Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
janat08

Cannonball skip emulating sniper shots

Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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 EliteDelta

Share this post


Link to post
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..

Share this post


Link to post
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.. 

Share this post


Link to post
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 - 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The period treatises and a significant part of the C19th testing of gunnery performance were considering ricochet fire as a usable technique.

It would be used against relatively light targets on calm water (such as boarding parties or gunboats approaching a becalmed fleet) and would eliminate the broad requirement to obtain range out to nearly 2000 yds. It did reduce downrange impulse and penetration compared to a hit at first graze, but against a suitably small and fragile target was considered extremely effective.

Penetration of oak by shot was well in excess of that required to hull light constructions to extended ranges (which is not well represented in game) - the penetration limit for shot was according to the French testing of the 1850s in excess of that given by the standard tables, especially at lower velocity (the coefficients usually given provide a significantly lower low velocity penetration than either the materials property within the Poncelot equation or the coefficients calculated from testing by Didion, which are close to but not exactly the same as the material properties (essentially density and tensile strength).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bearwall said:

 

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?

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ricochet fire is low angle fire with solid shot and maximum charge with a first graze close to the shooting vessel and impact with the target well downrange from that point.

The danger space of 32lb shot against a 30ft high screen at 1000 yds is around 270yds with full charge. (1000yds to 1271yds first graze corresponding to bottom and top of screen)
The danger space of 32lb shot fired at a low angle in ricochet fire is 2900 yds or more under reasonably calm conditions according to the practice at HMS Excellent. The shot grazes some 30 or more times before it diverges sufficiently to make accuracy of practice of doubt.

Yes. The shot has a reduced ability to penetrate compared to the impact at first graze, but not by as much as some imagine, and as at 1000yds it will hull a 3rd rate through and through, penetrating the near side of a lighter vessel with ricochet fires should be expected to succeed. Smaller ordnance on upper decks may be less effective, and ordnance mounted near to the water has a greater effect, with longer range and lower velocity loss - with the suggestion to haul in the un-engaged guns to lower the engaged ports to aid the practice made.

Edited by Lieste
corrected target of fire from Excellent testing.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a way to extend useful range against small and relatively fragile targets which are hard to hit with shots at first graze.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...