Damaging modeling in this game is absolutely awful with the Iowa battleships.

[ferreirajc87]

I'm assuming the devs did next to no work on modeling armor properly and seriously need to fix this because the way Iowas are treated in this game is straight up disrespectful. Fun fact the USS Nevada was hit twice in nuclear bomb test and survived. The Nevada was sunk later on with a combination of heavy gun fire bombs and most importantly torpedoes! Every single battleship sunk during WW2 was sunk with torpedoes, you almost can't sink a battleship without them. It took 17 bombs and 19 torpedoes to sink the Musashi although it could have taken half that with better planning. My point is modern day ASMs are not sinking a battleship. ASMs could disable one but that's it.

[Julhelm]

If WW2 deck armor didn't stop Fritz-X glide bombs it sure as hell isn't going to stop an AS-4 diving at mach 3. Doubtful the belt armor will even stop a Granit which has much higher kinetic impact than a 16" shell (566MJ vs 153MJ for that of Mk8 shell). And the WW2-era torpedo protection probably won't help much against the likes of a Mk-48 or 65-76.

[Wenatchee Willie]

Did I hear someone say "devs did next to no work modeling armor properly"?

[V.A.L. Commorby]

"Modern day ASMs are not sinking a battleship." Lost all credibility in that sentence.

[Tellashim[GIF]]

...BAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[National Film Board of Canada]

What hit the Iowa and how many causing it to sink?

[ferreirajc87]

Originally posted by Julhelm:

If WW2 deck armor didn't stop Fritz-X glide bombs it sure as hell isn't going to stop an AS-4 diving at mach 3. Doubtful the belt armor will even stop a Granit which has much higher kinetic impact than a 16" shell (566MJ vs 153MJ for that of Mk8 shell). And the WW2-era torpedo protection probably won't help much against the likes of a Mk-48 or 65-76.

The Fritz-X was armor-piercing specifically designed to take out battleships and other heavily armored vessels. Comparing that to a AS-4 or any ASMs is ridiculous and shows that you haven't done your research.

Now lets talk about "kinetic impact" which you clearly don't understand. The two types of kinetic energy we are comparing are blast and translational. I shouldn't have to point this out but the reason the Fritz-X was armor-piercing was because everyone knew way back than that without armor penetration you weren't going to sink a battleship. Blast waves spread out their energy so even if it has more MJs like you said it doesn't really matter because in order to get through the armor it needs to be concentrated which is how translational kinetic energy works.

Moving on to the next point, torpedoes. I clearly indicated that torpedoes have no problem sinking battleships so I don't know why you brought that up. Also I will mention again the USS Nevada took a direct hit from a nuclear bomb which clearly has way more MJs than a Granit and less armor than an Iowa, and did not sink.

With all due respect you and everyone else in disagreement with me do not have a good understanding of ballistics at all. Here is something I pulled from the web:

"The Missouri was designed to withstand hits from a 16" shell at a 45 degree apogee at 2,500 feet per second. This is well over Mach 2. So…a 16" shell weighs 2,700lb and is 16" in diameter. The warhead on the Granit weighs 1,653lbs and is 33" in diameter. So, it weighs 60% as much over double the surface area and travels 30% slower (Granit is Mach 1.6), and will impact the hull exactly as the Missouri was designed to withstand.

Rough math says a Granit will hit with about 21% of the energy per square inch on the hull that Missouri was designed to withstand. 40% Smaller warhead, over double the surface area, with 30% less velocity at impact. Now you could scale it back up a little and say that you also have the rest of the missile body (which is fragile aluminum that vaporizes on impact) which creates some additional kinetic energy, and generously you are still at only 30% of the energy limit.

Modern warships are typically not heavily armored, with the exception of an internal belt around CIC that helps protect the most sensitive systems. The only part of an aircraft carrier that is anywhere near that well armored is the stern where aircraft might plow right into the back. Even there it is only 8–10" armor.

For that reason, no anti-ship missile is designed to penetrate anything more than 5–6 inches of plating. A Granit might do a little better out of sheer kinetics, but it is not going to punch through anything more than 8 inches on it's best day."

[Captain Fubar]

Originally posted by ferreirajc87:

Originally posted by Julhelm:

If WW2 deck armor didn't stop Fritz-X glide bombs it sure as hell isn't going to stop an AS-4 diving at mach 3. Doubtful the belt armor will even stop a Granit which has much higher kinetic impact than a 16" shell (566MJ vs 153MJ for that of Mk8 shell). And the WW2-era torpedo protection probably won't help much against the likes of a Mk-48 or 65-76.

The Fritz-X was armor-piercing specifically designed to take out battleships and other heavily armored vessels. Comparing that to a AS-4 or any ASMs is ridiculous and shows that you haven't done your research.

Now lets talk about "kinetic impact" which you clearly don't understand. The two types of kinetic energy we are comparing are blast and translational. I shouldn't have to point this out but the reason the Fritz-X was armor-piercing was because everyone knew way back than that without armor penetration you weren't going to sink a battleship. Blast waves spread out their energy so even if it has more MJs like you said it doesn't really matter because in order to get through the armor it needs to be concentrated which is how translational kinetic energy works.

Moving on to the next point, torpedoes. I clearly indicated that torpedoes have no problem sinking battleships so I don't know why you brought that up. Also I will mention again the USS Nevada took a direct hit from a nuclear bomb which clearly has way more MJs than a Granit and less armor than an Iowa, and did not sink.

With all due respect you and everyone else in disagreement with me do not have a good understanding of ballistics at all. Here is something I pulled from the web:

"The Missouri was designed to withstand hits from a 16" shell at a 45 degree apogee at 2,500 feet per second. This is well over Mach 2. So…a 16" shell weighs 2,700lb and is 16" in diameter. The warhead on the Granit weighs 1,653lbs and is 33" in diameter. So, it weighs 60% as much over double the surface area and travels 30% slower (Granit is Mach 1.6), and will impact the hull exactly as the Missouri was designed to withstand.

Rough math says a Granit will hit with about 21% of the energy per square inch on the hull that Missouri was designed to withstand. 40% Smaller warhead, over double the surface area, with 30% less velocity at impact. Now you could scale it back up a little and say that you also have the rest of the missile body (which is fragile aluminum that vaporizes on impact) which creates some additional kinetic energy, and generously you are still at only 30% of the energy limit.

Modern warships are typically not heavily armored, with the exception of an internal belt around CIC that helps protect the most sensitive systems. The only part of an aircraft carrier that is anywhere near that well armored is the stern where aircraft might plow right into the back. Even there it is only 8–10" armor.

For that reason, no anti-ship missile is designed to penetrate anything more than 5–6 inches of plating. A Granit might do a little better out of sheer kinetics, but it is not going to punch through anything more than 8 inches on it's best day."

My brother in christ are you seriously and condescendingly asserting that a world war 2 era glorified 700 pound bomb is somehow MORE powerful than a 12,000lb school bus with a 2,000lb shaped charge going MACH THREE?!

Tests showed that they were capable of blowing 12 metre deep holes into ships!

Open the schools!

[laserduck]

IIRC the Granit carries a 750kg HEAT warhead. There is a video on youtube where you can see it hit a test ship. 750kg shaped charge will surely punch through any armor...

[Captain Fubar]

Originally posted by laserduck:

IIRC the Granit carries a 750kg HEAT warhead. There is a video on youtube where you can see it hit a test ship. 750kg shaped charge will surely punch through any armor...

This guy has no idea what he's talking about, I have no idea why he thinks a shaped charge with a diameter that massive wouldn't be able to penetrate battleship hull.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo?]

Originally posted by Captain Fubar:

Originally posted by laserduck:

IIRC the Granit carries a 750kg HEAT warhead. There is a video on youtube where you can see it hit a test ship. 750kg shaped charge will surely punch through any armor...

This guy has no idea what he's talking about, I have no idea why he thinks a shaped charge with a diameter that massive wouldn't be able to penetrate battleship hull.

When HEAT warheads initially became the norm in cold war armored warfare, we designed tanks without any armor to speak of as it was pointless to have it prior to development of composite armor.

You'd basically have just enough armor to withstand 12.7mm or maybe 20mm on a good day, and then bank everything on mobility and firepower.

Besides, it doesn't need to be a massive warhead. Those cute little anti-tank missiles that we see people carrying around? Some of those punch through 3 feet of steel like it's just another monday morning.

[ramjbjb]

With all due respect you and everyone else in disagreement with me do not have a good understanding of ballistics at all.

With all due respect, the one who doesn't understand things here is you. Certainly you have no idea on the sheer size, power, and refinement of the huge AShMs the USSR fielded back in the day, nor on how devastating a hit of one of those would be to anything they touched. And yes, that includes armored battleships.

Do a though experiment here and try to tell us why, since WW2, there has not been a battleship built, and why all ships that have been built since then carry a very limited ammount of armored protection.

I mean, if armor was such a damage-proof thing ensuring a battleship's survival, why not put a heap of it on the current Capital Ships?. I mean USS Supercarriers displace more than 100.000tons, and are seen as the cornerstone and most vital asset of the biggest navy of the Cold War. And in fact, those very ships are the main reason why the soviet anti-surface missiles were so huge and powerful.
Then Why not protect those carriers with 12 inches of belt armor and 8 of deck armor, if that would make them able to take those kind of impacts?.

Obvious answer is: because armor is of little use against missiles of that size, power, and speed.

[richardscholes50]

Give the devs a break , let do there jobs and sort the bugs out and then work on other things

[Etha2007]

Originally posted by ferreirajc87:

Originally posted by Julhelm:

If WW2 deck armor didn't stop Fritz-X glide bombs it sure as hell isn't going to stop an AS-4 diving at mach 3. Doubtful the belt armor will even stop a Granit which has much higher kinetic impact than a 16" shell (566MJ vs 153MJ for that of Mk8 shell). And the WW2-era torpedo protection probably won't help much against the likes of a Mk-48 or 65-76.

The Fritz-X was armor-piercing specifically designed to take out battleships and other heavily armored vessels. Comparing that to a AS-4 or any ASMs is ridiculous and shows that you haven't done your research.

Now lets talk about "kinetic impact" which you clearly don't understand. The two types of kinetic energy we are comparing are blast and translational. I shouldn't have to point this out but the reason the Fritz-X was armor-piercing was because everyone knew way back than that without armor penetration you weren't going to sink a battleship. Blast waves spread out their energy so even if it has more MJs like you said it doesn't really matter because in order to get through the armor it needs to be concentrated which is how translational kinetic energy works.

Moving on to the next point, torpedoes. I clearly indicated that torpedoes have no problem sinking battleships so I don't know why you brought that up. Also I will mention again the USS Nevada took a direct hit from a nuclear bomb which clearly has way more MJs than a Granit and less armor than an Iowa, and did not sink.

With all due respect you and everyone else in disagreement with me do not have a good understanding of ballistics at all. Here is something I pulled from the web:

"The Missouri was designed to withstand hits from a 16" shell at a 45 degree apogee at 2,500 feet per second. This is well over Mach 2. So…a 16" shell weighs 2,700lb and is 16" in diameter. The warhead on the Granit weighs 1,653lbs and is 33" in diameter. So, it weighs 60% as much over double the surface area and travels 30% slower (Granit is Mach 1.6), and will impact the hull exactly as the Missouri was designed to withstand.

Rough math says a Granit will hit with about 21% of the energy per square inch on the hull that Missouri was designed to withstand. 40% Smaller warhead, over double the surface area, with 30% less velocity at impact. Now you could scale it back up a little and say that you also have the rest of the missile body (which is fragile aluminum that vaporizes on impact) which creates some additional kinetic energy, and generously you are still at only 30% of the energy limit.

Modern warships are typically not heavily armored, with the exception of an internal belt around CIC that helps protect the most sensitive systems. The only part of an aircraft carrier that is anywhere near that well armored is the stern where aircraft might plow right into the back. Even there it is only 8–10" armor.

For that reason, no anti-ship missile is designed to penetrate anything more than 5–6 inches of plating. A Granit might do a little better out of sheer kinetics, but it is not going to punch through anything more than 8 inches on it's best day."

Why are you comparing the TOTAL weight of a 16 inch shell to the WARHEAD weight of the P-700 Granit? The shell weighs 2700 pounds in it's entirety- including the warhead and the actual shell itself (which you correctly stated). However, the number of 1,653 pounds you provided for the P-700 is for the warhead ONLY.

If we compare the proper values of both (counting the warhead and everything else as well), the 16 inch shell's weight of 2700 pounds is MUCH lower than the P-700's weight of a whopping 15,400 pounds. 5.7x the weight of the 16 inch shell.

Now, we can't compare just the warhead weights, as we don't know the exact warhead weight of the 16 inch shell, but it's known that the explosive weight of these large AP shells was a very small amount of the total weight. So, it's almost a certainty that the P-700 Granit has a larger warhead than the 16 inch shell.

Weighing in at 2700 pounds, the AP shell would need 50% of it's total mass to be pure explosives in order to match the Granit's warhead. And that's obviously not the case.

So the Granit weighs MUCH more, and also likely has a larger warhead.

[Uncle Thrusty]

Quick! Someone post a picture of the relevant documentation to settle this!

War Thunder we're coming for you!

[Bryan]

Iowa's armor is not even thick enough to withstand a hit from a FGM-148 Javelin. To think it can bounce off modern AShMs is ridicilous.