Short range fire can not sink a battleship

[sisito0o]

If it seems strange to you then you just need to think about it for a moment and you will see that a short range artillery fight can not sink a battleship, but only damage it, too bad the game uses such a simple damage system that can not take more complex situations like this into account

[typhaon]

And why do you think that short range fire could not sink a ship?

[NecroFlex]

wait...what?

Not sure what you mean by ''short range fire''

[Kurosawa]

maybe he is referring to secondaries which are crap even at point blank range vs something big like CV's.

 

 

[simonmd]

Makes perfect sense, the armor on most BBs is at it's thickest on the sides. They can suffer much worse damage from plunging fire from long range due to the fact the shells are hitting the decks instead of the sides that short range fire would do. Thats exactly what killed HMS Hood in WW2.

[praetor_jax]

And why do you think that short range fire could not sink a ship?

 

His BB probably got sunk from short range gun fire.

[Historynerd]

Makes perfect sense, the armor on most BBs is at it's thickest on the sides. They can suffer much worse damage from plunging fire from long range due to the fact the shells are hitting the decks instead of the sides that short range fire would do.

 

To me, it seems that it's just that plunging fire can critically damage ships more often than short range fire, as the latter hits the main belt, one of the thickest if not the thickest protection that the ship has.

But take a battleship with powerful enough guns, and you'll see that it can pierce the belt armor, and it can cause as much damage as plunging fire.

[Cananatra]

I think he is reasoning that short range flat fire would at best pen in one side and out the other. As those holes are likely above the water line, the ship would remain afloat.

It did happen quite a few times in history where the ship was combat killed but remained afloat until scuttled by its crew.

[Historynerd]

I think he is reasoning that short range flat fire would at best pen in one side and out the other. As those holes are likely above the water line, the ship would remain afloat.

It did happen quite a few times in history where the ship was combat killed but remained afloat until scuttled by its crew.

 

Not if a shot manages to penetrate the magazines; in that case it would blow up.

[EsaTuunanen]

But take a battleship with powerful enough guns, and you'll see that it can pierce the belt armor, and it can cause as much damage as plunging fire.

Basically any ship could easily penetrate even the thickest armor of equal ship from closer range.

Here's some side armor penetration figures for Iowa's 16"/40,6 cm guns:

5,000 yards (4,572 m) : 29.39" (747 mm)

10,000 yards (9,144 m) : 26.16" (664 mm)

15,000 yards (13,716 m) : 23.04" (585 mm)

20,000 yards (18,288 m) : 20.04" (509 mm)

25,000 yards (22,860 m) : 17.36" (441 mm)

30,000 yards (27,432 m) : 14.97" (380 mm)

At which point deck armor penetration starts to increase fast because of curving shell trajectory

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

 

And for 8"/203mm guns used in "Pepsicola"

9,000 yards (8,230 m) : 10.0" (254 mm)

12,400 yards (11,340 m) : 8.0" (203 mm)

16,600 yards (14,630 m) : 6.0" (152 mm)

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk9.htm

 

In reality ships usually had only very small distance zone where their citadel was immune to shells from equal gun ship:

Meaning shell either dropping too much to penetrate (often angled) belt armor but not enough to penetrate deck armor.

Only thing which kept those ships alive as long as happened in reality was that hitting anything from those long ranges was very hard.

That page for Iowa's guns has nice table about shell flight times:

10,000 yards (9,140 m): 13.2 seconds
20,000 yards (18,290 m):  29.6 seconds
30,000 yards (27,430 m):  50.3 seconds
36,000 yards (32,920 m):  66.1 seconds
40,000 yards (36,580 m):  80.0 seconds

[simonmd]

 

Not if a shot manages to penetrate the magazines; in that case it would blow up.

 

[Figment]

Do note that short range fire from secondaries is mostly HE shells fired at random angles, most of which bounce off the sides.

[DaWyrm]

Short range fire would very well be able to sink a battleship if it penetrates and detonates inside, wrecking bulkheads and possibly causing secondary explosions in ammo stores, fuel tanks and boilers. Shells might also penetrate just below the waterline causing floodings that will cause the ship to list, making it more prone to damage below the waterline. 

 

Agreed that plunging fire would be more leathal since deck armor is much thinner then the belt, but a battleship is by no means invulnerable to short-range fire.

[allufewig]

I think he wants to refer to the thing that close range combat might produce no damage to the ship below the waterline. No water-intake, no sinking.

[Historynerd]

 

 

Don't tell me, tell the guy I was talking to.

[sisito0o]

I think he is reasoning that short range flat fire would at best pen in one side and out the other. As those holes are likely above the water line, the ship would remain afloat.

It did happen quite a few times in history where the ship was combat killed but remained afloat until scuttled by its crew.

 

I think he wants to refer to the thing that close range combat might produce no damage to the ship below the waterline. No water-intake, no sinking.

 

  Exactly guys, and i am happy that you left so many responses to the thread, i didn't said my reason for the topic so that i can read what your thoughts will be, so to sink a ship you will need an angel of the shell so that it penetrates the decks below waterline which won't happen at close range also ammo storage should be (i haven't checked but it makes most sense) in a low level in the ship somewhere below water line

[Coenraad]

I don't understand the OP's question that well.

If anthing close range say 4-6 km is great for relatively easy citadels. Hell, even on my cruisers with 203's i can do tons of damage to a BB with AP rounds at that range (but you die very fast as a cruiser being that close).

 

Does OP mean we should be able to cause flooding with gun fire?

 

Unless there was a catastrophic explosion, very few battleships were really sunk by gunfire becourse that is just such a hard thing to do. The gunfire usualy took the ship out and torpedo hits or aircraft bombs did the sinking or caused the major flooding that sunk the ship.

 

[sisito0o]

I don't understand the OP's question that well.

If anthing close range say 4-6 km is great for relatively easy citadels. Hell, even on my cruisers with 203's i can do tons of damage to a BB with AP rounds at that range (but you die very fast as a cruiser being that close).

 

Does OP mean we should be able to cause flooding with gun fire?

 

Unless there was a catastrophic explosion, very few battleships were really sunk by gunfire becourse that is just such a hard thing to do. The gunfire usualy took the ship out and torpedo hits or aircraft bombs did the sinking or caused the major flooding that sunk the ship.

There's now question, in a way i wanted to see if my thoughts are correct because in contrast to the game at close range you shouldn't be able to sink a ship with shells

 

And now that you mentioned flooding, i think it will be good if you can cause flooding with BB to lightly armored vessels if you hit them with AP at longer range

[AgarwaenME]

There's now question, in a way i wanted to see if my thoughts are correct because in contrast to the game at close range you shouldn't be able to sink a ship with shells

 

And now that you mentioned flooding, i think it will be good if you can cause flooding with BB to lightly armored vessels if you hit them with AP at longer range

 

All your "thinking" can be translated into "I think my BB should be invulnerable and do even more damage".

[stealthed]

 

All your "thinking" can be translated into "I think my BB should be invulnerable and do even more damage".

 

way to jump on the bandwagon....

 

I actually think the guy meant that shortrange penetrations should cause more additional damage in general. Especially in BB vs BB because irl penetrations at a downward angle would do massive damage and cause flooding. Then he said this should especially be true when overpenning a cruiser because you'd be making 2 holes so you would atleast end up with flooding if shot downwards at the waterline and out below the waterline which is quite frankly logical and should happen with any ship in close combat (so CA vs CA same thing). He never advocated a direct BB buff....

 

edit: tl;dr: better penetration mechanics..

[AgarwaenME]

 

way to jump on the bandwagon....

 

I actually think the guy meant that shortrange penetrations should cause more additional damage in general. Especially in BB vs BB because irl penetrations at a downward angle would do massive damage and cause flooding. Then he said this should especially be true when overpenning a cruiser because you'd be making 2 holes so you would atleast end up with flooding if shot downwards at the waterline and out below the waterline which is quite frankly logical and should happen with any ship in close combat (so CA vs CA same thing). He never advocated a direct BB buff....

 

edit: tl;dr: better penetration mechanics..

 

OPs poor english aside.

 

Overpenetrating shots would do minimal flooding, as a small hole like that would be no actual threat to a ship. Nor would plunging fire with a shell exploding inside the ship really cause massive damage to the hull, as the force would take the easiest exit route (look at some images from Pearl Harbor, where you can see the force exiting through smokestacks etc.)

 

As it is, massive general damage is almost a larger threat in keeping a ship afloat, as the loss of electric power and crew deaths makes it impossible to keep pumps going.

[sisito0o]

 

OPs poor english aside.

 

Overpenetrating shots would do minimal flooding, as a small hole like that would be no actual threat to a ship. Nor would plunging fire with a shell exploding inside the ship really cause massive damage to the hull, as the force would take the easiest exit route (look at some images from Pearl Harbor, where you can see the force exiting through smokestacks etc.)

 

As it is, massive general damage is almost a larger threat in keeping a ship afloat, as the loss of electric power and crew deaths makes it impossible to keep pumps going.

It won't necessarily be a small hole, you don't know at which point an AP shell will explode, when it pierce the wooden deck of a cruiser without explosion this doesn't mean the shell won't explode upon colliding with the mantle from inside on it's way out of the ship then the hole won't be that small

 

And I have no problem with my BB and i haven't mention anything about buffing or nerfing so please can you stop accusing me that i opened the topic because i want my ship stronger

 

[Historynerd]

It won't necessarily be a small hole, you don't know at which point an AP shell will explode, when it pierce the wooden deck of a cruiser without explosion this doesn't mean the shell won't explode upon colliding with the mantle from inside on it's way out of the ship then the hole won't be that small

 

I think he meant an hypotetical hole made in the hull by a shell that doesn't explode within the ship. In that case, the hole would be rather small...

 

But to my knowledge even cruisers had steel decks, even when horizontal protection was pretty much nonexistent. Wood planking may have been used, but underneath there was surely some steel.

[RAMJB]

 

I think he meant an hypotetical hole made in the hull by a shell that doesn't explode within the ship. In that case, the hole would be rather small...

 

The entry hole, yes. The exit one would be pretty massive. And an "overpenetrating hit" would, by definition, have a path inside and a path outside. And while entry holes were, paths outside rarely were clean holes.

[Historynerd]

 

The entry hole, yes. The exit one would be pretty massive. And an "overpenetrating hit" would, by definition, have a path inside and a path outside. And while entry holes were, paths outside rarely were clean holes.

 

How much massive, exactly? From what I know, they can cause some flooding, but not on a serious level... but I might be wrong in this respect.