April 18, 2018
I thought I was done with the NAAB2.0 update but two things keep it going. One is that it was requested that I add a bombing section. This seemed a possibility by using homogeneous penetration calculations for deck armor. Then use the ballistics from a free fall from the apogee of a ballistics curve. This proved possible and the bombing section is in testing. The other is that Nathan Okun said the program is missing the FaceHard 7.9 update. I'm still looking into this as there are several sections of FH that are rewritten and I'd have to test my translation from BASIC.
One difficulty I have with the bombing logic is what to do with GP/HE bombs when confronted with two armored decks. With AP and SAP shells it is pretty easy. Use the remaining velocity and exit angle from upper deck penetration to attack the lower deck. Right now the GP/HE bomb attacks the upper deck with kinetic energy then attacks the lower deck with explosive energy. But, that supposes that the bomb does not detonate in the space between decks. Some decks have larger spaces than others. This may not have an engineering solution but a probability solution.
April 11, 2018
One question that was asked was why is Face hard penetration more than homogeneous penetration. Shouldn't it be harder to penetrate face hard armor? I suppose it should be but a capped shell will penetrate more facehard armor but the cap slightly absorbs some energy in homogeneous armor. At least that is what calculated armor penetration puts it. Here is a link to a comparison of armor penetration for 76mm and 90mm tank guns.
April 8, 2018
So the Naval Armor and Ballistics program update is complete. Link to NAAB2.0 download.
March 27, 2018
More work is being done on Naab 2.0 and further testing. Here is a look at the documentation for the project. Link
March 19, 2018
The update of NAaB 2.0 is winding down. The project has taken longer than I hoped. Now, working on stuff outside the last version. Making up HE penetration. There is a formula for that but I found it doesn't jive with my data. I am trying to match it up with TM 9 1907 firing tables of concrete penetration. If concrete is 1/15 the armor of armor. Now there is some debate of the concrete to armor multiple so 1:15 is my compromise. One online table has it at 1:10. The FaceHard program itself rates cement as 1:25 of armor, while TM 9 1907 armor to concrete ratio of AP gun penetration is 1:6. The other problem hcwclcr unlike Facehard rates all shells as perfect indestructible bodies. But there are Common, and SAP shells which are weaker than AP, So, I may have to add some factor to weaken these.
March 4, 2018
Been working on this project for over a month now. I hate programming. It is too consuming of my time. I work on it to the detriment of any life outside programming. Well the hcwclcr was fixed and NAaB is almost done. It needs some more testing and cleaning up,
Feb. 6, 2018