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

Cannon & Carronades - Discussions

Recommended Posts

You know, with all the questions about cannonades and long and standard guns I propose the following:

 

We take a collection to give to the developers to do a scientific fact finding mission involving them finding working replicas (or as close as possible that may be found) to the weapons themselves and then they spend a week shooting cannons into wood for fun...I mean science!

 

Would be for the best no?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @akd hit the nail on its head. Rather than making the ricochet dependent on the gun, it should be dependent on the shot weight, velocity and angle.

 

Classes

  • All weaponry will have a penetration class (from 10 to 1) different muzzle velocity
  • All planking will have a penetration class (from 10 to 1) (live oak, normal oak, pine, etc)
  • Planking will also have width (determining ability to withstand fire)
  • All cannon types should have a reliability class (from 10 to 1). (for example: French carronade = 4,Swedish long gun = 9)
  • All cannons shout have a quality number, bad quality guns have a higher chance of failure (explosion), a quality number is independent from reliability class.

Ricochets

  • If cannon class has a higher class than planking the shot will penetrate. If the cannonball velocity is high enough, the shot will penetrate, if the angle is acute enough.
  • Depending on the cannon type cannonball velocity and angle of shot the cannonball can ricochet off the hull.
  • Longer barrels will give higher velocity and can penetrate at lower angles. and higher velocity increases chance of penetration.

Damage

  • Cannonball loses energy velocity over distance - thus damage will go down at longer distance
  • Longer barrels will give higher energy cannonball velocity thus damage fall off will be lower, but their damage will be lower overall so their damage will be higher
  • A heavier cannonball will loose velocity slower and do more damage.
  • A faster cannonball velocity does not automatically do more damage.

 


Basically: I think the ricochet should be calculated using:

 

ricochet chance = mass of the cannon ball + velocity of the cannon + angle of impact + thickness of planking under angle of impact.

 

With penetration being calculated using:

 

If (not ricochet) {

    penetration = mass of the cannon ball + velocity of the cannon + thickness of planking under angle of impact

}

 

It should be quite possible to do this using Newtonian physics (I'll see if I can come up with the relevant formulas).

 

Update:

@Wind's linked pdf contains a model developped by Wijk*

2yytmkn.jpg

~Brigand

*) Wijk, Gunnar; Aricochet model, FOA-R-98-00892-310-SE, Försvarets Forskningsanstalt, Tumba, Sweden

(1998)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really interested in the Bofors test facility results that are due to be published later this year, regarding the 24lb bronze gun and the 18" hull section built after the design of the 1628 Vasa.

The existing footage of the "pistol shot" through penetration of the side is quite impressive, both for the quantity of smoke produced, and for the post-penetration spall cloud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna lie, I rather hope we avoid hard limits to weaponry all together.  Sure I can stick a 32 lb long gun in my lynx.  But the moment I sail out of harbor and hit a wave my ship will topple over and be lost.

 

I really hope stability is the determining factor of armament rather than some hard set list.  Over gunning my ship should make her much less handy in any sort of sea.

There is not only stability but also the resistance of the bridge if it can hold a gun heavier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, my support, too, lies with the proposal(s) made by Akd, Brigand, and Wind. Their ideas for improving those suggested by the OP make the whole system seem more thorough and "down to earth", in my opinion.

Edited by Arvenski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to handle increased damage from lower velocity penetrations is to add a local (i.e. at the point of penetration) crew and hull damage bonus to penetrations with "just enough" velocity to make it through a given hull thickness at a given angle (without ricocheting, off course).  So you could have base damage and penetration for the shot size and type that decreases as velocity falls off, but with a per shot bonus added to damage if the criteria above is met.  As noted above, this might be balanced out by different conditions, e.g. raking shots at the same range would not earn the bonus since they would pass through the stern galleries with little velocity loss, but would have greater potential to do internal damage as they pass down the length of the hull.

Long guns of the same shot weight (e.g. 18lb) then would have the same damage potential as standard guns, just at different ranges.  They would still have a situational disadvantage since once range closes they may reach a point where they are overpenetrating while a standard gun is still doing max damage due to the low velocity penetration damage bonus.  Same would be true for standard guns vs. carronades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with using cost as a balance factor is, of course, that hardcore players will just ignore it, making powerfull players (having more resources, controlling more territories) e.t.c. will become even more powerfull, while the rest will have even less chances. They are making a naval game, not an Austinesque inheritence, connections and bribes simulator. So the balance needs to be there before recources come in.

 

Hate to say it but isn't this the entire point of a game, to get more powerful and stronger?

 

I don't really want to get into the hardcore vs casual debate but I am really kind of sick of balance based on the lowest common denominator and/or the "No one left behind" mentality a lot of games seem to be going with lately.  I mean, to use an analogy, what is the point of going to school, studying all day and all night and getting 100% on my my homework if someone who skips school, parties all the time and fails all their classes gets awarded a "A" for doing nothing.

 

Point is, powerfully players who have more resources, control my territories, etc should be....well.....more powerful.   Work hard, get rewarded hard.  Invest time and effort and reap the benefits. Otherwise then there is no point to even playing the game. 

 

Also, at the end of the day, sailing and gunnery skill is going to have a greater impact on the game than minor bonuses to shot types or even gun weights.  I have had a ton of matches where I have took my Trincomalee out in PvP and clubed Constitutions around like baby seals and I don't think anyone would argue that the Constitution isn't head and shoulders more powerful than a Trincomalee.  

 

 

Cost is not the only way to balance guns.

Weight/bulk and reloading time are also criteria to balance guns.

With all theses criterias, the long gun is not the uber gun everyone want to have.

 

Fully agree.  Long guns already are 10-20% slower in reloading than standard gun which in and of itself is a significant disadvantage.  Also nothing wrong with them factoring in weight to the sailing characteristics of a ship either.  Honestly I like the idea, everything should have a trade off, just like real life.  However, cost should remain a factor as well because there needs to be reasons to want to earn money and honestly, outfitting your ship should be one of those reasons.

 

Also people are really getting hung up on the wrong things here.  Just like in real life and how it is in game now, each captain is going to have their own preference on what guns they prefer.  Some are going to like longs for the range, flat trajectory and penetration, others are going to prefer standards for the faster reload, some are going to like the short range punch of Carronades or some combination of the three.  Cost isn't likely to be much of an issue because in the grand scope of building an entire ship, I highly doubt the difference in cost between standard and long 18lb guns for example will be significant enough that people won't choose the guns they prefer. (IE.  Frigate with 18lb Standard Guns cost 100,000 dubloons, Frigate with 18lb Long Guns costs 107,000 Dubloons - sure it costs more but if you want longs, you will just save the extra 7,000 dubloons).

Edited by Austrum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized there are two types of ricochet in naval warfare in the age of sail:
 
 2i8vk9f.jpg
 
Which one is meant in the OP? I'm assuming this thread is intended to discuss Type A. Type B is not planned right now, or is it?
 
~Brigand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest issue with cannons in Naval Action is the superior penetration ability of double shot in comparison to normal ball shot.  At the extreme end of double shot range, the balls should not be moving fast reducing penetration ability. Also, the trajectory going at a steep angle would cause the hull armor to be angled in a vertical direction, making it thicker and more likely to bounce off.  

 

With Armor, I wish for it to be more based off of physics, or a physically based system. 

 

In the Longs vs Standards. Standards are going to be better for the case of your money, and in small ship combat, are just as good as longs (Try sniping at a Lynx in a Lynx, it's practically impossible, causing longs to be equal to standards).  Longs are more expensive in purchase and in upkeep (due to larger quantities of powder used), and are heavier and slower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when there is a large overmatch between penetration and armor classes?

 

Ie, a Class 1 rounshot strikes a Class 10 bulwark?

 

Will there be a difference between overmatches shots and balls that barely penetrate? (Ie, Class 6 rounshot strikes Class 7 bulwark)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest issue with cannons in Naval Action is the superior penetration ability of double shot in comparison to normal ball shot.  At the extreme end of double shot range, the balls should not be moving fast reducing penetration ability. Also, the trajectory going at a steep angle would cause the hull armor to be angled in a vertical direction, making it thicker and more likely to bounce off.  

 

With Armor, I wish for it to be more based off of physics, or a physically based system. 

 

In the Longs vs Standards. Standards are going to be better for the case of your money, and in small ship combat, are just as good as longs (Try sniping at a Lynx in a Lynx, it's practically impossible, causing longs to be equal to standards).  Longs are more expensive in purchase and in upkeep (due to larger quantities of powder used), and are heavier and slower.

 

Actually I have to agree here.  Double shot really is overpowered and over used in my opinion.   Guns can only take so much of a powder charge and even if your are overcharging the guns to fire two 18lb balls your not using double the powder, probably more like 20% more powder.  That being the case, 120% of a powder charge isn't going to propel two 18lb balls at anywhere near the same velocity as 100% charge propelling one 18lb ball so double shot penetration should be tremendously reduced in comparison especially at the longer ranges.

 

As to longs vs standards, one of the biggest advantages in my opinion is the flatter trajectory they have which makes it easier to aim in my opinion.   Basically even at close range I just find it easier to get my shots on target with the long guns flatter trajectory.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, double should really not be close to penetration of single ball, at any range. It was specifically used as an alternative to firing a reduced charge to limit velocity for close work.

The two balls should go out at *roughly* 5/9 and 4/9 of the normal velocity for the gun. Sometimes it was further considered prudent to fire only with a 1/4 charge rather than the full 1/3 charge.

The effective result is akin to two, significantly less consistent carronades of the same ball weight. At all but pistol and musket shot it would be unlikely that both balls would strike near the target, and by then the ability to pierce the heavier scantlings would also be lacking, though upper works and "in the way of openings" would be vulnerable to a longer range, especially in heavier ball sizes.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @akd hit the nail on its head. Rather than making the ricochet dependent on the gun, it should be dependent on the shot weight, velocity and angle.

 

Classes

  • All weaponry will have a penetration class (from 10 to 1) different muzzle velocity
  • If cannon class has a higher class than planking the shot will penetrate. If the cannonball velocity is high enough, the shot will penetrate, if the angle is acute enough.

 

 

Aren't you stating the same thing as Game Labs?  "Penetration class" and "different muzzle velocity" are the same thing expressed differently.  One is an abstract programmers way of representing the real life principles, the other that you state is the real life principles that Game Lab's intends to model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time to respond fully to this post at the minute but I will when I get a chance.

 

however, for everyone assuming that higher velocity = more damage, ask yourself what would produce more damage, shooting a 1.77 air rifle at a thin sheet of glass or throwing a small stone at it... I can tell you from experience  :ph34r:  that the riffle will go right through and leave a tiny hole while the stone will shatter the entire sheet.

It's not about the velocity of the projectile, it's the amount of energy imparted on the object. If a ball is going so fast that it 'over-penetrates', it doesn't impart as much energy on the object as it would if it were to only just penetrate.

I have half a dozen accounts from the time whereby it's stated 'sailors knew well that a ball that only just penetrates the hull does the most damage' as well as several contemporary sources giving examples and explaining why. You can take you're arguments up with them if you disagree.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weight and reload speed can be the balance for longer guns.

I think the selection of what guns a ship can carry should only be restricted with a weight limitation on that gun deck.

The length of the barrel just another factor that goes into determining the actual weight of the final gun.

 

Under such a system increasing the lenght would then act as a buff to some characteristics (range and maybe accuracy), and a debuf to other characteristics (weight, reload), in much the same way that getting a gun made by a renown manufacturer out of high quality materials would increase some characteristics compared to a cheaper gun.

 

Also, someone posted about different powders having different burn rates. A longer gun can use a slower burning powder better than a shorter gun can, and likewise some historical guns were so long that the projectile was still in the barrel long past the point that any more energy was being put into it, making it more of a detriment than a help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time to respond fully to this post at the minute but I will when I get a chance.

 

however, for everyone assuming that higher velocity = more damage, ask yourself what would produce more damage, shooting a 1.77 air rifle at a thin sheet of glass or throwing a small stone at it... I can tell you from experience  :ph34r:  that the riffle will go right through and leave a tiny hole while the stone will shatter the entire sheet.

It's not about the velocity of the projectile, it's the amount of energy imparted on the object. If a ball is going so fast that it 'over-penetrates', it doesn't impart as much energy on the object as it would if it were to only just penetrate.

I have half a dozen accounts from the time whereby it's stated 'sailors knew well that a ball that only just penetrates the hull does the most damage' as well as several contemporary sources giving examples and explaining why. You can take you're arguments up with them if you disagree.

 

I recall an example from WWII where some American light carriers came under direct fire from Japanese ships. I forget where. But the accounts were that the carriers being unarmored, the Japanese guns shells had penetrated so cleanly they went in one side of the ship and out the other, didn't even trip the detonators on the exploding shells, and did very little damage at all.

 

I'm not as keen on this as some but I was under the impression some of the 'long' guns we have are anachronistic anyway. I always thought they stopped making 'long' variants past a certain caliber because the guns got too large, heavy, barrels too long to reload in limited space and the recoil energy too great, and the only 'long' guns of any import were long nines.

Edited by Don Alvarez
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time to respond fully to this post at the minute but I will when I get a chance.

 

however, for everyone assuming that higher velocity = more damage, ask yourself what would produce more damage, shooting a 1.77 air rifle at a thin sheet of glass or throwing a small stone at it... I can tell you from experience  :ph34r:  that the riffle will go right through and leave a tiny hole while the stone will shatter the entire sheet.

It's not about the velocity of the projectile, it's the amount of energy imparted on the object. If a ball is going so fast that it 'over-penetrates', it doesn't impart as much energy on the object as it would if it were to only just penetrate.

I have half a dozen accounts from the time whereby it's stated 'sailors knew well that a ball that only just penetrates the hull does the most damage' as well as several contemporary sources giving examples and explaining why. You can take you're arguments up with them if you disagree.

Now I read the book "fracture and life" and you're right about this, but this also applies to the long guns that will cause the same damage standard guns at a certain distance, and this should be corrected.

https://books.google.it/books?id=ySH7p5jprcgC&pg=PA354&lpg=PA354&dq=ball+that+only+just+penetrates+the+hull+does+the+most+damage&source=bl&ots=YPf1Le8tNU&sig=o3hD87mRsMiVx0-3VxsbPT_B8eg&hl=it&sa=X&ei=HWv_VIynOoL6UuTag4gJ&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ball%20that%20only%20just%20penetrates%20the%20hull%20does%20the%20most%20damage&f=false

Edited by Captain Jack Aubrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time to respond fully to this post at the minute but I will when I get a chance.

 

however, for everyone assuming that higher velocity = more damage, ask yourself what would produce more damage, shooting a 1.77 air rifle at a thin sheet of glass or throwing a small stone at it... I can tell you from experience  :ph34r:  that the riffle will go right through and leave a tiny hole while the stone will shatter the entire sheet.

It's not about the velocity of the projectile, it's the amount of energy imparted on the object. If a ball is going so fast that it 'over-penetrates', it doesn't impart as much energy on the object as it would if it were to only just penetrate.

I have half a dozen accounts from the time whereby it's stated 'sailors knew well that a ball that only just penetrates the hull does the most damage' as well as several contemporary sources giving examples and explaining why. You can take you're arguments up with them if you disagree.

 

Ah, this is a good explanation here.  In my defense I did sort of mention the whole through and through as a situation where there would be less structural damage (and less crew most likely).

 

Still, I'm not sure having a a raw damage bonus is the best solution here.  Perhaps within the penetration check itself there could be a reduction not only in damage done at extreme ranges but at extremely close ranges too.  Though in the later case modeling the damage to things behind the impact point would be needed.

 

As I think Captain Aubrey pointed out, if these are the differences then really what needs to be modeled is the "most-effective-range" for each gun type.  Not simplifying it down to a simple number, but a much more robust modelling situation.  While I understand things need to be simplified somewhat in terms of a workable modelling system, I tend to prefer the system work as close to real life as possible.

 

 

As a side note, with all the talk of powder charges will we be eventually be able to chose what sort of powder charge we stick into our guns as well?  I suppose this ties into whether we'll be able to determine the type of powder as well.  But I suppose that would change the "most-effective-range" for each gun, which would be a solid bit of work, but could add needed flexibility to the guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, double should really not be close to penetration of single ball, at any range.

 

For a given range, you mean.  Double shot at some closer range will have the same penetration as single shot at some much further range.

 

 

 

however, for everyone assuming that higher velocity = more damage, ask yourself what would produce more damage, shooting a 1.77 air rifle at a thin sheet of glass or throwing a small stone at it... I can tell you from experience  :ph34r:  that the riffle will go right through and leave a tiny hole while the stone will shatter the entire sheet.

 

I don't really disagree with you, but the analogy is very poor.  For the analogy to be correct, it would need to be "obvious" that a rock thrown slowly at glass does more damage to the glass than one thrown fast.  This is not obvious to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is the more precise version of what I did mean... but to all practical purposes there is minimal overlap. Single ball from a 24 should penetrate as well as or better at 1000yds than double ball at pistol shot, it will obviously make less damage on penetration at any given (sufficiently short) range (one hole vs 2, and the potential for generating larger (if not more) splinters), although at longer ranges there is almost no prospect that the second ball can penetrate, nor that the two balls will hit the target vessel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue is right.

 

Damage = energy imparted on an object. If the projectile is traveling too fast and does not impart much energy on an object the damage is minimal. This can be seen with any rifle/gun/arrow/shot. Considering that round shot was solid than the only damage done is either a hole allowing water in or the shot hitting something and imparting energy into to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time to respond fully to this post at the minute but I will when I get a chance.

 

however, for everyone assuming that higher velocity = more damage, ask yourself what would produce more damage, shooting a 1.77 air rifle at a thin sheet of glass or throwing a small stone at it... I can tell you from experience  :ph34r:  that the riffle will go right through and leave a tiny hole while the stone will shatter the entire sheet.

It's not about the velocity of the projectile, it's the amount of energy imparted on the object. If a ball is going so fast that it 'over-penetrates', it doesn't impart as much energy on the object as it would if it were to only just penetrate.

I have half a dozen accounts from the time whereby it's stated 'sailors knew well that a ball that only just penetrates the hull does the most damage' as well as several contemporary sources giving examples and explaining why. You can take you're arguments up with them if you disagree.

 

Your also assuming a very thin sheet of glass which is not the thick oak planking that we are dealing with here.   I mean we are talking 20-25 inches of solid oak on a SoL.  Also there is different types of damage.  Yes I will agree, that a shot that "just" penetrates does indeed do more damage to the planking it "just" penetrates but a ball that fully penetrates is going to do more damage to anything behind the planking it penetrates including possible heavily damaging the other side of the ship.  Hell depending on the angle, you could have a shot fully pen above the waterline on the facing side, then "just" pen outward below the waterline on the other side of the ship.  This would obviously lead to much more catastrophic damage than a shell that "just" penetrates one side of the ship.

 

So here is the million dollar question, how do you model this for a game?  You can't just say that standard guns do more damage because they don't do more damage, only potentially more damage to the facing planking and you might not necessarily be able to say that long guns do more damage because if they over pen, they aren't doing as much damage to the facing planking even if they will do much more follow on damage after then pen.  That being the case, my argument isn't really that long guns should be able to do more damage than standard guns, rather it is that there is no logical argument that a standard gun should do more damage than a long gun for a similar weight of shell.

 

Basically for simplicity sake, they should just say an 18lb cannon ball does X amount of damage regardless if it is shot from a standard, long or cannonade type of cannon and be done with it.  The other solution is that they have to model each cannons damage profile separately based on what occurs after a ball penetrates.  Basically give Cannonades higher damage against planking for a given weight but less internal damage, give standards average damage all the way around and give longs lower planking damage while giving it much higher internal damage plus the ability to damage the other side of the ship.  Trying to calculate and model that type of system is going to be much more complex and intensive.  I mean if they want to do it, I am all for it because it will make the damage model more realistic but I really don't think its necessary to go that far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue is right.

 

Damage = energy imparted on an object. If the projectile is traveling too fast and does not impart much energy on an object the damage is minimal. This can be seen with any rifle/gun/arrow/shot. Considering that round shot was solid than the only damage done is either a hole allowing water in or the shot hitting something and imparting energy into to it. 

Damage and energy really have nothing to do with each other, except as a rule of thumb.

 

People survive multiple large caliber gunshot wounds to the torso, or bullets through their skull, all the time. But you poke someone in the femoral artery with a small sewing needle, and they will die.

 

Does a bullet need to be traveling at supersonic speeds to destroy a large blood vessel or vital organ? Of course not.

 

The same goes for a ship. The people inside can be harmed by a 32-pound ball that is screaming along at the speed of sound, or by the exact same ball accidentally rolling off the gangway and simply falling onto their head.

 

There a few types of damage which require high velocity roundshot (smashing multiple gun carriages, splintering a mast, exiting under the waterline). But on a whole, so long as a ball successfully penetrates, it scarcely matters how much energy it has left over. As long as it can fly a few dozen additional feet, it will hurt anything in its path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your also assuming a very thin sheet of glass which is not the thick oak planking that we are dealing with here.   I mean we are talking 20-25 inches of solid oak on a SoL.  Also there is different types of damage.  Yes I will agree, that a shot that "just" penetrates does indeed do more damage to the planking it "just" penetrates but a ball that fully penetrates is going to do more damage to anything behind the planking it penetrates including possible heavily damaging the other side of the ship.  Hell depending on the angle, you could have a shot fully pen above the waterline on the facing side, then "just" pen outward below the waterline on the other side of the ship.  This would obviously lead to much more catastrophic damage than a shell that "just" penetrates one side of the ship.

 

So here is the million dollar question, how do you model this for a game?  You can't just say that standard guns do more damage because they don't do more damage, only potentially more damage to the facing planking and you might not necessarily be able to say that long guns do more damage because if they over pen, they aren't doing as much damage to the facing planking even if they will do much more follow on damage after then pen.  That being the case, my argument isn't really that long guns should be able to do more damage than standard guns, rather it is that there is no logical argument that a standard gun should do more damage than a long gun for a similar weight of shell.

 

Basically for simplicity sake, they should just say an 18lb cannon ball does X amount of damage regardless if it is shot from a standard, long or cannonade type of cannon and be done with it.  The other solution is that they have to model each cannons damage profile separately based on what occurs after a ball penetrates.  Basically give Cannonades higher damage against planking for a given weight but less internal damage, give standards average damage all the way around and give longs lower planking damage while giving it much higher internal damage plus the ability to damage the other side of the ship.  Trying to calculate and model that type of system is going to be much more complex and intensive.  I mean if they want to do it, I am all for it because it will make the damage model more realistic but I really don't think its necessary to go that far. 

A cannonball fired at a velocity just sufficient to pierce the hull,now known as the "ballistic limit", caused the maximum splintering and damage.

Although as I said before, the same thing applies to the long guns and them all guns at a certain distance, in fact I said that there needs to be adjusted for the guns have different levels of ballistic at various distances.

https://books.google.it/books?id=ySH7p5jprcgC&pg=PA354&lpg=PA354&dq=ball+that+only+just+penetrates+the+hull+does+the+most+damage&source=bl&ots=YPf1LfcuLV&sig=Wmck7_5vB2vbrDJkMZWwMIsRNWI&hl=it&sa=X&ei=HqL_VN6GNOPgywPXgIIo&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ball%20that%20only%20just%20penetrates%20the%20hull%20does%20the%20most%20damage&f=false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that is talking damage to the planking as observed post-firing. It doesn't say anything to the actual wounding ability of the fragment cloud.

View the Bofors testing footage, and see how the fragment cloud expands from the penetration. Most of the fragments are small enough to be 'trivial' in a post firing examination, but I'd expect a rather large number of minor to moderately incapacitating wounds, and a few seriously wounded or killed. The hole would be fairly easily plugged though as it is rather neat.

There are other testing set ups where the example velocity/ball/scantling result in barely there penetration, and large chunks of backing material are lost, but the travel is not high and the main issue would be with repair, rather than casualties... at least most of the time, though I'd not doubt that anyone who was near enough and unlucky enough to be the one guy hit would have a very bad day.

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...