Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Cannonball skip emulating sniper shots


Recommended Posts

they wouldnt bounce and extend how far you could shoot. If you aim as high as you can so that you extend your range as far as possible, your ball will hit the water at such an angle that it makes it impossible to skip across water because the ball is coming from the sky so it just drops and sinks. Balls can skip the water irl with a perfect angle and velocity but they loose alot of energy on impact. It would be a great visual effect true but I would rather the devs add 2 balls for double :)

Edited by HachiRoku
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

they wouldnt bounce and extend how far you could shoot. If you aim as high as you can so that you extend your range as far as possible, your ball will hit the water at such an angle that it makes it impossible to skip across water because the ball is coming from the sky so it just drops and sinks. Balls can skip the water irl with a perfect angle and velocity but they loose alot of energy on impact. It would be a great visual effect true but I would rather the devs add 2 balls for double :)

 

44 minutes ago, Liq said:

But wouldnt bouncing shots lose much kinetic energy on impact with water so they would never be able to pen. The hull?

No instead of shooting for the skies for very high an arc you shoot across the pond hoping for the ball to skip, or hit the hull under waterline, therefore letting the shot hit at 90 degree angle instead of 45 degrees on vertical axis if you were to shoot in an arc (where in the end you lose "equivalent" amount of energy to either the air friction coming from long travel times with high arc or water friction).

Edited by janat08
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George Washington said:

Bounce off what? Water? Their shape and weight have no connection to your topic. They sink, they don’t bounce. 

It was used to good effect many times, it uses the same principles as skimming stones. Barnes Wallis is said to have got the idea for the bouncing bomb from Nelson bouncing cannonballs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, janat08 said:

 

No instead of shooting for the skies for very high an arc you shoot across the pond hoping for the ball to skip, or hit the hull under waterline, therefore letting the shot hit at 90 degree angle instead of 45 degrees on vertical axis if you were to shoot in an arc (where in the end you lose "equivalent" amount of energy to either the air friction coming from long travel times with high arc or water friction).

Except it is not a pond and we are not sailing around in a lake. The waves would interfere and practically make the effort futile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, seanjo said:

It was used to good effect many times, it uses the same principles as skimming stones. Barnes Wallis is said to have got the idea for the bouncing bomb from Nelson bouncing cannonballs.

 

3 hours ago, janat08 said:

http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1679

Make cannonballs bounce, it supposedly even extended the range. Likely considered to be measure of gunnery excellence.

Could we perhaps have more reputable sources than hearsay and an article in a popular historical fansite that takes its information from the daily mail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EliteDelta said:

I think he's asking for cannon balls to skip across the water (which did happen).

I have never read about anything like this being a credible tactic in navalhistory - could you perhaps link some titles I could perouse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember this method being used in the Patrick O'Brian books, but they were shooting at a very weak barge, with calm waters. I would personally prefer that the devs work on other things before something like this. Its a cool idea though.

EDIT: @Bearwall Haha accidentally responded to you without knowing it. My only source on this is Patrick O'brian. I know the tactics used in his books are quite historically accurate, but I don't know if this was an exaggeration or not. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EliteDelta said:

I seem to remember this method being used in the Patrick O'Brian books, but they were shooting at a very weak barge, with calm waters. I would personally prefer that the devs work on other things before something like this. Its a cool idea though.

You mean the novellist? I thought we were attempting to help create a game that took it's premises from historical precedent? But ofcourse.. We need more magic in the game..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EliteDelta said:

I seem to remember this method being used in the Patrick O'Brian books, but they were shooting at a very weak barge, with calm waters. I would personally prefer that the devs work on other things before something like this. Its a cool idea though.

EDIT: @Bearwall Haha accidentally responded to you without knowing it. My only source on this is Patrick O'brian. I know the tactics used in his books are quite historically accurate, but I don't know if this was an exaggeration or not. 

Well if I were to take the suggestion serious for just 2 mins, I'd have to point out that even in calm seas the waves would act as a barrier and even if we discounted the waves the angle would have to be calculated and corrected in correlation to the movement of the firing platform (i.e. the ship) and I just don't see that happen in a battle situation ever.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

Well if I were to take the suggestion serious for just 2 mins, I'd have to point out that even in calm seas the waves would act as a barrier and even if we discounted the waves the angle would have to be calculated and corrected in correlation to the movement of the firing platform (i.e. the ship) and I just don't see that happen in a battle situation ever.. 

I see you doubt the viability of such a method. I remembered seeing something about this in a documentary about the skipping bomb used to destroy dams. Take a look starting at 14:25 - 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EliteDelta said:

I see you doubt the viability of such a method. I remembered seeing something about this in a documentary about the skipping bomb used to destroy dams. Take a look starting at 14:25 - 

 

I do not doubt the validity of the dambusters - they are well-documented. I doubt the validity that anyone - ever - used "skipping" a cannonball in a battle. It's two very different weaponsystems.

 

25 minutes ago, janat08 said:

I suppose water leaks actually being caused by hitting under waterline come hand in hand.

You could still skip balls of the tip of the waves as theres less resistance but higher angle.

Water leaks occurred when a ship shot at the waterline while the enemy ship rolled in the sea. It has nothing to do with skipping a ball.

 

4 hours ago, Eyesore said:

we made marbles skip across a pond, nothing difficult about, just high speed and spin.

The dambusters work at a lower speed, they rely more on surface-area and rotation (different axis than skipping a stone).

Key words: Marbles, pond

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

I do not doubt the validity of the dambusters - they are well-documented. I doubt the validity that anyone - ever - used "skipping" a cannonball in a battle. It's two very different weaponsystems.

My point was the example they gave about skipping cannonballs. They tested it in the video, and briefly discussed it as a naval tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think ricochet shots are exactly what some people think they are.   In no logical sense would a shot hitting the ground or water extended its range by bouncing.   The kinetic energy loss due to the impact with the ground or water would be pretty substantial. 

While the idea of bouncing a hollow shot off of the water to cause it to break up and scatter shrapnel over a larger area is a valid concept.  Which maybe what the tactic was.  Fire a hollow shot that would hit the water or a wave before the target, shatter, and scatter shrapnel across the deck of the ship, thus increasing the anti-personal and anti-rigging range.   

Seeing as we do not have a hollow shot in game I wouldnt put to much effort into worrying about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

I dont think ricochet shots are exactly what some people think they are.   In no logical sense would a shot hitting the ground or water extended its range by bouncing.   The kinetic energy loss due to the impact with the ground or water would be pretty substantial. 

While the idea of bouncing a hollow shot off of the water to cause it to break up and scatter shrapnel over a larger area is a valid concept.  Which maybe what the tactic was.  Fire a hollow shot that would hit the water or a wave before the target, shatter, and scatter shrapnel across the deck of the ship, thus increasing the anti-personal and anti-rigging range.   

Seeing as we do not have a hollow shot in game I wouldnt put to much effort into worrying about it.

I think it was a way to do water level damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, seanjo said:

I think it was a way to do water level damage.

Perhaps against thin hulled ships yes.  But at the range people are talking it would lose so much energy it would be hard pressed to punch through few inches of wood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, seanjo said:

Page 126-130 discusses ricochet shots in depth.

Gen. Sir Howard Douglas, A Treatise on Naval Gunnery 1855

https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_PK50sbOOfjUC#page/n141/mode/2up

Alright I'll yield - if we get ships from the 1850's.. The problems I see is:

The smoothbore cannons compared to the rifled ones. The use of rifled cannons (as far as I know) didn't become widespread practice in naval warfare untill the late 1850's and I simply do not see its practical use.

In the same treatise (if I recall it correctly) it mentions that it only works with large calibers on level ground and smooth water surfaces..

And one premise that is outlined in the treatise is that the shots are so-called hollowshots - worthless against any warships.

 

I concur that it could have its uses against longboats and similar targets - in very smooth waters, but I don't see it in almost all sailing condition nor against any of the current ships in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lieste said:

These are not armoured ships. The impact of iron shot on timbers is going to result in deep penetrations in almost all circumstances.

The penetration channel may not be deep enough to enter the crewed areas near the waterline, but at the upper gundeck even a large first rate will be shot through at 1200yds by double shot from a 32lb gun and second rates or older first rates hulled at the water line.

Against a brig or gunboat the penetration of 32lb shot is sufficient to hull at more than 3000yds - even where the velocity is reduced to that of carronade. Here firing with full charges in ricochet would be sufficient to threaten severe damage, at any range with a degree of certainty beyond that of random fire.

This is not true for smoothbore cannons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

Perhaps against thin hulled ships yes.  But at the range people are talking it would lose so much energy it would be hard pressed to punch through few inches of wood.

2

From my earlier link....


162. From the tables of ricochet practice made on
board the " Excellent" in 1838, against the " Prince
George" hulk, at the distance of 1200 yards, the following
particulars are extracted:—A shot fired from a 32-pound at an elevation of half a degree, with a
charge of 10 lbs. 11 oz., penetrated, after one graze
from the water, the after port-timber of one of the
ports, to the depth of 28 inches in very good wood,
shattered the head of the rider, started the plank between
the ports, and passed over to the opposite side,
where it penetrated to the depth of 10 inches. Tin's
shot also broke the beam-clamp, a piece of good wood
6 inches thick.
A 68-pounder hollow shot, with a charge of 12 lbs.
and an elevation of half a degree, after five grazes
struck a chock of solid wood 4 feet 8 inches thick luider
the fender, and shattered it in pieces. It stmck also a
large iron bolt, which it flattened. Another, with a
chu*ge of 10 lbs. and an elevation of 1 degree, after
two grazes penetrated the ship's side diagonally (34
inches), in tolerably good wood, below the chocks, and
lodged behind a cluster of iron knees on the orlo])-
deck, which were shaken considerably. The planking
on the outside of the ship was also started. A third,
after two ^azes, struck a chock used for the sheers,
tearing off a piece 6 feet long, 1 foot deep, and 24 feet
broad. It then penetrated 11 inches deep in the ship's
side, in bad wood.
A 68-ponnder shot, with a charge of 8 lbs. and an
elevation of 1 decree, after two bounds, penetrated to
the depth of 24 inches, close to the side of a port just
above the lower port-sill, in bad wood, started the inside
planking, and tore off a piece which splintered. One
of the splinters, a very large one, was thrown beyond
the main-hatchway to the opposite side of the deck.
The shot having crossed the deck, struck a corner of the
main-hatchway conihinofs, and tore out a large piece on
eacli side, destroying the use of the combings. It struck
a winch-handle which was lying on the deck, and drove
one end of it through a port-scuttle. After striking the
combings, the shot grazed a beam and fell on the deck.
Another shot, with a charge of 7 lbs. and an elevation
of 1 degree, after three bounds, penetrated through the ship's side diagonally (29 inches), shattered the oeiUng,
and made several splinters.
A hollow shot from a 68-pounder carronade, with a
charge of 5 lbs. 8 oz. and an elevation of 4 degrees,
after one bound, struck the upper surface of a bulwark,
and went overboard.
Kicocliet practice is now much better understood
than formerly, and is daily becoming more important
in the service. When made with large ordnance it is
susceptible of great accuracy on level ground, or on the
surface of smooth water.

 

The copypasta is a bit messed up cause it's from a PDF, for the original text go to the link and flick through to page 126.

Edited by seanjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...