AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
This means the Brit gun can not penetrate most other CA armor, even at 1,000 yards.

Hyperbolic vaporizations are counter productive.
Your statement is in error.
The largest Jap CA armor thickness in the database is 140mm for the Mogami belt. The others are around 100. One of the math classes I took suggests that 180 is bigger than 100 and even bigger than 140.

I'm not sure if the penetration is accurate.

And neither is anyone else. All sources indicate the major loadout of Brit 8" guns was SAPC. All US sources indicate SAPC had penetration characteristics somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70% that of an equivalent APC/APCBC round.

You find better balistics and penetration data for UK SAPC rounds, you will win a prize.

I'm quite aware that 180 is more than 140. But, in acutal play, Mogami's armor does not get penetrated by the 8" Brit gun, even at 1,000 yards. I witnessed Australia, Canberra (and Perth, Hobart, Leander and Achilles) hitting Mogami at 1,000 yards (and at 4,000 yards) with main gun hits vs the belt with no penetrations. I did see one shot penetrate the 'superstructure', but that was it.

Maybe this is accurate. But, I'm surprised that Achilles could damage Graf Spee and not Mogami. Ok, Achilles probably couldn't penetrate Graf Spee's belt either.

[EasilyConfused]

Sorry if this has already been reported, but for scenario 1, BYMS-2055 (11364) and BYMS-2059 (11365) are set to arrive on 2/29/43.  I'm not sure if that would make them come in on 3/1/43 or if it would prevent them from being deployed.

[John Lansford]

If the developers are using the "70% of AP penetration" for the RN SAP 8" shells, then their 180 value is really only 126, which explains why the ships couldn't penetrate Mogami's main belt thickness.  As for the CL's damaging Graf Spee, IIRC the damage was all in the superstructure and unarmored sections; their 6" shells did not penetrate any armored portion of that ship.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
If the developers are using the "70% of AP penetration" for the RN SAP 8" shells, then their 180 value is really only 126, which explains why the ships couldn't penetrate Mogami's main belt thickness.  As for the CL's damaging Graf Spee, IIRC the damage was all in the superstructure and unarmored sections; their 6" shells did not penetrate any armored portion of that ship.

John, you give us too much credit for being able to play with the math. But, no, penetration is penetration. If the database says 180, the game uses 180.

Question is why is it 180 instead of some larger number, like 250. It is only in that determination that the properties of the rounds being fired come into considerstion.

[edit] Although this subject is very interesting, albeit rather technical, this thread isn't quite the place for it. So I will begin a thread in the Scenario Design Sub-forum that will, hopefully make things, if not clearer, at least a bit less apocryphal. Ciao. John

[Dili]

There is no way a 8" gun penetrates 180mm only . My calculations using Mr.Okun Facehard are 356mm.

Edit: the calculation was against Italian steel which is better than Japanese ones, it was indeed one of better steels around. So the gun will perform even better against Japanese targets by a dozen mm.

[Whisper]

The tower armor for the Helena class goes away in 1944 it was 125 up to than.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Whisper

The tower armor for the Helena class goes away in 1944 it was 125 up to than.

Done for patch-2. Thanks.

[canuck64]

JW-must intrude with a question we're batting at in the general forum-
 
any possibility of ever including actual spotted enemy TF's as viable targets? I think it odd given the detail of the game, the range specifying and the loadouts, drop tanks and what have you, that my TF's cannot actually target (per my instructions) a TF. After all, there are detection levels, weather, FOW, commander traits and a whole whack-a-mole of air issues, fatigue, fuel, expertise, etc......that should still impact successfully attacking another TF.
 
It just seems downright strange I have no 'targetable' opfor TF as an option. Is it a coding nightmare? Could it not be implemented by allowing a coordinate (hex) attack?
I think this married with the ability to 'trail' (follow) TF's on my own side would only deepen (sensibly) the naval game, tactics and bluffing. These are decisions most players want to make I think-much more so than many of the logisitics.
Can you comment?

[wworld7]

I don't see this happening any time soon, if ever.

[Boozecamp]

Don't know if this has been brought up, but I've noticed some bizarre refit times/requirements.  Just hit April in my first game and noticed some weirdness:  Barnegat AVDs require a size 5 shipyard and take 3 weeks to swap 4 .50 cals for 4 20mms.  Same thing for the Bagley, McCall and Gridley DDs to add 4 K-guns.

I also noticed a few major upgrades that have no minimum time at all...  can't remember off the top of my head however.

EDIT: Oops, neither needs a shipyard. Times still seem odd though.

[EasilyConfused]

Shark Class submarines have incorrect ammo for the XT 21in Mk 14 Torp device (18 instead of 1)

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
Shark Class submarines have incorrect ammo for the XT 21in Mk 14 Torp device (18 instead of 1)

Got it. TY

[LargeSlowTarget]

Missing in naval OOB: The famous former Flying-P-Liner Pamir, seized as a prize of war by New Zealand in 1941 and then used as a cargo-carrying training ship on several voyages between NZ, US and Australia during and after the war. Should be included in the OOB, if only for eye-candy.

[JWE]

Tops'ls, t'gallants and topmast staysails? How 'bout cross-catharpins?

[Jonathan Pollard]

Because the Pamir did not have engines, it might be impossible to model its fuel consumption properly in AE. One possibility would be to give it enough fuel to circle the globe several times, but in that case it would be possible to "cheat" by unloading the fake fuel and turning it into real fuel.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

Because the Pamir did not have engines, it might be impossible to model its fuel consumption properly in AE. One possibility would be to give it enough fuel to circle the globe several times, but in that case it would be possible to "cheat" by unloading the fake fuel and turning it into real fuel.

Ahh but how much food and fresh water was carried for the crew...that would be your "fuel" setting. The wind can only take you so far before you either starve or become dehydrated.

[Local Yokel]

The War Room thread about loading supply into the US AV-type ships (eg Curtiss and Tangier) indicates that they are to receive a cargo capacity so they can support seaplane operations. Can I make a plea for this also to be applied to the Japanese seaplane tenders, including the CS-type ships Chitose, Chiyoda, Mizuho and Nisshin? This would also make it possible for these to play a useful part in fast transport TF's, a role which they fulfilled historically, but of which they are currently incapable.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
The War Room thread about loading supply into the US AV-type ships (eg Curtiss and Tangier) indicates that they are to receive a cargo capacity so they can support seaplane operations. Can I make a plea for this also to be applied to the Japanese seaplane tenders, including the CS-type ships Chitose, Chiyoda, Mizuho and Nisshin? This would also make it possible for these to play a useful part in fast transport TF's, a role which they fulfilled historically, but of which they are currently incapable.

Yes indeed.

[Local Yokel]

Excellent - thank you!

[LargeSlowTarget]

In AE, the USS Keokuk shows up in April 1942 as a CM- but the historic ship did not reach the Pacific until 1944, having been converted to a netlayer.

See http://www.navsource.org/archives/11/0608h.htm