blowing up deck gear/smokestack/deck guns on enemy ships

[Keelbuster]

Can you inflict critical damage (and flooding) by destroying components of enemy ships that sit on the deck? You can blow up masts, cargo, deck guns, ports, and the smoke stack. I was particularly interested in the smokestack, because it appears to fall down into the engine room - can this do critical damage to those compartments?

Wishful,

Kb

[MarshalLaw]

In the stock game, starting fires on deck of a ship will help it along to being sunk. With small merchants they can be sunk with gunfire only. I usually use around 20 HE shells or so to send one to the bottom. As for the bigger ships. they can be sunk with gunfire just takes alot more shells.
However most people punch holes below the waterline with AP shells.

As for GW and the other mods out there, I'm not sure how fires on deck effect the sinking rate.

[STEED]

In the early stages of the war before merchant ships are armed with deck guns I get in close and blow up the smoke stack. Then fire on their cargo to start fires and then the bridge if there are two ships. I fire on the nearest ship and target its screws to cripple it. And then go after the other one sink it and return to finish off the first one. Latter on in the war when Merchants have guns, keep my distances and aim for the water line.

[jasonb885]

Originally Posted by MarshalLaw

In the stock game, starting fires on deck of a ship will help it along to being sunk. With small merchants they can be sunk with gunfire only. I usually use around 20 HE shells or so to send one to the bottom. As for the bigger ships. they can be sunk with gunfire just takes alot more shells.
However most people punch holes below the waterline with AP shells.

As for GW and the other mods out there, I'm not sure how fires on deck effect the sinking rate.

My understanding of the damage model is it's entirely based on whether a compartment is partially or fully flooded. Fires aren't actual damage and do not contribute anything.

The reason you can sink stock ships by gunfire is they have extremely low HPs, so eventually they just go boom. The run out of hitpoints before actually sinking.

So, blowing stuff up on deck is cool, but accomplishes nothing. You want to aim below the waterline for maximum effect, where the shell spashes and then hits the hull. Of course, in stock, it doesn't really matter.

[Keelbuster]

Hmmm. I use TW, and according to the docs, it's all about buoyancy; deck gear don't mean squat. But, the other day I had a small merchant that was listing bad, but was sinking very slowly (like it might take half a day). I was close, so I couldn't get under the water line. Rather, I hammered the smoke stack. Sure enough, the sinking sound started straight away and she went under. I felt like I had caused her to flood more quickly by taking out the smokestack (i kinda picture all sorts of stuff falling back into the engine and stopping the pumps).

Kb

[jasonb885]

Originally Posted by Keelbuster

Hmmm. I use TW, and according to the docs, it's all about buoyancy; deck gear don't mean squat. But, the other day I had a small merchant that was listing bad, but was sinking very slowly (like it might take half a day). I was close, so I couldn't get under the water line. Rather, I hammered the smoke stack. Sure enough, the sinking sound started straight away and she went under. I felt like I had caused her to flood more quickly by taking out the smokestack (i kinda picture all sorts of stuff falling back into the engine and stopping the pumps).

Kb

It was probably near its HP cap, then. Teddy did extensive testing and you really cannot sink a ship by hitting upper parts of the ship, unless it's near its HP cap and about to blow.

[Keelbuster]

Aye - sounds right to me.

Kb

[bookworm_020]

I took out a T3 which I had torpedoed, but still floated. I had used all my torps up and as I had traded in my deck gun for more Heavy AA, it ment man the flack guns.
Using AP in my 37mm I blazed away destroing all the deck cargo, bidge, lifeboats and vents.

She then went up with a bang, and I got the credit I was after. Used most of the AP ammo, but thats whats it's there for!

[Skubber]

This is an interesting topic, because in the actual U-boat handbook given out to skippers. the instructions for dispatching enemy ships with the deck gun strongly emphasize setting fire to the deck.

Well, to be more accurate, using the U-boat as a gunnery vessel is strongly discouraged by U-boat command, but under ideal conditions it may be used, and in order to sink a ship it says "the deck must burn".

So it would seem accurate if that was modeled into the game.

[Keelbuster]

Fire is a destructive thing - everytime I light up a boat, I get that feeling of internal satisfaction - that my target has started to consume itself. Even if SH3 doesn't model it, I model it.

Kb

Ok lets think about this for a moment. Onboard a ship are MANY highly combustable substances. From fuel to paint (ever seen paint burn, nasty stuff). Hell even the old fashion ROPES burnt real good!(hemp). You add in the volitile nature of war cargo carried by merchants and it all adds up to a very dangours mix. It dont even have to be munitions, all the packing and materials used back then were not very fire resistant.

Now take into account that these ships are MERCHANT ships not WARSHIPS. This means that when they were built the CHEAPEST means possible were used (after all its all about money right) in their construction. This also means NO armouring (of course). So what you end up with is the THINEST steel/iron (lot of iron was still used) ship's hull and bracing that money can buy, that just passes survey (commissioning of a ship). now what happens when you heat up any metal ? It gets plyable/soft, it looses its structual strength.

So what do you think happens when you have a raging fire onboard a ship - it looses its structual strength and is prone to critical hull integrity loss. Why, because the fire has weakend the Bulkhead an tween decks to such a degree that the shear weight of the ship its self causes it to collapes in on its self.

Even today an onboard ship fire is a MAJOR concern and is never taken lightly. Its 1 of a seamans worst nightmares.

Hence why "Set the ship alight" was part of SOP's for DG action. Basicaly its an attempt to get the fire to such a state that the ship is doomed by its own nature.

Therefore "setting the ship alight" should have a detrimental effect to the ship's integrity.

As to the rounds used by U-Boats, I dont think any1 realises just how big a blast area they have. For a 105mm round we are talking around the 50m mark (88m about 36-38m). Thats sharpnel, hot gases that will sear flesh of bone, start fires and a shock wave bad enough to make you deaf for quite some time. And thats just a standed HE round. AP rounds are basicaly a delayed reaction fused round. So instead of deternation on contact they are delayed UPTO 0.5sec. Now 0.5 sec's may not seam like much but you have to remember how far that round can travel INSIDE the target for those 0.5 sec's. Yes it has to punch threw the hull and the inner hull/Cargo hold bulkheads, but this is excatly what they will do. Remember we are talking CHEAPLY built ships here - not a battle wagon. Yes it should take a few good hits to get the results your after but not 200+ something, thats just total ¢rap. If its taking more that 10-20 rounds (thats good solid hits to suitable parts of a ship, not total of rounds fired, you should miss more than you hit) to get a ship well an trully ablaze and SUNK than its not correct. Sinking times may still take a while but not to the extent of days required to sink a ship. Also the size of a ship to a certain degree dont count, because the bigger the ship the more volitile material carried onboard.

So I have in the LRG mod made all HE rounds have a bigger blast area with a smaller punch and AP rounds have a Bigger punch but a smaller blast area (to sorta simulate internal explosion as opposed to a big surface explosion with HE). The problem we face is that ALL rounds detornate on contact (no penertraion of the ships hull model). The funny thing is I have noticed that after doing so and watching Battle wagons duking it out, that from a good AP hit that looks like it didnt even do much of anything, the ships will slow down like thay have internal problems. The HE rounds quite successfully blow all the packing off ships and do indeed start fires. If an AP round hits a critical area (magazine) the battlewagon is doomed (Big BOOM). I then applied the same reasoning to the subs DG's and I'm very happy with how it works. I dont think some of the realisim crowd will be overly happy but then again many of the so called realisim tweaks are not altogether realistic anyhow.

I do apologise for the rant but I think the above needed to be said.

I agree, especially about the fear of fire; been there, done that, suffered through a general quarters drill in the early morning, only to be told it wasn't a drill, we had had a fire in the steering room.

As to the damage effects of shells, maybe you need to look at some of the actual action reports, including merchants taking over 100 hits from a deck gun and still not sinking. 50 meters is almost 200 feet, and no shell under 14-16 inches in diameter will have a blast that size, and then only HE hitting an open position on land. I refer you to John Campbell's Jutland: an Account of the Fighting, which tracks each shell hit location and the damage sustained during that battle. AP shells carry a much smaller charge than HE, and even a small HE round usually only carries about 10% burster charge by weight, which means that an 8.8cm gun HE shell has a charge of only 3-4 pounds. While still quite impressive, it took a lot more than 10-20 rounds to sink the average merchant. As has been pointed out many times, the deck gun was never considered a primary weapon for a submarine.

As to your assertion that the delay on an AP round was 5 seconds, try .05 seconds. Yes, that's 5/100ths of a second. At impact the usual round is still travelling somewhere in the area of 1500 feet per second; at 5 seconds delay the shell would go off almost a mile on the other side of the ship after passing through.

Again, I agree with you about a fire onboard being a sailor's worst nightmare, but as to the rest I would politely suggest that you need to do some more research.

[Keelbuster]

arg...

Yep your correct, delay is 0.5 sec's. I typed the post above at around 02:00am and made the typo. Only saw it this morning

As to blast area, 50m is correct. A Blast area is defined as the area that any round will have an effect on. This does not mean that you will have an explosion 50m in Dia (btw with arty its not even a circular blast area - its a forward blast area that effects out to 50m at about 60° to either side of forward flight) , Its the area that particular matter , ie: gases, shrapnel, shock wave, will have an effect on. Of course it has less effect out at the outer limits but it still has potential. The actual explosion area (what you see as the bang) is another matter entierly. Now since these are indeed hitting a ship (such as the side of a ship)and not an open bit of dirt yes we would get LESS effect out at 50m, but on an open deck, 50m would still be the rule. As to what the blast area would be on an impact say on the side of a ship, that would be determined by the amount of resistant's met as the the blast area expanded. It would not be unconciveable to still get bits of shrapnel travling through hull an bulkheads nearly out to the 30-50m mark (depending on the hull construction). Gases and shock wave would of course be reduced by the hull but it would still make inroads into the inside of a hull.

BTW 50m is 164' - Not a very big distance when you consider how fast bits of shrapnel and what not are traveling at. Hollywood has a lot to answer for, I can't recall the amount of films I have seen where a shell has gone off at about 20-40' from a character in the film and he's not even disorientated let alone scratched !! I have spent nearly 20y of my life working with explosives and can say quite correctly thats utter BS.

As to the "reports" that a ship needed 100+ rounds to sink, its either very bad gunnery and they FIRED 100 rounds but didnt get 100 hits (that I'd believe due to the gun platform in use, ie: sub) or some1 is telling furfy's. I would believe the first any day, I never stated you sould only have to fire 10-20 round, I said 10-20 GOOD hits should do the job of stating a bloody good fire and the rest should attend to its self. I also said you should MISS more than you hit. That would then account for more rounds expended at the target. Even if they did hit 100 times with 100 rounds fired (doubt it), then 1 has to ask how many were just blowing the packing off because they were not GOOD solid hits. I still stand by my statement.

PS: Ohh btw, just a bit of FYI, the only type of arty that has a near perfect circular blast area is a mortar! Also on an 81mm mortar the blast area is 20m Dia. Another fact of interest is that mortar arty fire has accounted for more deaths and leathal woundings in warfare than any other type of arty, since it was the first type of arty to ever be invented and used way back in history.

[bill clarke]

CDRE Gibs, I whole heartedly agree with you, how the Devs didn't model the fire to progressively damage the ship is beyond me.
That is one of my gripes with the game, also putting an AP round in the engine compartment should have a big impact, not only damage but most of the crew should be dead too, and blowing deck cargo up should also add progressively to the damage. During the opening phases of the battle of the River Plate, a 11" shell from the Graf Spee, burst about 20 yards from the Exeter, cutting down her port side torpedo crew and riddling the tubes with splinters, as you say these shells are indeed leathal when they detonate, I just wish the devs had taken this more in to account.