Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 14:56:56 GMT -6
oldpop mate, deck is horizontal, so you need to factor the shell's fall angle when considering hit chances. Ofc i'm atm heavily tilted towards north sea. It could be different in the tropics. The rest as you say is outta the scope of the game, maybe social political effects. But it would be interesting for say in a board game I reckon. Also I remember Fredrik W mentioning prolonged war having a negative effect in RTW. No idea how it applies to battered vs sunk ships tho. In SAI while I'm pretty sure a capital that's in repair for 12 weeks is still much better than sunk, you are, in a way very much correct: Ruptured bulkheads give me heart attacks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 31, 2015 16:44:39 GMT -6
The formula for danger space includes the height of the target, the projectile's angle of descent at the point of impact, and target range. Example: For a 12 inch. 50 cal. gun with a 940 lb. H.C. projectile, at 26,000 yards, the angle of elevation is 19 degree 16.2 seconds, angle of fall is 29 degrees 57 minutes, and the danger space for a target with a height of 20 feet is 12 yards. Just a simple example. BTW, early RN documents referred to danger space as dangerous distance so if you read those older documents like I do, it's nice to know that. Danger space is directly proportional to the height of the target i. e. superstructure, fall angle and range. A useful approximation is height times the cotangent of the fall angle at the target. You can get that information from NavWeaps site, I think. The citadel height should be available from drawings. Remember that how you attack makes a difference. Citadel height is important but its length is even more important for a crossing the T. The old adage is simple, if you want to damage the ship, put more air inside it. If you want to sink it, put more water. I think that pretty well says it. BTW, the British attitude was to damage the ship and then finish it off with torpedoes.
Update: In Naval Firepower by Norman Friedman he states that the British did not include beam in their danger space calculations in the dreadnought era, but after 1917 the US Navy did. He states that the IJN aimed for underwater shots which increased the danger space calculations. If you have the book, its on page 18 bottom of the page.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 3:16:15 GMT -6
Thanks for the info, oldpop. I would think the USN method after 1917 is correct. That is before you get into the age of dive bombers. Unfortunately I have little interest unless it's within the scope of the game. If we're talking about a game feature/bug we'd then engage in a 20 page thread debate. As it is now, hope you can find a better sparring partner, oldpop.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 1, 2015 7:15:36 GMT -6
Thanks for the info, oldpop. I would think the USN method after 1917 is correct. That is before you get into the age of dive bombers. Unfortunately I have little interest unless it's within the scope of the game. If we're talking about a game feature/bug we'd then engage in a 20 page thread debate. As it is now, hope you can find a better sparring partner, oldpop. The US Navy method was the better way however, by the late twenties, it was probably a moot point. Newer torpedoes and aircraft changed the paradigm. Hope the discussion helps in the design of ships and game play. Thnks
|
|