For the historically inept and ballistically challenged: 1910 Cannon Firepower?

[Alius]

I include myself in that category. What I want to know is how shells of varying sizes expect to do damage in the world of 1910.

Paint a picture of words for me of what happens, please.

Thanks.

[darknight]

well really, in respect to age etc no different to now, shells of varying sizes and range and also rate of fire were to blow holes literally in the enemy armour, although targeting of specific areas was achieved, not to the accuracy of today, the ship as a hole was targeted, hitting certain places, engines, armoury etc would have caused even more damage, so would the packing of different type of ordnance

[Alius]

Okay. So, does it do the hole punching before or after it goes through the armor?

As I said, I know nothing of what's going on in a shell hit on a naval ship. I'm asking for a form of mental picture to work from.

Explain it in steps, if you have to, or link or whatever.

[darknight]

ah ok sorry,most, not all types of shell do use a type of delayed charge, so they would puncture the hull for example and then explode,
things like modern ones can travel a long way through a bunker for example before detonating.
there is of course the normal explode on contact type, but even them with the sheer force of impact can and do penetrate the armour first.
so to answer your question, the main armour damage will depend of the type of shell used, but obviously im trying to generalise for you to get a picture, shell is fired in an arc to hit the enemy, it will penetrate the armour/deck etc, then explode, causing the massive damage and hopefully secondary explosions

[darknight]

http://unsd.macrossroleplay.org/iowaclassbattleship.html

the above link, specially for you as where your from, shows one of my favourite class of battleships, and gives you an idea of power, look at the shock waves in the water!!
it had 9x 16" guns, and 20x 5"guns as well ass AA

[Alius]

http://unsd.macrossroleplay.org/iowaclassbattleship.html

the above link, specially for you as where your from, shows one of my favourite class of battleships, and gives you an idea of power, look at the shock waves in the water!!
it had 9x 16" guns, and 20x 5"guns as well ass AA

Very nice! And later variations had what we might consider aerial torpedoes in Levs, Although far more accurate and explosive.

Thanks for the link. And thanks for the explanation on explosive shells and penetration.

[darknight]

no worries, anything else just shout

[Alius]

Okay. A new question: At what range do you have to start accounting for gravity? I'm talking real world stuff here. In other words, how far out can you expect to merely lead your target before you have to raise the barrel to account for gravity pulling it down?

[Leaderoforcs]

You start accounting for gravity as soon as the projectile leaves the barrel.  However, without knowing the exact velocity, air resistance, wind, distance to target, etc., it's the next best thing to impossible to say off hand.

If I had all of those things, I could say at what point you need to start elevating the bore, provided you want an error of less than x meters.

[darknight]

ah now thats a good question, but its more difficult to answer as it all depends on the projectile used and payload, distance to target, length and width of barrel amount of charge used, wind conditions, elevation, speed of target and size.
so there is not really a straightforward answer, too many variables.
an example though  no wind, favourable conditions, using a powerful bolt action .22 air rifle, you could hit the target dead centre all the time using the dot in your sight from around 25-30m, (AS I DO ) now walk around 5-8m back and you will need to aim about the second inner ring of a standard rifle target.
now add in wind etc, and it could be higher if up wind, left or right, you can use the same principle as you got up the scale, in weapons,
a .50 cal sniper rifle, forgot its correct name, its huge!! virtually the same as on the top of a hum vee, but was converted for long range armour kills, has successfully hit moving targets up to an astonishing 3 miles, (this was a controlled shot though)
the longest sniper range at the moment is 2340m!!!
its like throwing a stone, small pebble, goes 20m straight. now use a brick you will have to use more charge (muscle) and throw higher.
so its a question that really can only be answered if you know all the variables,
are you trying to find the hardest things for me to answer,lol

[Leaderoforcs]

Honestly, there are a whole lot of things to look at when determining what elevation to use.  The first unknown that absolutely has to be found is what kind of cannon are you using.  Specifically, what is that cannon's muzzle velocity?  That is by no means the only thing you still need though.

Muzzle velocity.
(failing that) Mass of shell.
Friction co-efficient between the barrel and the shell.
Force exerted on the shell by combustion of powder.
Length of acceleration due to combustion. (end failing that)
Distance to target.
Difference in altitude between target and gun.
Orientation relative to target.
Wind speed and direction relative to gun.
Air resistance, which can change depending on altitude.
The size of the shell, dimensions-wise.  A larger shell is more subject to wind resistance because it has a larger surface area.
Oddly enough, the elevation of the barrel.  The less elevated the barrel is, the more friction will act on the shell as it leaves the barrel, since friction is F_k=u_kn, where u_k is the coefficient of kinetic friction, and n is the normal force (which varies with the angle of the barrel).

It's not an easy thing to determine, and most of the time it'll probably end up being just "aim that direction, and if we don't hit, aim higher"

[ColBosch]

Leviathans in 1910 are so new, and the technology so primitive, that they fire at a flat trajectory. Yes, they know that shells arc in flight, they just can't account for that yet. So, like LeaderOfOrcs said, they'll just aim higher if they miss.

It doesn't help that Leviathans are FAST compared to their seaborne cousins.

[Alius]

Well, how variable were the powder charges allowed for, say, a 3 in. gun of the era? And I am talking flat trajectory, too.

[Worktroll]

It's not an easy thing to determine, and most of the time it'll probably end up being just "aim that direction, and if we don't hit, aim higher"

Important truth here, that began to bite in the early 1900s in the mundane timeline.

Look at pre-dreadnought battleships. They had primary, secondary, tertiary and sometimes even quaternary weapons. But they were intended to fight at ranges of 2,000-5,000 meters - more or less direct fire.  Partially because navies were still thinking about Trafalgar-era tactice - true! - but also because the technology didn't allow for more. Battleships in the 1880s carried 13" guns - muzzle-loaders, true - but their ability to traverse, and shell velocities, didn't allow for long-range duels. It was "close and blast!"

In the mundane timeline, the battle of Tsushima showed that the big guns did the killing, particularly if you used them from beyond the enemy's ability to return fire. Hence the all-big-gun battleship, or Dreadnought. Of course, this lesson wasn't learned in the Levs timeline - our Tsushima showed that shotgunning with as many shells as possible worked. Big (surface) guns couldn't easily be brought to bear on Levs, and smaller shells could find weak spots in the ships of the day. So the Levs universe went down a different tack.

So while the images of WW2-era guns are useful, Lev weapons would be similar sizes, but of less range, less penetrating power, less damage capacity, and smokier. Metallurgy and explosives chemistry have come a long way in the 50 years between 1900 and 1950.

(Side note: shells exploding on the outside of WW1 armoured ships did little damage. Sure, they smashed the ships boats, masts etc, but little more. All ships of the period used armour-piercing shells exclusively for anti-warship work. One of the reasons the British sunk so few German ships at the battle of Jutland was that the explosive filling of their shells - a cordite variant - was unstable and tended to blow up when the shell hit the armour, rather than waiting for the shell to penetrate into the soft parts of the target. Most disappointing ... especially when the arsenals insisted there was no problem for many more months.)

[Monbvol]

Not sure how much of a problem over penetration was at the time since this is an era I have not studied thoroughly.

Since I probably just foggeed up the situation for the OP I guess I should explain over penetration.  If an armor piercing shell is too stable or is designed to go through a thickness of armor that a unit just does not have then it can tear through the side or deck* of the ship, pass through all the bulkheads, and go right out the other side or through the bottom* doing relatively little damage.

*Depending on angle of impact and density of bulkheads and ship board machinery.