Guns and Shells...

[P3D]

Notes.

We have the
"ME=0.04 x L x D^3"
formula for muzzle energy.

The effect of angle of fall on accuracy is minimal. Distance has the most by a magnitude.

Superheavy shells have less burster as shells are length (thus volume) constrained. If you go over a given length you need larger rifling twist for stabilization - decreasing gun life even further.
There was not much different in burster charge performance - the main development was getting them more inert and reliable.
Also, making the shell fatter increases the drag.

Bursters has a density of ~1 (g/cm3), while steel has 8. So the 8.5kg difference in booster weight between the heavy 16" shells of the RN and USN accounts for 60kg of the 140kg difference in the shell weights.

Post-penetration effect would come from
a/ remaining kinetic energy
b/ the bursting charge

You have several options how to model this.
1/ to shell weight, (with bonus to HE)
2/ damage is proportional to the energy above - but it would be more or less similar to 1/
3/ assume damage is proportional to caliber-cubed (with bonus to HE) (still not much of a difference)

Of course the toughness of the ship should also scale accordingly (with linear dimensions or displacement).

[miketr]

There was a general trend to increase the size of shells even within the same gun where possible.  UK, US and Germany did this; wouldn't be shocked if the other major naval powers did the same.

That was usually a absolute increase in power (due to better powers and quality control), which IMO is something else.

Lost me here

The reason I am pushing to wieght of shell to damage is its easy to track.  Otherwise we are going to get a mess in terms of figuring out damage.  You have talked about energy for weapons but I ask again how do you convert that to damage?  Particular are you suggesting we need to know energy at different points?  Like say 5,000 yards, 10,000 yards and in particular after penetrating 300mm of armor, of penetrating 350mm of armor, etc.  All of these bleed energy.

Far too complex, as well as a source for inaccuracies.
As for damages, if the shell function the hit compartment is destroyed, with perhaps some probability for damage to adjacent compartments. If a penetration do not function it would most likely only be damaged instead (perhaps temporary out of action).

A question of complexity is a key issue for this project...

We both agree that trying to track what I plot out is too extreme, good.

Now issue of damage to compartments, etc... only in General terms.  Ships are going to be track as flotation points and structural points.  Some special effecs for lost guns, engine rooms, etc.  In effect when a battle reports damage in X location odds are its what is known as flavor text and not to be taking too seriously.

I would go with calibre of shells most of the time for "general" damage, as that show more consistency then the weight does.

OK so you suggest that a 12" shell is a 12" shell.  If one wants to fire a bigger 12" shell to get better long range penetration thats there choice.  That is very simple, simple is something I am in favor of, and as long as everyone else is fine with so am I.

What I am suggesting is that damage is tied to shell size and we create penetration tables.  Shells that penetrate do more damage; ratio to be worked out...

I am fine with shell size, just do think that diameter is better then weight.

See above...

So the result here is a 12" shell that weighs 850 lbs or 900 or 1,200 will all do the same damage.  They will just have different vertical and horizontal penetration tables.

Michael

[Korpen]

As such, I don't think SH shells should do more damage, simply have a higher penetration number, increasing the likely hood of that damage being internal. That alone is worth an extra tech, as would heavy shells, diving shells, and possibly delay coils.

I for one do not see any inherent advantage in super heavy shells, they simply is at one end of the weight/velocity compromise. Compare the US 40cm/45 gun with cotemporary European guns such as the French and Italian 38s, and the US gun have worse performance against vertical protection.

As for the improved performance of the heavier shells, I would suspect it is much less an issue of heavier shells being better as much as the fact that shell development did not freeze at ww1 level, shells in the 20s and 30s had more aerodynamic shapes and better AP caps.

If one wants to include things such as delay coils I think it should be part of the Guns tech at some level. As for diving shells and other specialised shells I see not need to have hem as extras, they are always a compromise that specialises in doing one thing well, but at the cost of performance in other areas.

As for using the Seekrieg penetration, I would rather use BigGun. Once bore size, caliber/MV and shell wieghts are known, penetration can be derived.   So if a player researches a n"/55 caliber with a light shell, it is simple to figure out what that means.  Of course the mods should apply a dispersion penalty at longer ranges...

Same thing goes for NaAB, with the major benefit of being easer to work with and more exact in the parameters one can input (hence more controlled output).

[miketr]

Muzzle Energy is a nice term to chuck about but I have asked about unless we have a quick and easy way to convert it into damage what good is having the number?

Of course the toughness of the ship should also scale accordingly (with linear dimensions or displacement).

I am leaning towards displacement as the more I have thought about SS2 and how it calculates the weight to sink the more I think it can and will be gamed by people.  I want to have as few calculations as possible to convert a ship into "game stats".  

Will think on the rest...

Michael

[miketr]

As for using the Seekrieg penetration, I would rather use BigGun. Once bore size, caliber/MV and shell wieghts are known, penetration can be derived.   So if a player researches a n"/55 caliber with a light shell, it is simple to figure out what that means.  Of course the mods should apply a dispersion penalty at longer ranges...

Same thing goes for NaAB, with the major benefit of being easer to work with and more exact in the parameters one can input (hence more controlled output).

I only brought up SeeKrieg as an example / point of reference.  The SeeKrieg tables are too generic and the range brackets too wide...  We need penetration tables broken down to 2,000 yard / meter increments.

I am familiar with NaAB program in general terms but not very good with using it.  I have heard of Big Gun but never used it.  Whatever one we use we really should use just the one program.

Michael

[P3D]

Muzzle energy influences penetration much more than damage - thus can be neglected in the latter case.

[miketr]

We talked a great deal here; more than a little of which went over my head, but didn't get anything done.

For base damage...  I am going to say SS DEFAULT weight for the gun caliber size in terms of damage.   A 10" gun defaults to a 500 lb shell and does 500 points of damage.  We scale ships ability to survive to such a table.

I am going to suggest we just lift the SeeKrieg IV damage chart.

APC x3, SAP x3.5 and COM x4 for penetrating hits (30% critcal hit)

APC x1, SAP x1.3, COM x1.6 and HE x2 for penetrating hits (10% critical hit)

Duds do half base damage and no critcals

I halved the chance of critical hits as its been my experience to be produce wierd results more than anything. Critical hit results should also be tied to the location they impact.