(Somewhat) Depressing Theory on Shell Damage
Jul 6, 2019 11:34:51 GMT -6
rodentnavy and alsadius like this
Post by williammiller on Jul 6, 2019 11:34:51 GMT -6
In my (statistically unsubstantiated) experience the damage model is okay, but is sometimes limited by the locations model. I have seen 500t destroyers shrug off battleship gun hits by taking a 14" shell to the turret. You would realistically expect such a nuke to do damage beyond the one open gun mount, but it does not seem to happen that way. According to the logs of the DDs that got away they had lost that turret but not taken any floatation damage.
I have thus changed my build strategy to a more King George V-type, valuing quantity of guns over size. 14" or 15" will often suffice, as long as you have many, thus ensuring more hits and greater chance for a critical blow. That way you have fewer incidents of 20" shells hitting one secondary turret and then calling it a day.
I would agree, though, that the lack of information is sometimes vexing. On the other hand, most naval build strategy was historically driven by guesswork. When designing a new ship people had no way of fully appreciating the effects of new technology, nor did they get much data, as naval battles were rare. The proof of the dreadnought was in the sinking, so to speak. I would therefore opine that the developers not worry about transparency too much.
"Around this time, Johnston took three 14 in (356 mm) shell hits from Kongō, followed closely by three 6 in (152 mm) shells—either from a light cruiser or Yamato—which hit the bridge. The shells resulted in the loss of all power to the steering engine and all power to the three 5 in (127 mm) guns in the aft of the ship, and rendered the gyrocompass useless. A low-lying squall came up, and Johnston "ducked into it" for a few minutes of rapid repairs and salvage work.[1] The bridge was abandoned and Commander Evans, who had lost two fingers on his left hand, went to the aft steering column to conn the ship."