110 G2 37mm ineffective on ships

[pilotpierre]

I just emptied a full load of 37mm rounds on 2 ships on the Mocow autumn map with at least an 80% hit rate. Could not even get one smoking?????

 

They are not as effective as the 20mm round in previous versions.

 

Will try them on tanks next and see how they fare there, but several hits on a small ship with 37mm rounds should at least damage it.

 

Just tried them on ships on the Staligrad summer map. Put aroud 55 rounds into one ship, on the water line, superstructue and along the deck. Nary a scratch resulted.

 

And I was so looking forward to using the G2 on shipping.

Edited February 1, 2017 by pilotpierre

[unreasonable]

Did you use the AP load-out for the 37mm gun?   37mm HE might be devastating for paper thin aircraft aluminium, but will have little effect on 1/4 inch steel (or whatever they made ships with).

 

You need AP for that. If it was the AP load, then that seems odd.

[pilotpierre]

Further to the above, I incorrectly assumed the default load out would be 50/50 HE and AP. It was all AP.

 

I had another go with all HE and put at least 50 to 55 rounds equally into the 2 ships. Got them both smoking and a large explosion on each that stopped them in the water but did not sink them.

 

The actual strike is no where near as large as what I have seen in real life WWII film strikes on small ships. Definately a deficiency here methinks.

[unreasonable]

Well that is even more weird, the opposite of what I would expect.

 

I suppose AP rounds should go straight into a river ship, but you would only see visible damage if it struck something like a boiler or fuel line inside the ship.  You need an awful lot of 37mm holes to sink a ship quickly.

 

HE would cause superficial damage, possibly disabling especially if you hit the bridge, but should not sink anything.   

 

TBH I do not suppose the DM for ships is particularly sophisticated - it will probably need to be in the new BoP ship simulation games.

[CUJO_1970]

Possibly a simplified DM for ships?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

37mm were rather quickly deemed unsuitable for mounting on tanks and other Vehicles because they suck at dealing with Armor and Structures. There is a reason they were called things like "Door Knocker" or "Panzeranklopfer". This caliber disappeard out of Ground use rather quickly in favour of Short Barreled 75s. 

The Explosive Filler is laughably ineffective and the AP Round will become ineffective after going through the Hull, which acts like Spaced Armour causing the 37mm to tumble and cause little to no damage on the inside. 

 

U-Boats had 8.8cm guns which required Several Round as well to take down unarmored Merchants. 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

1/4 inch of steel??

Dont you mean a 1/4 ft of steel

What ships are you attacking.
I can see a 37mm killing a small gunboat but a "SHIP" (not a boat) it should not even damage maybe a little smoke thats it.

37mm Round versus 150mm thick hull plates.

[Venturi]

A lot of misinformation here...

 

All you need to do is punch holes below the waterline...

 

37mm auto cannon is pretty fearsome, it was an antitank caliber, we're talking big shells coming at an oblique angle...

 

Tumbling is a variable highly dependent on shell weight... as I have previously posted...

 

37mm shells weigh a lot, not much tumbling there...

[AndyJWest]

1/4 inch of steel??

 

Dont you mean a 1/4 ft of steel

 

What ships are you attacking.

I can see a 37mm killing a small gunboat but a "SHIP" (not a boat) it should not even damage maybe a little smoke thats it.

 

37mm Round versus 150mm thick hull plates.

 

150mm thick hull plates? Just what sort of ship are you expecting to see on Russian inland waterways? 

Edited February 1, 2017 by AndyJWest

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

A lot of misinformation here...

 

All you need to do is punch holes below the waterline...

 

37mm auto cannon is pretty fearsome, it was an antitank caliber, we're talking big shells coming at an oblique angle...

 

Tumbling is a variable highly dependent on shell weight... as I have previously posted...

 

37mm shells weigh a lot, not much tumbling there...

A pretty useless Tank Caliber, and our APCR (Hartkern) Rounds will barely leave more than 1.5cm diameter hole, and yes, it starts to tumble when it penetrates armor. APCRs are the reason Tanks started using Spaced Armor (which surprisingly enough also turned out to be effective against early HEAT charges) because the Penetrator would normalize on the Armor, leave behind the the Soft Outer Case, Bend and then tumble. 

That tumbling Action is what made the APCRs effective once inside the hull of a tank. These are the rounds that would Ricochet all over the Palce in those Cramped, small Hulls and kill the Crew.

APCR Rounds are very light, that's why their efficiency drops so fast with Distance. And in General the 37mm is also just a very light gun. 

 

Ships are not as Cramped and rely on Heavy Oil Engines which won't burn as well as the Diesel and Gas Engines on Tanks. 

Ships also have Pumps just to Evacuate Water from the Hull be it from Rain, Storms, Cooling Water or just the normal standard leakancy, and a couple of 1.5cm holes won't make a bit of Difference. 

 

The 37mm Guns were so useless, they were phased out as quickly as possible following their astonishing failures in defeating French Armor in the Battle of France in 1940. 

 

 

If you compared Rifle Rounds to the Tank Shells, where the StuGs and Pz.IVs 7.5cm PaK is a .30 caliber, the Jagdtigers 12,7cm would be a .50 cal and your 3.7cm would be a single Ball of No.2 Birdshot. Not .22 Short, not even .17 Caliber, maybe Novelty Toy gun Caliber. 

Wikipedia doesn'T even list anything below 4.6mm.

Edited February 1, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Finkeren]

I also have a hard time imagining a few hits of 37mm AP actually sinking a river boat. Even below the waterline, it will create holes small enough, that they are easily plugged and even if they aren't it will still take many hours for the ship to sink, more than enough time to get to a safe harbour on a river like the Volga.

 

Of course 37mm HE might still kill crew, disable steering, blow up an unprotected engine or even on a rare occassion sink the boat by blowing up its ammunition storage.

 

But we should not expect the BK 37 to outright sink anything much larger than a rowboat.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Finkeren

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Good Luck trying to hit one of the maybe 10 Crew onboard a 20-50m Ship. I think you'll be better of tossing naughty language at them and have them Kill themselves in a Politcally Correct Hissyfit. 

[Finkeren]

Good Luck trying to hit one of the maybe 10 Crew onboard a 20-50m Ship. I think you'll be better of tossing naughty language at them and have them Kill themselves in a Politcally Correct Hissyfit.

Yeah I don't see that happening every time either.

 

Sinking or disabling a ship with the 37mm might happen occassionally, but we shouldn't expect it to happen, even if we fire our entire ammo supply into the boat.

[Dakpilot]

No-one ever attacked the ships, boats, barges, etc. with the Ju-87 previously? I found they sank, but slowly, which was nice

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

Assuming you can't sink a 40t ship with a 37mm round is like assuming you can't sink a 40000t ship with a 38cm round.

 

Both AP and HE round will have devastating effects on smaller ships/boats, details of which certainly depend on details of the ship and the attack.

 

OTOH, sinking a merchant or even a military ship of several hundred tons or more is simply a matter of luck and overall highly unlikely.

[pilotpierre]

No-one ever attacked the ships, boats, barges, etc. with the Ju-87 previously? I found they sank, but slowly, which was nice

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Eggs actly.

[Finkeren]

Would any of the boats we have in the sim fall in a category below "several hundred tons"?

 

I mean: Even the German S-boote could go up to 100 tons displacement, and the small patrol craft in the game look bigger than that.

[Asgar]

now, i haven't tested the 100 G-2 in the anti shipping role, but i was able to sink barges with the Stukas twin 37s in the past. usually with HE. the best result i ever got was by shooting during a steep dive, onto the deck close to the bow. 

once that even resulted in a pretty nice explosion

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The 1000 and 1800 kg Bomb were invented for use against Ships. The couple of Grams of Explosive Filler of the 3.7, well, I guess would work in a Michael Bay Movie, but in Reality they will Barely Scratch the Paint. I'm Doubtful that they would be able to ignite Ammo Containing anything larger than 7.62x54r.And that's basically Fireworks.

[ZachariasX]

Even the German S-boote could go up to 100 tons displacement, and the small patrol craft in the game look bigger than that.

There is the case of a Mosquito FB Mk.XVIII of the Coastal Command engaging an S-Boat off the Spanish coast. It fired 50 AP rounds of 57mm with its QF 6-pounder antitank gun. It scored 38 hits from outside the firing range of the S-Boats Flak. The boat was effectively stoped, having hull and engines pierced from shots. It remained afloat however and was sunk the next day by two Polish B-24, also from the Coastal Command. The 6-pounder is a much heavyer gun than the 37 mm.

 

It is very doubtful that making a couple of 2 cm holes into even a modestly sized barge will sink the boat. As barges are thin skinned (they have to be as light as possible to carry cargo), AP will penetrate for sure and hit what is inside. But engine blocks of large Diesel engines should be pretty robust. In case of steam turbines, boilers may be much more suceptible to damage. But that would stop the boat, not sink it.

 

HE rounds (and bombs) you use to kill crew on deck, like Flak personel. Lacking havy AP bombs, all you can hope is the barge is carrying explosive goods like ammo. Then you might have a chance.

 

To make up for that, most WW2 battleships or cruisers were just tin cans filled with explosive goods. One hit in the right place and POOFF! With barges, your luck is tied to the cargo on board.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

To make up for that, most WW2 battleships or cruisers were just tin cans filled with explosive goods. One hit in the right place and POOFF! With barges, your luck is tied to the cargo on board.

 

Nonsense.  Battleships and even Cruisers had incredibly heavy Armor Protecting the Vital Areas. The only reasons some were sunk was Human Error and Pure Luck or MASSIVE, MASSIVE Raids. 

 

A properly Controlled Battleship Group was practically invulnerable. They had up 500mm of Armor to Protect Magazines, Self Sealing Hull and Basically a complete Inner and Outer Hull. They would be a tough Nut to Crack even today. 

 

A Modern Fast Battleship with Modern Armor Components, armed with Long and Short Range Missiles, Modernized Versions of the 16" Naval Guns, modern Anti-Missile and Torpedo Defense Systems and internal Jet Propulsion (The Rudders being the Reason for the Immobilization of Bismarck and Yamato) would be a Threat for Targets hundreds or thousands of Miles away. 

 

Missiles would be intercepted either by the Onboard System or the Armor, since HE and HEAT Warheads really can't deal with Spaced Armor (Inner and outer Hull). Generally they would pose no threat to it. 

Modern Battleships would likely Carry Upscaled Versions of Modern, Mixed Composite Tank Armor. 

 

Warships are also built to withstand Armor Piercing Rounds and tolerate HUGE Hull Damage without sinking, even below the Water. 

 

As Operation Crossroads showed, the only reliable way to sink one of the suckers is a Tactical Nuke, and that has to be a Direct or near Direct Hit. 

 

And they would be cheaper to Operate and less vulnerable than an Aircraft Carrier.

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Dutchvdm]

Bullshit.  Battleships and even Cruisers had incredibly heavy Armor Protecting the Vital Areas. The only reasons some were sunk was Human Error and Pure Luck or MASSIVE, MASSIVE Raids. 

 

A properly Controlled Battleship Group was practically invulnerable. They had up 500mm of Armor to Protect Magazines, Self Sealing Hull and Basically a complete Inner and Outer Hull. They would be a tough Nut to Crack even today. 

 

A Modern Fast Battleship with Modern Armor Components, armed with Long and Short Range Missiles, Modernized Versions of the 16" Naval Guns, modern Anti-Missile and Torpedo Defense Systems and internal Jet Propulsion (The Rudders being the Reason for the Immobilization of Bismarck and Yamato) would be a Threat for Targets hundreds or thousands of Miles away. 

 

Missiles would be intercepted either by the Onboard System or the Armor, since HE and HEAT Warheads really can't deal with Spaced Armor (Inner and outer Hull). Generally they would pose no threat to it. 

Modern Battleships would likely Carry Upscaled Versions of Modern, Mixed Composite Tank Armor. 

 

Warships are also built to withstand Armor Piercing Rounds and tolerate HUGE Hull Damage without sinking, even below the Water. 

 

As Operation Crossroads showed, the only reliable way to sink one of the suckers is a Tactical Nuke, and that has to be a Direct or near Direct Hit. 

 

And they would be cheaper to Operate and less vulnerable than an Aircraft Carrier.

 

 

Maybe he was referring to Battleship Yamato. Which off-course was not intended to explode like that.

 

Grt M

[KG200_Volker]

After testing G2 lady yesterday we noticed PROPABLY a bug, while carrying the 37 gun and getting just some hits from enemy fire it renders all guns inoperable. This happened 8-7 times out of ten for 2 110s in practice server against AI. Not enough evidence so more people need to test this.

 

For the ship effectiveness of the 37 gun, 6-8 rounds of orange colored bullets (using color to make sure for the type) at and below captains bridge area (propably also engine room is there) set the bardge ship on smoke and fire. Didn't test thorough for sinking. Full load is 66 shots so it sounds bit weird no having any effect as it happened to pilotpierre.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Maybe he was referring to Battleship Yamato. Which off-course was not intended to explode like that.

 

Grt M

Yamamoto suffered from some of the bbsolete, weird Japanese Doctrins, bad Metallurgy and AAA as well the Mission Type. Operation Ten-Go was virtually a Kamikaze Mission with the Goal of Ditching her at Okinawa as a Stationary unsinkable Gun Emplacement. That's why it carried excess Ammo outside the Magazines, it's Drivetrain was never above 50% of it's Potential due to unrepaired damage which somewhat limited Speed, but extermely hampered it's manouverability, the Original Crew had been replaced by highly inexperienced Youth unfamiliar with Proper Procedures for Ammo, Engine and Leak Management. 

 

 

It was attacked by 600 Aircraft, received 11 Torpedo and at least 6 direct Bomb Hits. The Explosion following the Capsizing was caused by the unsecured excess Munitions. As I said, it took a Massive Effort to Sink her, 3 Major Attacks and Complete Air Superiority. That Force could have sunk 3 Carrier Groups and done a lot more damage to any other Shipping Formation, but that was against ONE Ship. 

 

American and German Battleships were far more Capable in terms of Survivability. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[unreasonable]

Nonsense.  Battleships and even Cruisers had incredibly heavy Armor Protecting the Vital Areas. The only reasons some were sunk was Human Error and Pure Luck or MASSIVE, MASSIVE Raids. 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you had better tell the crews of HMSs Hood, Indefatigable and Queen Mary.

 

Ship on ship actions at the BB/BC level were quite rare - but no BB had deck armour that could guarantee that BB calibre shells from an opponent could not penetrate from long range fire, except perhaps for Yamato & Musashi with 8 inch armoured decks. 

 

Or for that matter you could tell the crew of the Bismark. This had to be finally sunk by torpedo, but was essentially destroyed by gunfire at close range, and it did not take many shells to put the bridge and all the main guns out of action.

 

Fact is these ships had bites worse than their bark, so to speak.

[JtD]

Nonsense.

Nice you edited that into something less rude. On the point - it is completely down to opinion if you consider battleships/cruisers tin cans filled with explosives or floating bunkers. They certainly were well protected, but at the same time carried massive hitting power, very well capable of penetrating their own protection. Several capital ships were lost because of what can be considered one single lucky hit, but then lucky hits do not occur if the design is truly immune to a threat.

 

Anyway, back to the 110 and barges - does anyone have info about the barges engines - were they powered by diesel or petrol engines?

[unreasonable]

Anyway, back to the 110 and barges - does anyone have info about the barges engines - were they powered by diesel or petrol engines?

 

Or coal?

Edited February 1, 2017 by unreasonable

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Nice you edited that into something less rude. On the point - it is completely down to opinion if you consider battleships/cruisers tin cans filled with explosives or floating bunkers. They certainly were well protected, but at the same time carried massive hitting power, very well capable of penetrating their own protection. Several capital ships were lost because of what can be considered one single lucky hit, but then lucky hits do not occur if the design is truly immune to a threat.

 

Anyway, back to the 110 and barges - does anyone have info about the barges engines - were they powered by diesel or petrol engines?

Heavy Oil Engines pretty much exclusively. Petrol and Diesel aren't used in Ships with large Diesel Engines. I could say 15m are the Mark, above which you will rarely find Diesels, and pretty much either Steam or Heavy Oil exclusively. 

 

Most WWII Battleships were Planned and built in the early to Midwhen Aircraft were still mostly Light and Slow Biplanes, so Protection was adequate for dealing with Shells more than Torpedoes since Torpedoes were slow and easy to avoid in these highly manouverable and fast Ships. 

 

The Fast Battleships that were destroyed in Action were pretty much only sunk through Massive Air-Raids and Torpedo Bombers. 

A modern Battleship would likely be Propelled and Steered by Waterjets in Armored Compartmens, no exposed Rudders and Propellers. There would be more Protection against Airborne attack and other Improvements, like Armor Sloping to reduce the Effectiveness of Heavy HE Warheads. Crews would be much Smaller, Leak Management Automatized and so many more things that would Prevent and Manage Damage to the Hull. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[JtD]

Heavy Oil Engines pretty much exclusively. Petrol and Diesel aren't used in Ships with large Diesel Engines. I could say 15m are the Mark, above which you will rarely find Diesels, and pretty much either Steam or Heavy Oil exclusively.

This does not quite match what I know, and additionally I just looked up 10 types of various small military craft between 20m and 75m and all of them were either driven by standard petrol or diesel engines.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Examples or it didn't happen. I probably shouldn't use the Term Heavy Oil, but Ship Diesel, which MUCH Lower Grade than Automotive Diesel. You wouldn't want to run a Truck or Car on that Stuff. I don't believe that there was any kind of Petrol Powered Merchant River Shipping going on, or at least not enough to be statistically Significant.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

150mm thick hull plates? Just what sort of ship are you expecting to see on Russian inland waterways? 

some of them are fully fledge Frigates and destroyers im not talking about the little 30m gunboats i mean the 150m dests covered in guns

[JtD]

Examples or it didn't happen. I probably shouldn't use the Term Heavy Oil, but Ship Diesel, which MUCH Lower Grade than Automotive Diesel. You wouldn't want to run a Truck or Car on that Stuff. I don't believe that there was any kind of Petrol Powered Merchant River Shipping going on, or at least not enough to be statistically Significant.

Well, I wasn't specifically referring to "automotive diesel ship engines" when saying "diesel ship engines". And I don't know what examples you want, feel free to look up small military craft that come to your mind yourself. It's not that I have exclusive rights to do so.

 

With regard to my original question, after reading up a bit on Volga shipping, I think that unreasonable is quite right. It looks as if many of the tugs and barges used at the time around Stalingrad were indeed coal fired steamers.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, I wasn't specifically referring to "automotive diesel ship engines" when saying "diesel ship engines". And I don't know what examples you want, feel free to look up small military craft that come to your mind yourself. It's not that I have exclusive rights to do so.

 

With regard to my original question, after reading up a bit on Volga shipping, I think that unreasonable is quite right. It looks as if many of the tugs and barges used at the time around Stalingrad were indeed coal fired steamers.

The "Big Boat" in Stalingrad is a Wheel-Steamer 

[Roo5ter]

1/4 inch of steel??

 

Dont you mean a 1/4 ft of steel

 

What ships are you attacking.

I can see a 37mm killing a small gunboat but a "SHIP" (not a boat) it should not even damage maybe a little smoke thats it.

 

37mm Round versus 150mm thick hull plates.

The US DE - Destroyer/Escort class ships had less than 1/4 inch of steel most everywhere.  There is one in Albany NY if you ever get the chance to go see it.  Ships are built to purpose and some ships will have thick hulls and some will not.

 

Also, the person who posted that battleships had paper thin hulls is clearly insane.

[ZachariasX]

Ehm, I guess I was a little uncouth with my remark

 

 

most WW2 battleships or cruisers were just tin cans filled with explosive goods.

 

Of course, the big battlewaggons carried a formidable armour. HOWEVER, they are filled with tons and tons of explosives. In this sense they do resemle Bombs. Thick walled ones. Some of the biggest explosions made by man (non nuclear ones) were battleships that had a fire somewhere inconvenient. The number of battleships on this list is impressive.

 

So, All you needed to do was to hit the right place, and like that the Hood went up in a single bang. One has to keep in mind that such ships not only carry explosives, but lots of paint that was also flamable.

 

Worst were aircraft carriers. The Japanese carriers used at Midway just had about the worst design mix making catastrophic fire easily possible. One good hit and they just burned down to the point where they had to be scuttled.

 

Tin cans they are. They have a hard shell, but hunderts of tons of explosives in there. find a way to light that and they go to the stratosphere.

 

Besides, modern warships hardly carry any aror anymore. USS Cole showed that when it got blown up in the Harbor.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

No-one ever attacked the ships, boats, barges, etc. with the Ju-87 previously? I found they sank, but slowly, which was nice

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

now, i haven't tested the 100 G-2 in the anti shipping role, but i was able to sink barges with the Stukas twin 37s in the past. usually with HE. the best result i ever got was by shooting during a steep dive, onto the deck close to the bow. 

 

once that even resulted in a pretty nice explosion

 

 

Yeah  the Stuka with HE ammo is very nice for this role. Each boat have it's own weak point that make them explode with 4 to 6 shells. But you have to be accurate.

 

But never, ever think about the AP for anti-shipping, they sucks.

 

I'll test tonight with the G2 and report

Edited February 1, 2017 by F/JG300_Gruber

[unreasonable]

some of them are fully fledge Frigates and destroyers im not talking about the little 30m gunboats i mean the 150m dests covered in guns

 

As Roo5ter says, in WW1-2 destroyers, like Light Cruisers, the "armour" is at best protection from the weather and perhaps small shell splinters, not direct hits.

 

150mm is very thick armour - much more than heavy cruisers or even the German "pocket battleships" had. Only battleships had this much or more. 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

As far as the armor penetration of different t his goes, I always found this helpful.

 

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/#

 

It is not perfect, since the penetration also greatly depends on the gun used (which iirc this does not set for all calibers) but gives a general impression

Edited February 1, 2017 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[F/JG300_Gruber]

The BK works perfectly for me. Big booms and sunken ships. 

 

No changes in the hull strength for the ships as far as I can tell. 

 

Only thing is you that have to be very accurate because of the clip size and make every shot count, but all 3 types of ships can be taken out in a single pass. (I like the Stuka better for this job).

[KG200_Volker]

Anyone tested for the propably bug?

Edited February 1, 2017 by KG200_Volker