|
|
Post by christian on Sept 6, 2019 3:33:31 GMT -6
Regarding the reason why "max" penetration might be too low, I suspect is due to the fact that there is no way for armor value to actually exceed designer limit, and 40" armor simply wouldn't matter in context of the game. (We know angling matter, but not sure if that just adds to flat armor thickness or some other process of calculation). I agree that gun penetration post 16" seems a little under represented, but the reasoning might simply be that it defeats all effective armor anyway (this might be in part tied to the problem that armor weights too much). In any case I agree the higher end of Gun penetration/armor thickness could use some work. Also, it might be that different caliber gun benefit differently from AP research, might be interesting to test the difference with or no AP tech. (Though I suspect shell quality should be more important for high caliber guns, not less) i actually did that at first and i ran into the exact same numbers 16 inch performs 11% worse than 20 inch even with 0 ap tech "Regarding the reason why "max" penetration might be too low, I suspect is due to the fact that there is no way for armor value to actually exceed designer limit, and 40" armor simply wouldn't matter in context of the game. (We know angling matter, but not sure if that just adds to flat armor thickness or some other process of calculation).
"
what is lacking in the game is simply alot of factors guns penetration at range is assumed to be flat pen in addition to the fact that sloped belts dont work as they would in real life (the further away the more protection you get) example 430mm armor inclined at 20 degrees is 500mm armor at a range of 10 degrees fall of shot (30 degrees impact angle (almost 20% more effective thickness) assuming the fall of shot being around 10 degrees and the armor being inclined at 20 degrees (10 degrees fall of shot on yamatos 18 inch gun is achieved at 15k yards) at 20 degrees fall of shot on a 20 degrees inclined belt the effective protection is now 560mm with a 430mm belt (equivelant to 25k yards with yamatos 18 inch gun) at 30 degrees fall of shot on a 20 degrees inclined belt the effective protection is 668 mm with the same 430mm belt (equivelant to 31k yards with yamatos 18 inch gun) the further away you get the heavier the protection gets WHICH IS NOT MODELED IN GAME at close range armor should be mostly useless against 16+ inch guns (as it was in real life) most ships werent designed to be immune from 18k yards + they were designed to be immune from 25k to 30k yards (usually) also yeah the reason ap pen in game is so low is because A they want to avoid turret farms of rtw1 B armor weight too much C angled armor does not work as intended D angled armor does not seem to be calculated properly) for example lets take the yamato 410mm belt inclined at 20 degrees now lets say instead of being 90 degrees broadside to the enemy ship its only 70 degrees broadside (a 20 degree angle away or towards the enemy ship) that means that suddenly the armor belt is 40 degrees angled in effect against your guns (its 20 degrees inclined and 20 degrees angled to the side like an is3 pike nose) and adding in that we are fighting at 15k yards which results in around 10 degrees fall of shot your shells are impacting belt armor that is in effect angled at 50 degrees which is 860mm effective thickness aka that is a big no no sign for any shell hitting it NOTHING is getting through that now lets say that the inclined belt armor is at 0 degrees and not 20 degrees inclined boom 560mm effective armor see how big a diffrence inclined armor makes |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Sept 6, 2019 3:45:07 GMT -6
Having taken a brief look at the program overview pages for the calculators on the NavWeaps site, it seems like these calculators that christian is basing his numbers off of take striking velocity - not muzzle velocity - as an input. I would therefore be interested to know if and how christian is calculating the striking velocities he's using to generate his numbers, because using the muzzle velocity as the striking velocity is wildly inaccurate except at very short range. i did state that i was using point blank velocity for the penetration statistics (which is muzzle velocity) "hitting a 49 inch plate made out of US Class A armor steel with a 2 inch concrete backer at point blank velocity (2700) results in a complete EFF penetration"thus im using the muzzle velocity (the velocity the shell is at directly after it existed the muzzle) if i were firing at a plate 5k yards away or 10k yards away the striking velocity would be way lower but since im firing at point blank thats not the case |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Sept 6, 2019 4:05:09 GMT -6
(and no there is no way the 20 inch gun was getting less than 750m/s velocity as travel time gets too long and its not a superheavy shell which means it would be horribly inneficient) Not true. Just because less than 750 m/s would have been unacceptable/useless doesn't mean that it might not have been the best the gun could do. If we didn't have the German 21-inch as a data point, for all we know, it could have been the case that a 20-inch gun with acceptable performance was not possible with the technology of the day. It might still be the case that the Germans had the technology to do it and the Japanese didn't. And while the German 21" shows that a gun of that caliber with a particular muzzle velocity *could* be built, it's just one datapoint, so we don't know if it corresponds, in game terms, to a 21" -1, 0, or +1, or even a +4. Every single gun *made*, or every single gun *accepted for service* by the relevant navy? We need record of actual test firings, because without that, we don't know that the gun might not have underperformed and been rejected for service. We don't know that the gun might not have burst when fired, etc. For that matter, do we have inspection records from after the German 21-inch test firings to establish what kind of barrel wear resulted? It's possible, if unlikely, that the guns sustained sufficient wear in the test that they would not have been accepted for service (if they weren't already guaranteed not to go into service by the fact that the Germans didn't have a ship to mount them). Penetration scales linearly with shell size *at a given muzzle velocity*. It could be the case that guns over 18" were exceedingly difficult to build and the German 21" was something like a +4 or +5, and the performance of a +0 would be even worse than in game. I do not believe this to be the case. I believe that guns with acceptable performance up to at least 22" were probably possible, and that IRL gun performance likely would have been better than it is in game if such weapons had been built and used widely. But with just one datapoint above 18", we can't rule out the more pessimistic possibility entirely, so I don't have much problem with the devs being conservative on the matter, other than the disappointment at not being able to smash through 22 in" of armor at decent range. considering litteraly every single gun that was made after 1930 had atleast 730m/s muzzle velocity except for 3 guns (capital ship guns) it would be extremely unlikely for a nation not using superheavy projectiles (which 2 of the guns with less than 730 m/s velocity were shooting) to make a gun with that bad penetration characteristics again if we assume that the gun is a 1/ some 15+ capital ship guns with lower than 730 m/s muzzle velocity also considering a size increase from 360 kg propelant to 480 kg (which is a 25% increase in powder charge same proppelant btw) but in return the projectile is around 24 % heavier 1900kg to 1460 kg thus in my conclusion unless they did something wierd the 20 inch gun should have around the same velocity as the japanese 18 inch gun "And while the German 21" shows that a gun of that caliber with a particular muzzle velocity *could* be built, it's just one datapoint, so we don't know if it corresponds, in game terms, to a 21" -1, 0, or +1, or even a +4."
by this logic both the german 15 inch gun italian 15 inch gun and russian 16 inch gun were +4 guns (all having 820+ m/s muzzle velocity) either way the current gun quality system is lacking "Every single gun *made*, or every single gun *accepted for service* by the relevant navy? We need record of actual test firings, because without that, we don't know that the gun might not have underperformed and been rejected for service. We don't know that the gun might not have burst when fired, etc."guns post 1930 were VERY unlikely to be rejected and if they were it was mostly because the ship they were planned to be mounted on was not gonna be built (g3 class number 13 and so on) or the gun had problems like trading triples for doubles (american 18 inch gun would only come in doubles while the 16 inch came in triples aka its a trade of 33% barrel count) also some guns could not enter service as there was no ship to mount them on 16 inch german gun 16 inch russian gun 12 inch russian gun and so on unless you count coastal guns as service but yeah "For that matter, do we have inspection records from after the German 21-inch test firings to establish what kind of barrel wear resulted? It's possible, if unlikely, that the guns sustained sufficient wear in the test that they would not have been accepted for service (if they weren't already guaranteed not to go into service by the fact that the Germans didn't have a ship to mount them)."
no we dont but we do know it was fired around 5 times the longer the barrel is compared to the diameter of the bore the less barrel wear the gun experiences (this is also why high velocity low lenght guns are a less than ideal idea you avoid barrel droop but run into barrel wear but hey you also dodge more expensive and longer constrution times) the japanese 20 inch gun would not have good barrel wear we almost know that for a fact since it was 20.1/45 and not longer but the german gun which was 21/52 would have likely had a better barrel life also barrel quality and so on also effect barrel life an estimate of 120-150 rounds for the 20 inch gun would be my quesstimate and a slightly higher one of 150-180 for the 21inch gun would be my quesstimate either way the barrel life is not long but this could have likely been looked over due to the fact the ships carried alot less ammunition and took longer to fire and the shells had more effect (which is the intire idea behind 20 inchs guns that armor becomes too strong and bigger guns are needed) |
|
|
|
Post by felixg92 on Sept 6, 2019 6:30:38 GMT -6
Yes i disliked the hpen and vpen as listed and changed them upwards for the largest 4 calibers that plus tech advances seem to keep the larger calbers as being more valuable, was that correct or even precise.... No it was not but honestly the point of 18, 19, 20 ( why no 21 or 24 inch?) inch weapons is of course armor is no longer important as a tactical consideration.
This is a game and no other naval warfare game i have played has handled penetration all that well/realistically because its complicated (compared to AFV penetration which is childs play to compute by comparison) hell its variables have variables, and then we have the added nuance of fire control (more interesting to me than gun performance) and national shell characterstics would be huge, to me thats where the modification between different makes in the same caliber should be enacted, and obviously an usn 16/50 firing the 2700lb shell should outperform the IJN 16.1 and the British 16/45 (that Russian 16 coulda been a contender but i guess the dispersion was terrible, accuracy poor and of course nothing to put it on after May 1941 anyways) but here we have a highly variable set of performance statistics in just one caliber....one size fits all but not very intricately, accurately or realistically. I can live with it but it would be nice to be even more accurate, well modeled and work more closely to how it would in real circumstances. However i am not being overly critical as I cannot do better! Lol. Its pretty good but could be better. I will take it anyday though warts and all.
Okuns facehard is a great resource but using it for this may be more complication and trouble thannit is worth.
I am not saying the pen couldnt be more accurate, I am saying it may be outside of scope and polishing a turd to try to get it better.
If we also were stuck using the exact same navies, leaders, ships, and planes that were really produced and used, in other words this IS ww2 not an alternate simulated sort of ww2 then I would say all hypothetical stuff out and only exact historical provenance gear and performance characteristics is to be included.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Sept 6, 2019 14:18:00 GMT -6
Yes i disliked the hpen and vpen as listed and changed them upwards for the largest 4 calibers that plus tech advances seem to keep the larger calbers as being more valuable, was that correct or even precise.... No it was not but honestly the point of 18, 19, 20 ( why no 21 or 24 inch?) inch weapons is of course armor is no longer important as a tactical consideration. This is a game and no other naval warfare game i have played has handled penetration all that well/realistically because its complicated (compared to AFV penetration which is childs play to compute by comparison) hell its variables have variables, and then we have the added nuance of fire control (more interesting to me than gun performance) and national shell characterstics would be huge, to me thats where the modification between different makes in the same caliber should be enacted, and obviously an usn 16/50 firing the 2700lb shell should outperform the IJN 16.1 and the British 16/45 (that Russian 16 coulda been a contender but i guess the dispersion was terrible, accuracy poor and of course nothing to put it on after May 1941 anyways) but here we have a highly variable set of performance statistics in just one caliber....one size fits all but not very intricately, accurately or realistically. I can live with it but it would be nice to be even more accurate, well modeled and work more closely to how it would in real circumstances. However i am not being overly critical as I cannot do better! Lol. Its pretty good but could be better. I will take it anyday though warts and all. Okuns facehard is a great resource but using it for this may be more complication and trouble thannit is worth. I am not saying the pen couldnt be more accurate, I am saying it may be outside of scope and polishing a turd to try to get it better. If we also were stuck using the exact same navies, leaders, ships, and planes that were really produced and used, in other words this IS ww2 not an alternate simulated sort of ww2 then I would say all hypothetical stuff out and only exact historical provenance gear and performance characteristics is to be included. which is also exactly why i made nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2626/more-depth-gun-customization-systemthis suggestion the current gun system just does not cover enough |
|
