NavGun Development Thread

Started by Nobody, May 12, 2012, 01:31:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tanthalas

played around with V 0.22 a bit today and WOW, if this is acurate (no idea if it is or not but if it is WOW) there is esentialy no way to armor an 1896 BB against its own guns.  basicly if I read it right I would need 24" belts and 6" decks to be imune to my own fire (dosnt feal right IMHO)
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all!"

James Graham, 5th Earl of Montrose
1612 to 1650
Royalist General during the English Civil War

Nobody

Quote from: Tanthalas on September 30, 2012, 09:42:15 AM
played around with V 0.22 a bit today and WOW, if this is acurate (no idea if it is or not but if it is WOW) there is essentially no way to armor an 1896 BB against its own guns.  basicly if I read it right I would need 24" belts and 6" decks to be immune to my own fire (doesn't feel right IMHO)
Oh dear haven't look at that in months!
It should be just as (in)accurate as BigGun, because it uses the same penetration formulas. I would expect it to be rubbish for long range deck penetration(giving 2 to 3 times the value you might find in a table) and less accurate for thick armor (very close range). However for a US 16"/50 super-heavy the results should be quite accurate.

If you are thinking 1896, you should think very close range afaik, making armoring very difficult. Then again, which settings did you use? I'm not even sure if capped shells or cemented armor have even been invented at this point.

Tanthalas

I as using whatever is default LOL, just fired it up input my gun and waited till it gave me an output.  all the ranges were in Meters, I proly messed somthing up but I figured if I needed 24" armor @ 12K meters that in even closer I was more or less hosed =P
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all!"

James Graham, 5th Earl of Montrose
1612 to 1650
Royalist General during the English Civil War

Nobody

With a roughly assumed 12"/35 (312 kg, 700 m/s, Q=0.8 (Harvey-steel)) you should be save with 21" of armor at a distance of one thousand yards or more.

miketr

Quote from: Tanthalas on September 30, 2012, 09:42:15 AM
played around with V 0.22 a bit today and WOW, if this is acurate (no idea if it is or not but if it is WOW) there is esentialy no way to armor an 1896 BB against its own guns.  basicly if I read it right I would need 24" belts and 6" decks to be imune to my own fire (dosnt feal right IMHO)

I haven't checked the program but from my reading on shells in our time period '1900' the shells should 'malfunction'  vs. KC that is half the thickness of the shell caliber or more.

IE if you have a 12" shell and it hits 8 inches of KC armor, the shell is going to, most likely, just shatter on impact.  Your best bet is a contact fuse, a HE round in simple terms and it hits in the upper works or someplace with really thin armor.  The detonation starts a fire and the fire(s) get out of control and that cripples / destroys the ship. 

That is my recollection.  Once you get a reliable AP shell things change but that is in the future.

Michael

Tanthalas

Your exactly right mike, I was more or less trying to make a ship for breaking out of the med since im esentialy held in at the whim of the UK... it got way out of hand though and I decided to give up on it.
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all!"

James Graham, 5th Earl of Montrose
1612 to 1650
Royalist General during the English Civil War