Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
USMC_FMF

Using water to prevent over-pens and arming shells.

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

176
[SRBL]
Members
568 posts
15,754 battles
2 minutes ago, USMC_FMF said:

Just so you know, aim at the water to arm the shells and citadel instead of over-pen. As per the official live stream:

https://clips.twitch.tv/FaintBoredShrimpNerfRedBlaster-_rJ3CY3A6Ev3Ycpr

Worked in real life, it's partly how the Washington blapped the Kirishima. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,319
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
3,906 posts

Not partly.

South Dakota was under bombardment by Kirishima for 8 plus minutes, no power, no ventilation, no lights no nothing. Dead guns etc. What that proved was the all or nothing concept of the American design of the new armor layout for modern battleships. The bow and stern were less important. They were able to use that experience to learn from that problem in battle what worked and what did not.

I have been searching for a report on the USS South Dakota referencing specifically the damage it took or damage prevented by armor.

The Washington was in her time of destroying the Kirishima at the apex elite status of her training, commander, electronics and all that focused strictly on radar gunnery. She scrapped the Kirishima in about 9 minutes of frantic reload drill. It takes like 20 seconds of a very specific drill to get those main guns up.

I remember the USS Iowa in the Cold War time when a disgruntled sailor apparently abused the ram system in the B turret and detonated the powder. 5 or 6 bags of the stuff everyone in the turret was killed instantly and the thing vented the exploding through the bottom ring onto the deck. I recall specifically a video from that. What was classified for a while seems the Iowa did not repair the B turret at all. Just left as it is other than clean up and removal of the dead.

This is probably the one instance specifically that safety considerations and engineering prevented the flash from spearing down the shaft to the magazine. It certainly would have sunk the thing outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,129
[FOXY]
Members
2,566 posts
7,729 battles
13 minutes ago, xHeavy said:

Not partly.

South Dakota was under bombardment by Kirishima for 8 plus minutes, no power, no ventilation, no lights no nothing. Dead guns etc. What that proved was the all or nothing concept of the American design of the new armor layout for modern battleships. The bow and stern were less important. They were able to use that experience to learn from that problem in battle what worked and what did not.

I have been searching for a report on the USS South Dakota referencing specifically the damage it took or damage prevented by armor.

The Washington was in her time of destroying the Kirishima at the apex elite status of her training, commander, electronics and all that focused strictly on radar gunnery. She scrapped the Kirishima in about 9 minutes of frantic reload drill. It takes like 20 seconds of a very specific drill to get those main guns up.

I remember the USS Iowa in the Cold War time when a disgruntled sailor apparently abused the ram system in the B turret and detonated the powder. 5 or 6 bags of the stuff everyone in the turret was killed instantly and the thing vented the exploding through the bottom ring onto the deck. I recall specifically a video from that. What was classified for a while seems the Iowa did not repair the B turret at all. Just left as it is other than clean up and removal of the dead.

This is probably the one instance specifically that safety considerations and engineering prevented the flash from spearing down the shaft to the magazine. It certainly would have sunk the thing outright.

"During its review, Sandia determined that a significant overram of the powder bags into the gun had occurred as it was being loaded and that the overram could have caused the explosion. A subsequent test by the Navy of the overram scenario confirmed that an overram could have caused an explosion in the gun breech. Sandia's technicians also found that the physical evidence did not support the U.S. Navy's theory that an electronic or chemical detonator had been used to initiate the explosion.

In response to the new findings, the U.S. Navy, with Sandia's assistance, reopened the investigation. In August 1991, Sandia and the GAO completed their reports, concluding that it was likely that the explosion was caused by an accidental overram of powder bags into the breech of the 16-inch gun. The U.S. Navy, however, disagreed with Sandia's opinion and concluded that the cause of the explosion could not be determined. The U.S. Navy expressed regret (but did not offer an apology) to Hartwig's family and closed its investigation."

And yes, the USN is the exact kind of people who would blame a sailor being disgruntled over wanting to admit a flaw in their policy, training or equipment.

Also, as to the engagement with Kirashima, here is the detailed report with a hit by hit, play by play:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/South_Dakota_Damage_Analysis.php

its fairly detailed.

Edited by Princess_Daystar
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,179
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,233 posts
4,348 battles

I'm not sure that this is good advice. There was a patch a year or two ago where this was absolutely a thing, and BBs like Conqueror, Republic, and GK started taking reliable citadels at long range. WG said this was a bug, and fixed it. As far as I know they did this by adjusting shell normalization on water impact. Essentially when the shell hits the water it's going to be directed in a pretty random direction in addition to losing energy. So while it CAN continue on a relatively straight trajectory it most likely will not, and your shell will just splash harmlessly. In addition there is a very small window where the shell will actually maintain enough energy to reach and penetrate the hull. So aiming lower will most likely just end up with more shells splashing. You're best option is still to aim waterline. That way most shells will hit the ship directly, and if shells disperse into the water close enough you may get a lucky underwater hit. But aiming at the water is just going to result in most of your shells splashing. I've tested this a bit, and know several other people have as well and we certainly weren't able to get reliable hits, if anything it indicated that shells hitting the water may just be removed from the game.

As to why the twins said this, I don't know. It was a bit more common previously, but never completely reliable (except for that one buggy patch which only happened at long range anyway). It's an assumption I've seen a couple times, backed up by the fact that there seems to be some underwater travel mechanism so they may just be going off out of date experience.

In short, waterline is still the best aim point for citadels as underwater shell travel is incredibly unreliable if it even is still a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,100
[WPORT]
Members
10,985 posts
15,481 battles
Spoiler

Shooting a Submachine Gun into a Pool

https://youtu.be/R3rRKtwjrNc

 

Edited by Wolfswetpaws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,100
[WPORT]
Members
10,985 posts
15,481 battles

Bouncing Bullets off Water

26,122 views • Oct 7, 2015 • We all know what happens when you shoot a rifle bullet at water. It ricochets. But how much does it ricochet? Our expert 'Fish' tries to shoot a target 80 yards/metres away across a Scottish loch by bouncing the bullet off the water. Find out what he finds out!
 

Amazing Video of Bullets Skipping on Water. FarmCraft101

38,947 views • Nov 1, 2019 • Ever wonder what happens in the moment of time that a "fast moving projectile" contacts the water and skips? Well, wonder no longer. Let's watch!
 

 

Edited by Wolfswetpaws
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,012
[WOLFG]
Members
13,270 posts
12,537 battles
2 hours ago, USMC_FMF said:

Just so you know, aim at the water to arm the shells and citadel instead of over-pen. As per the official live stream:

https://clips.twitch.tv/FaintBoredShrimpNerfRedBlaster-_rJ3CY3A6Ev3Ycpr

If you are shooting at something like a broadside Helena with a Jean Bart, it is often the most reliable way to get cits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,008
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,824 posts
24,356 battles
2 hours ago, USMC_FMF said:

Just so you know, aim at the water to arm the shells and citadel instead of over-pen. As per the official live stream:

https://clips.twitch.tv/FaintBoredShrimpNerfRedBlaster-_rJ3CY3A6Ev3Ycpr

Won't work on British bbs with quick arming ap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[KRAB]
Members
928 posts
7,402 battles

It would help a lot if we had reliable information on what WG does to shells that hit the water. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
16 posts
25 minutes ago, MaxL_1023 said:

It would help a lot if we had reliable information on what WG does to shells that hit the water. 

They recycle them into loot crates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[TSF]
Beta Testers
425 posts
16,404 battles

I read somewhere that the Iowa's powder was made during WW2, and after the explosion, all of that vintage powder was destroyed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[VCW-E]
Members
7 posts
15,767 battles
13 hours ago, CaptnAndy said:

I read somewhere that the Iowa's powder was made during WW2, and after the explosion, all of that vintage powder was destroyed.

 

I believe this to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,410
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead
16,475 posts
4,774 battles
On 6/25/2021 at 4:17 PM, MaxL_1023 said:

It would help a lot if we had reliable information on what WG does to shells that hit the water. 

Reading is OP.  Look at the post directly above yours.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×