Since I'm contemplating a Battlestations build, I was wondering what are the typical ranges attainable with current BG cannon designs fired from the horizontal? Also, what is the effective range of a double 1/4" ball-bearing torp fired from a submerged location? Steve
With regards to the cannons range, I would expect somewhere between twenty and fifty feet, but that is going off my knowledge of airsoft systems (accounting for the lack of a hop-up rubber for backspin). I might be wrong however, I'm going off the assumption that a steel 1/4" bb behaves like a plastic 1/4" bb with the same muzzle energy.
The steel ball should carry farther as it has more mass. I think what I'm really interested in is what kind of range can be expected before the round hits the water, say fired from 4" off the water from the horizontal.
The increase in mass would help resist the decelleration due to drag, but not to the same effect as backspin would help, hence twenty to fifty feet, but I'm going estimate about twenty feet. I can get you a more accurate estimate once I've found my airsoft range calculator.
Using calculator 2, from this website - http://www.gamepod.com/fps_calculator.php and changing weight to 1.3 the range comes up at about fifty feet, but you should half it to account for the decrease in starting height and lack of backspin to produce lift.
Ah, good point, so it might be close to fifty feet, then, as when the backspin wears off the velocity drops quite steeply.
I ran some tests several years ago, and found that a foam-tested 1/4" cannon could still penetrate 1/8" balsa from 35 feet away. Your actual performance will vary depending on your guns, your barrels, the ship's roll, and the position of relative position of Jupiter. Note that my tests were conducted on dry land, against a perpendicular target and no water to skip off of. Also keep in mind that you will hit the human limit of aiming ability long before you reach the physical limits of the guns. lastly, I will say that I have seen a sink scored from a 50-foot shot. The attacker fired on the upward roll, and three of the four shots struck and penetrated the Victim's hull right at the waterline. Epic shot. And probably the only one I'll ever see.
With a skip that causes a round to start climbing versus submerging I have seen rounds easily clear 70' to 100'. I know because I got hit by one in the leg while standing on a bank 3'+- above the water the offending ship was across the pond. Would it have penetrated balsa, probably not. On the subject of twin underwater torpedo range... I have such a weapon equipped on my FN Normandie. I can take it to a little pond behind my neighborhood and get some data. I suspect that whether the barrels are dry or flooded will have some effect. I will try both methods: ) Das Butts
Mostly angle it hits the water at, some velocity effects too. Not sure if the numbers are the same for big gun but for fast gun if you're hitting the water at around 7 degrees or less you'll see skipping. Thats why so see so much skipping from stern guns and none from sidemounts (deck bounces dont count as skips).
That would explain why the NC 's triples failed to get any hits below or on Bismarck's waterline and open it up like a can opener. The NC had quite a steep angle not so much of the guns but the ship was very stern heavy. Whether this was from flooding or deliberate ballasting to get below the waterline hits from triples I don't know, in this situation it produced above water line hits at less than a foot to 2 ft away. Thus Bismarck had very little flooding. Typically it should have been holed so bad that it should have plowed under bow first. Most of the hits at the bow were from close stern gun range but they were high above the waterline. The water was calm at the time of battle and I do believe the angle of the ship at the stern and the calm water created a good condition for deflections.
Testing completed. Results: 0-3" easy penetration every shot flooded or dry barrels 3-6" inconsistent penetration towards the 6" range (dry or flooded) Over 6" no joy The test rig was a standard ammo can with 2 layers of 1/16" balsa across the opening sealed with a layer of masking tape to simulate the toughest possible skin of a big gun ship. I weighed it down with a large battery to give it a waterline. I would guess that if anything the ranges would improve versus a thinner skin or a single layer of 1/8" skin with paint and no tape. Another thought I had was that without any ribs behind the skin that was was far too flexible and would absorb alot of energy. Now the test is over and I think about it. I imagine the range would increase against a more rigid target target. I bet there would be consistent penetration at 6". Das Bütts
This is where having a ship that needs reskinning would come in handy, just tape a temporary skin on it and fire away.
