>>>Alpha-3 General Feedback [HotFix v66]<<<

[Druzki]

Why would it be difficult to have the option change realism modifiers in this game? Since its a sandbox the player should have the utost freedom possible to change it. Such games have a lot of staying power. The best example would Il-2 1946, because of the amount of sandbox content and highly customizable difficulty that it offers to the player. It would be possible in my opinion to allow players to tick realism factors off(weather, secondary gun penalty, etc)

[arkhangelsk]

As you have mentioned, this thing's due for release in summer 2020, which means maybe 30 weeks left. Let's say each of your ideas takes them one week to implement. One week they can use to work on the campaign (which again, we hadn't even seen the prototype!) or improve the basic tactical model's realism. Especially since the latter has just been knocked out of kilter. Tousansons is telling me that no one is really saying this model is OK, and I want to believe him. So what do you think the priorities should be?

P.S. Noted your edit, I shall be taking a break from this thread for awhile as well.

Edited December 23, 2019 by arkhangelsk
Postscript

[Teckelmaster]

I prefer quality. If that means programming takes longer? Fine for me.

[Cptbarney]

17 hours ago, Teckelmaster said:

The fun thing is: we can still have both games in one, by simply being able to influence the difficulty level/realism as in examples like: Silent Hunter III, the only game of that franchise i played for a significant time AND i think reasonably similar to use as an example. You want historic accuracy, make a switch, you want realistic sinking times, make a switch, you want higher tech, make a switch like „tech advantage“. Bam, one game, but two games.

Unfortunately it was absolutely impossible in this forum to bring up strategic „game-selling-ideas“, because a certain group of people did never ever leave an idea floating in the room without aggressively (in my oppinion) spamming historic material to „prove“ that this game CAN UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES be any different from their ideas of being realistic. And i dare saying, that maybe the devs will want to sell rather many copies, than a few. 
And by all that i mean, that actually BOTH approaches, let us call them arcadishfun and realismfun, can be done. In one game.

I currently prepare myself and buckle up, as i expect this to become an ideologic discussion again.

Teckelmaster out

 

Hopefully they will just allow player a ton of freedom and make it sandbox like (similar to garrys mod or eve or other sandbox games in terms of freedom). This allows peeps to essentially 'build' their own game while offering a huge amount fo replayability, and the latter is incredibly important in a singleplayer experience unless you intend to tell a story for a few hrs or a bit longer and no more.

Hopefully DLC can help add more interesting stuff which if we have an inbuilt mod list we can turn these dlc's off or turn on certain features from each of these DLC's as well. Again this depends whether the dev team will do this, can do this. If they can however they should when possible.

Think we should try and get the devs to do the above since this is a closed alpha test and its kinda what we here for anyways. Plus the premises is on building your own ships not only fighting historical battles (more of a secondary objective), basically a 3d RTW's but hopefully with the above, plus elements taken from HOI and any other grand strategy games (not all just some of a few) to enhance the game further.

its why i play garrys mod and other sandboxes or moddable games when i have the chance to so much, because you can do mostly or completely what you want within the confines of that game engines actual limitations.

[Hangar18]

11 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

I think this hotfix is good, but in my opinion, there is one thing that i don't like at all. Battleships are like paperships. Why? Because when I got a hit on the main belt, 3 compartments are fully flooded. I think this is just too much. Again, this is only my opinion!

Thats kinda strange? can you post a picture of a design you had this issue with?

[RedParadize]

17 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

On 12/21/2019 at 6:02 PM, RedParadize said:

Humm. isn't 42" penetration a bit high for a 14" mk 4 at 10km?

uh by a small amount... but iirc, the in game values are for iron.

its about 3x the expected value.

To give you an idea, thats about double what the mk6 16" guns found on the Iowa will penetrate. A modern HEAT warhead would struggle to go through that...

The best armor bonus you can only get to +118%, so a bit more than double of iron value. Bismarck had 12.6" belt and 4.3" on deck. That's 27.4" and 9.3" with best ingame modifier. Yet it proved quite capable of stopping, most of it at least 14" and 16".

Problem could be the +118%max modifier. But even there, Rodney and King George V fired from pretty close at the end of the battle. I think that penetration might have been a bit optimistic in real life.

Edit: About HEAT round, typically they can penetrate 200% (some can do much better) of their diameter of non spaced modern homogeneous steel. That's at any range of course. A 16" HEAT would be pretty nasty...

Edited December 23, 2019 by RedParadize

[RAMJB]

According to navweaps.com:
British MK VII 14''/45 pen@10k yds: 15.6in (using 118% conversion from Krupp 4, equivalent pen: 34 in)

US Mark 4 14''/50 pen@10k yds: 20.12 in (equivalent: 43.8 in)

42in of equivalent penetration in game for 14'' guns seems a tad weighed towards the best-case-scenario, but is well within the parameters of the US Mk4.




Bismarck's lateral protection wasn't 12.6'' belt. At least not into the critical areas of the citadel.

Bismarck's lateral protection was a 12.6'' belt, plus an 1.77'' internal vertical bulkhead, plus an internal angled deck 110mm thick (alongside machinery) or 120mm (alongside magazines) placed at a 22º angle from the horizontal.

The degree of protection is misleading. 110mm of armor at that angle not only offers a massive increase of effective armor, it dramatically increases the chances of a straight up ricochet, especially given the fact that whatever projectile that hits it **WILL** be decapped.
 

In the case of an effective penetration (and not a highly likely ricochet), quite literally the shorter the range the more penetration the combination offers. At point blank (0 degrees of shell falling angle the calculation would be as follow, for a hit alongside the machinery areas (110mm angled deck) .
 
12.6in+1.77in+ (angled deck effective armor).

110mm at 22º from the horizontal equals an armor multiplier of 2.67. Bluntly said, that 110mm plate if hit by an horizontal shell it would translate into 293mm of effective armor, or 11,53in of armor.

Final calculation would thus be, for a shot at point blank (horizontall shell travel, no falling angle), 12.6+1.77in+11.53in= 25.9in of effective armor. Remember - this is on the machinery areas; on the magazine areas it was even higher.


Bismarck's scheme lost efficiency as ranges increased and shells came with a vertical downwards angle. At 10.000 yards the incoming shell angle is highly depending on the weapon firing it. The US Mk4 14/50 had a drop of 5.6º at 10k yards. The US 16/45 Mk 8, 6.8º, but this last one is skewed because of the use of a superheavy shell and very low MV, unique for the americans. In general we can say that from 10k we can expect a representative fall of shot of 5.5º or so. There will be variance from gun to gun, but it's agood number to do a calculation:

Assuming a 5.5º drop angle at 10.000yds Bismarck's protection is as follows from that range: In order: Side belt, internal bulkhead, internal angled deck:

12.66in+1.78in+9.38in = 23.82in effective armor protection.

That's again ignoring the fact that in order to go into the vitals, the shell has to actually "bite" into a 110mm angled armor plate inclined at a relative 27.5º, while being decapped. That means ricochets, and lots of them.


TL:DR: Rodney and KGV only had enough penetration to deal with Bismarck's layout at short ranges, literally, as the shell left their muzzles.

Other than that, neither of them could practically do it in battle unless other circunstances were at play (extreme listing, or some kind of shot-trap effects)- nor could do almost anything used at the time. Bismarck's layout had many flaws and was obsolete, but still had by far the most tough vertical citadel protection of any commissioned warship, ever, at anything under 15km or so. Including Yamato.


And yes i know there's no real way to adjust turtledecks in game. We'll have to wait for an eventual rework of the armoring model for that, if it ever happens. I'm talking about the real life ship.



And no, HEAT 16'' shells wouldn't really do much to other battleships. HEAT rounds go off on the first surface they touch, and they lose energy very quickly afterwards. There's a reason why germans used Schürzen on many of their tanks and assault guns - even those thin plates were more than enough to protect their tanks' tinclad sides against HEAT impacts from any kind of shaped charge. The external "skirt" would set the warhead off, and it's penetration capability would be dispersed and lost in the rather small gap between the thin external standoff plate and the actual hull. All there'd be to shown for it would be a scorch mark on the tank's hull at best - but no penetration.

A 16'' HEAT impact on a battleship's main belt (or weather deck) would set it off and cause a clean hole into whatever it hit - but it would expend all the energy in the void of the compartment behind, before reaching into the ship's vital internal compartments, defeating the whole purpose of shooting a 16'' shell at a battleship to begin with.

It'd be quite nasty against thin ships such as DDs and some CLs though. But HE was more than enough to smash them without needing any kind of shaped charge.


/Edit: let's anticipate what's next before it happens. Yes, I'm posting - there has been some PM activity behind the scenes in the last days which has cleaned up the air quite a bit after the unfortunate event that happened in this thread some pages back.

So, as now it's cleared why I'm still here, I'd be thankful if nobody mentions it at all, for there's no reason to go on off-topics about it .

Edited December 24, 2019 by RAMJB

[RedParadize]

@RAMJB Welcome back


Good analysis. One small thing:

1 hour ago, RAMJB said:

Bismarck's lateral protection wasn't 12.6'' belt. At least not into the critical areas of the citadel.

I said Belt (and deck), not lateral protection. Atm, citadel do not work as a separated armored layer, so I did not include them. To achieve similar armor level without citadel, we currently need to add citadel armor to the belt and deck. This is borderline possible with the larger hull (and clearly not what AI does). I did test up to 26" belt and deck. Penetration were still surprisingly frequent, even from smaller caliber. Might be due to how weak spot mechanics works. From my test 1/12 shots seem to ignore armor completely.

To go back to the Bismarck case and RL penetration potentially being overestimated:
What bug me is that during wreckage exploration, it is said that "The expedition found no penetrations in the main armoured belt, above or below the waterline. The examiners noted several long gashes in the hull, but attributed these to impact on the sea floor." I honestly do not know what to make out of that. Given the number of 14" and 16" that is said to have hit the Bismarck, I would have expected Belt to be "Swiss cheese". I am watching "Expedition: Bismarck" I still waiting to see good camera angle on sides trough.

As for the Heat shell. Yeah, spaced armour is the way to defeat it. This is why I provided value against non spaced homogeneous armor. I still think it would have been valuable, on turret and auxiliary system and room. Not asking to have them ingame trough...

Edited December 24, 2019 by RedParadize

[Hangar18]

4 hours ago, RedParadize said:

The best armor bonus you can only get to +118%, so a bit more than double of iron value. Bismarck had 12.6" belt and 4.3" on deck. That's 27.4" and 9.3" with best ingame modifier. Yet it proved quite capable of stopping, most of it at least 14" and 16".

Problem could be the +118%max modifier. But even there, Rodney and King George V fired from pretty close at the end of the battle. I think that penetration might have been a bit optimistic in real life.

Edit: About HEAT round, typically they can penetrate 200% (some can do much better) of their diameter of non spaced modern homogeneous steel. That's at any range of course. A 16" HEAT would be pretty nasty...

oh it is...i mean thats over 1k mm of steel otherwise. I was thinking ATGM rather than shell warhead. 

[RedParadize]

16 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

oh it is...i mean thats over 1k mm of steel otherwise. I was thinking ATGM rather than shell warhead. 

Yeah, penetrative power scale with diameter. But if you split armor in two and place a gap in the middle the its defeated. I think that if warship to warship would have still be a thing then by the end of WW2 then it might have become a thing in naval warfare. Having said that, probably not in 16", but smaller caliber would have become capable of going trough main belt, deck and Turret, doing substantial damage.

Edit: Nevermind, at range a 16" HEAT would have been useful as HEAT penetration do not decline with range.

Edited December 24, 2019 by RedParadize

[Hangar18]

1 minute ago, RedParadize said:

Yeah, penetrative power scale with diameter. But if you split armor in two and place a gap in the middle the its defeated. I think that if warship to warship would have still be a thing then by the end of WW2 then it might have become a thing in naval warfare. Having said that, probably not in 16", but smaller caliber would have become capable of going trough main belt, deck and Turret, doing substantial damage.

with the way compartments work, and where engineers shove engines, a real HEAT round wouldnt do that much. You'd have to extremely lucky to land a hit on a turret or barbette.

[RAMJB]

51 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@RAMJB Welcome back


Good analysis. One small thing:

I said Belt (and deck), not lateral protection. Atm, citadel do not work as a separated armored layer, so I did not include them. To achieve similar armor level without citadel, we currently need to add citadel armor to the belt and deck. This is borderline possible with the larger hull (and clearly not what AI does). I did test up to 26" belt and deck. Penetration were still surprisingly frequent, even from smaller caliber. Might be due to how weak spot mechanics works. From my test 1/12 shots seem to ignore armor completely.

To go back to the Bismarck case and RL penetration potentially being overestimated:
What bug me is that during wreckage exploration, it is said that "The expedition found no penetrations in the main armoured belt, above or below the waterline. The examiners noted several long gashes in the hull, but attributed these to impact on the sea floor." I honestly do not know what to make out of that. Given the number of 14" and 16" that is said to have hit the Bismarck, I would have expected Belt to be "Swiss cheese". I am watching "Expedition: Bismarck" I still waiting to see good camera angle on sides trough.

As for the Heat shell. Yeah, spaced armour is the way to defeat it. This is why I provided value against non spaced homogeneous armor. I still think it would have been valuable, on turret and auxiliary system and room. Not asking to have them ingame trough...

 

The reports from the Cameron expedition to Bismarck must be taken with a grain of salt. Allow me to explain.

Bismarck was a notably overweight design - the initial intentions were to stay within the London Treaty limits (of which Germany was a de facto signatary after entering into the 1935 anglo-german naval agreements) and keep the design at 35.000 tons. Those initial good intentions didn't last.

I'll make a long story short by saying that the design was overweight. The class ended up displacing 50.000tons+ (more in the case of tirpitz) when fully combat loaded. At those full combat loads the main armored belt was much lower on the water than the design intended initially, due to the ship actually weighing more than what it had been calculated when the armor layout was designed.

And Bismarck sailed for Rheinübung at full tonnage.

Now let me sum up some pre-final battle damage:

1- 14'' penetrating hit on the bows from PoW. Contaminated the fuel supply and caused quite serious flooding on the bows (a serious problem given that Bismarck, same as the Twins before her, was quite nose-heavy). Estimates for the flooding go from 1000tons to 2000 tons. At any rate, it wasn't little.

2- 14'' penetrating underwater hit from PoW in Section XIV - projectile went as far as the 45mm internal bulkhead exploding there, putting an electric room out of action and causing some leakage into the boiler room beyond the bulkhead. The electric room was a total loss and got fully flooded, the leakage into the boiler room was serious enough. I've seen quite a good different estimations of the flooding that this hit caused so I don't know which was correct - but what is known by the survivors is that after the battle the ship was 3º down at the bows and had reached lists of 9º to port. Counterflooding was needed to balance her out, which means even more water on board.

3-Victorious' swordfish torpedo hit: Abreast the mid-section of the ship, it was contained by the TDS - but that by necessity meant that the void layer of the TDS got flooded, and that to prevent listing counterflooding was needed.

4- Ark Royal's swordfish torpedo hits. One again in the midsection, contained by the TDS. The other one the infamous torpedo on the stern. the first again meant the TDS voids were flooded, the second almost tore the stern of the ship apart.


What I'm adding up here is that Bismarck had already sailed on a full load condition (and had quite a bit of belt that was intended to be avobe the waterline, under the water just by that fact). At the time she was engaged by the british task force that sank her estimations of how much water she embarked at that point are wild, but the fact is that by that point, between damage-caused flooding and damage-control counterflooding, it was many, many thousands of tons of water. By that point only the uppermost part of Bismarck's belt must've been avobe water, if at all.

Even more, most of the final engagement happened at point blank range. KGV at some point ranged Bismarck at under 2500m. At those ranges trajectories are just flat, and underwater hits almost impossible as with those straight trajectories and high shell velocities whatever impacts on the water would've been deflected upwards and ricochetted off the water. With most (if not all) of the main belt under water by that point, it was phisically impossible for the shells to impact it. 

And if you don't hit something you can't penetrate it. It's no wonder that Bismarck's main side armor wasn't penetrated even at the outter layer of the main armored belt. But it's clear that it wasn't due to the armor being thicker or thinner....but rather because that armor belt must've been almost fully submerged and unreachable for the shells by the time the worst of the firestorm was unleashed.

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by RAMJB

[RedParadize]

@Hangar18 Sorry I just edited that. Doesn't change anything for your comment I think. They would not have been able to damage main system yes. That still would leave allot secondary system and crew exposed, the turrets too. Everyone would probably have changed their armor layout to counter this.

@RAMJB I see. Still, given the number of reported hits, I would expect some of them on the belt. Anyways, thanks, I would leave that part aside.

We are still left with having to add citadel to the external armor. I did some test with token guns and max possible armor, but overrided image by accident. I will do new one and post result.
 

[RedParadize]

Ok, here is the test I was talking about. The Idea is simple, if I take a Battleship and armor it to its maximum and keep it within range were its armor is effective, what will penetrate is trough armor weakness. So I be measuring more or less just that.


I took the year 1929 so that enemy are less likely to have guns that can penetrate my armor. And 3 enemy battleship so that they don't flee to the sight of my unarmed 120kt Battleship. I  set the distance to 8km. Here is the ship:


Here is what I recorded. It Was painful as low priority disappear after few sec. However not within what I posted.

(Note to the Dev: The minute counter have 90sec instead of 60sec. So 2 minute is in fact 3.)

Roughly, 1/12 of the shot penetrated, regardless of the caliber, most of them on deck.

[Marshall99]

17 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Thats kinda strange? can you post a picture of a design you had this issue with?

Yes of course. Here is a picture from my russian pre-dreadnought (1887). This ship has 330 mm belt, 220 mm extended belt, reinforced bulkheads, anti-flooding system. It has only few bulkheads! But this information does not matter at all. Because I made some experiments with the amount of bulkheads, and i have to say, i was a bit dissapointed. I only got penetrated by a 229mm AP shell and 3 compartments flooded. Fully (In the picture the flooding is in progress). I think this is not so realistic. I mean, if a 305 mm shell penetrates the hull, i can imagine that it can cause major problems, flooding 1-2 compartments, but 3? It is like a torpedo. Not to mention the 229mm flooding 3 compartments, disaster.

And yea i know, there is the print screen, but it does not show these information. (1080p full HD meme intensifies)

[arkhangelsk]

23 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

Yes of course. Here is a picture from my russian pre-dreadnought (1887). This ship has 330 mm belt, 220 mm extended belt, reinforced bulkheads, anti-flooding system. It has only few bulkheads! But this information does not matter at all. Because I made some experiments with the amount of bulkheads, and i have to say, i was a bit dissapointed. I only got penetrated by a 229mm AP shell and 3 compartments flooded. Fully (In the picture the flooding is in progress). I think this is not so realistic. I mean, if a 305 mm shell penetrates the hull, i can imagine that it can cause major problems, flooding 1-2 compartments, but 3? It is like a torpedo. Not to mention the 229mm flooding 3 compartments, disaster.

Well, it is not a secret this hotpatch made ships overly squishy, but your indicator implies that 3 shells (three lines reporting the shells) hit, not one. BTW, personally I get my screenshots using Irfanview's screen capture function. All these boxes and even the overlaying black info boxes (if they are up) all show up nicely.

[Marshall99]

6 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

Well, it is not a secret this hotpatch made ships overly squishy, but your indicator implies that 3 shells (three lines reporting the shells) hit, not one. BTW, personally I get my screenshots using Irfanview's screen capture function. All these boxes and even the overlaying black info boxes (if they are up) all show up nicely.

Well yes but actually no. Because there were two different salvos within one minute. The first one was only damage. But the second one (only one shell) caused the flooding

[arkhangelsk]

14 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

Well yes but actually no. Because there were two different salvos within one minute. The first one was only damage. But the second one (only one shell) caused the flooding

The ship log I believe counts seconds, not minutes, so hits from two different salvoes should have different time marks..

[Marshall99]

9 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

The ship log I believe counts seconds, not minutes, so hits from two different salvoes should have different time marks..

But this does not changes the fact! Because these floodings happen with one hits too. Maybe this picture not the best, but I saw these things, I experienced these floodings. And these happens a lot with single hits. But if You don't beleive me, please test these out. 

[Hangar18]

1 hour ago, Marshall99 said:

Yes of course. Here is a picture from my russian pre-dreadnought (1887). This ship has 330 mm belt, 220 mm extended belt, reinforced bulkheads, anti-flooding system. It has only few bulkheads! But this information does not matter at all. Because I made some experiments with the amount of bulkheads, and i have to say, i was a bit dissapointed. I only got penetrated by a 229mm AP shell and 3 compartments flooded. Fully (In the picture the flooding is in progress). I think this is not so realistic. I mean, if a 305 mm shell penetrates the hull, i can imagine that it can cause major problems, flooding 1-2 compartments, but 3? It is like a torpedo. Not to mention the 229mm flooding 3 compartments, disaster.

And yea i know, there is the print screen, but it does not show these information. (1080p full HD meme intensifies)

The amount of bulkheads is your issue. dont think about it in terms of rooms flooded. because with more bulkheads, theres more rooms that are smaller. Max bulkheads can be super OP. The UI shows the same amount of rooms, but the amount of flooding, is greatly reduced. I would also recommend a double bottom, and a TDS 1 at minimum when designing larger ships. 

you'll squeeze a bit more accuracy out of the guns applying these too.

[Marshall99]

26 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

The amount of bulkheads is your issue. dont think about it in terms of rooms flooded. because with more bulkheads, theres more rooms that are smaller. Max bulkheads can be super OP. The UI shows the same amount of rooms, but the amount of flooding, is greatly reduced. I would also recommend a double bottom, and a TDS 1 at minimum when designing larger ships. 

you'll squeeze a bit more accuracy out of the guns applying these too.

I did the same with standard, many and maxed bulkheads. I did mention that up. I know how bulkheads work. And that s why I am still disappointed about flooding. And I think this is not only my problem. Because other players also commented about battleships sinking easily.

 

[RedParadize]

@Marshall99

I think @Hangar18is right. Bulkhead are as if not more important as armor. My design rarely goes under "standard", my go to settings is"many".

I am not certain of how exactly it works, but with max bulkhead every ship section can be sealed. Some water may get in adjacent compartment but can  get pumped. The pumping rate depends on some of the options you choose, like auxiliary power and flooding protection.

Edited December 24, 2019 by RedParadize

[Marshall99]

11 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@Marshall99

I think @Hangar18is right. Bulkhead are as if not more important as armor. My design rarely goes under "standard", my go to settings is"many".

I am not certain of how exactly it works, but with max bulkhead every ship section can be sealed. Some water may get in adjacent compartment but can  get pumped. The pumping rate depends on some of the options you choose, like auxiliary power and flooding protection.

I understand your points. Bulkheads are importent, but you have to find the balance building battleships. Battleships are durable, so they need armor. They also need many bulkheads, they need big guns, need secondary guns against destroyers, torpedoboats, etc...  When you build a modern battleship, this is not difficult to plan. But when you design a pre dreadnought battleship, it can be difficult. Don't forget. Pre dreadnoughts need the reliable side armor, because they fight closer distances. More armor=more ton; more bulkheads=more ton; bigger guns=more accurate (debatable) , more ton; etc... Also we have to think about what kinde of armor type is the best for building. In the 1890's there aren't many. Harvey is a good choice though. Reinforced bulkheads are importent. Speed. I always plan them around 17 knots. This is an optimal speed. 

What I want to say is that, building a good pre dreadnought is all about compromises. The weight is the biggest problem. And that is why i use most of the time few bulkheads. When you have the reliable, thick armor, it is enough. At least I thought it was enough. But 350 mm is still paper against 229 mm AP. 

[RedParadize]

@Marshall99Armor is a bit wonky since last patch. You get much more critical damage than before. The problem you are having is accentuated by this. (I am still unsure if its a good thing or not. There is good sides to this as well)

Having said that, pre dreadnought were notoriously bad at damage control.

[captinjoehenry]

16 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Ok, here is the test I was talking about. The Idea is simple, if I take a Battleship and armor it to its maximum and keep it within range were its armor is effective, what will penetrate is trough armor weakness. So I be measuring more or less just that.


I took the year 1929 so that enemy are less likely to have guns that can penetrate my armor. And 3 enemy battleship so that they don't flee to the sight of my unarmed 120kt Battleship. I  set the distance to 8km. Here is the ship:


Here is what I recorded. It Was painful as low priority disappear after few sec. However not within what I posted.

(Note to the Dev: The minute counter have 90sec instead of 60sec. So 2 minute is in fact 3.)

Roughly, 1/12 of the shot penetrated, regardless of the caliber, most of them on deck.

I think those pens are probably on the unarmored super structure?  Or other unarmored parts of the ship?