Memo_collector

Realistic Penetration Values This has been mentioned multiple times before and I think it's important to reiterate because so much of the naval doctrine concerning this period is premised on the capabilities and limitations of naval gunnery of the time period. Therefore, it is imperative to get naval gunnery correctly if the game hopes to have historical authenticity. One aspect of naval gunnery that's clearly different from historical data is in the penetration value of the guns in the game. Let me demonstrate this with the penetration value of Mark 5 406 mm gun in the game: The relevant modifiers to penetration are Tube Powder (+10.5% penetration, -5% muzzle velocity), and Superheavy Shells (+12.5% penetration, -10% muzzle velocity). The penetration values in the game are listed in equivalent thickness in iron. Compare this to performance of 406 mm/50 Mark 7 guns on Iowa, which is the closest analog to the gun in the game: Muzzle Velocity: 762 m/s Shell Weight: 1525 kg (1225 kg Projectile + 300 kg propellant) Penetration Belt/Deck in equivalent thickness, Striking Velocity, Angle of Fall: 1000 m: 1521mm/NA, 746 m/s, 0.5 degrees 2500 m: 1459 mm/NA, 722 m/s, 1.3 degrees 5000 m: 1356 mm/NA, 684 m/s, 2.8 degrees 7500 m: 1258 mm/NA, 647 m/s, 4.5 degrees 10000 m: 1164 mm/NA, 613 m/s, 6.5 degrees 12500 m: 1075 mm/NA, 581 m/s, 8.8 degrees 15000 m: 990 mm/153 mm, 553 m/s, 11.4 degrees 17500 m: 910 mm/167 mm, 528 m/s, 14.3 degrees 20000 m: 835 mm/184 mm, 506 m/s, 17.7 degrees 22500 m: 771 mm/206 mm, 490 m/s, 21.2 degrees 25000 m: 726 mm/231 mm, 477 m/s, 25.1 degrees 27500 m: 690 mm/268 mm, 470 m/s, 29.2 degrees 30000 m: 660 mm/351 mm, 467 m/s, 33.5 degrees Calculations are based on my own formula, which produces results similar to Nathan Okun's Facehard program for face-hardened armour, and approximates USN Empirical Formula for homogeneous armour. I did not list deck penetration values for angle of fall < 10 degrees because the penetration under such a circumstance is usually impossible (shell ricochets). Using above values, historical immunity zone for Iowa class battleship can be reconstructed: Armour quality of USN during WW2 corresponds to about Krupp III (1.9 multiplier) for Class A face-hardened armour and Krupp IV (2.0 multiplier) for Class B/STS homogeneous armour. Given that the belt armour of Iowa class ships were 307 mm Class A and inclined 19 degrees from vertical, and that the deck armour was 121 mm Class B laminated onto 32 mm STS (~equivalent to 143 mm Class B) this provides these ships with zone of immunity from their own guns from 23 km - 28 km.

1. Secondaries, when set to 'aggressive' mode, can fire at targets outside their range. For example, 5 inch secondaries can fire at targets 25+ km away. 2. Ships can detonate from penetrations or over-penetrations to locations outside the citadel. For example, a well protected battleship at 90%+ structural integrity may sink after an over-penetration to bow belt extended area. Is this intended? 3. Some suggestions to make the battle less arcadey: - Armour weight should not vary so much depending on technology. The deduction in armour weight with the latest technology makes it rather trivial to completely cover a battleship in armour. Example: Reproduction of Bismark's armour scheme results in total weight of 12432 tons out of 62600 tons, or about 20% of design weight (Krupp4, Turtleback Armour Scheme, Belt: 12.6", Belt Extended: 2.4", Deck: 6" (weather deck + main armour deck), Deck Extended: 2", Turret: 14.2", Turret Top: 7.1", Conning Tower: 13.8", Secondaries: 3.9") whereas the armour on real Bismarck weighed 19082 tons, or about 40% of the warship's displacement when fully armed. - Armour weight and cost should vary according to the change in size of the citadel. For example, having main armament near the ends of the ship should result in increase in armour weight and cost since the size of the citadel needs to increase correspondingly. - Penetration curves should be close to historical data. Currently, deck penetration values are extremely high (by a factor of 3 compared to historical data), whereas vertical armour penetration values are rather low and drop off extremely fast. - Penalty to accuracy due to target's high speed should not exist for this time period. The concept of "speed tanking" artillery never existed in real life. The purpose of having high speed is to provide strategic / tactical advantages; high speed has nothing to do with dodging shells.