Jump to content


Photo

Equivalent Damage


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 604 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:24 PM

First, Let me paint the picture. I was sailing along in my squadron of HSF light cruisers armed solely with 4.1" guns. Being (at that time) the good light cruiser man I was (I've since converted to an armored cruiser man) I knew that I needed to get close and cross the Brit's Tee if I was going to have any result at all against the Shannon's CA armor. So I did it; I crossed his Tee at under 4,000 yards range and unloaded into his bow with 24 guns at rapid fire(4 LC at 6 guns each) and achieved 12 hits.

I was across his bow and outside his broadside firing arc with all 4 of my ships so I treated his CA armor as CL which I penetrate at that range. I then went to the equivalent damage rolls table expecting to have my wonderful result dampened a bit. To my horror I found that because Shannon is a CA for mass reguardless of any armor reductions all my hits were useless except as attempts to roll a critical hit which of course I failed to do even once. I would have gleefully torpedoed him at this point, but I was going too fast to fire my underwater fixed torpedoes (If you think crossing the tee is hard, try doing it at 10 knots or less).

So, did I resolve it correctly? I think I did and that is why I've converted to armored cruisers. Some one please give CLs a chance (the Germans did it by rearmming with 5.9") and coach me on some other (and hopefully more useful) tactic because 4.1" suck.

#2 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:51 PM

First, Let me paint the picture. I was sailing along in my squadron of HSF light cruisers armed solely with 4.1" guns. Being (at that time) the good light cruiser man I was (I've since converted to an armored cruiser man) I knew that I needed to get close and cross the Brit's Tee if I was going to have any result at all against the Shannon's CA armor. So I did it; I crossed his Tee at under 4,000 yards range and unloaded into his bow with 24 guns at rapid fire(4 LC at 6 guns each) and achieved 12 hits.

I was across his bow and outside his broadside firing arc with all 4 of my ships so I treated his CA armor as CL which I penetrate at that range. I then went to the equivalent damage rolls table expecting to have my wonderful result dampened a bit. To my horror I found that because Shannon is a CA for mass reguardless of any armor reductions all my hits were useless except as attempts to roll a critical hit which of course I failed to do even once. I would have gleefully torpedoed him at this point, but I was going too fast to fire my underwater fixed torpedoes (If you think crossing the tee is hard, try doing it at 10 knots or less).

So, did I resolve it correctly? I think I did and that is why I've converted to armored cruisers. Some one please give CLs a chance (the Germans did it by rearmming with 5.9") and coach me on some other (and hopefully more useful) tactic because 4.1" suck.

Yep, that's the way you do it. The early war CLs with 4" or 4.1" guns aren't able to match up against anything other than DDs, TBDs and CLs.

#3 Frank

Frank

    Private

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:37 PM

Well, the Nurnberg did sink the already crippled Monmouth with 4.1 guns. However, this was at extremely close range, the Monmouth couldn't return fire, and she might have already been sinking. Nurnberg caused a hit on the Kent at the Falklands battle that started an ammunition fire that could have been fatal. But that comes under critical hits. German light cruisers didn't even fare well against even their more heavily armed British counterparts. Sidney vs. Emden, Glasgow vs. Leipzig at Falklands. Although causing considerable damage, the crippled Koln didn't sink a single one of the destroyers that sank her.

Frank

#4 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 604 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:17 PM

I was afraid that I had resolved it correctly. That leads to the next point. first, I would not have any issue at all if I had not penetrated the Shannon's armor, some times bullets bounce.
But, I did penetrate the Shannon's bow armor with 12 hits. That is a lot of splinters flying around in the Shannon's forward torpedo flat with some eight 18" torpedoes (2 tubes with 3 reloads each) exposed to their fury. Yes, they are only 18 inchers, but I don't believe there is a single armored cruiser ever constructed that could have survivied eight 18" torpedo strikes in her bow, let alone exploding inside her torpedo flat. I also believe the flat is just ahead of the armored bulkhead screening the forward magazine and we know what happens when you blow things up in a British magazine. But, because the Equivalent Damage table makes no provision at all for any damage on a CA or larger target by that caliber of gun, even if the armor is penetrated, the result is the same as if I never hit her at all.
I realize that this is an odd ball occurance brought on by our using the optional rule of reducing a ship's armor class when she is being struck end on by shells. I agree with the optional rule that armored bulkhead forward and certainly the aft bulkhead are going to be weaker than the armor belt. It now appears to me that the optional rule was not coordinated with the CRT and in effect negates the opional rule when the firing ship's guns need the optional rule to penetrate the target ship's armor.
I love the FAI gunnery rules, but that seems like a crock to me. Please, tell me I'm wrong and explain why? Otherwise my converstion to armored cruisers stands and that means I'm not going to keep up with the times that are a changing.
Signed Painfully Old Fashioned

#5 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:55 PM

I was afraid that I had resolved it correctly. That leads to the next point. first, I would not have any issue at all if I had not penetrated the Shannon's armor, some times bullets bounce.
But, I did penetrate the Shannon's bow armor with 12 hits. That is a lot of splinters flying around in the Shannon's forward torpedo flat with some eight 18" torpedoes (2 tubes with 3 reloads each) exposed to their fury. Yes, they are only 18 inchers, but I don't believe there is a single armored cruiser ever constructed that could have survivied eight 18" torpedo strikes in her bow, let alone exploding inside her torpedo flat. I also believe the flat is just ahead of the armored bulkhead screening the forward magazine and we know what happens when you blow things up in a British magazine. But, because the Equivalent Damage table makes no provision at all for any damage on a CA or larger target by that caliber of gun, even if the armor is penetrated, the result is the same as if I never hit her at all.
I realize that this is an odd ball occurance brought on by our using the optional rule of reducing a ship's armor class when she is being struck end on by shells. I agree with the optional rule that armored bulkhead forward and certainly the aft bulkhead are going to be weaker than the armor belt. It now appears to me that the optional rule was not coordinated with the CRT and in effect negates the opional rule when the firing ship's guns need the optional rule to penetrate the target ship's armor.
I love the FAI gunnery rules, but that seems like a crock to me. Please, tell me I'm wrong and explain why? Otherwise my converstion to armored cruisers stands and that means I'm not going to keep up with the times that are a changing.
Signed Painfully Old Fashioned

The reason for placing a cutoff on the effect of some guns (mainly the smaller ones) is that historically they were minimally effective on larger targets. Very, very rarely you might have some significant damage occur (the 'golden BB' effect), but the game has to reflect what is likely, not what is a one in a million occurrence. While a serving officer would make the determination not to waste ammo on such a target, wargamers are notorious for firing off every weapon at every target, no matter how ineffective such fire may be (thereby slowing the game down. Imagine the effect on playing time if every DD in multiple flotillas took its shot at a CA and you'll see my point).

Now in your particular case, I would still rule the 4.1" as ineffective (the target is still a CA regardless of the modification to the local armor due to the optional rule). And as for the specific shot location (torpedo flat), the game mechanism is not that specific (you don't see this in any of the other part of the game since determining such hit locations, beyond the broad generalities used, is beyond the scope of the game). So I'm afraid the hits would be considered ineffective.

Now, regarding the ineffectiveness of the eary war CLs. That actually is quite realistic. Both sides soon realized that 4" to 4.1" armed scout cruisers were weakly armed. And, in any case, their mission was not to engage heavier ships but to act as scouts for the main battleline and, in some cases, as leaders for the DD flotillas. As such, their most likely opposition was seen as either like armed CLs during the scouting mission or DDs during a tactical action. Taking on anything larger was not in their mission statement. Later, both the Germans and the British recognized that these ships were woefully under armed (given their size) and a general switch to larger guns was done (to 5.9" and 6") with many of the surviving CLs being refitted and later construction receiving the heavier armament from the start.

#6 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 604 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:32 PM

OK, I got it and I understand, but I remain converted to armored cruisers. I agree with all your points; as did the Brits when they upgunned all the towns after the Bristol class to pure 6" batteries. Of course they then reverted to mixed 6" & 4" batteries with the Arethusas and the first 12 C class; go figure. In any case the gunnery is simply too clean otherwise to quible over. I'll simply make a house rule that you cannot penetrate armor if you cannot reach the damage threshold for that armor class on the equivalent damage table and that will prevent it ever coming up again.

#7 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:26 AM

OK, I got it and I understand, but I remain converted to armored cruisers. I agree with all your points; as did the Brits when they upgunned all the towns after the Bristol class to pure 6" batteries. Of course they then reverted to mixed 6" & 4" batteries with the Arethusas and the first 12 C class; go figure. In any case the gunnery is simply too clean otherwise to quible over. I'll simply make a house rule that you cannot penetrate armor if you cannot reach the damage threshold for that armor class on the equivalent damage table and that will prevent it ever coming up again.


Well, that is actually the rule as it is supposed to be played. If the gun cannot affect the ship (as represented by the ship armor type rating), then no hits can be scored.

#8 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Lt Colonel

  • Members
  • 604 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:31 AM

You are right, but the optional rule which I've been playing with since I was stationed in Germany in the late 70s leads one to suppose they can penetrate the armor with the logical but wrong expectation that they can then cause damage. I want to shut it off before they get to the equivalent damage table (which being new is often an after thought) so I don't have to listen too the complaint that I gave you and then repeat the answer you gave me. I know, you got stuck with it; so why shouldn't I? Because, I can see it coming and I'm going to duck.

#9 simanton

simanton

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 211 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:00 PM

I have read accounts which say that Nuernberg finished Monmouth off with a torpedo on top of the 4.1". The WWI cruiser was Coeln rather than Koeln, I don't know the reason the Germans decided to respell the city and ship. Amusingly, Grossadmiral Raeder was known to revert to the old spelling when referring to the K-cruiser Koeln.

#10 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:19 PM

I have read accounts which say that Nuernberg finished Monmouth off with a torpedo on top of the 4.1". The WWI cruiser was Coeln rather than Koeln, I don't know the reason the Germans decided to respell the city and ship. Amusingly, Grossadmiral Raeder was known to revert to the old spelling when referring to the K-cruiser Koeln.

According to most sources, by the time Nurnberg 'finished off' Monmouth, Monmouth was already well on the well to sinking. So in game terms, such additional damage wouldn't be logged since it'd constitute 'bouncing the rumble'.

As for the German ship names, I've seen ever variation possible in period and modern sources with seemingly no consensus. So, for me, I go with whatever source I trust and let it go...

#11 simanton

simanton

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 211 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:25 PM

In game terms, undoubtedly right.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users