Why nagato 410mm gun has the same penetration pattern with fuso 356mm gun？？？

[侧卫]

I have searched and read some discussion in community，I dont want to talk about which one is better between japan 410mm and US 406mm，I just want to say，japan 410mm must be better than japan 356mm.

[Battleshipfree99]

Patterns are same, but please note the range scale. 410mm is indeed better than 356mm.

[侧卫]

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

Patterns are same, but please note the range scale. 410mm is indeed better than 356mm.

I am talking about penetration，not range. It is indubitable that 410mm gun has more penetration than 356mm. I dont know why you change the topic to gun range, which is a totally useless parameter since visual range only 11nm for BB.
Oh, by the way, 356mm reload time is 30s, 410 is 40s. It is not better, actually 410mm is worse than 356mm in this game.

[Grant]

Originally posted by 侧卫:

I have searched and read some discussion in community，I dont want to talk about which one is better between japan 410mm and US 406mm，I just want to say，japan 410mm must be better than japan 356mm.

It is historically correct, their penetration are similar due to how the guns were design. The 356mm on the Kongo and Isle Classes were design by the famous Vickers (British), meanwhile the 410mm was Japan first attempt at designing their own large-caliber cannons. The 410mm had an smaller muzzle diameter than compare to the British 381mm, and it is highly likely the cannon wasn't fully wire wound (design that allows gun of similar caliber to perform much better than ones without it). It meant that while the 410mm was bigger than the 356mm, it generate the same amount of velocity as the British 356mm. In having similar velocity, the 410mm suffers in penetration because its heavier shells will get slow down much faster while in the air than the 356mm. As for shells type, both guns use the same shell types since the 1930s, so the 410mm doesn't gain any advantage there.
As for the US 406mm, it has far better performance (almost matching the bigger Japanese 460mm) simply because the US had access to higher quality metals. From the cannon down to the shell, the US wasn't cheap about using the best materials to ensure maximum effectiveness.

[侧卫]

Originally posted by Grant:

Originally posted by 侧卫:

I have searched and read some discussion in community，I dont want to talk about which one is better between japan 410mm and US 406mm，I just want to say，japan 410mm must be better than japan 356mm.

It is historically correct, their penetration are similar due to how the guns were design. The 356mm on the Kongo and Isle Classes were design by the famous Vickers (British), meanwhile the 410mm was Japan first attempt at designing their own large-caliber cannons. The 410mm had an smaller muzzle diameter than compare to the British 381mm, and it is highly likely the cannon wasn't fully wire wound (design that allows gun of similar caliber to perform much better than ones without it). It meant that while the 410mm was bigger than the 356mm, it generate the same amount of velocity as the British 356mm. In having similar velocity, the 410mm suffers in penetration because its heavier shells will get slow down much faster while in the air than the 356mm. As for shells type, both guns use the same shell types since the 1930s, so the 410mm doesn't gain any advantage there.
As for the US 406mm, it has far better performance (almost matching the bigger Japanese 460mm) simply because the US had access to higher quality metals. From the cannon down to the shell, the US wasn't cheap about using the best materials to ensure maximum effectiveness.

“the 410mm suffers in penetration because its heavier shells will get slow down much faster while in the air than the 356mm.” ？？？？Do you understand Newton‘s law of motion？If you cant use basic physical principle，I can tell you, at the same 30000m range，40cm 3rd year gun's ap has 462m/s velocity，36cm 41st year gun's ap has 414m/s velocity, while weight of 410mm gun ap is 1000kg, 356mm gun ap is 635kg.

[Grant]

I forgot to mention that the developers also included their own formula that pretty much nerf all the cannons too. I guess whatever they included simplified the 410mm to have the same as the 356mm.
However, it is important to note that the Japanese 410mm did had better penetration than the 356mm, but not by much considering being bigger in sizes.
Overall, the game isn't super realistic, otherwise the US will just dominate the Japanese with their superior radar and FCS. In fact, for the two major surface battles that the USN lost, the idiotic American commanders choose the worst decisions possible in how to use their radar effectively.
Game went for balance over real life performance. It is the reason why the Nagato is cheaper in-game cost than the Ise or Fuso even though it costed more to produce IRL being a newer ship.

[Battleshipfree99]

Originally posted by 侧卫:

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

Patterns are same, but please note the range scale. 410mm is indeed better than 356mm.

I am talking about penetration，not range. It is indubitable that 410mm gun has more penetration than 356mm. I dont know why you change the topic to gun range, which is a totally useless parameter since visual range only 11nm for BB.
Oh, by the way, 356mm reload time is 30s, 410 is 40s. It is not better, actually 410mm is worse than 356mm in this game.

Due to the range scale difference I've mentioned, 410 has better penetration at the same range than 356. Their highest penetration is same at point blank range in game, which doesn't really matter since it's almost impossible to get within point blank range. Sending a faster and higher penetration AP with larger filling at the cost of a slightly slower rate of fire, it's more accurate and powerful, so I won't say it's worse.

Anyway, the penetration chart is of course not historically accurate. Historical 410 Type 91 is better at all ranges than 356 Type 91, being heavier and having higher impact velocity. It should have a penetration somewhere near the average of 460 and 356.

Originally posted by Grant:

I forgot to mention that the developers also included their own formula that pretty much nerf all the cannons too.

According to this source:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_Japan.php
The point blank range penetration for 460 and 356 in game is about the historical value at 7km. Then the 410 should have a penetration of 680mm.

PS: "US bias"
Point blank range penetration for USN guns is about the historical value at 5km. :(

[侧卫]

Originally posted by Grant:

I forgot to mention that the developers also included their own formula that pretty much nerf all the cannons too. I guess whatever they included simplified the 410mm to have the same as the 356mm.
However, it is important to note that the Japanese 410mm did had better penetration than the 356mm, but not by much considering being bigger in sizes.
Overall, the game isn't super realistic, otherwise the US will just dominate the Japanese with their superior radar and FCS. In fact, for the two major surface battles that the USN lost, the idiotic American commanders choose the worst decisions possible in how to use their radar effectively.
Game went for balance over real life performance. It is the reason why the Nagato is cheaper in-game cost than the Ise or Fuso even though it costed more to produce IRL being a newer ship.

US cant just dominate the war by radar, because early radar has lots of flaws, SC search radar cant work well in high sea level, some American command chose to close it. As for the fire control radar, FC and FD, they have high ranging accuracy, but still need eyesight to confirm bearing and point of impact. Even in 1944 Surigao Strait, US fleet equipped with new MK.8 radar, which has ability to detect point of impact over 6 inch gun, the hit rate is still poor, US cruiser fire 3379 rounds, only hit 23, US BB fire 297 rounds, only hit 2-7 rounds(in night its hard to tell hit or not), the success was done by destroyer's torpedo and stupid suicide march of japan. Meanwhile, the advantage of Japan, better visual range, especially at night(due to special trained viewer and higher tower)didnt present in the game.
In the game, US navy do has radar, but no a big advantage, it is true. Even you mention that in reality that US officer use radar badly, so whats the point of you complain about the "should be superior radar"?

[Dirty Rotten Flieger]

I made a thread about this a while ago too.

It looks like a simple bug to me. In game the two different Japanese guns of different caliber have THE SAME pen graphs. Not similar... Identical. It looks like they just made a mistake and used Ise 14 " ballistic numbers for the Nagato 16" guns. There is just no way Issac Newton would accept these two gun would have IDENTICAL pen values from the barrel to max range.

As for the Wire-wound guns.... That was 1890s tech obsolete by the time Nagato was designed.
"With the post-WWI progress in metallurgy, Britain abandoned wire-wound construction for naval guns after the 16 inch Mk I of the 1920s, and later 1930s - 1940s designs used monobloc (single-piece)"

[Battleshipfree99]

Originally posted by Dirty Rotten Flieger:

It looks like a simple bug to me. In game the two different Japanese guns of different caliber have THE SAME pen graphs. Not similar... Identical.

Please refer to my answer above.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1280780/discussions/0/3469487093582340059/#c3487502140238588933
2 points here:
1. Range scale is different while the penetration pattern is same. So in game 410 is better but not as much as it should be.
2. The in game penetration should be corrected to around 680mm, if we set IJN 356 and 460 for reference.

[侧卫]

Originally posted by Battleshipfree99:

Due to the range scale difference I've mentioned, 410 has better penetration at the same range than 356. Their highest penetration is same at point blank range in game, which doesn't really matter since it's almost impossible to get within point blank range. Sending a faster and higher penetration AP with larger filling at the cost of a slightly slower rate of fire, it's more accurate and powerful, so I won't say it's worse.

Anyway, the penetration chart is of course not historically accurate. Historical 410 Type 91 is better at all ranges than 356 Type 91, being heavier and having higher impact velocity. It should have a penetration somewhere near the average of 460 and 356.

Originally posted by Grant:

I forgot to mention that the developers also included their own formula that pretty much nerf all the cannons too.

According to this source:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_Japan.php
The point blank range penetration for 460 and 356 in game is about the historical value at 7km. Then the 410 should have a penetration of 680mm.

PS: "US bias"
Point blank range penetration for USN guns is about the historical value at 5km. :(

First paragraph is so vague and wrong. You even dont put your own reason clearly, making any opponent hard to object. I only can guess some possible reason.
1.I said the penetration pattern is the SAME. Anyone take a look at these patterns will find nagato's pattern just fuso's pattern extend to 42k yards. If you thought these two pattern only share the same starting point, calculate the slope.
2.If you believe the game calculate battle penetration based on shell speed and weight not the penetration pattern. Simple answer is NO. Of course it is based on penetration pattern.(If they use speed and weight to calculate in real time, the pattern will be different)

Your reply to Grant also didnt understand the meaning of form, use PP as penetration. Partial pen is not penetration. EFF is completely pen. If we see EFF column, Japan guns ' point blank penetration is reduce to 4k yards penetration in the form. While US 16' gun's point blank penetration in game equals 1k yards penetration in the form.

[侧卫]

Originally posted by Dirty Rotten Flieger:

I made a thread about this a while ago too.

It looks like a simple bug to me. In game the two different Japanese guns of different caliber have THE SAME pen graphs. Not similar... Identical. It looks like they just made a mistake and used Ise 14 " ballistic numbers for the Nagato 16" guns. There is just no way Issac Newton would accept these two gun would have IDENTICAL pen values from the barrel to max range.

As for the Wire-wound guns.... That was 1890s tech obsolete by the time Nagato was designed.
"With the post-WWI progress in metallurgy, Britain abandoned wire-wound construction for naval guns after the 16 inch Mk I of the 1920s, and later 1930s - 1940s designs used monobloc (single-piece)"

The main disadvantage of wire wound gun is price. Wire and Hoop gun's performance is basically the same. Some rumor says that wire wound gun will become warped and affect the accuracy after long time since it is made of wire, but no fact prove it. Even though, it has nothing to with gun' s penetration.