|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 31, 2019 21:42:19 GMT -6
After examining the log, my guess is that it was the six hull hits that sank the ship. The last statement is the key for me; progressive flooding. Those six hits must have flooded six compartments and those successive compartments were enough to sink the ship which is normal. For Titanic is was four compartments. The torpedo was not the key to this. Something caused successive flooding of enough compartments to sink the ship. Could the crew have been the issue, did they fail to get the watertight doors closed or those doors were sprung and could not be closed. This is unknown. The torpedo launchers on the deck could be the key, they could have made the problem worse. We don't know.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 31, 2019 23:10:51 GMT -6
After examining the log, my guess is that it was the six hull hits that sank the ship. The last statement is the key for me; progressive flooding. Those six hits must have flooded six compartments and those successive compartments were enough to sink the ship which is normal. For Titanic is was four compartments. The torpedo was not the key to this. Something caused successive flooding of enough compartments to sink the ship. Could the crew have been the issue, did they fail to get the watertight doors closed or those doors were sprung and could not be closed. This is unknown. The torpedo launchers on the deck could be the key, they could have made the problem worse. We don't know. Yup. Crew quality, HE rounds and bad luck. Not sure if the game tracks angles, but I vaguely remember facing headlong into that shore battery when it hit me in the BE section. If the game tracks angles of attack, then I'll be more aware of oblique approaches to enemy ships and try not to square off so any round has to go through more of my belt. Edit: This type sinking is outside of the norm and serves to illustrate how the game is so expansive with damage modeling and flooding. I'm very impressed.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Nov 1, 2019 9:57:57 GMT -6
The game does track angle of attack but I believe it is only to determine the relative size of the target, end on ships being more difficult to hit (which takes some of the punch out of "crossing the T"). But I don't think that hitting a ship end on makes it more likely to hit any particular section of the ship.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 1, 2019 10:15:24 GMT -6
The game does track angle of attack but I believe it is only to determine the relative size of the target, end on ships being more difficult to hit (which takes some of the punch out of "crossing the T"). But I don't think that hitting a ship end on makes it more likely to hit any particular section of the ship. So the game gives a negative to hit a head on ship because of smaller profile and a positive to hit a broadside cuz larger target eh? Too bad it doesnt track angle for the purpose of armor pen. Hitting a Belt at an oblique angle causes the round to go thru more armor than it would at 90°.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Nov 1, 2019 10:34:53 GMT -6
That's my impression, dizzy , but I wouldn't be surprised if someone better versed in the RTW2 gun system tells me I'm full of beans.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 1, 2019 10:42:20 GMT -6
After examining the log, my guess is that it was the six hull hits that sank the ship. The last statement is the key for me; progressive flooding. Those six hits must have flooded six compartments and those successive compartments were enough to sink the ship which is normal. For Titanic is was four compartments. The torpedo was not the key to this. Something caused successive flooding of enough compartments to sink the ship. Could the crew have been the issue, did they fail to get the watertight doors closed or those doors were sprung and could not be closed. This is unknown. The torpedo launchers on the deck could be the key, they could have made the problem worse. We don't know. Yup. Crew quality, HE rounds and bad luck. Not sure if the game tracks angles, but I vaguely remember facing headlong into that shore battery when it hit me in the BE section. If the game tracks angles of attack, then I'll be more aware of oblique approaches to enemy ships and try not to square off so any round has to go through more of my belt. Edit: This type sinking is outside of the norm and serves to illustrate how the game is so expansive with damage modeling and flooding. I'm very impressed. Generally, when contact with the enemy is near, the captain of the ship will order all watertight doors closed. Now if there is a compartment flooding, the pumps will be turned on but the crew may leave that compartment. If they can't re-close those water tight doors due to damage, or just due to excitement of leaving the flooding compartment, then progressive flooding can occur.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 1, 2019 11:23:41 GMT -6
All the time I think that game do some extrapolation of angle between ships which affect penetration. And it always seems to me that penetration of hull is lower in that case.
But I can be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 1, 2019 13:29:00 GMT -6
I've started to research compartmentation in a battleship of this size. I am using Bismarck as an example. With full displacement, she was 50,9555 tons with special fuel. She had 22 watertight compartments. For Bismarck, during her final battle, Bismarck was shot to pieces, by one authors description and three torpedoes could have sunk her. This was due to the watertight compartments being compromised and heavy crew losses. This is important. It might be that in the game, crew losses could have affected damage control. My next area of research is to compare the hits on the dreadnought in question versus those that hit Bismarck if they are available. This would help me to determine if possibly the game is not assessing hit correctly. The issue with this comparison is that Bismarck was sunk by the torpedoes and by the crew. But it is close, hopefully. I've enclosed a drawing of Bismarck's compartmentation. Update: Apparently Bismarck received 5 to 6 heavy hits. I will corroborate this number with other resources. If so, that is just about how many the ship we are discussing actually got.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Nov 1, 2019 17:57:06 GMT -6
The game does track angle of attack but I believe it is only to determine the relative size of the target, end on ships being more difficult to hit (which takes some of the punch out of "crossing the T"). But I don't think that hitting a ship end on makes it more likely to hit any particular section of the ship. So the game gives a negative to hit a head on ship because of smaller profile and a positive to hit a broadside cuz larger target eh? Too bad it doesnt track angle for the purpose of armor pen. Hitting a Belt at an oblique angle causes the round to go thru more armor than it would at 90°. It's interesting that the beam profile is given a higher hit chance than the bow/stern profile. Does anyone know more about this? I have recently been looking into this, because in my UA: Dreadnoughts missions people keep telling me that crossing the T is advantageous and I keep thinking that's not really a concern, circa-WW2. I'll make a new thread about this with some of my data, so as not to derail this one.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 1, 2019 20:22:44 GMT -6
The game does track angle of attack but I believe it is only to determine the relative size of the target, end on ships being more difficult to hit (which takes some of the punch out of "crossing the T"). But I don't think that hitting a ship end on makes it more likely to hit any particular section of the ship. It’s definately my impression that ship orientation also affect hit location for at least some parts. I noted significantly more common hull hit rather than be/B hit when the shots come from close range against a ship that’s bow-on or stern facing. The fore/aft hull hit is also comparatively common in the above scenario. I don’t have hard numbers but it does seem like there maybe some effect between orientation of the ship and hit location at close range.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 2, 2019 1:03:51 GMT -6
The game does track angle of attack but I believe it is only to determine the relative size of the target, end on ships being more difficult to hit (which takes some of the punch out of "crossing the T"). But I don't think that hitting a ship end on makes it more likely to hit any particular section of the ship. So the game gives a negative to hit a head on ship because of smaller profile and a positive to hit a broadside cuz larger target eh? Too bad it doesnt track angle for the purpose of armor pen. Hitting a Belt at an oblique angle causes the round to go thru more armor than it would at 90°. It's interesting that the beam profile is given a higher hit chance than the bow/stern profile. Does anyone know more about this? I have recently been looking into this, because in my UA: Dreadnoughts missions people keep telling me that crossing the T is advantageous and I keep thinking that's not really a concern, circa-WW2. I'll make a new thread about this with some of my data, so as not to derail this one. Till WW2 ships fight in line using broadside. If you have eg. 10 ships in line and you cross T, your 10 ships fire broadside at enemy with lower profile. On opposite enemy can have nice profile of your broadside however only forward guns of ships in front of the line can fire at you. So you have huge advantage as your fire is several times higher than enemy so lower profile of enemy is not as important.
Than enemy ships can adjust course and the first ships in line start to open fire with full broadside. But at this stage they profile starts to be same as you but only some ships can fire so you still have much higher volume of fire.
However there were things which made it less important later. The number of ships decreased, you have no huge number of capital ships fighting each other. Just thinking that there were no more than 3 battleships/battlecruisers firing at another capital ships and even I am not certain if all 3 were firing. This means after you change course you can fire full broadside early usually before fire starts to be accurate enough. With this small number of ships you can have different formation than line ships can operate separetely (Battle of River Plate).
All this make later crossing T not as important as adjustment of course can quickly change the situation as line is not too long.
EDIT: Battle of Surigao Strait - there were more battleships in line however it was advantage mainly because Japanese pressed the attack in completely unfavoured conditions.
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Nov 2, 2019 9:40:30 GMT -6
The game does track angle of attack but I believe it is only to determine the relative size of the target, end on ships being more difficult to hit (which takes some of the punch out of "crossing the T"). But I don't think that hitting a ship end on makes it more likely to hit any particular section of the ship. So the game gives a negative to hit a head on ship because of smaller profile and a positive to hit a broadside cuz larger target eh? Too bad it doesnt track angle for the purpose of armor pen. Hitting a Belt at an oblique angle causes the round to go thru more armor than it would at 90°. Angling is in the game, it was confirmed a long time ago by Fredrik. If you're flat broadside you'll get penned easier than if your ship was at 45 degrees for example. Ricocheting a 18 inch shell with a 4.5 inch belt is possible when angled, albeit still unlikely due to the raw size and pen of the 18 incher.
|
|
|
Post by BathTubAdmiral on Nov 4, 2019 5:11:01 GMT -6
I think either you got really unlucky damage con rolls (the game seems to do such things), or something strange is going on. Let me show you what I mean: 14:45 Torpedo (Ripon from CV Indefatigable) ... now nearly 5 hours pass without any visible attempt at damage control. Either there is no flooding (no message about flooding ...), or the game does not "react" to the ships condition?19:26 16 in 7804 yds Fore/aft hull hit * (BB Hood, HE) Why is Hood shooting HE? Was she out of AP ammo? Yet, again no message about flooding, no damage con. But then, a "fore/aft hull" hit does not necessary mean flooding occures, IIRC.
19:35 5 in 3861 yds Fore/aft hull hit * (DD Scorpion, HE) 19:35 Limits flooding! Here we see a rather small shell hit, and an instant, successful damcon attempt ... followed by 40min of nothing. Is one "limits flooding" enough to stop a hole from a 5" shell? Maybe, not sure. 20:18 4 in 2506 yds Hull hit BE * (Battery 40, AP) 20:19 12 in 2147 yds Superstructure hit BE * (Battery 40, HE)How does Battery40 switch from 4" to 12" guns? Or are this 2 different batteries with the same name? Any why is the 4" gun shooting AP at a BB, and the 12" gun only HE at such a short range? 12" could very well be able to pen 15" armour at 2000 yards in 1941 ?!?20:19 Detaches because of heavy flooding. Now, where does this catastropic flooding come from, that went unnoticed for at least 40min, or maybe even several hours?
Notice, from here on we get 9 "limits flooding", and 1 "increases flooding", and yet the ship goes down 23min later with "3622 flooding", which therefore might have started out at this point as 4000 or something.
Btw., what is the max number for "flooding"?
20:20 12 in 1905 yds Hull hit BE * (Battery 40, HE)Now suddenly the damage con teams wake up and try to save the ship, with astonishingly short intervals of the successful attempts. ... so much for the theory, that low, and because of hits further diminishing, crew quality was the cause for unsuccessful damage control.20:25 Limits flooding! 20:26 Limits flooding! 20:27 Limits flooding! 20:28 Limits flooding! 20:29 High speed increases flooding! 20:32 Limits flooding! 20:35 Limits flooding! 20:36 Limits flooding! 20:37 Limits flooding! 20:41 Limits flooding!
20:42 Sinking through progressive flooding.
This definitly looks strange to me ... either it's a combination of the game telling not everything that is happening, together with really bad rolls (1 in a million?) for the damage con attempts, or there is actually a bug somewhere?!
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 4, 2019 8:29:08 GMT -6
There were two shore batteries. They were shooting at me under 5,000 yards as this was a night mission and I had to keep turning doing figure eights close to the enemy port to avoid torpedoes. The shore batteries were able to get good shots every time I made a loop. And yes the crew was poor, maybe fair. I can't explain anything else.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 4, 2019 10:59:17 GMT -6
How does Battery40 switch from 4" to 12" guns? Or are this 2 different batteries with the same name? Coastal batteries heavier than 5" have 4" DP guns in the later stages of the game - 6" and 7" batteries have a pair, 8" and heavier batteries have four. Target identification errors seem the most likely cause, to me.
|
|