Review of armor on IJN destroyers

[Mike Scholl]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Just making the point of what Mike told me and the WPO betas, that it "confuses the game because it doesn't expect actual armor on destroyers and smaller ships".

Part of it has to do with extreme range fires. In beta we had a tin can eat a 10" shell from maximum range, and it failed to penetrate the 5mm deck armor we had at the time. [quote]

Then the problem is in the balistics tables..., a 10" shell WILL PENETRATE 5mm armor at ANY range it can reach. Period!

[Wallymanowar]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Just making the point of what Mike told me and the WPO betas, that it "confuses the game because it doesn't expect actual armor on destroyers and smaller ships".

Part of it has to do with extreme range fires. In beta we had a tin can eat a 10" shell from maximum range, and it failed to penetrate the 5mm deck armor we had at the time.

Then the problem is in the balistics tables..., a 10" shell WILL PENETRATE 5mm armor at ANY range it can reach. Period!

Don't mean to be nit-picky Mike but that's not true. The chance that any size round will penetrate anything is dependant upon physics. If there is not enough kinetic energy left in a round it won't penetrate a sheet of paper. Another factor to consider is armour slope - if that 10" round hits that 5mm armour at a very steep slope it might as well be hitting armour that is 1000mm thick. I don't know if the ballistics tables in WITP take slope and KE into account so I can't say if there is a problem with WITP based upon that.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Mike Tremblay

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Just making the point of what Mike told me and the WPO betas, that it "confuses the game because it doesn't expect actual armor on destroyers and smaller ships".

Part of it has to do with extreme range fires. In beta we had a tin can eat a 10" shell from maximum range, and it failed to penetrate the 5mm deck armor we had at the time.

Then the problem is in the balistics tables..., a 10" shell WILL PENETRATE 5mm armor at ANY range it can reach. Period!

Don't mean to be nit-picky Mike but that's not true. The chance that any size round will penetrate anything is dependant upon physics. If there is not enough kinetic energy left in a round it won't penetrate a sheet of paper. Another factor to consider is armour slope - if that 10" round hits that 5mm armour at a very steep slope it might as well be hitting armour that is 1000mm thick. I don't know if the ballistics tables in WITP take slope and KE into account so I can't say if there is a problem with WITP based upon that.

Sorry for the confusion. I just dug up the old thread. It was a Japanese 14cm (5.5inch) round at 14,000 yards that hit on the deck of a US Flush Deck DD, and several instances of 12 pounder shells not penetrating. The shells hit, but failed to penetrate. From Mike Wood's response to the problems noted in WPO's Beta Forum:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Armor was added to destroyers and other small ships by mistake. The program does not expect this and becomes confused. Have already requested armor for these ships be removed.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Brady


Below you can see a couple screan from a Day time engagement at 10,000, repatedly the Japanese 12 pounders would get Deck Armor Hits and no efect, Conways lists No Armor for the Allied Class's present.




The result of this:

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Mike Tremblay

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Just making the point of what Mike told me and the WPO betas, that it "confuses the game because it doesn't expect actual armor on destroyers and smaller ships".

Part of it has to do with extreme range fires. In beta we had a tin can eat a 10" shell from maximum range, and it failed to penetrate the 5mm deck armor we had at the time.

Don't mean to be nit-picky Mike but that's not true. The chance that any size round will penetrate anything is dependant upon physics. If there is not enough kinetic energy left in a round it won't penetrate a sheet of paper. Another factor to consider is armour slope - if that 10" round hits that 5mm armour at a very steep slope it might as well be hitting armour that is 1000mm thick. I don't know if the ballistics tables in WITP take slope and KE into account so I can't say if there is a problem with WITP based upon that.

from what i understand, WITP doesn't take that into account (angle of incidence against belt armor) - but long range fire may hit deck armor instead of belt. i think the statement is saying that a 10" round in WITP should penetrate 5 mm armor at any distance it can be shot.


Actually, probably in real life also. A 10" shell is much wider than 5 mm of armor. even if it hit at a 180 degree angle (i.e. - heading straight down onto belt), it is going to maybe shear off 5 mm of the 10" (254 mm) shell , and the other 249 mm is going to plunge straight down (or maybe if the center of the shell hits the center of the armor, the shell is split. This could defeat the fuze, but the shell will still penetrate...)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I was never been convinced that the perception that MG's were causing excessive damage was correct. It seemed like folks thought of penetrating hits as highly unusual and naval combat as being too dangerous. My sense is that it was more dangerous than maybe games have led us to believe. That fact probably played a large part in the decision making during the war. Unlike us, mere players of a game, the commanders had to live with the vulnerability of their naval assets. We use them a lot and so they get whacked around a lot. Then we (sometimes) complain that the game moves too quickly versus history and is too bloody.

My own view is that I would like to start with historical configurations and then have an objective measurement (to the degree practical) of how damage in WiTP stacks up against damage in the real war before making alterations like adding or changing armor. I realize this might be too difficult to happen, but my point is that I believe various changes were made based on perception such as noted above instead of based on data. At least, that's my perception!

The comparison that planes have armor and they are obviously more fragile than destroyers is irrelevant, what matters is how the code handles them. I doubt the same code is used for damage to ships and planes. I'm sure ships are presumed to have structural hulls in the code, rather than ones made of paper.

I saw a Japanese destroyer suffer magazine explosions to Lewis guns on two occasions. Kaboom. [X(] I also see PT boats take 3 and 5 inch hits and survive. The damage model leans toward the extreme and adding a little bit of steel to a data based DD and other ships to simulate steel hulls compensates for the extremems of the damage model and makes sense to boot.

[Nikademus]

Have never had a ship explode from a MG strike....and my PT's will almost always show substantial damage from shell based weapons and cannon strike. MG's? lots of examples.....little to get excited about. The damage model is fairly consistant in terms of damage dolled out.

[el cid again]

Exactly. You could sink an unarmoured aircraft carrier like the Ranger with .50 cal fire in this game...

Committing Ranger to battle with IJN is asking to get her sunk - but not generally be machine guns! I have sunk here many times - usually using torpedoes - otherwise bombs.

The above quote was responding to a question about maybe you could sink a destroyer with a machine gun. And while it is not the weapon of choice, actually you can. It takes a lucky hit. A destroyer is filled with explosives - and they will do the job if you set any major portion off - due to sympathetic detonation. In fact, even capital ships blow up when NO ONE is shooting at them (for this campaign, look up the fate of IJN Mutsu).
There are lots of reasons serving with all those weapons is dangerous, and in many ways your own weapons are a lot more dangerous than the enemy weapons! [They are so close to you for one thing]. I had to study damage control once - and it is a very interesting subject. Naval combat is a statistical thing - and it takes luck to get an enemy ship - particularly in the era before smart weapons. Machine guns are not ideal for engaging ships because they lack the range required and because they lack punch. But if you get close, you SHOULD be engaging with your machine guns - because the chances of hits are real - and whatever they do is good for your side. There is no such thing as a risk free close in naval surface action.

[el cid again]

How can it "confuse the game"? And the notion that ships are a zero rating is silly because a zero rating in this game means "air" or "butter". Better to leave some amount of "armor" (call it the hull) than remove it all.

I am not sure you understand the issue: the vast majority of ships that were unarmored have NO armor in stock, CHS and proposed CHS. It even appears ships that had armor added mysteriously lost it - and that from several quarters - including Andrew. No set of files I have seen EVER applied a UNIFORM standard that makes any sense - it was always a SELECTIVE add for a few (pet?) ships. To make this work properly it is easier to remove it from the few ships that have it (improperly in my view). To go the other way is a massive task - requireing review of over a thousand classes - well over.

Software is easily confused. But in this case I think it may not be very confused - I think the idea 5mm of armor is reducing hits may not be valid. Note that

1) I have not seen a SINGLE instance of an improper hit in the first place

2) I have not noticed a SINGLE instance of any effect of 5 mm of armor vs mg fire whatsoever.

I tentatively accept it might have an influence - but if it does - I don't regard that as an asset in the first place. I have two issues with the concept:

1) It is false. I don't want false data in listings of historical ships to confuse people reading the data.

2) If there is a problem with code, it is wrong to fix the data. The right answer is to fix the code. Now if that is impossible I will fix the data - but I want it to be done where players won't see it - and it better be a major problem that cannot wait for a real fix. This is not a major problem IMHO. I have never noticed it at all in UV or WITP - I never felt a mg was too powerful. They hit - but what do they do?

[My secret weapon to sink subs was 25mm - not .30 cals]

[el cid again]

I know metal hull does not equal armor. But, it does provide more protection than air. Something has to keep the water out of the engine room.

Go watch a police training film on what happens when you shoot a vehicle. The bullets never bounce off. They change direction when they penetrate - but they penetrate. 2mm and 3mm non-armor metal is not the same thing as significant amounts of armor (you don't have anything if you don't have more than half an inch - really you don't). Go look at the device file - a weapon has either 0 penetration or some number much bigger than 2, 3 or 5. It is not going to matter in this model to put 1 or 2 or 5 on ships.

[el cid again]

Has anyone heard of a significant ship being sunk by MGs alone?

Certainly. It is so common it is hardly documented. It is the reason there are mgs on coast guard and patrol craft. One good book by an army officer in Korea has him improvising a sort of ad hoc navy to defeat a North Korean force of 5 vessels - and they had NOTHING but machine guns to arm the allied vessels - and they had range problems too as you can imagine! But they sank them every one. The book is The Secrets of Inchon.

One problem is you don't often know when you are killing a ship with MGs because so many other weapons are in use. This is worse at night. Thus, although I am sure we sank many (if not most) of our victims with this sort of fire in the Gulf of Siam in 1968, since we were also firing 5 inch, we cannot know the numbers.

[el cid again]

planes have an armour rating

Because planes had armor. When I found Sally rated as being armored, I took it off - she wasn't!!!

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Have never had a ship explode from a MG strike....and my PT's will almost always show substantial damage from shell based weapons and cannon strike. MG's? lots of examples.....little to get excited about. The damage model is fairly consistant in terms of damage dolled out.

In my opinion, anecotal evidence is not anywhere near as convincing as test results. So saying "I saw a ship explode" or "I have never seen a ship explode" doesn't help much, unless there is a big preponderance of evidence one way or the other. Sadly, I have not played the game enough to add much anecdotal evidence of my own.

Another question is whether the game code takes hull thickness into account. If a large ship, with a hull several millimetres thick is hit by an MG, is penetration a 100% sure thing, given that the ship does not have any armour? Or is there a chance that the hull alone will stop the penetration? I have to say here that I am entirely ignorant of what the chances are of an MG shell penetrating an unarmoured steel ship's hull.

Even without answering these questions I think that armour added to PT boats and other small craft (such as SCs) should probably be removed. IF hull thickness is NOT taken into account by the code at all, then there might be a case for retaining a small amount of "armour" in larger ships to represent that. Again, I don't have the references on hand to know what types, and sizes, of ships would qualify. This would also depend on how effective unarmoured hulls are in stopping small shells vs armour plate. For example, if the game code does not take unarmoured hulls into account, and if unarmoured hulls are about half as effective as armour of the same thickness in stopping shells, a 4mm thick hull could then be represented by 2mm "armour" in the database.

As mentioned I am speaking in ignorance of actuall hull thickness on ships, unarmoured steel vs armour plate effectiveness, and how the game code works. I am just making some general comments as I see the issue.

Andrew

[Wallymanowar]

Actually, probably in real life also. A 10" shell is much wider than 5 mm of armor. even if it hit at a 180 degree angle (i.e. - heading straight down onto belt), it is going to maybe shear off 5 mm of the 10" (254 mm) shell , and the other 249 mm is going to plunge straight down (or maybe if the center of the shell hits the center of the armor, the shell is split. This could defeat the fuze, but the shell will still penetrate...)

Again, not true. As the angle of the object striking the armor increases the relative thickness of the armour increases, until infinity. If the angle of contact =180 degrees you will miss the target, in other words no penetration. Using physics you will also find that as the angle of strike increases the kinetic energy imparted from the projectile to its target decreases - in effect less of the weight of the shell comes into play. If you want to get into the exact math go to this site: http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Hstfrmla.htm
It is theoretically possible for 1mm of steel to resist an 18" shell penetrating it - it would be extremely rare but not impossible.

I saw a Japanese destroyer suffer magazine explosions to Lewis guns on two occasions. Kaboom. I also see PT boats take 3 and 5 inch hits and survive. The damage model leans toward the extreme and adding a little bit of steel to a data based DD and other ships to simulate steel hulls compensates for the extremems of the damage model and makes sense to boot.

It is quite possible for a 3" or 5" shell hit to a PT boat to happen and for it to survive. If the shell is solid shot it would most like pass straight through. If the shell is HE it is more likely to cause damage, but only if its fuse is set to explode before it passes completely through the boat. The most damage to a wooden boat would likely be caused by an HE round that is fused to explode on contact. It should be noted that even a solid shot will cause damage especially if it hits something like the engine.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Have never had a ship explode from a MG strike....and my PT's will almost always show substantial damage from shell based weapons and cannon strike. MG's? lots of examples.....little to get excited about. The damage model is fairly consistant in terms of damage dolled out.

In my opinion, anecotal evidence is not anywhere near as convincing as test results. So saying "I saw a ship explode" or "I have never seen a ship explode" doesn't help much, unless there is a big preponderance of evidence one way or the other. Sadly, I have not played the game enough to add much anecdotal evidence of my own.

Another question is whether the game code takes hull thickness into account. If a large ship, with a hull several millimetres thick is hit by an MG, is penetration a 100% sure thing, given that the ship does not have any armour? Or is there a chance that the hull alone will stop the penetration? I have to say here that I am entirely ignorant of what the chances are of an MG shell penetrating an unarmoured steel ship's hull.

Even without answering these questions I think that armour added to PT boats and other small craft (such as SCs) should probably be removed. IF hull thickness is NOT taken into account by the code at all, then there might be a case for retaining a small amount of "armour" in larger ships to represent that. Again, I don't have the references on hand to know what types, and sizes, of ships would qualify. This would also depend on how effective unarmoured hulls are in stopping small shells vs armour plate. For example, if the game code does not take unarmoured hulls into account, and if unarmoured hulls are about half as effective as armour of the same thickness in stopping shells, a 4mm thick hull could then be represented by 2mm "armour" in the database.

As mentioned I am speaking in ignorance of actuall hull thickness on ships, unarmoured steel vs armour plate effectiveness, and how the game code works. I am just making some general comments as I see the issue.

Andrew

I can't see hull thickness being modelled given the fact that anything will penetrate the hull when a zero rating is used. There is nothing there, and therefore nothing to stop MGs from causing critical hits and magazine explosions more often than actual AP and HE shells (rate of fire). I play this game alot and have seen it. Why would Lemurs have put it in if he had not seen it?

I feel we are starting to walk backwards here.

[Ron Saueracker]

It is quite possible for a 3" or 5" shell hit to a PT boat to happen and for it to survive. If the shell is solid shot it would most like pass straight through. If the shell is HE it is more likely to cause damage, but only if its fuse is set to explode before it passes completely through the boat. The most damage to a wooden boat would likely be caused by an HE round that is fused to explode on contact. It should be noted that even a solid shot will cause damage especially if it hits something like the engine

True, but arguing this in lieu of any near miss damage from same shells (shredding the PT with splinters etc) because is not modelled once again causes an all or nothing situation. That was the whole point of adding a few mm of armor to simulate plating...to address these issues (no armor should be on PTs...that was a mistake but having .303s kill DDs is a long shot at best and should not be modelled if other more prevalent instances are ignored by the model).

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

planes have an armour rating

Because planes had armor. When I found Sally rated as being armored, I took it off - she wasn't!!!

Sure planes had armour, and it was BOILER PLATE in many instances. (F4F-3 field mods) Guys, think about it![:(]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I can't see hull thickness being modelled given the fact that anything will penetrate the hull when a zero rating is used. There is nothing there, and therefore nothing to stop MGs from causing critical hits and magazine explosions more often than actual AP and HE shells (rate of fire). I play this game alot and have seen it. Why would Lemurs have put it in if he had not seen it?

That begs the question though, even if it is the case (and the only way to be sure is through some proper testing) - how effective are unarmoured steel hulls at stopoing MG rounds?

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I can't see hull thickness being modelled given the fact that anything will penetrate the hull when a zero rating is used. There is nothing there, and therefore nothing to stop MGs from causing critical hits and magazine explosions more often than actual AP and HE shells (rate of fire). I play this game alot and have seen it. Why would Lemurs have put it in if he had not seen it?

That begs the question though, even if it is the case (and the only way to be sure is through some proper testing) - how effective are unarmoured steel hulls at stopoing MG rounds?

Even if the MG round penetrates hull thickness, so what? The round needs to set off an explosive to do real damage. (magazine, torpedo, depth charge, etc). Yes, there will be a hole, and crew will be hurt, and systems will not function properly, but we're talking about DD's being sunk by MG, not damaged.

Here is the problem that was happening in the game that caused the CHS guys to add armor: Ships were being sunk on a semi-regular basis because of magazine explosions. Yes, they did tweak magazine explosions in a later patch, but they still happen. In the game, a DD being strafed will take a small amount of damage, and I doubt that either player will be bothered by this. However, there is a significant chance that that same DD will explode from a MG hit. If it happens more than 2-3 times in the entire war, then something is wrong. That is what the 5mm of armor was trying to stop.

I can think of only one example of a ship being sunk by a MG round in the real war. A Japanese PC or DE was sunk by magazine explosion from a strafing fighter. There was footage of it happening. I don't know of any other large ship that MG's sank. I don't know everything, so I'm sure there were more. But, the current rules say that about 2% of penetrating hits will cause a magazine explosion. That seems too much to me, especially if people use fighters and PT's in great quantities to strafe ships.

Of course, El Cid did point out that the minimum penetration value in the game is 10, so 5mm of armor is a moot point to argue. zero or 5, it makes no difference.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I can't see hull thickness being modelled given the fact that anything will penetrate the hull when a zero rating is used. There is nothing there, and therefore nothing to stop MGs from causing critical hits and magazine explosions more often than actual AP and HE shells (rate of fire). I play this game alot and have seen it. Why would Lemurs have put it in if he had not seen it?

That begs the question though, even if it is the case (and the only way to be sure is through some proper testing) - how effective are unarmoured steel hulls at stopoing MG rounds?

If you are referring to game hulls, I've been involved with this since UV was in beta and I have NEVER seen an unarmoured hit location stop anything. Period.

[Ron Saueracker]

Of course, El Cid did point out that the minimum penetration value in the game is 10, so 5mm of armor is a moot point to argue. zero or 5, it makes no difference.

Don't be so sure. Depth Charges with zero penetration ratings penetrate the sub armour in CHS (1-4mm) regularily. I think there are a few anomalies or variables at work here.