|
|
Post by cogsandspigots on Jun 6, 2019 15:00:12 GMT -6
I would like to see Super Heavy Shells as a doctrinal choice rather than just a flat increase in penetration.
They would increase deck penetration at range at the cost of belt penetration at range and a slight decrease in damage upon penetration.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jun 6, 2019 23:39:23 GMT -6
Super heavy shells did prove quite useful, they had very respectable penetration characteristics. Might I suggest that the downside would be an increase in ammo weight?
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 7, 2019 6:22:12 GMT -6
Super heavy shells did prove quite useful, they had very respectable penetration characteristics. Might I suggest that the downside would be an increase in ammo weight? also a 50% post pen damage reduction sure they penned way more but all of the shells had ALOT less filler than their contemporaries |
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jun 7, 2019 6:28:02 GMT -6
Super heavy shells did prove quite useful, they had very respectable penetration characteristics. Might I suggest that the downside would be an increase in ammo weight? also a 50% post pen damage reduction sure they penned way more but all of the shells had ALOT less filler than their contemporaries That wasn't always the case the US super heavy 16inch carried a larger bursting charge than the previous 'light' shells on the Colorados. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 7, 2019 6:35:49 GMT -6
also a 50% post pen damage reduction sure they penned way more but all of the shells had ALOT less filler than their contemporaries That wasn't always the case the US super heavy 16inch carried a larger bursting charge than the previous 'light' shells on the Colorados. does not change the fact that the british 16 inch gun had 23 kg of bursting mass compared to 18 on the americans german 406 having 24 kg russia having 25.7 kg also looking at the 203mm guns they had less than half with the americans having 2.3 and the british 5 kg while the japanese had 3.2 kg explosive filler in general was worse than other nations also its pointless to compare old guns like the japanese 40cm gun because it quite litteraly is almost 25 years old by the start of ww2 |
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jun 7, 2019 7:18:39 GMT -6
That was down to US naval doctrine rather than the super heavy shells, if that were to be applied it would have to be applied to all battleship calibre shells for the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 7, 2019 18:17:34 GMT -6
That was down to US naval doctrine rather than the super heavy shells, if that were to be applied it would have to be applied to all battleship calibre shells for the US. might be the case but in order to get more mass out of the shell you either need to make it longer or add more heavy material and steel has significantly more density and strength (for penetration) than tnt if you want a shell to have alot of explosive filler and be a super heavy ap shell you are gonna need quite a lengthy shell and long projectiles tend to have slight stability problems it does raise questions when we consider the only nation using super heavy ap shells also had the lowest weight of explosive filler in their shells |
|
