Diving (type 91) shells?

[ThatZenoGuy]

An important historical element of Japanese capital ships in WW2 was the "Diving shell".

These were APCBC rounds with an extended delay fuse, against soft targets it'd go right through without exploding, and thus do minimal damage.

But against armored targets it'd explode deeper than normal, doing more damage.

But the most important thing, is that near-hits would go right through the water, through the lower belt, and explode inside!

 

[VarangianGarde]

I don’t know if the game will reach that level of specificity, but I think the shell weight options are on the right path. Maybe a bit more detail on range effects with each shell type?

[ThatZenoGuy]

9 hours ago, VarangianGarde said:

I don’t know if the game will reach that level of specificity, but I think the shell weight options are on the right path. Maybe a bit more detail on range effects with each shell type?

Diving shells have got to do with 'hitting under the waterline', not range or such.

[SiWi]

I don't know if I agree with "important historically" given that in this video:

Norman Friedman gets quotes that the Japanese got as many underwater hits as navies which didn't tried.

Having said that, it could be a fun special tech for Japan and perhaps in game you can make it work better?

[SiWi]

On 10/25/2019 at 1:00 PM, ThatZenoGuy said:

Diving shells have got to do with 'hitting under the waterline', not range or such.

actually to be able to make such hits you need specific ranges. 

[Guest]

Yeah too short and the shell skips like a rock, which to be honest can be an advantage in the right spot since it might bounce up into an inclined belt, too long and the shell goes too steep to hit anything really important.

[Sir_Wulfrick]

Not sure there was actually much need for the Type 91. The Bismarck landed a penetrating shot on the Prince of Wales that entered the ship under the belt despite the fact that the KGV had a vertically extended belt design. Having a shell that actually detonated under the target might be useful against a DD or light cruiser, but there would probably be more damage from a penetrating shot in the case of a CA or HE shot in the case of a DD.

[ThatZenoGuy]

2 hours ago, Sir_Wulfrick said:

Not sure there was actually much need for the Type 91. The Bismarck landed a penetrating shot on the Prince of Wales that entered the ship under the belt despite the fact that the KGV had a vertically extended belt design. Having a shell that actually detonated under the target might be useful against a DD or light cruiser, but there would probably be more damage from a penetrating shot in the case of a CA or HE shot in the case of a DD.

Bismark's shell was INERT, that's the difference. Normal shells cannot explode like a diving shell can when they enter the water.

 

 

4 hours ago, SiWi said:

I don't know if I agree with "important historically" given that in this video:

Norman Friedman gets quotes that the Japanese got as many underwater hits as navies which didn't tried.

Having said that, it could be a fun special tech for Japan and perhaps in game you can make it work better?

The video has some flaws and frankly is a little anti-japan in nature.

Japan got few underwater hits because they rarely got a chance to FIRE said shells on enemy ships.

If Japan actually had a good fleet engagement against peer ships at usual combat ranges, they would have scored many more.

Instead the US tended to just absolutely crush their capital ships (ones with Type 91) and Japanese light forces didn't even have Type 91.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Bismark's shell was INERT, that's the difference. Normal shells cannot explode like a diving shell can when they enter the water.

Bismarck’s shell flipped end for end after it hit the water and hit the ship base fuses first crushing them. That’s the big difference with Yamato’s shells they don’t flip end for end after they hit the water because it sheds the ballistic and AP cap for a hydrodynamic cap that’s under them. This compromises the above water AP capabilities and it’s why pound for pound the US’s SHS was better.

[ThatZenoGuy]

19 minutes ago, Absolute0CA said:

Bismarck’s shell flipped end for end after it hit the water and hit the ship base fuses first crushing them. That’s the big difference with Yamato’s shells they don’t flip end for end after they hit the water because it sheds the ballistic and AP cap for a hydrodynamic cap that’s under them. This compromises the above water AP capabilities and it’s why pound for pound the US’s SHS was better.

Not only did it flip, it became inert. Diving shells retained their fuses underwater when most became inert or prematurely detonated.

Above water capabilities is reduced somewhat, however the US SHS effectiveness has got to do a lot with its cross sectional density, and in the US case, the fact they can afford materials which others cannot use.

You could make a 'Super heavy' diving shell.

[SiWi]

17 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

The video has some flaws and frankly is a little anti-japan in nature.

Japan got few underwater hits because they rarely got a chance to FIRE said shells on enemy ships.

If Japan actually had a good fleet engagement against peer ships at usual combat ranges, they would have scored many more.

Instead the US tended to just absolutely crush their capital ships (ones with Type 91) and Japanese light forces didn't even have Type 91.

Its nice y´that you claim that it has "flaws" and is "little anti-japan in nature", but you know what it has what you are lacking?

Sources.

 

As for your claims that japan didn't have a chance to fire those, it doesn't really scream "important shell" if one of the power with the most naval actions apparently never can use them.

Seriously. Did you not notice that it is a bit absurd to claim its a important shell if you apparently never can use them? Its not as if we talk Italy, UDSSR or any other nation with relative few naval battles.

And you also forget that the US took countermeasures against this possible tactic.  

[Christian]

17 hours ago, SiWi said:

Its nice y´that you claim that it has "flaws" and is "little anti-japan in nature", but you know what it has what you are lacking?

Sources.

 

As for your claims that japan didn't have a chance to fire those, it doesn't really scream "important shell" if one of the power with the most naval actions apparently never can use them.

Seriously. Did you not notice that it is a bit absurd to claim its a important shell if you apparently never can use them? Its not as if we talk Italy, UDSSR or any other nation with relative few naval battles.

And you also forget that the US took countermeasures against this possible tactic.  

does he need sources stating the amount of battles japanese capital ships were in ?

 

THE ONLY instance of type 91 shells being used in a BB vs BB engagement was north carolina vs kirishima where kirishima hit ONCE

and in less than 5 minutes was knocked out and reduced to a floating hulk which was sinking 

 

thats the ONLY instance of a larger than 8 inch shell hitting anything larger than than a heavy cruiser

Quote

An estimated 14-inch projectile passed through both sides of the coaming of hatch 1-128 and detonated upon hitting the barbette of Turret III at frame 123-1/2 about 17 inches from the top. The 17.3-inch armor was gouged to a depth of about 1-1/2 inches over an area 15 inches in diameter.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-south-dakota-bb57-war-damage-report-no57.html

the simple fact is we have no idea how well these shells performed at their intended role BECAUSE THEY WERE ALMOST NEVER USED 

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Christian

[ThatZenoGuy]

1 hour ago, Christian said:

*Being awesome*

Thank you for using common sense! Its a rare superpower nowadays! ;D

 

18 hours ago, SiWi said:

Its nice y´that you claim that it has "flaws" and is "little anti-japan in nature", but you know what it has what you are lacking?

Sources.

 

As for your claims that japan didn't have a chance to fire those, it doesn't really scream "important shell" if one of the power with the most naval actions apparently never can use them.

Seriously. Did you not notice that it is a bit absurd to claim its a important shell if you apparently never can use them? Its not as if we talk Italy, UDSSR or any other nation with relative few naval battles.

And you also forget that the US took countermeasures against this possible tactic.  

I'm not your teacher, you can look up the battles of WW2 on your own like a good adult.

Type 91 was an AP shell, useful only against heavy ships like BC and BB's. (It mostly cut through CL and CA like butter and failed to detonate thusly)

The 'light' Type 91 was 8 inches, and even Japanese CA's barely got a chance to fire upon peers. And the 8 inch Type 91 was the weakest and least capable of underwater performance of their diving shells.

Japan's greatest usage of firepower was through torpedoes, airpower, and the occasional coastal bombardment with Type 3 shells (As it turns out incendiary shrapnel is great for shooting at airfields).

Lets get some facts done.

The Type 91 was the only shell capable of consistent travel underwater and retaining its fuse.

Ergo the Type 91, when used correctly (which it never got a chance to), would work just fine in its intended role.

In order for its secondary effect to work, the gun has to firstly miss (which you don't want, even WITH a diving shell), miss short (Japanese doctrine was to aim here, and was trained in-war but not in peacetime), and finally depending on the range have a specific 'range of underwater travel'.

Closer hits could travel further in the water to hit the target, longer ranged hits had to be closer misses. Basic trajectory.
 

[Christian]

5 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Ergo the Type 91, when used correctly (which it never got a chance to), would work just fine in its intended role.

eh we dont know that

it quite likely wasent gonna be something super good and the surface pen traded for underwater pen likely wasent worth it

but it does have a higher chance of critical hit

 

our sample size is too low so we cant know for sure its performance and effectiveness

[SwaggyB]

The original point of this post was to claim that the Type 91 shell was a very important aspect of Japanese naval design and now the OP is saying it was only ever used once. This seems somewhat contradictory? 

I'd put this in the same category as the awful rocket AA on Hood as a nice idea that came to nothing. It would be better for the devs to focus on more important things imo 

[SiWi]

5 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Thank you for using common sense! Its a rare superpower nowadays! ;D

 

I'm not your teacher, you can look up the battles of WW2 on your own like a good adult.

Type 91 was an AP shell, useful only against heavy ships like BC and BB's. (It mostly cut through CL and CA like butter and failed to detonate thusly)

The 'light' Type 91 was 8 inches, and even Japanese CA's barely got a chance to fire upon peers. And the 8 inch Type 91 was the weakest and least capable of underwater performance of their diving shells.

Japan's greatest usage of firepower was through torpedoes, airpower, and the occasional coastal bombardment with Type 3 shells (As it turns out incendiary shrapnel is great for shooting at airfields).

Lets get some facts done.

The Type 91 was the only shell capable of consistent travel underwater and retaining its fuse.

Ergo the Type 91, when used correctly (which it never got a chance to), would work just fine in its intended role.

In order for its secondary effect to work, the gun has to firstly miss (which you don't want, even WITH a diving shell), miss short (Japanese doctrine was to aim here, and was trained in-war but not in peacetime), and finally depending on the range have a specific 'range of underwater travel'.

Closer hits could travel further in the water to hit the target, longer ranged hits had to be closer misses. Basic trajectory.
 

So you have nothing to back up your claims that the video is flawed or that it is "anti japan"? good to know.

Also your argument is still that the navy who done some of the most fighting of WW2 which has done as much underwater hits then other navies, had no "chance" to use the ammunition?

And you still think as "important historical"? 

Seriously.

If a ammunition is so special that you can't use it, during the whole of WW2, and other got the same deal without it, I don't view it as important.

A nice game feature maybe, but not "historical important".

[SiWi]

7 hours ago, Christian said:

does he need sources stating the amount of battles japanese capital ships were in ?

 

THE ONLY instance of type 91 shells being used in a BB vs BB engagement was north carolina vs kirishima where kirishima hit ONCE

and in less than 5 minutes was knocked out and reduced to a floating hulk which was sinking 

 

thats the ONLY instance of a larger than 8 inch shell hitting anything larger than than a heavy cruiser

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-south-dakota-bb57-war-damage-report-no57.html

the simple fact is we have no idea how well these shells performed at their intended role BECAUSE THEY WERE ALMOST NEVER USED 

 

he made the claim that the video is flawed and anti japan.

For that I would like having sources or at least reasons why it is "anti japan".

[ThatZenoGuy]

12 hours ago, Christian said:

eh we dont know that

it quite likely wasent gonna be something super good and the surface pen traded for underwater pen likely wasent worth it

but it does have a higher chance of critical hit

 

our sample size is too low so we cant know for sure its performance and effectiveness

Never said it was going to be absurdly good, but the tradeoff of 4 inches (For Japan's weakass 14 inch guns) to .7 inches (16 inch guns compared to british ones)  of penetration for 'infinitely' better underwater performance might be worth it. An underwater hit completely bypasses the belt and detonates in the innermost parts of the ship.

Additionally, if you want to make up for the lack of pen, just upgun the ship. 18.1 inches~

 

7 hours ago, SiWi said:

So you have nothing to back up your claims that the video is flawed or that it is "anti japan"? good to know.

Also your argument is still that the navy who done some of the most fighting of WW2 which has done as much underwater hits then other navies, had no "chance" to use the ammunition?

And you still think as "important historical"? 

Seriously.

If a ammunition is so special that you can't use it, during the whole of WW2, and other got the same deal without it, I don't view it as important.

A nice game feature maybe, but not "historical important".

So you didn't bother to look up the battles of world war 2 and instead just mindlessly follow whatever a video says? Good to know.

As stated in the thread, a single type 91 impacted a battleship, and it wasn't even an armored part of said ship. 

Japan didn't even get a chance to use its weapon, because airpower, torpedoes, and smaller engagements were the tactics of America.

Japan wanted the 'giant huge battle with heaps of ships', and America didn't sucker into it.

Japan didn't get a chance to use ANY AP rounds effectively.

You could have given them American superheavy rounds and they would have scored, gasp, a single non-armored area hit!

Edited October 31, 2019 by ThatZenoGuy

[SiWi]

10 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Never said it was going to be absurdly good, but the tradeoff of 4 inches (For Japan's weakass 14 inch guns) to .7 inches (16 inch guns compared to british ones)  of penetration for 'infinitely' better underwater performance might be worth it. An underwater hit completely bypasses the belt and detonates in the innermost parts of the ship.

Additionally, if you want to make up for the lack of pen, just upgun the ship. 18.1 inches~

 

So you didn't bother to look up the battles of world war 2 and instead just mindlessly follow whatever a video says? Good to know.

As stated in the thread, a single type 91 impacted a battleship, and it wasn't even an armored part of said ship. 

Japan didn't even get a chance to use its weapon, because airpower, torpedoes, and smaller engagements were the tactics of America.

Japan wanted the 'giant huge battle with heaps of ships', and America didn't sucker into it.

Japan didn't get a chance to use ANY AP rounds effectively.

You could have given them American superheavy rounds and they would have scored, gasp, a single non-armored area hit!

So you stay by the claim that the video if "anti japan" without any evidence for it. Good to know.

And again, the video names sources, naval Historian Norman Friedman , for the fact that other navies got the same rate of "success" of under water hits without this shell type.

If you get the same results by not trying then trying seems to be a waste of effort.

 

You also claim simultaneously, that the shells were super important and that Japan never "had a chance" to use it. 

Sorry but if you can't use it, it is not important. Is that so hard for a concept to grasp?

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

12 hours ago, SiWi said:

And again, the video names sources, naval Historian Norman Friedman , for the fact that other navies got the same rate of "success" of under water hits without this shell type.

Almost as if argumentum ab auctoritate is a logical fallacy.

Normal Friedman is a great guy, but in this case.

He is wrong, very wrong in fact.

No nation had a working fuzed shell detonate after a long period of time underwater.

Japan had one, technically two shells which did.

1 or 2 divided by zero in infinite, ergo Japan was infinitely more effective with underwater shell hits.

Do your research please, because its annoying that you are mindlessly following whoever is 'the big name'.

13 hours ago, SiWi said:

 

You also claim simultaneously, that the shells were super important and that Japan never "had a chance" to use it. 

Sorry but if you can't use it, it is not important. Is that so hard for a concept to grasp?

 

What is so hard to understand about Japan not having a chance to use ANY of their heavy assets to any significant amounts?

Again, Japan would have scored a single nonpenetrating hit with SUPERHEAVY shells.

Does that means superheavy shells are useless? No. 

Context, understand it, please.
 

[Tuna Cat]

15 hours ago, SiWi said:

 

You also claim simultaneously, that the shells were super important and that Japan never "had a chance" to use it. 

Sorry but if you can't use it, it is not important. Is that so hard for a concept to grasp?

 

Not having "a chance to" does not equal "cannot" use it. We have the benefit of hindsight, was every bomb built in WW2 that went undropped an unnecessary creation? every bullet unfired useless. not really, it's not hard to imagine, before the creation of such things, that there was a scenario that would have made them useful. 

 

The pacific war itself had several factors going into it that drastically changed it from a normal naval war, it's quite bizarre all things considered. 

[SiWi]

22 hours ago, Tuna Cat said:

Not having "a chance to" does not equal "cannot" use it. We have the benefit of hindsight, was every bomb built in WW2 that went undropped an unnecessary creation? every bullet unfired useless. not really, it's not hard to imagine, before the creation of such things, that there was a scenario that would have made them useful. 

 

The pacific war itself had several factors going into it that drastically changed it from a normal naval war, it's quite bizarre all things considered. 

there is a ton of differentes between a bomb type, which where more was produce as used, but they were used, and an ammo type that was never used.

And while I don't blame the inventors of the type 91 (thou the decision to not train in peace time I would put blame on whoever did that), the matter of fact is it was a waste of effort.

And to answer your "question", where unfired bullets, undropped bombs ect. "historical important"? No they simply weren't.

Edited November 2, 2019 by SiWi

[SiWi]

16 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Almost as if argumentum ab auctoritate is a logical fallacy.

Normal Friedman is a great guy, but in this case.

He is wrong, very wrong in fact.

Oh really now I'm thrilled to hear...

 

16 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

No nation had a working fuzed shell detonate after a long period of time underwater.

Japan had one, technically two shells which did.

1 or 2 divided by zero in infinite, ergo Japan was infinitely more effective with underwater shell hits.

 

Oh of course you don't understand what the guy actually wrote... he didn't wrote that other nations planed for underwater hits or had special ammunition for it, but that they had despite they put no effort in it, the roughly the same success quota of archiving underwater hits. And yes you can have underwaterhits by accident.

16 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Do your research please, because its annoying that you are mindlessly following whoever is 'the big name'.

And you actually try to understand what you claim to reject.

Seriously.

Its not that hard to understand what Mr. Friedman wrote and if you would have ever presented a good argument or another source that says something different then him I would have check that.

But you didn't.

You claim the video was "anti japan", a claim you never backed up.

And now you show that you were complete unable to understand what he wrote.

16 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

What is so hard to understand about Japan not having a chance to use ANY of their heavy assets to any significant amounts?

Again, Japan would have scored a single nonpenetrating hit with SUPERHEAVY shells.

Does that means superheavy shells are useless? No. 

Context, understand it, please.
 

Well if you never used it then yes they were useless.

That is pretty much per definition the case.

And they wouldn't be "historical important".

 

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

7 hours ago, SiWi said:

Oh of course you don't understand what the guy actually wrote... he didn't wrote that other nations planed for underwater hits or had special ammunition for it, but that they had despite they put no effort in it, the roughly the same success quota of archiving underwater hits. And yes you can have underwaterhits by accident.

Except YOU have proven you have done little more than read what others have claimed about his works.

Underwater hits are inevitable, a big chunk of metal does not dissapear on impact with water.

However does the round remain stable? This is far less common, but it did happen yes, to limited degrees. The Type 91 was stable 100% of the time to a far greater degree.

And did the shells explode after impact with water? Typically, no. But if they did, it was far before contact with the ship. The Type 91 exploded underwater 100% of the time and far enough to make contact with the ship within reason.

Please! Please stop with the argument to authority!

Simply because something with a big fancy name or video says "X", doesn't mean its true! It might have some aspects of truth, but there could be annoying myths and lies in it!
 

[SiWi]

42 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Except YOU have proven you have done little more than read what others have claimed about his works.

Underwater hits are inevitable, a big chunk of metal does not dissapear on impact with water.

However does the round remain stable? This is far less common, but it did happen yes, to limited degrees. The Type 91 was stable 100% of the time to a far greater degree.

And did the shells explode after impact with water? Typically, no. But if they did, it was far before contact with the ship. The Type 91 exploded underwater 100% of the time and far enough to make contact with the ship within reason.

Please! Please stop with the argument to authority!

Simply because something with a big fancy name or video says "X", doesn't mean its true! It might have some aspects of truth, but there could be annoying myths and lies in it!
 

Better learn from others then to stay ignorant by yourself. 

If you would have read you would have realize that he said something completely different then you argued against.

As for you new "arguments", do I have to write that no shell type of WW 2 works 100% of the time? And that given that the type 91 was never used as intended, we don't know how it actually would have performed. Especially since the US was aware of the general problem and counter act it to some degree.

And I don't argue from "authority" I quote someone for a fact.

The fact being that others navies was as successful with underwater hits as Japan, without trying.

You can't even really dispute the fact, partly because you never understood it in the first place.

Also if the video would contend myths and lies, you would have done nothing to disprove them.

And while we at it, what happen to the "anti japan" claim?

Remember that in one of the first responses you claimed the video was flawed and "anit japan" and how you have deliver no sources for either claim?

Did you really just try to smear the video vaguely as "anti japan" in the hope to ignore the points made in it?

Now you go into more ambiguous claims of "myths and lies" while its clear you are the one hanging onto a myth:

the Type 91 being a important piece of technology.

 

While it clearly wasn't.