Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Sir. Cunningham

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sir. Cunningham last won the day on March 7 2015

Sir. Cunningham had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

528 Excellent

1 Follower

About Sir. Cunningham

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

919 profile views
  1. Will do, but probably won't be until after Christmas - busy times
  2. No need, you've already done that in spades. Infact for one who claims he works with woods and metals regularly you have demonstrated an amazing lack knowledge about both...
  3. Sorry but the only one who has posted trash so far is you.... As for wether I've played the game, you can ask all the old timers in here about that one.
  4. Doesn't seem like you do.... Also as already mentioned there's a very big difference in lethality between wooden splintering and steel armour spalling, as the differences in energy release alone are orders of magnitude larger during the spalling of armour. Small wooden splinters are most often not very dangerous, where'as even the small metal fragments from armour spalling can be lethal. There's certainly no comparing the damage inflicted inside an armoured vehicle penetrated by a high velocity APFSDS round with that of a wooden hulled 18th century ship penetrated by round shot.
  5. Yes? Couldn't be more different. One is made out of fibres, the other of crystalline lattices...
  6. Oh and btw, this is what steel grains look like:
  7. No, when an APFSDS projectile fired from an M256 hits armour at over 1500 m/s (4900+ ft/s) something called plastic derformation happens and the heat generated is massive, hence the armour acts more like a liquid than a solid. Upon penetration the occupants of the armoured vehicle hit will, on top of experiencing a drastic change in pressure & temperature, get showered by a cloud of molten metal fragments - i.e. survivability = low. If the same round hit wood the results couldn't be more different as the small diameter flechette would simply wizz straight through leaving only a neat little hole, hurting no'one unless they were directly in its path. Another great difference is that steel armour generally doesn't loose much strength following an impact that fails to penetrate, because of its ductility metals can break their intermolecular bonds and straight away re-form new bonds with other nearby molecules with little or no loss of strength as they deform under an applied force. By comparison wood weakens following every successive impact as the fibres get broken up. So for the third time, no, you cannot compare wood with metals, let alone steel or composite armour, when they are struck by high velocity projectiles. They act completely different.
  8. Wood is fibrous, metal is not, so no they don't act the same, especially when subjected to high velocity impacts - and the difference is incredibly large when talking steel. Furthermore metal spalling, esp. that of steel, is of a whole different category in terms of energy release than wood splintering, and that for rather obvious reasons. (They way it splinters is also different) When subjected to a brinnell hardness test the hardest wood types score around 7.0, by comparison WW2 steel armor is almost 100 times harder whilst being both more ductile & malleable at the same time.
  9. Wood and metal are two completely different compounds that act EXTREMELY different when subjected to any form of stress.
  10. A new poll needs to be made for this thread to really have a place, a lot has changed since august.
  11. Did the Bucentaure or Redoubtable strike their colours after the first rake? The second? Third? Fourth? or Fifth? No... infact by far the worst damage was from direct broadsides. Fact is rakes weren't the devastating end all be all attack some people in here imagine. The reason it was attempted if possible is because it allowed you to batter the enemy without him being able to respond - and if you could latch on and stay on the stern then the enemy was obviously in big trouble. If anything can zap morale then it is seeing your own being massacred without any ability to effectively respond. Hence by far the most common event were broadside to broadside exchanges, with the intent of either demasting the opponent so that you could outmaneuver him or to concentrate fire on the hull sides at gun deck level so as to kill as many of the enemy crew as possible - the latter being a British favorite, hence the often disproportionate losses they inflicted on their opponents.
  12. This demonstrates perfectly the problem we have atm....
  13. Where did he admit anything? As far as I can see he has simply tried to shift the goalposts once he was called out on his smug "learn math" comment. Also 200+ casualties to a single rake with ball isn't within the margin of possibility, it's ridiculous fantasy, something that didn't even occur between 1st rates.
  14. So I gather you still don't see your error? We can try once more: Did you see any cannons go flying in those videos? The math is simple enough if you know what you're doing... Btw, for reference, the Vasa's light weight 24 pdr bronze guns were a whole ton lighter than the cast iron 24 pdr guns on the HMS Victory.
  15. You're kidding me right? Do I really need to explain to you why you're wrong? I mean you don't honestly believe that 18th century naval battles took place in the vacuum of space, do you? Let me start with a famous qoute you mentioned yourself earlier: "every action has an opposite and equal reaction", With that phrase firmly planted in your mind now start to consider the friction needed to be overcome to push a 2.5 ton gun sitting on its carriage sideways (i.e. the carriage might as well not have any wheels), afterall the guns weren't floating in mid air.
  • Create New...