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)