ago Related to hit disabling turret, there is some random. To disable hit if the armour is not penetrated is more about luck where shell hits the turret. To penetrate armour there is some random too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2019 5:20:08 GMT -6
Yeah, Im using the 18+ armor. IMHO it would not be possible to build 16in B armor on BC. The list I posted is just a mini/mikro part of total hits scored on that ships. Yeah, there were 2 cases when 15in (-1) shell went through B armor, and another one was a bit higher, but that was only twice. 12in (-1) guns punched about 16 holes right through the B armor. And if I remember correctly, the ships were going parallely in columns just like a ships of the line for almost all the time, so the impact-on-armor angle was cca 90 degrees for both 12in (-1) and 15in (-1). There is another thing I really dont understand: as you can see, enemy T armor is 19in, my guns has penetration of 18,8in at 8 000 yards, so it is about 19 (+ a bit)in at 7 000 yards. So that is the critical range for penetrating the turrets. But the end-of-battle detail log showed that there were no penetration even when at the final 4 700 yards, when my guns had penetration over 21,1in. Strangely, my "secondary" battlecruiser with 12in (-1) main guns managed to disable enemy B turret at 4800 yards with a TT hit (my 12(-1) horizontal armor penetration at less than 5 000 yards is cca 0in, and I think that those turrets really had more than 0in TT armor). At such range, the shell should not even crack the armor to kill the crew inside, instead it should just slide off and then into the sea. I didnt save whole log, just wrote down a few notes, especially those I didnt understand... That 6in shell lucky pentration must have been just for the LOLs, just like the double-ammo rack explosion a few real months ago I'm probably wrong, but isn't the turtleback armor scheme extremely vulnerable at some ranges because of the slope of the armored deck? It's nearly impossible to punch through at close range, but fairly easy to get through at long range, right? It was really only employed by the KMS, mainly because they thought any engagement with the Home fleet would take place at close range and planned an armor layout to match.
It might explain why your heavy guns couldn't punch through the armor at such a close range. Their shells were ricocheting off the sloped deck behind the belt (is sloped deck counted as belt armor? If it is, then it's 16" thick and sloped at some angle) and off into the superstructure. Do you know the range that those 12" shells penetrated? If its long range that might be your answer. They came in, hit the sloped armor deck, and punched through. But as the range dropped they hit at a shallower angle and couldn't pen.
Most of the battle was at range about 6 000 to 9 000 yards, most penetrations were at 6 800 yards, both from 12in (-1) and 15in (-1) guns. |
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on Jan 1, 2019 13:14:48 GMT -6
I'm probably wrong, but isn't the turtleback armor scheme extremely vulnerable at some ranges because of the slope of the armored deck? It's nearly impossible to punch through at close range, but fairly easy to get through at long range, right? It was really only employed by the KMS, mainly because they thought any engagement with the Home fleet would take place at close range and planned an armor layout to match.
It might explain why your heavy guns couldn't punch through the armor at such a close range. Their shells were ricocheting off the sloped deck behind the belt (is sloped deck counted as belt armor? If it is, then it's 16" thick and sloped at some angle) and off into the superstructure. Do you know the range that those 12" shells penetrated? If its long range that might be your answer. They came in, hit the sloped armor deck, and punched through. But as the range dropped they hit at a shallower angle and couldn't pen.
Most of the battle was at range about 6 000 to 9 000 yards, most penetrations were at 6 800 yards, both from 12in (-1) and 15in (-1) guns.
Well, that's that idea gone.
Maybe your BC had depleted uranium shells and didn't share?
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 1, 2019 13:23:44 GMT -6
That feedwater tank hit looks really suspect to me. I would definitely expect feedwater tanks to be behind the belt, but it looks like the hit went in directly without encountering any armor. Is it possible that the 18"+ mod has some weird side-effects, given that the game wasn't designed with those levels of armor in mind?
|
|
