|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 2, 2019 12:20:28 GMT -6
^What you described seems more like a fluke penetration than actual inaccuracy imo. A SAP can easily end up in the engine room "penetrating" the deck by say, going into the funnel or some similarly ridiculous scenario. As long as the game accurately model SAP's theoretical penetration to be quite a bit behind an AP bomb I have no problem with SAP occasionally getting into a weak spot on the deck. No armor is proof against everything, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 2, 2019 12:32:53 GMT -6
Penetration variance can also come via weak points in the armor--previously damaged plating, defects in the armor.
Also, most horizontal armor was homogenous, not face-hardened (the Richelieu's turrets being a notable exception, a rare feature prioritizing protection against bombs above protection from shellfire)--shattering isn't the primary failure mode. And nothing prevents putting an AP cap on an SAP bomb.
Also, I would note that the Mk 33 had a pretty high explosive content compared to many "AP" bombs--three times the filler proportion compared to the US early-war bombs converted from shells. The game could well consider it an SAP bomb, although if that is what it considers SAP I think it has the historical progression reversed.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jul 2, 2019 12:38:06 GMT -6
unless the shell quality or bomb quality is poor it should not change from shell to shell on a flat plate What's the rationale behind this paragraph?. What's the engineering basis of it?. I'm asking because to begin with there was no standard way to measure shell/bomb penetrations. Some nations' shell penetration standards were measured on angled armor at a given distance, others on 90º hits, distances varied, and even the definition of "penetration" is shaky, given that some forces gave penetration tables based on a % chance (Generally 50%) of penetration of a shell against armor (For instance for the US navy penetration tables, what was given as a number was the armor thickness against which half of the shells would go through at a given distance and angle). That already points out at an essential variance in the official penetration tables - an US navy penetration table, for instance, will be telling you that they're giving you information about the thickness ok X'' of armor at Y km distance that 50% of your shells for the gun they describe will be able to penetrate. It's also telling you that 50% of your shells will NOT penetrate, and this is not based on varying shell qualities as the tables assume you're firing standardized ammunition. Once again, that was the US navy. Different navies (And services, penetration tables saw widespread use for antitank guns for obvious reasons too and armies produced those), had different standards, but none based their penetration tables on 100% penetration capability. So I'm reduced to ask again- what's the rationale behind that paragraph?. What makes you think that if a bomb is nominally capable of penetrating a given armor thickness under given conditions of speed, angle of hit, etc, it should do so ALL THE TIME?... or conversely, what makes you think that if a shell was defeated by a given armor thickness under given conditions of speed, angle of hit, etc, it should be defeated ALL THE TIME?. Because not even the official ballistic charts state as much...
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 2, 2019 14:24:10 GMT -6
unless the shell quality or bomb quality is poor it should not change from shell to shell on a flat plate What's the rationale behind this paragraph?. What's the engineering basis of it?. I'm asking because to begin with there was no standard way to measure shell/bomb penetrations. Some nations' shell penetration standards were measured on angled armor at a given distance, others on 90º hits, distances varied, and even the definition of "penetration" is shaky, given that some forces gave penetration tables based on a % chance (Generally 50%) of penetration of a shell against armor (For instance for the US navy penetration tables, what was given as a number was the armor thickness against which half of the shells would go through at a given distance and angle). That already points out at an essential variance in the official penetration tables - an US navy penetration table, for instance, will be telling you that they're giving you information about the thickness ok X'' of armor at Y km distance that 50% of your shells for the gun they describe will be able to penetrate. It's also telling you that 50% of your shells will NOT penetrate, and this is not based on varying shell qualities as the tables assume you're firing standardized ammunition. Once again, that was the US navy. Different navies (And services, penetration tables saw widespread use for antitank guns for obvious reasons too and armies produced those), had different standards, but none based their penetration tables on 100% penetration capability. So I'm reduced to ask again- what's the rationale behind that paragraph?. What makes you think that if a bomb is nominally capable of penetrating a given armor thickness under given conditions of speed, angle of hit, etc, it should do so ALL THE TIME?... or conversely, what makes you think that if a shell was defeated by a given armor thickness under given conditions of speed, angle of hit, etc, it should be defeated ALL THE TIME?. Because not even the official ballistic charts state as much... "What's the rationale behind this paragraph?. What's the engineering basis of it?."
worse quality steel means worse caps worse caps mean less penetration worse steel mean worse shell body which means worse penetration worse quality control means more varying muzzle velocities which produce different penetration values in conjunction with the shell quality worse barrel quality means more muzzle velocity variance thus more penetration variance worse bomb steel means higher chance of shattering worse bomb steel means it might not penetrate as well due to worse steel you see ? directly from the us themselves even offers 1000 lb sap performance and as i expected 1000 lb sap cannot pen alot of armor penetration of the bomb is counted as the filler going through the armor plate and being in a condition to explode (complete penetration) "an US navy penetration table, for instance, will be telling you that they're giving you information about the thickness ok X'' of armor at Y km distance that 50% of your shells for the gun they describe will be able to penetrate. It's also telling you that 50% of your shells will NOT penetrate"i am almost certain that naval penetration requirements was that the shell had to make it through the armor a very large amount of the time and be in a condition for the filler in the shell to explode (yes i know its a picture for ants) Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jul 2, 2019 15:14:10 GMT -6
worse quality steel means worse caps worse caps mean less penetration worse steel mean worse shell body which means worse penetration worse quality control means more varying muzzle velocities which produce different penetration values in conjunction with the shell quality worse barrel quality means more muzzle velocity variance thus more penetration variance worse bomb steel means higher chance of shattering worse bomb steel means it might not penetrate as well due to worse steel you see ? No. I don't see. "Worse" vs what?. The whole thing here is simple: you're arguing that something couldn't go through a given set of armor, or would go through a given set of armor. No middle term. I'm not interested in "better" or "worse" scenarios, because penetration tables (the official sources of what could go through what) don't bother with them either: they say "your Xmm gun will go through Ymm of armor at a distance of Z 50% of the time". It doesn't tell you "but if you have *worse* ammo, that might not be true" or "but if the enemy has *Worse armor* you might get better results". If you use those tables in any argument, forget about *Worse* or *Better*...those tables are normalized and standarized. And those tables don't deal with absolutes either, they give distances and thicknesses for a base penetration chance of 50%. Just because your shell is deflected even if you fired at something that according to the tables should yield a pen, doesn't mean the tables were wrong. Conversely just because your shell beats a given set of armor even if it's thicker that what the tables tell you, doesn't mean the tables were wrong. Those are statistical studies on very controlled test circunstances, they don't account for many things that happen in real combat...and even while being statistical studies on very controlled test circunstances, they have a HUGE variance on themselves. A 50-50 chance of going through or not going through, no less, you can't get more variance than that...and that's BEFORE applying other "real life" factors into the calculation. So no, I certainly don't see your point here. All I know is that a penetration table didn't give absolutes. The penetration numbers on them are the thicknesses that 50% of the shells/bombs would go through. Not 100% of them. That a shell was given a penetration capability of X inches of armor at a Y distance meant that 50% of them would go through X inches of armor from Y distance, 50% would be deflected. Conversely that same shell might be able to pen X+1 inches of armor at Y distance...it just would have a worse under 50% chance of doing so... Bottom point is, the idea that if a shell has gone through once, all others like it will aswell, or that if a shell has been defeated by a given thickness of armor, all other shells like it will be in the same scenario, is completely wrong. Variance exists in ballistics due to multitude of factors, even when exactly the same shell and armor qualities are involved. "an US navy penetration table, for instance, will be telling you that they're giving you information about the thickness ok X'' of armor at Y km distance that 50% of your shells for the gun they describe will be able to penetrate. It's also telling you that 50% of your shells will NOT penetrate"You do realize that that very same table, is also telling you the opposite, right?. That just because you have a thicker armor than "X", or you're getting shot from longer (or shorter for deck pens) range than "Y", you're not proof against penetrations. They'll just happen less than 50%, the larger the deviation, the lower the chance, but the chance will exist. You do get that, right?. Because if you don't you're reading penetration tables completely wrong. Truth is, in real life some absurd ricochets will happen when it would seem they shouldn't, and some absurd penetrations will happen exactly the same way. The whole lot of ballistic tests done by many nations and different armed forced branches through the eras are a work of statistical probabilities. And if life teaches us something is that low chances, even minuscles chances, sometimes turn out to be exactly what happen. Yet it seems that as a single bomb happened to pen a given thickness of armor in your game, then woohooo the game is awful, is broken, needs a fix, and all things good in life are now lost. When it turns out that, for instance, probably the most single-damaging hit Yamato sustained in her career was that single bomb hit in the 155mm secondary turret. Yamato rests on several pieces at the bottom of the sea because a magazine blew up because a fire started by a bomb that penetrated her vitals. You do know the deck armor Yamato had, right?. Which were the chances of "a bomb penning it"?. Yet that bomb did. Truth is, no deck arrangement was without fault against bombs. Viable ship designs forced necessary weak points at several places...and then there's what I mentioned avobe: that a chart says that a bomb could pen X inches of armor 50% of the time, doesn't mean it couldn't pen X+Y inches of armor...it just meant it would be far less likely to happen. In either case as long as you keep on building expectatives on absolutes, and making points based on those absolutes as arguments when debating things like this, you'll be doing yourself a disservice, because that's not how things happened in history, and they don't either in a game which tries to replicate it.
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on Jul 2, 2019 15:59:25 GMT -6
Is there not one very important aspect the the dive bombers effect in WW2 which has not been discussed.
Against a battleship (which was not the majority of ships in any fleet mind you) the role of the dive bomber was not destruction but general suppression and destruction of the ships AA and AAA capabilities. This would then make the subsequent torpedo runs of torpedo bomber that much more likely to succeed at a reduced cause of overall casualties as a result.
I the real war as torpedoes was way more space required they were allot more restricted in use than the various bombs that was used by both torpedoes bombers and dive bombers respectively. The missions that carriers carried out was so much more varied in the real world that designing a carrier for carrying primarily torpedoes on the scale the US and Japan operated carriers would be completely foolish. Bombs was just perfectly fine for most targets except a very minor number of ships that happen to be modern or up armoured battleships and some battle cruisers.
The game should be even more restrictive in the number of torpedoes we should be able to have on them at any missions and sometimes the number of torpedoes (and bombs) could even be below the normal maximum as well. The ships might have had to expend some in a previous engagement or some are simply faulty or unusable for some reason (things happen).
In my opinion it is completely irrelevant if dive-bombers can be made useful against a very small proportion of ships when there is better weapons (torpedo bombers) to deal with them. We should instead be encouraged to use the to suppress and destroy battleships ability to disrupt the strike of the torpedo bombers and the game should also give us more mission where the intention is ti bombard enemy land targets with out carriers. Dive bombers are way more economical to attack pretty much anything except an armoured carrier or battle ship(cruiser). These smaller ships were often important targets for carrier missions, such as transports and other smaller ships.
Both dive- and torpedo bombers were replaced with missiles at roughly the same time anyway, so arguing about replacing or making dive bombers do everything including sinking battleships is sort of beyond the scope in my opinion. You don't need or at least should not need to have dive bombers to sink battleships all that easy. There was a reason why most US and Japanese carries only carried a limited numbers of torpedo bombers and allot more dive bombers, or why most other carriers such as light and escort carriers carried very small numbers of them if any at all.
The British used a slightly different approach and carried very few dive bombers and had their fighters take the role of suppressing AA fire on enemy ships.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 2, 2019 16:12:47 GMT -6
christianI think you are drawing the wrong conclusion by generalizing one occurrence to represent an perceived inaccuracy that probably doesn't exist. Lets go back to the very beginning: You observe that a 1000lb SAP bomb is able to penetrate into the engine room of a battleship with 5.5in maximal deck armor. You conclude from that RTW bomb penetration is messed up since an 1000 lb SAP bomb should not be able to do so. Without engaging at all with the discussion whether SAP bombs may end up performing differently based on quality, drop height etc. We can even take as a given that in no normal circumstance that a 1000 lb bomb can smash through 5.5 in of steel. (To draw an analogy, no matter how you throw a rock at a 12in belt of some ship, it wont go through). Does this mean the game is bugged? No, the fact that the ship is damaged by the bomb, despite having 5.5in of maximal deck armor does not mean that the bomb needs to defeat the 5.5 in armor(which for the sake of argument we assume is impossible). Many alternative scenario can explain what happened, and these alternative scenario can realistically happen. Perhaps the armor near the funnel area are not as structurally sound to resist the blast, perhaps the bomb fell into the funnel, perhaps it hit an area with less than 5.5 in of armor and the subsequent explosion damaged machinery through interior bulkheads, perhaps the machinery themselves are damaged by the shock of the bomb/spalling/burst pipes. As far as I know the game doesn't simulate shock and spalling from technically non-penetrating hits(though we do have splinter). For all intends and purpose that in the complex, non ideal real world there are plenty of ways for damage to somehow occur. We had an extremely rare scenario with 3.5 in belt deflecting an 18in shell, a penetration table would clearly suggest to you that is impossible, but a lot of things can possibly happen in real life that produce the same result. The game merely abstract this process, and as long as the frequency of these occurrence remains reasonable, I don't see a problem with this simulation. If the "Penetrating hit into machinery space" was changed to "bomb went into funnel", would you be happier?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 2, 2019 16:54:52 GMT -6
worse quality steel means worse caps worse caps mean less penetration worse steel mean worse shell body which means worse penetration worse quality control means more varying muzzle velocities which produce different penetration values in conjunction with the shell quality worse barrel quality means more muzzle velocity variance thus more penetration variance worse bomb steel means higher chance of shattering worse bomb steel means it might not penetrate as well due to worse steel you see ? No. I don't see. "Worse" vs what?. The whole thing here is simple: you're arguing that something couldn't go through a given set of armor, or would go through a given set of armor. No middle term. I'm not interested in "better" or "worse" scenarios, because penetration tables (the official sources of what could go through what) don't bother with them either: they say "your Xmm gun will go through Ymm of armor at a distance of Z 50% of the time". It doesn't tell you "but if you have *worse* ammo, that might not be true" or "but if the enemy has *Worse armor* you might get better results". If you use those tables in any argument, forget about *Worse* or *Better*...those tables are normalized and standarized. And those tables don't deal with absolutes either, they give distances and thicknesses for a base penetration chance of 50%. Just because your shell is deflected even if you fired at something that according to the tables should yield a pen, doesn't mean the tables were wrong. Conversely just because your shell beats a given set of armor even if it's thicker that what the tables tell you, doesn't mean the tables were wrong. Those are statistical studies on very controlled test circunstances, they don't account for many things that happen in real combat...and even while being statistical studies on very controlled test circunstances, they have a HUGE variance on themselves. A 50-50 chance of going through or not going through, no less, you can't get more variance than that...and that's BEFORE applying other "real life" factors into the calculation. So no, I certainly don't see your point here. All I know is that a penetration table didn't give absolutes. The penetration numbers on them are the thicknesses that 50% of the shells/bombs would go through. Not 100% of them. That a shell was given a penetration capability of X inches of armor at a Y distance meant that 50% of them would go through X inches of armor from Y distance, 50% would be deflected. Conversely that same shell might be able to pen X+1 inches of armor at Y distance...it just would have a worse under 50% chance of doing so... Bottom point is, the idea that if a shell has gone through once, all others like it will aswell, or that if a shell has been defeated by a given thickness of armor, all other shells like it will be in the same scenario, is completely wrong. Variance exists in ballistics due to multitude of factors, even when exactly the same shell and armor qualities are involved. "an US navy penetration table, for instance, will be telling you that they're giving you information about the thickness ok X'' of armor at Y km distance that 50% of your shells for the gun they describe will be able to penetrate. It's also telling you that 50% of your shells will NOT penetrate"You do realize that that very same table, is also telling you the opposite, right?. That just because you have a thicker armor than "X", or you're getting shot from longer (or shorter for deck pens) range than "Y", you're not proof against penetrations. They'll just happen less than 50%, the larger the deviation, the lower the chance, but the chance will exist. You do get that, right?. Because if you don't you're reading penetration tables completely wrong. Truth is, in real life some absurd ricochets will happen when it would seem they shouldn't, and some absurd penetrations will happen exactly the same way. The whole lot of ballistic tests done by many nations and different armed forced branches through the eras are a work of statistical probabilities. And if life teaches us something is that low chances, even minuscles chances, sometimes turn out to be exactly what happen. Yet it seems that as a single bomb happened to pen a given thickness of armor in your game, then woohooo the game is awful, is broken, needs a fix, and all things good in life are now lost. When it turns out that, for instance, probably the most single-damaging hit Yamato sustained in her career was that single bomb hit in the 155mm secondary turret. Yamato rests on several pieces at the bottom of the sea because a magazine blew up because a fire started by a bomb that penetrated her vitals. You do know the deck armor Yamato had, right?. Which were the chances of "a bomb penning it"?. Yet that bomb did. Truth is, no deck arrangement was without fault against bombs. Viable ship designs forced necessary weak points at several places...and then there's what I mentioned avobe: that a chart says that a bomb could pen X inches of armor 50% of the time, doesn't mean it couldn't pen X+Y inches of armor...it just meant it would be far less likely to happen. In either case as long as you keep on building expectatives on absolutes, and making points based on those absolutes as arguments when debating things like this, you'll be doing yourself a disservice, because that's not how things happened in history, and they don't either in a game which tries to replicate it. the penetration tests are done and measured according to the us EFF (effective limit) which is also known as complete penetration (which is mentioned in the text box) "those tables are normalized and standarized. And those tables don't deal with absolutes either, they give distances and thicknesses for a base penetration chance of 50%."
source that 50% because the diffrent kinds of penetration according to the us is as follows PP partial pen H holing NL naval limit EFF effective limit "It doesn't tell you "but if you have *worse* ammo, that might not be true" or "but if the enemy has *Worse armor* you might get better results". It doesn't tell you "but if you have *worse* ammo, that might not be true" or "but if the enemy has *Worse armor* you might get better results"
it dosent but for countries such as italy that is the case and quality problems do not INCREASE performance THEY DECREASE which means that penetration tables are always OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE (granted against your own armor if the enemy has worse armor penetration improves) performance will in combat almost always be lower than what the penetration table says (ship tilting due to waves or a turn angling belt or deck so on)(it will if the enemy again has worse armor than you do) "they give distances and thicknesses for a base penetration chance of 50%."source it because thats not the case WITH THE ARMY yes i know its the case the us army considers as long as the shell penetrates 50% of the time its a penetration THE NAVY DOES NOT "And those tables don't deal with absolutes either, they give distances and thicknesses for a base penetration chance of 50%. Just because your shell is deflected even if you fired at something that according to the tables should yield a pen, doesn't mean the tables were wrong. Conversely just because your shell beats a given set of armor even if it's thicker that what the tables tell you, doesn't mean the tables were wrong."thats because those tables are AGAINST YOUR OWN ARMOR they arent made against the enemies armor or ships and worn barrels have worse performance than new ones and shell quality matters also angle of impact and alot of other effects matter this is why during combat armor was most of the time alot more usefull than you would think because while on paper guns could pen the armor and they would during a real battle the diffrence was just in a real battle things such as impact angle and so on became a thing if you used the same armor that an enemy you are fighting does THAT PEN TABLE IS 100% VALID and expecting results OVER PERFORMING what the pen table says should not happend unless the pen table was made with lower than usual quality shells (or a bad batch) IN OPTIMAL CONDITIONS angling and so on only makes the shell perform worse penetration is never as good as it is in pen tests due to conditions but in peak conditions (straight broadside close range) pen test values should be very close to whats achieved on the enemy "All I know is that a penetration table didn't give absolutes."it dosent but its damn close (again as long as the thing you firing at is made of the same thing the tests were conducted against) (and its under optimal conditions) and i know for a fact a 1000 lb sap bomb should not have a "variance" of several inches in penetration according to the pen table the 1000 lb sap bomb should pen 3 inches of armor AT MOST yet in game it manages 5.5 inches unless this 1000 lb bomb just magically had the magical "VARIANCE OF ARMOR PENETRATION" make it penetrate 2.5 inches more STILL BEING IN CONDITION TO DETONATE (COMPLETE PENETRATION) "You do realize that that very same table, is also telling you the opposite, right?. That just because you have a thicker armor than "X", or you're getting shot from longer (or shorter for deck pens) range than "Y", you're not proof against penetrations. They'll just happen less than 50%, the larger the deviation, the lower the chance, but the chance will exist. You do get that, right?. Because if you don't you're reading penetration tables completely wrong. "
the table clearly states complete penetration that means the intire shell has to make it through along with the explosive filler IN ADDITION TO THIS it even has a "generous estimate" of the MAXIMUM PENETRATION the bomb is expected to be able to achieve UNDER ANY CONDITION and for the 1000lb sap bomb thats 3 inches in combat siturations the penetration only drops and does not increase yes penetraiton trables are not always 100% accurate but penetrating more armor than what is penetrated during tests only happends in ideal conditions against an enemy with inferior armor again that 50% number i have not seen anywhere except the army source the navy used the same penetration criteria "and some absurd penetrations will happen exactly the same way"having a shell overperform the penetration table compared to underperform is exceptionally rare for anyone BUT AMERICANS in real life due to everyone else having the same or worse armor than them in game its hard to know the armor levels also shells will not overperform by alot yeah sure a bit more penetration could SOMETIMES happend (lets say the ship is turning so the deck is angled so that the bomb hits at a perfect 90 degrees) it could gain a slight bit more penetration BUT its never gonna penetrate more than 5% of what its done in tests 10% or more is ridiculous and just does not happend any more begins breaking the laws of physics "Yet it seems that as a single bomb happened to pen a given thickness of armor in your game, then woohooo the game is awful, is broken, needs a fix, and all things good in life are now lost."
yes penetration of different materials is a statistical probability but the variance in penetration is not widly diffrent each shot AT ABSOLUTE WORST you looking at 10% penetration diffrence (this is beyond a stretch and this is not realistic more realistically is 5% and less) the problem is the 1000 lb bomb in question penetrated 45% MORE THAN IT SHOULD
now you might think its useless complaining and its fine but considering the insane weight of armored flight decks bombs penetrating 35-40% more than they should is quite a problem because it means armored flight decks ARE UNUSABLE now suddenly 500 lb bombs can go through 3.2 inches of flight deck god knows what 2000 lb bombs can do "In either case as long as you keep on building expectatives on absolutes, and making points based on those absolutes as arguments when debating things like this, you'll be doing yourself a disservice, because that's not how things happened in history, and they don't either in a game which tries to replicate it. "
bombs did not penetrate 40-35% more than they should (accounting for 5% variance in penetration) and neither did shells its insane to claim otherwise sure penetration tables are not absolute but in the same way they are absolute they are not extremely wrong and incorrect either a shell will never suddenly penetrate 20% more than it has been tested to do same goes for a bomb sure 5% might happend in the worst scenarios but 40% no unless your fine with 1000 lb AP bombs from dive bombers going through 9.8 INCHES OF ARMOR (40% more pen than real life) then sure go ahead and not fix this blatant sap over performance but i like to keep armor SLIGHTLY RELEVANT and i havent even commented on the fact armor penetration of guns in game is lower than it should be (especially for big guns) "When it turns out that, for instance, probably the most single-damaging hit Yamato sustained in her career was that single bomb hit in the 155mm secondary turret. Yamato rests on several pieces at the bottom of the sea because a magazine blew up because a fire started by a bomb that penetrated her vitals. You do know the deck armor Yamato had, right?. Which were the chances of "a bomb penning it"?. Yet that bomb did."
first of all her secondary battery powder magazines were located under the 220mm deck armor which was located UNDER 50mm deck armor a bomb from ww2 is not going through 270mm armor it just is not as much as you want to believe a 127mm penetration rated penetrating bomb is gonna go through 270mm of armor no it wontsecond of all her secondary guns never took a direct bomb hit and all her secondaries stayed operational (provide sources if you want to state otherwise) the explosion which ripped yamato apart was because her 2nd barbette ammunition depot ignited after she went above a 90 degree list this seperated her 1st barbette from around just behind the secondary gun im sorry but 6 inch powder bags dont do this www.ibiblio.org/pha/Steichin/Steichin-96.jpg18 inch powder bags do in addition to this both 155 mm triple turrets are intact on the sea bottom and have been identified the 155mm triple would have split into thousands of pieces if the powder magazine exploded (and they would also have been launched several hundreds of meters away from the wreck but they lay right close to the hull how convenient) (i can provide pics if neccesary)
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jul 2, 2019 17:16:00 GMT -6
You simply keep on arguing from the same premises, in fact I'd say you haven't even changed a comma of your argument. So I won't insist on my previous post - seems it's pointless even to try to insist on it again.
You still are basing your arguments on statistical-based stuff that is actually not stating what you clearly think is stating, and you won't even see where the flaw is even while you've been pointed at it.
I'm not here to state that certain bombs would go (or not go) through a given set of armor. I'm here telling you that you're basing your affirmations in FAR more equivocal grounds than what you seem to be aware of, and that shows in the kind of arguments you're putting forward. Again, if you want to keep doing it, your call, but your arguments won't win any weight if you keep on talking in absolutes when all the data about the subject was compiled in the polar opposite way.
As for Yamato's sinking - Yamato's big final magazine detonation was the 18'' one no doubt. The question is what triggered it. And there are several theories backed by circumstantial data that point out that what ignited the main magazine could've been the uncontained fire originated by the bomb that penetrated the 155mm triple turret. That bomb initiated a persistent raging fire that the japanese crew couldn't properly control down to the very end, and by the time the ship rolled over it's possible that with the efforts to contain it gone it might have extended, or might have caused a detonation in the secondary magazine that chain-triggered the main magazine (in a similar scenario to that of the theory of HMS Hood's 15'' magazines going off after a 4'' ammo mag explosion), in either case having been the main factor triggering the detonation. Nobody knows for sure what caused it, I'm not even stating the bomb did cause it - but the chance exists that it was caused by that fire. Not only that, such a chance is big enough to be listed as one of the main possible causes - and that alone is a VERY significant yield out of a bomb that the ship's deck was supposedly proof against.
I'm not sure I need to emphasize it: that bomb started a fire that might have been the key trigger in the detonation that blew the whole ship to bits. And even if it wasn't - that's quite the performance from a bomb that the ship was supposedly "proof" against...
Yet if you had an outcome like that in game you'd be fuming here about how innapropiate bomb mechanics are, and how completely foolproof your big megabattleship's decks should be against bombs, because bombs aren't supposed to go through that much armor. Once again: you're assuming things and contextualizing them in absolutes: "this armor is enough to stop that" "that shell is big enough to go through that". Yet the truth is that absolutes make no sense whatsoever in the context of the topic you're discussing.
If you still fail to see where the problem with your argumentation lays, I certainly can't do much more to try to let you see it.
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on Jul 2, 2019 17:22:13 GMT -6
No. I don't see. "Worse" vs what?. The whole thing here is simple: you're arguing that something couldn't go through a given set of armor, or would go through a given set of armor. No middle term. I'm not interested in "better" or "worse" scenarios, because penetration tables (the official sources of what could go through what) don't bother with them either: they say "your Xmm gun will go through Ymm of armor at a distance of Z 50% of the time". It doesn't tell you "but if you have *worse* ammo, that might not be true" or "but if the enemy has *Worse armor* you might get better results". If you use those tables in any argument, forget about *Worse* or *Better*...those tables are normalized and standarized. And those tables don't deal with absolutes either, they give distances and thicknesses for a base penetration chance of 50%. Just because your shell is deflected even if you fired at something that according to the tables should yield a pen, doesn't mean the tables were wrong. Conversely just because your shell beats a given set of armor even if it's thicker that what the tables tell you, doesn't mean the tables were wrong. Those are statistical studies on very controlled test circunstances, they don't account for many things that happen in real combat...and even while being statistical studies on very controlled test circunstances, they have a HUGE variance on themselves. A 50-50 chance of going through or not going through, no less, you can't get more variance than that...and that's BEFORE applying other "real life" factors into the calculation. So no, I certainly don't see your point here. All I know is that a penetration table didn't give absolutes. The penetration numbers on them are the thicknesses that 50% of the shells/bombs would go through. Not 100% of them. That a shell was given a penetration capability of X inches of armor at a Y distance meant that 50% of them would go through X inches of armor from Y distance, 50% would be deflected. Conversely that same shell might be able to pen X+1 inches of armor at Y distance...it just would have a worse under 50% chance of doing so... Bottom point is, the idea that if a shell has gone through once, all others like it will aswell, or that if a shell has been defeated by a given thickness of armor, all other shells like it will be in the same scenario, is completely wrong. Variance exists in ballistics due to multitude of factors, even when exactly the same shell and armor qualities are involved. "an US navy penetration table, for instance, will be telling you that they're giving you information about the thickness ok X'' of armor at Y km distance that 50% of your shells for the gun they describe will be able to penetrate. It's also telling you that 50% of your shells will NOT penetrate"You do realize that that very same table, is also telling you the opposite, right?. That just because you have a thicker armor than "X", or you're getting shot from longer (or shorter for deck pens) range than "Y", you're not proof against penetrations. They'll just happen less than 50%, the larger the deviation, the lower the chance, but the chance will exist. You do get that, right?. Because if you don't you're reading penetration tables completely wrong. Truth is, in real life some absurd ricochets will happen when it would seem they shouldn't, and some absurd penetrations will happen exactly the same way. The whole lot of ballistic tests done by many nations and different armed forced branches through the eras are a work of statistical probabilities. And if life teaches us something is that low chances, even minuscles chances, sometimes turn out to be exactly what happen. Yet it seems that as a single bomb happened to pen a given thickness of armor in your game, then woohooo the game is awful, is broken, needs a fix, and all things good in life are now lost. When it turns out that, for instance, probably the most single-damaging hit Yamato sustained in her career was that single bomb hit in the 155mm secondary turret. Yamato rests on several pieces at the bottom of the sea because a magazine blew up because a fire started by a bomb that penetrated her vitals. You do know the deck armor Yamato had, right?. Which were the chances of "a bomb penning it"?. Yet that bomb did. Truth is, no deck arrangement was without fault against bombs. Viable ship designs forced necessary weak points at several places...and then there's what I mentioned avobe: that a chart says that a bomb could pen X inches of armor 50% of the time, doesn't mean it couldn't pen X+Y inches of armor...it just meant it would be far less likely to happen. In either case as long as you keep on building expectatives on absolutes, and making points based on those absolutes as arguments when debating things like this, you'll be doing yourself a disservice, because that's not how things happened in history, and they don't either in a game which tries to replicate it. the penetration tests are done and measured according to the us EFF (effective limit) which is also known as complete penetration (which is mentioned in the text box) "those tables are normalized and standarized. And those tables don't deal with absolutes either, they give distances and thicknesses for a base penetration chance of 50%."
source that 50% because the diffrent kinds of penetration according to the us is as follows PP partial pen H holing NL naval limit EFF effective limit "It doesn't tell you "but if you have *worse* ammo, that might not be true" or "but if the enemy has *Worse armor* you might get better results". It doesn't tell you "but if you have *worse* ammo, that might not be true" or "but if the enemy has *Worse armor* you might get better results"
it dosent but for countries such as italy that is the case and quality problems do not INCREASE performance THEY DECREASE which means that penetration tables are always OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE (granted against your own armor if the enemy has worse armor penetration improves) performance will in combat almost always be lower than what the penetration table says (ship tilting due to waves or a turn angling belt or deck so on)(it will if the enemy again has worse armor than you do) "they give distances and thicknesses for a base penetration chance of 50%."source it because thats not the case WITH THE ARMY yes i know its the case the us army considers as long as the shell penetrates 50% of the time its a penetration THE NAVY DOES NOT "And those tables don't deal with absolutes either, they give distances and thicknesses for a base penetration chance of 50%. Just because your shell is deflected even if you fired at something that according to the tables should yield a pen, doesn't mean the tables were wrong. Conversely just because your shell beats a given set of armor even if it's thicker that what the tables tell you, doesn't mean the tables were wrong."thats because those tables are AGAINST YOUR OWN ARMOR they arent made against the enemies armor or ships and worn barrels have worse performance than new ones and shell quality matters also angle of impact and alot of other effects matter this is why during combat armor was most of the time alot more usefull than you would think because while on paper guns could pen the armor and they would during a real battle the diffrence was just in a real battle things such as impact angle and so on became a thing if you used the same armor that an enemy you are fighting does THAT PEN TABLE IS 100% VALID and expecting results OVER PERFORMING what the pen table says should not happend unless the pen table was made with lower than usual quality shells (or a bad batch) IN OPTIMAL CONDITIONS angling and so on only makes the shell perform worse penetration is never as good as it is in pen tests due to conditions but in peak conditions (straight broadside close range) pen test values should be very close to whats achieved on the enemy "All I know is that a penetration table didn't give absolutes."it dosent but its damn close (again as long as the thing you firing at is made of the same thing the tests were conducted against) (and its under optimal conditions) and i know for a fact a 1000 lb sap bomb should not have a "variance" of several inches in penetration according to the pen table the 1000 lb sap bomb should pen 3 inches of armor AT MOST yet in game it manages 5.5 inches unless this 1000 lb bomb just magically had the magical "VARIANCE OF ARMOR PENETRATION" make it penetrate 2.5 inches more STILL BEING IN CONDITION TO DETONATE (COMPLETE PENETRATION) "You do realize that that very same table, is also telling you the opposite, right?. That just because you have a thicker armor than "X", or you're getting shot from longer (or shorter for deck pens) range than "Y", you're not proof against penetrations. They'll just happen less than 50%, the larger the deviation, the lower the chance, but the chance will exist. You do get that, right?. Because if you don't you're reading penetration tables completely wrong. "
the table clearly states complete penetration that means the intire shell has to make it through along with the explosive filler IN ADDITION TO THIS it even has a "generous estimate" of the MAXIMUM PENETRATION the bomb is expected to be able to achieve UNDER ANY CONDITION and for the 1000lb sap bomb thats 3 inches in combat siturations the penetration only drops and does not increase yes penetraiton trables are not always 100% accurate but penetrating more armor than what is penetrated during tests only happends in ideal conditions against an enemy with inferior armor again that 50% number i have not seen anywhere except the army source the navy used the same penetration criteria "and some absurd penetrations will happen exactly the same way"having a shell overperform the penetration table compared to underperform is exceptionally rare for anyone BUT AMERICANS in real life due to everyone else having the same or worse armor than them in game its hard to know the armor levels also shells will not overperform by alot yeah sure a bit more penetration could SOMETIMES happend (lets say the ship is turning so the deck is angled so that the bomb hits at a perfect 90 degrees) it could gain a slight bit more penetration BUT its never gonna penetrate more than 5% of what its done in tests 10% or more is ridiculous and just does not happend any more begins breaking the laws of physics "Yet it seems that as a single bomb happened to pen a given thickness of armor in your game, then woohooo the game is awful, is broken, needs a fix, and all things good in life are now lost."
yes penetration of different materials is a statistical probability but the variance in penetration is not widly diffrent each shot AT ABSOLUTE WORST you looking at 10% penetration diffrence (this is beyond a stretch and this is not realistic more realistically is 5% and less) the problem is the 1000 lb bomb in question penetrated 45% MORE THAN IT SHOULD
now you might think its useless complaining and its fine but considering the insane weight of armored flight decks bombs penetrating 35-40% more than they should is quite a problem because it means armored flight decks ARE UNUSABLE now suddenly 500 lb bombs can go through 3.2 inches of flight deck god knows what 2000 lb bombs can do "In either case as long as you keep on building expectatives on absolutes, and making points based on those absolutes as arguments when debating things like this, you'll be doing yourself a disservice, because that's not how things happened in history, and they don't either in a game which tries to replicate it. "
bombs did not penetrate 40-35% more than they should (accounting for 5% variance in penetration) and neither did shells its insane to claim otherwise sure penetration tables are not absolute but in the same way they are absolute they are not extremely wrong and incorrect either a shell will never suddenly penetrate 20% more than it has been tested to do same goes for a bomb sure 5% might happend in the worst scenarios but 40% no unless your fine with 1000 lb AP bombs from dive bombers going through 9.8 INCHES OF ARMOR (40% more pen than real life) then sure go ahead and not fix this blatant sap over performance but i like to keep armor SLIGHTLY RELEVANT and i havent even commented on the fact armor penetration of guns in game is lower than it should be (especially for big guns) "When it turns out that, for instance, probably the most single-damaging hit Yamato sustained in her career was that single bomb hit in the 155mm secondary turret. Yamato rests on several pieces at the bottom of the sea because a magazine blew up because a fire started by a bomb that penetrated her vitals. You do know the deck armor Yamato had, right?. Which were the chances of "a bomb penning it"?. Yet that bomb did."
first of all her secondary battery powder magazines were located under the 220mm deck armor which was located UNDER 50mm deck armor a bomb from ww2 is not going through 270mm armor it just is not as much as you want to believe a 127mm penetration rated penetrating bomb is gonna go through 270mm of armor no it wontsecond of all her secondary guns never took a direct bomb hit and all her secondaries stayed operational (provide sources if you want to state otherwise) the explosion which ripped yamato apart was because her 2nd barbette ammunition depot ignited after she went above a 90 degree list this seperated her 1st barbette from around just behind the secondary gun im sorry but 6 inch powder bags dont do this www.ibiblio.org/pha/Steichin/Steichin-96.jpg18 inch powder bags do in addition to this both 155 mm triple turrets are intact on the sea bottom and have been identified the 155mm triple would have split into thousands of pieces if the powder magazine exploded (and they would also have been launched several hundreds of meters away from the wreck but they lay right close to the hull how convenient) (i can provide pics if neccesary) Don't you still fail to see that penetrations is only during OPTIMAL conditions... conditions which rarely occur in reality. A bomb that drops can hit basically no armour or at a steep angle against the thickest part of the armour or anything in between that. The only thing that is important is roughly the frequency that a weaker bomb are able to do any significant damage if it hits a part of a ship that should THEORETICALLY be able to deflect it. In order to know this you first need a big enough sample to dismiss the random element. This usually means about 100 samples for a rough estimation and at least 1000 for a reliable estimation. Do you really think you have this in this case?!? I'm NOT claiming there is no problem, but that is not my point... my point is if you have had enough sample tests to draw any real conclusions from what you experienced in the game?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 2, 2019 17:22:57 GMT -6
christian I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion by generalizing one occurrence to represent an perceived inaccuracy that probably doesn't exist. Lets go back to the very beginning: You observe that a 1000lb SAP bomb is able to penetrate into the engine room of a battleship with 5.5in maximal deck armor. You conclude from that RTW bomb penetration is messed up since an 1000 lb SAP bomb should not be able to do so. Without engaging at all with the discussion whether SAP bombs may end up performing differently based on quality, drop height etc. We can even take as a given that in no normal circumstance that a 1000 lb bomb can smash through 5.5 in of steel. (To draw an analogy, no matter how you throw a rock at a 12in belt of some ship, it wont go through). Does this mean the game is bugged? No, the fact that the ship is damaged by the bomb, despite having 5.5in of maximal deck armor does not mean that the bomb needs to defeat the 5.5 in armor(which for the sake of argument we assume is impossible). Many alternative scenario can explain what happened, and these alternative scenario can realistically happen. Perhaps the armor near the funnel area are not as structurally sound to resist the blast, perhaps the bomb fell into the funnel, perhaps it hit an area with less than 5.5 in of armor and the subsequent explosion damaged machinery through interior bulkheads, perhaps the machinery themselves are damaged by the shock of the bomb/spalling/burst pipes. As far as I know the game doesn't simulate shock and spalling from technically non-penetrating hits(though we do have splinter). For all intends and purpose that in the complex, non ideal real world there are plenty of ways for damage to somehow occur. We had an extremely rare scenario with 3.5 in belt deflecting an 18in shell, a penetration table would clearly suggest to you that is impossible, but a lot of things can possibly happen in real life that produce the same result. The game merely abstract this process, and as long as the frequency of these occurrence remains reasonable, I don't see a problem with this simulation. If the "Penetrating hit into machinery space" was changed to "bomb went into funnel", would you be happier? looking at the penetration table unless the 1000 lb sap bomb is performing better by 45% than the real life equivalent it should not penetrate 5.5 inches of armor NO MATTER THE ALTITUDE (it reaches terminal velocity after its able to pen about 3 inches of armor as the table shows) " based on quality,"
as far as i know quality of bombs is in no way simulated "As far as I know the game doesn't simulate shock and spalling from technically non-penetrating hits(though we do have splinter)."
it does but it will not be marked with a * indicating penetration "We had an extremely rare scenario with 3.5 in belt deflecting an 18in shell, a penetration table would clearly suggest to you that is impossible"
except as long as the armor is supported well enough that is actually possible granted the angle is sufficient unlikely yes physically possible yes (though that armor is likely bended as hell and rip structure still a helluva lotta kenetik energy to obsorb) according to some quick calculations the 18 inch shell should be stopped by a shell hitting at 10 degrees on the armor now the thing is thats not what happend here not only was the benbow sinking when it was hit with the bomb (thus the deck was angled) (though i dont they they account for this so we pass it on) the same way a shell hitting at 5000 yards 90 degrees on shouldnt suddenly penetrate 45% more than its rated too a bomb shouldnt either armored funnel uptakes were a thing notably seen mentioned here on the nelson www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/images/1/17/Rodarm.jpgit depends on the ship and what kind of uptake armor it has but its usually either in the form of lips on the interior of the funnel to catch bombs grids on the area where citadelle roof cannot be installed due to uptakes being there or using multiple overlapping plates in the uptakes with the uptakes snaking their way between so in effect its a complete layer of deck armor but still with space for the uptakes if that makes sense (this is the most effective one for straight up stopping bombs down the thunnel) also yes having a notification for a bomb passing down the funnel into the machinery would be nice in the same way we have a notification for shells hitting below the waterline and salt water entering the ship it would be nice to have a bomb down thunnel message flooding of magazine message would also be nice if a shell makes it so far
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on Jul 2, 2019 17:36:02 GMT -6
christian I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion by generalizing one occurrence to represent an perceived inaccuracy that probably doesn't exist. Lets go back to the very beginning: You observe that a 1000lb SAP bomb is able to penetrate into the engine room of a battleship with 5.5in maximal deck armor. You conclude from that RTW bomb penetration is messed up since an 1000 lb SAP bomb should not be able to do so. Without engaging at all with the discussion whether SAP bombs may end up performing differently based on quality, drop height etc. We can even take as a given that in no normal circumstance that a 1000 lb bomb can smash through 5.5 in of steel. (To draw an analogy, no matter how you throw a rock at a 12in belt of some ship, it wont go through). Does this mean the game is bugged? No, the fact that the ship is damaged by the bomb, despite having 5.5in of maximal deck armor does not mean that the bomb needs to defeat the 5.5 in armor(which for the sake of argument we assume is impossible). Many alternative scenario can explain what happened, and these alternative scenario can realistically happen. Perhaps the armor near the funnel area are not as structurally sound to resist the blast, perhaps the bomb fell into the funnel, perhaps it hit an area with less than 5.5 in of armor and the subsequent explosion damaged machinery through interior bulkheads, perhaps the machinery themselves are damaged by the shock of the bomb/spalling/burst pipes. As far as I know the game doesn't simulate shock and spalling from technically non-penetrating hits(though we do have splinter). For all intends and purpose that in the complex, non ideal real world there are plenty of ways for damage to somehow occur. We had an extremely rare scenario with 3.5 in belt deflecting an 18in shell, a penetration table would clearly suggest to you that is impossible, but a lot of things can possibly happen in real life that produce the same result. The game merely abstract this process, and as long as the frequency of these occurrence remains reasonable, I don't see a problem with this simulation. If the "Penetrating hit into machinery space" was changed to "bomb went into funnel", would you be happier? looking at the penetration table unless the 1000 lb sap bomb is performing better by 45% than the real life equivalent it should not penetrate 5.5 inches of armor NO MATTER THE ALTITUDE (it reaches terminal velocity after its able to pen about 3 inches of armor as the table shows) " based on quality,"
as far as i know quality of bombs is in no way simulated "As far as I know the game doesn't simulate shock and spalling from technically non-penetrating hits(though we do have splinter)."
it does but it will not be marked with a * indicating penetration "We had an extremely rare scenario with 3.5 in belt deflecting an 18in shell, a penetration table would clearly suggest to you that is impossible"
except as long as the armor is supported well enough that is actually possible granted the angle is sufficient unlikely yes physically possible yes (though that armor is likely bended as hell and rip structure still a helluva lotta kenetik energy to obsorb) according to some quick calculations the 18 inch shell should be stopped by a shell hitting at 10 degrees on the armor now the thing is thats not what happend here not only was the benbow sinking when it was hit with the bomb (thus the deck was angled) (though i dont they they account for this so we pass it on) the same way a shell hitting at 5000 yards 90 degrees on shouldnt suddenly penetrate 45% more than its rated too a bomb shouldnt either armored funnel uptakes were a thing notably seen mentioned here on the nelson www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/images/1/17/Rodarm.jpgit depends on the ship and what kind of uptake armor it has but its usually either in the form of lips on the interior of the funnel to catch bombs grids on the area where citadelle roof cannot be installed due to uptakes being there or using multiple overlapping plates in the uptakes with the uptakes snaking their way between so in effect its a complete layer of deck armor but still with space for the uptakes if that makes sense (this is the most effective one for straight up stopping bombs down the thunnel) also yes having a notification for a bomb passing down the funnel into the machinery would be nice in the same way we have a notification for shells hitting below the waterline and salt water entering the ship it would be nice to have a bomb down thunnel message flooding of magazine message would also be nice if a shell makes it so far In my opinion you are just making things too complicated for something that most probably are much more simple in the game engine. The game engine are most likely just abstracting the armour value from an extreme low to an extreme high based on a number of different factors which are hidden from us and very difficult to know from case to case. You simply don't get such an accurate report as the game engine does not simulate it in such detail and simply abstract it in some sort of equation. Hence a 5" gun can potentially penetrate the 14" belt of a battleship or a 1000lb bomb can penetrate a 6" deck some of the times.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jul 2, 2019 17:45:37 GMT -6
Hence a 5" gun can potentially penetrate the 14" belt of a battleship or a 1000lb bomb can penetrate a 6" deck some of the times.Statistical outliers can be one reason, yes, Yet I wouldn't compare a 5'' shell going through a 14'' belt as statistically having the same chance of happening as the 1000lb bomb vs a 6'' deck ,though . Another reason can be that in game you design ships with max deck thickness - doesn't mean the whole citadel is covered with that max thickness. I'm sure the engine spreads that armor in a way that's representative of designs of the time (which, for instance, had max deck thicknesses protecting magazines, but thinner protection over machinery areas). And yet another reason can be that all those layouts had weaknesses. Integral secondary turrets with hoists going far deep into the vitals of the ship being a good instance - no way to give those similar armor protection, as, say, machinery areas. Uptakes (even armored designs as the ones mentioned avobe) are necessarily another weakness. As are inherent holes in the decks which will present lesser resistance than a normal plate (voice pipes, wiring, piping, cables, have to go through the decks in some way or another, so decks were perforated in several points, that even while attention was paid to keep their watertight ands tructural integrity, they were structurally weaker than a straight up solid plate of armor). Bottom point - trying to argue things from the perspective of "there's ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THIS SHOULD HAPPEN" defeats the argument even before describing it. If engineering history has taught humankind something about engineering and destructive forces of all kinds, is that you can engineer things to make events as unlikely as possible, yet doesn't mean you'll achieve to make anything "completely proof against" anything. Because simply stated, you will not. From Unsinkable ships to Undefeatable protection against weapons, from Completely failproof designs to Totally reliable working principles...there are plenty of instances in history to pick and choose from to show how far the "extraordinarily unlikely" can go in order to defeat the concept of "ABSOLUTELY PROOF AGAINST". Yet here we are stuck in a discussion where one of the part's argument is "THERE IS NO WAY THIS COULD HAPPEN". In a game. Figures.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 2, 2019 17:53:16 GMT -6
christian I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion by generalizing one occurrence to represent an perceived inaccuracy that probably doesn't exist. Lets go back to the very beginning: You observe that a 1000lb SAP bomb is able to penetrate into the engine room of a battleship with 5.5in maximal deck armor. You conclude from that RTW bomb penetration is messed up since an 1000 lb SAP bomb should not be able to do so. Without engaging at all with the discussion whether SAP bombs may end up performing differently based on quality, drop height etc. We can even take as a given that in no normal circumstance that a 1000 lb bomb can smash through 5.5 in of steel. (To draw an analogy, no matter how you throw a rock at a 12in belt of some ship, it wont go through). Does this mean the game is bugged? No, the fact that the ship is damaged by the bomb, despite having 5.5in of maximal deck armor does not mean that the bomb needs to defeat the 5.5 in armor(which for the sake of argument we assume is impossible). Many alternative scenario can explain what happened, and these alternative scenario can realistically happen. Perhaps the armor near the funnel area are not as structurally sound to resist the blast, perhaps the bomb fell into the funnel, perhaps it hit an area with less than 5.5 in of armor and the subsequent explosion damaged machinery through interior bulkheads, perhaps the machinery themselves are damaged by the shock of the bomb/spalling/burst pipes. As far as I know the game doesn't simulate shock and spalling from technically non-penetrating hits(though we do have splinter). For all intends and purpose that in the complex, non ideal real world there are plenty of ways for damage to somehow occur. We had an extremely rare scenario with 3.5 in belt deflecting an 18in shell, a penetration table would clearly suggest to you that is impossible, but a lot of things can possibly happen in real life that produce the same result. The game merely abstract this process, and as long as the frequency of these occurrence remains reasonable, I don't see a problem with this simulation. If the "Penetrating hit into machinery space" was changed to "bomb went into funnel", would you be happier? looking at the penetration table unless the 1000 lb sap bomb is performing better by 45% than the real life equivalent it should not penetrate 5.5 inches of armor NO MATTER THE ALTITUDE (it reaches terminal velocity after its able to pen about 3 inches of armor as the table shows) " based on quality,"
as far as i know quality of bombs is in no way simulated "As far as I know the game doesn't simulate shock and spalling from technically non-penetrating hits(though we do have splinter)."
it does but it will not be marked with a * indicating penetration "We had an extremely rare scenario with 3.5 in belt deflecting an 18in shell, a penetration table would clearly suggest to you that is impossible"
except as long as the armor is supported well enough that is actually possible granted the angle is sufficient unlikely yes physically possible yes (though that armor is likely bended as hell and rip structure still a helluva lotta kenetik energy to obsorb) according to some quick calculations the 18 inch shell should be stopped by a shell hitting at 10 degrees on the armor now the thing is thats not what happend here not only was the benbow sinking when it was hit with the bomb (thus the deck was angled) (though i dont they they account for this so we pass it on) the same way a shell hitting at 5000 yards 90 degrees on shouldnt suddenly penetrate 45% more than its rated too a bomb shouldnt either armored funnel uptakes were a thing notably seen mentioned here on the nelson www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/images/1/17/Rodarm.jpgit depends on the ship and what kind of uptake armor it has but its usually either in the form of lips on the interior of the funnel to catch bombs grids on the area where citadelle roof cannot be installed due to uptakes being there or using multiple overlapping plates in the uptakes with the uptakes snaking their way between so in effect its a complete layer of deck armor but still with space for the uptakes if that makes sense (this is the most effective one for straight up stopping bombs down the thunnel) also yes having a notification for a bomb passing down the funnel into the machinery would be nice in the same way we have a notification for shells hitting below the waterline and salt water entering the ship it would be nice to have a bomb down thunnel message flooding of magazine message would also be nice if a shell makes it so far As I was saying, the game necessarily abstract many aspect from reality, therefore, any simplification of what can happen in real life simply had to be framed in a way that is operable in game. No where does the message you encounter indicate that 5.5in of deck armor is penetrated. It indicate that the deck is penetrated. RTW does not assume 5.5 in deck means that all region of the ship is covered by 5.5 in of deck. The bomb could've gotten in due to some weak point in armor, the exact manner in which this happen had to be abstracted since the game does not , and cannot account for the various detail of how this could've happened short of actually being a reproduction of reality. Sure, armored funnel can protect against bombs, but we don't have options for its inclusion and nor is it represented in anyways in game. Its one of those things that the game abstracts since excessive details in these matters would actually be counter-productive to realism. For example, how would the designer even determine the odds that a shell/bomb can land in the funnel if the game does not model ballistics? Assigning a roughly "reasonable" looking probability is most likely not going to present satisfactory results. Rather than fighting against any issue that the game seems to present that does meet your expectation of lab-room reality, its probably better to acknowledge that some abstraction in this matter is necessary. If we instead groups any other incident in which damage may be inflicted rather than simply counting it as "Penetration", then do we have to instead report battle logs as "Bomb hit weak point where only 3in armor is present, bomb penned", "Bomb fell through funnel", "Bomb richochet off armored deck and explode behind secondary ammo hoist, flash fire". These kind of detail, in absence of actual modelling of how they can happen will just ends up being arbitrary, and its not unimaginable for you to then again take issue with say, how your ship cannot possibly have secondary ammo in the location in which a bomb hit in the above scenario. Someone had raised a point that in trying to accurately model everything in the sort of "ideal realism" actually ends up being counter-productive, and I agree with that statement. You have to understand that the best realism a video game can realistically achieve have to be one that is ultimately based on abstractions. A single instance of bomb doing damage despite it generally shouldn't have is just a way for the game's abstraction to give some leeway to extreme scenario that could happen. For example, what if a 6in shell went down the barrel of a 16in gun on a BB turret and knocked it out inside. The chance of that happening is probably astronomically small, but not 0. Are we gonna have a line of code for that to happen, and will that give us a satisfying probability of that event happening in real life? If this issue was a misrepresentation of how things would've likely turned out in reality I.E "5.5in deck consistently fail to stop SAP bomb into vital area", then I would incline to agree with you that the game's abstraction here is not ideal and should be changed. But nothing of the evidence points to this being the case. Bottom line being, this is a bomb pen on a sinking ship, reported once in however many rtw games there had been. There is no point trying to be forensic given the degree of abstraction here.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 2, 2019 18:09:10 GMT -6
looking at the penetration table unless the 1000 lb sap bomb is performing better by 45% than the real life equivalent it should not penetrate 5.5 inches of armor NO MATTER THE ALTITUDE (it reaches terminal velocity after its able to pen about 3 inches of armor as the table shows) " based on quality,"
as far as i know quality of bombs is in no way simulated "As far as I know the game doesn't simulate shock and spalling from technically non-penetrating hits(though we do have splinter)."
it does but it will not be marked with a * indicating penetration "We had an extremely rare scenario with 3.5 in belt deflecting an 18in shell, a penetration table would clearly suggest to you that is impossible"
except as long as the armor is supported well enough that is actually possible granted the angle is sufficient unlikely yes physically possible yes (though that armor is likely bended as hell and rip structure still a helluva lotta kenetik energy to obsorb) according to some quick calculations the 18 inch shell should be stopped by a shell hitting at 10 degrees on the armor now the thing is thats not what happend here not only was the benbow sinking when it was hit with the bomb (thus the deck was angled) (though i dont they they account for this so we pass it on) the same way a shell hitting at 5000 yards 90 degrees on shouldnt suddenly penetrate 45% more than its rated too a bomb shouldnt either armored funnel uptakes were a thing notably seen mentioned here on the nelson www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/images/1/17/Rodarm.jpgit depends on the ship and what kind of uptake armor it has but its usually either in the form of lips on the interior of the funnel to catch bombs grids on the area where citadelle roof cannot be installed due to uptakes being there or using multiple overlapping plates in the uptakes with the uptakes snaking their way between so in effect its a complete layer of deck armor but still with space for the uptakes if that makes sense (this is the most effective one for straight up stopping bombs down the thunnel) also yes having a notification for a bomb passing down the funnel into the machinery would be nice in the same way we have a notification for shells hitting below the waterline and salt water entering the ship it would be nice to have a bomb down thunnel message flooding of magazine message would also be nice if a shell makes it so far In my opinion you are just making things too complicated for something that most probably are much more simple in the game engine. The game engine are most likely just abstracting the armour value from an extreme low to an extreme high based on a number of different factors which are hidden from us and very difficult to know from case to case. You simply don't get such an accurate report as the game engine does not simulate it in such detail and simply abstract it in some sort of equation. Hence a 5" gun can potentially penetrate the 14" belt of a battleship or a 1000lb bomb can penetrate a 6" deck some of the times. the game engine is alot more complicated than it lets on at first 5 inch guns can go through 5 inch belts as long as its been hit enough (armor gets weaker the more consecutive hits) but you are more likely to have burned down or had structural failure before you get penetrated by a 5 inch shell the game engine handles alot and according to some statements its very detailed (3.5 inches of armor bouncing 18 inch shells due to angle) oh yes the simulator is very very realistic paying attention to minute details which is sometimes nice or annoying (AGING STRUCTURE INCREASES LEAKS REEE) (such as the fact turret roof armor is worse than deck armor due to turrets irl being slightly angled (yes thats a thing) the engine also knows the exact armor layout of the citadelles (casemates with armor have a chance to convert hull hits into casemate hits (hull hits are unarmored portions above the citadelle with no armor) (also its exactly like irl if you have aon armor the armor does not taper ANYWHERE in my experience if you have a 14 inch belt all your belt is 14 inches in the mean time i did 2 bomb tests and neither a level bombing from my torpedo bombers with 2000 lb ap bombs nor the 1400 lb ap bombs went through the 7 inch deck of my yamato design (which seems pretty realistic although that 2000 lb looks interesting though it was one hit so not alot to go by) il be testing some other bombs in my next game going from 250 lb to as high as possible both sap and ap il post the results granted sadly i cant turn back time and switch to sap bombs again to test it Attachments:
|
|