Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIII

[Max_Killjoy]

As noted above you need a shell with a lot of KE and Momentum, (momentum is Mass x Velocity), to get to high altitudes effectively. Those just happen to also be good qualities for an anti-tank gun. But no one really realised this at the time. Anti-tank weaponry development was really still in it's infancy at the start of WW2 with some nations still fielding very large calibre, (>50cal, or some smaller calibre with a propellent charge bigger than a 50 cal), rifles as anti-tank weapons. Nobody had even considered an anti-tank gun in the size rnage of 88mm, or any other big AAA gun, so no one had made the connection between the way good AAA statistics also made for a good Anti-Tank weapon.

Yes and no. The US was already working on AT guns based on AA guns before the war. (The 3" gun on the M10 tank destroyer was developed from the 3-inch M1918 AA gun, for example.)

[Storm Bringer]

I have a question for you:

I read about the 8.8 Flak from WWII, that it was used a lot in fighting ground targets. On Wikipedia its high penetration power is given as a reason for that. Could one of you explain to me, why the penetration was higher than e.g. the PAK 40 and why it was overall so much better than anti-tank guns that were specifically designed for that purpose? It seems it was also successfully used against Bunkers and Ships…

Thanks in advance!

As others have said, the reason purpose built AT guns were weaker was that the 88mm FlAK was that people, planning off existing and projected tanks, believed that they only needed guns in the 35-45mm range.

Such guns are much smaller, and easier to move, hide and fight than the 88mm was, so it made sense to use a smaller gun that could do the job (like how we don't issue .50 cal rifles to our line infantry, when 7.62 and 5.56 will do the job with a smaller, more handy weapon). A quick search found this image, which shows a 37mm PAK 35 in front of a 88mm PAK 43 (based of the 88m FLAK guns), which shows just how much smaller and easier to hide the 37mm was.

In short, during the pre war build up, the 88mm was simply overkill for AT work, with a few exceptions just starting to come into service, almost no tank needed that much gun to beat.

Should probably also be mentioned that the idea to build a highpower anti-tank gun hadn't kicked in as there had been no need for one. The Flak 88 had properties a anti-tank gun would need at a time when those needs had not been realsied yet.

Think the standard antitank gun was something like 37mm gun (or even smaller) at the start of the war which quickly became rather underpowered as the war gained momentum. (most) Inter-war tanks were not developed much and were puny compared to what was deployed once it all started (with the caveat that most ww2 tank projects started before it started to some degree).

Yhea, the Germans in France nicknamed their 37mm guns the "Türklopfer" (Doorknocker), since all it did against the Allies heavy infantry tanks was "announce its presence" by pinging shells off the thick frontal armour. that led to a crash program to up-gun the German tank fleet, but even in 1941 they were still struggling with the t-34 and Kv-1 tanks in Russia.

[BayardSPSR]

Yhea, the Germans in France nicknamed their 37mm guns the "Türklopfer" (Doorknocker), since all it did against the Allies heavy infantry tanks was "announce its presence" by pinging shells off the thick frontal armour. that led to a crash program to up-gun the German tank fleet, but even in 1941 they were still struggling with the t-34 and Kv-1 tanks in Russia.

Conversely, if I remember correctly the Soviets had developed a high-velocity 57mm anti-tank gun at the start of the war, but ceased production to simplify logistics after finding that existing weapons were sufficient to deal with the the German tanks of the day, only to reintroduce the weapon later in the war as heavier German armor started to appear.

Meanwhile, the Germans were bringing Soviet anti-tank guns into service as quickly as they could capture them (which was pretty quickly, at least in 1941), to be better able to deal with the better-armored Soviet tanks.

So part of the reason there was so much use of the 8.8cm Flak was pre-war intelligence failures.

As far as I can tell, the 8.8 was used in an anti-tank role less frequently later in the war (and never in the same concentrations as in North Africa), but it had already earned a fearsome reputation at that point, and I suspect Allied tankers might have started to misidentify all German anti-tank guns as "eighty-eights."

[DerKommissar]

Thank you guys for your answers! I think its now clearer to me why the penetration achieved was higher.

Was the 8.8 Flak also able to have a higher rate of fire?

I guess the targeting system should also work quicker, as it was build to shot down fast and 3 dimensional moving airplanes - does this make a difference when using against ground vehicles?

As to the targeting system itself (this might be too specific, but maybe somebody knows):

The German Wiki page on the "Flak 41" names the "Kommandogerät 41" as targeting system. I couldnt find it in the english version, so I give a short summary of what it says there:

The "Kommandogeräte 41" was a computer which optically traces the target. The data was automatically (!) computed into an "M"-Value (the plane) and a "T"-Value (the point where you aim at in order to hit "M"). The data was transmitted to the 4 Flaks of a Flak Battery and to each of their horzontal and vertical measuring instruments and the instrument which adjusted the timer of the grenade. The operator had to manually change the aiming of the Flak till it matched the calculated "T"-Value.

Does any one of you know how the computation of optical impulses to create an electronic target aid worked? I can imagine it nowadays with digital camera technology and laser/gps systems, but in the description its called a "mechanical analog computer", so I have no idea how that worked especially if you have a very limited window of oportunity with fast moving planes...

[Storm Bringer]

Thank you guys for your answers! I think its now clearer to me why the penetration achieved was higher.

Was the 8.8 Flak also able to have a higher rate of fire?

I guess the targeting system should also work quicker, as it was build to shot down fast and 3 dimensional moving airplanes - does this make a difference when using against ground vehicles?

As to the targeting system itself (this might be too specific, but maybe somebody knows):

The German Wiki page on the "Flak 41" names the "Kommandogerät 41" as targeting system. I couldnt find it in the english version, so I give a short summary of what it says there:

The "Kommandogeräte 41" was a computer which optically traces the target. The data was automatically (!) computed into an "M"-Value (the plane) and a "T"-Value (the point where you aim at in order to hit "M"). The data was transmitted to the 4 Flaks of a Flak Battery and to each of their horzontal and vertical measuring instruments and the instrument which adjusted the timer of the grenade. The operator had to manually change the aiming of the Flak till it matched the calculated "T"-Value.

Does any one of you know how the computation of optical impulses to create an electronic target aid worked? I can imagine it nowadays with digital camera technology and laser/gps systems, but in the description its called a "mechanical analog computer", so I have no idea how that worked especially if you have a very limited window of oportunity with fast moving planes...

right, a analog computer is one that uses gears or other physical means to represent variables in a maths equation. so, you would have inputs like altitude, speed, etc all as dials you turned to adjust to match the given values needed, and it would then use these to produce a output (in this case the point of aim).


while the planers might be flying fast, the 88mm was meant to engage targets flying high up on level bombing runs (hence the high speed shells, to reach that height), which would extend the engagement window to several minutes in some cases, which made aiming a much easier task. Against low flying planes, smaller calibre AA guns (like the 20mm and 40mm autocannons) were used instead.

the computer couldn't take the inputs directly form a optical sight. instead, you had a bloke looking though it who shouted out the approximate height, speed and bearing of the target (he had various methods of judging them, but I don't know specifics, but likely based on co-incidence range finding), and another man who was inputing them into the computer, which then transmitted its output (the firing solution) via electrical wire to the gunner aim dials, who then raised and aimed the gun. its not what we would call "automatic" today, but it was "automatic" in the sense that it told the gunners the firing solution without someone having to do the maths longhand and then yell it out to the gun layers.

the whole set up sounds similar to what was done on naval ships of the time, just on a smaller scale.

now, all this Is fine if you have a clear, distinct target (like a bomber on its bomb run), but it wasn't meant or really able to work for ground targets. it was more a way to get all 4 guns In the battery firing at the same aim point so you only had to adjust one point of aim rather than 4. for ground targets you needed a different sort of sighting system, normally a much simpler (in comparison) one that was mainly a telescopic sight with a Stadiametric rangefinder (Wiki that word and you'll find a description of how that works). the fire control computer would be far too clumsy to give meaningful fire control against ground targets, so the Flak would be fired under local control, and over open sights on the gun (or a ground sight like those used for tanks and AT guns)

As far as I can tell, the 8.8 was used in an anti-tank role less frequently later in the war (and never in the same concentrations as in North Africa), but it had already earned a fearsome reputation at that point, and I suspect Allied tankers might have started to misidentify all German anti-tank guns as "eighty-eights."

short answer; kinda

longer answer: the FlAK 88 was phased out in favour or dedicated, purpose made 88mm AT guns (the PAK 43). as well as intermediate calibre 50mm and 75mm PAK guns, so their was less need to use a AA gun in a AT role, as suitable AT guns were produced.


but your right, their is a high chance that a lot of mid calibre AT guns were ID'd as 88mm by nervous allied tankers, just like a lot of german tanks were assumed to be Tigers tanks until proven otherwise.

[Pauly]

Other people have hiton the main points, but a few other points.

Because the 88 had a larger shell it retained killing power at longer ranges than smaller shells. For example 75L70 in the Panther and JagdPanzer IVL70 had better penetration below about 500 meters similar penetration for 500 to 1500 meters but the 88 had more penetration from 1500 meters. Air resistance slows down lighter objects more quickly.

The 88 had larger crews so the supply of shells could be kept up at a faster rate. Which means for practical purposes the 88 had a higher sustained fire rate than dedicated ATGs, even though on paper the ATGs had similar firing rates. The downside of this was that the 88 was a bigger softer target to return fire.

The FLAK 88 really built its reputation in the western desert and the steppes of Russia. In both environments the enemy tankers had aggressive doctrnes and the Germans had great success using their tanks to lure enemy tanks into kill boxes where the 88s were in camoflaged prepared positions. The 88 was able to fully utilize its superior lange range performance in conjunction with smaller ATGs and tanks providing support. Also many British-tanks of the time were not issued with HE shells and were unable to respond directly to 88s.
Later in the war when terrain closed ranges and enemy tanks were better able to target 88s with HE shells at range the FLAK 88 became much less effective, but still retained its earler reputation.

[Carl]

@Storm Bringer. I believe eventually systems did develop that could autonomously input, but they were late war. The real issue was that IRL the computers couldn't calculate fast enough. Naval systems had the same issue with dive bombers. Good little video i got linked to on another forum once, gets a few bits wrong in comparison to naval systems, but that has to do with Ship's generally being able to handle complicated machinery better in a mobile form:

[Lemmy]

Thank you all for your answers. I really appreciate it.

[Squared]

I apparently cant't post links. Just search for U.S. Navy analog computer training video. Very cool stuff, very well explained as to how it all works.

^2

[DerKommissar]

Thanks for the explanation, you guys are awwsome! ☺

One thing about the aiming computer, it says in the wiki (quote)
"Bei Tag wurde mittels des Raumbildentfernungsmessers (Em4mR) auf Basis 4 m das Ziel optisch erfasst und verfolgt. Diese Werte wurden in den Kommandorechner automatisch („Kommandogerät 41“) eingegeben."

Translation: "During the day the coincidence rangefinder [?] was used to optically trace the target on a "basis 4 m". This data was automatically entered into the Comando computer ("kommandogerät 41")"

It seems at some point there was a direct optical input which was analogely computed? How does that even work haha ;)

As explained by stormbringer: human measuring optics and shouting variables, other human punching them into computer - this could probably be done with 17-18th century mechanic calculators. But the direct link optical - computing puzzles me when theres no digital computing in use...

[Pauly]

Thanks for the explanation, you guys are awwsome! ☺

One thing about the aiming computer, it says in the wiki (quote)
"Bei Tag wurde mittels des Raumbildentfernungsmessers (Em4mR) auf Basis 4 m das Ziel optisch erfasst und verfolgt. Diese Werte wurden in den Kommandorechner automatisch („Kommandogerät 41“) eingegeben."

Translation: "During the day the coincidence rangefinder [?] was used to optically trace the target on a "basis 4 m". This data was automatically entered into the Comando computer ("kommandogerät 41")"

It seems at some point there was a direct optical input which was analogely computed? How does that even work haha ;)

As explained by stormbringer: human measuring optics and shouting variables, other human punching them into computer - this could probably be done with 17-18th century mechanic calculators. But the direct link optical - computing puzzles me when theres no digital computing in use...

If this is what I think it is:

The range finder has two lenses a set distance (4m) apart. The operator then brings the images together until they coimcide. At that point you use triangulation to compue the range. Larger ships were able to carry larger range finders and were able to calculate better gunnery solutions than smaller sjips at the same range.

[LudicSavant]

So here's something I've been looking into a bit and I'm curious if anyone here has any insight.

I've been wondering about flails. This originally came up since I was attempting to rebalance the 5e weapons (which contain a number of pointless or trap options, of which flails are one). And I realized I had no real idea how someone actually fought with a flail effectively... so I started looking for demonstrations, and it turns out there's some controversy over whether medieval flails existed at all (one side claims that they seem to have been real but rare, while the other is more skeptical). I did however find references to other cultures using flail-like weapons, like the Japanese Chigiriki. I found a couple of demonstrations as well, which were interesting (it's certainly used differently than medieval flails are often portrayed in fiction).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeCrBDlWixM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt__otLtfZ0

As far as European flails, I didn't have much luck (other than finding out about the sort modified from farming equipment that resembles a two section staff).

So my question is: What're the views on the historicity of flails in various cultures? How were they used? Any good demonstrations? What niches did they fill, including advantages and disadvantages?

[Carl]

Thanks for the explanation, you guys are awwsome! ☺

One thing about the aiming computer, it says in the wiki (quote)
"Bei Tag wurde mittels des Raumbildentfernungsmessers (Em4mR) auf Basis 4 m das Ziel optisch erfasst und verfolgt. Diese Werte wurden in den Kommandorechner automatisch („Kommandogerät 41“) eingegeben."

Translation: "During the day the coincidence rangefinder [?] was used to optically trace the target on a "basis 4 m". This data was automatically entered into the Comando computer ("kommandogerät 41")"

It seems at some point there was a direct optical input which was analogely computed? How does that even work haha ;)

As explained by stormbringer: human measuring optics and shouting variables, other human punching them into computer - this could probably be done with 17-18th century mechanic calculators. But the direct link optical - computing puzzles me when theres no digital computing in use...

Compared to the math involved in calculating the proper aim point thats trivial. You dont need an electronic computer, (note not all electronic computers are digital, thats a recent thing relatively speaking, analog computers where used for a long time), it can be done mechnaichially. Big pieces of kit ofc.

[Brother Oni]

I guess the targeting system should also work quicker, as it was build to shot down fast and 3 dimensional moving airplanes - does this make a difference when using against ground vehicles?

Further to Storm Bringer's points, the Flak 88 fired different shells at aircraft compared to tanks.

Since aircraft are basically unarmoured compared to tanks (the A-10 Thunderbolt aside), using a kinetic penetrator is overkill, so they used high explosive (HE) shells or flak shells.
Flak shells only need to be the general vicinity to damage or kill (burst radius) and the 88's effective burst radius was ~30ft.

You're right that shooting aircraft was more difficult - flak shells had fuses which allowed them to be set to detonate at a specific altitude which was a concern that the anti-tank HE shells didn't have (these had contact fuses).


As for fire rates, the PAK 43 had between 6-10 rounds per minute, while the PAK 40 is listed as 14 rpm.

[Gnoman]

Note that the bursting of the shell against was based purely on a time fuse. The Anglo-American invention of the proximity fuse was considered a superweapon at the time, and was used only by naval units and British Isles base defense until late in the war to ensure that the Germans couldn't copy it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Note that the bursting of the shell against was based purely on a time fuse. The Anglo-American invention of the proximity fuse was considered a superweapon at the time, and was used only by naval units and British Isles base defense until late in the war to ensure that the Germans couldn't copy it.

Indeed -- the 40mm shells with proximity fuses in particular were game-changers against Japanese aircraft.

[Galloglaich]

Note that the bursting of the shell against was based purely on a time fuse. The Anglo-American invention of the proximity fuse was considered a superweapon at the time, and was used only by naval units and British Isles base defense until late in the war to ensure that the Germans couldn't copy it.

Very interesting, all of the posts on this from everybody. Learned a bit here, thanks!

G

[Vinyadan]

About flails, I think they were used for threshing corns. It was an enormously tiresome thing to do, so various techniques were developed: using flails, jumping on corns, having animals walk over them (after covering them, I guess), making corns jump on some sort of very large drum... and you had little time, because rain would ruin the harvest. I think that the item pharahos held in their hand was a flail (the other one looks like a shepherd cane). About military use in the West: good question. It looks very unwieldy, and I believe that flails were meant to strike at ground level, which isn't too good. However, I can see some experiments being made, or simply very poor conscripts or rebel peasants using what they could find, improving it, and then a full military version being developed. It could be that better armour made the long-chained versions obsolete before other spiky weighted weapons that allowed better trajectory control, increasing the effectiveness of the spike.

Fun fact: today, AA missiles still are flack-like in the way they explode, with e.g. a 50 m explosion diameter for certain Russian missiles. Some Buk have altitude fuses.

About fuses, German AA forces had at least in one case an agreement between fighter planes and ground AA for AA fuses to be set at a certain height and fighters were supposed to operate above this height and above enemy bombers. I don't know if it was a special case or a widespread tactic to avoid friendly fire.

[Yora]

Does anyone know the properties of meteoritic iron? Could you even make a blade the size of a gladius or would it be too much prone to breaking and bending in such a large weapon made for actual combat?

[DerKommissar]

In the wiki about the flak they tell that it also was the impact fuses (in addition to timed ones, so dual fuse systems) that almost trippled the rates of planes shot down. Before that it seems the shells often overpenetrated through the planes and exploded far above the planes...

[Yora]

Since it would be really hard to get adirect hit, I doubt it made such a huge difference.

[Gnoman]

Direct hits weren't as hard as you would think. With good radar direction, you can get a very good idea of speed and altitude to lay your fire, so you'll be pretty close to a plane in the first place, and with an entire battery blazing away you're going to have a dozen rounds in that general area at any given time. At that point a direct hit is only a matter of time. Good evasive techniques made that harder, but there are times in the flight where that is very hard to do (when you're settling down for your bomb run, for example), and the guns took full advantage.

[Storm Bringer]

Thanks for the explanation, you guys are awwsome! ☺

One thing about the aiming computer, it says in the wiki (quote)
"Bei Tag wurde mittels des Raumbildentfernungsmessers (Em4mR) auf Basis 4 m das Ziel optisch erfasst und verfolgt. Diese Werte wurden in den Kommandorechner automatisch („Kommandogerät 41“) eingegeben."

Translation: "During the day the coincidence rangefinder [?] was used to optically trace the target on a "basis 4 m". This data was automatically entered into the Comando computer ("kommandogerät 41")"

It seems at some point there was a direct optical input which was analogely computed? How does that even work haha ;)

As explained by stormbringer: human measuring optics and shouting variables, other human punching them into computer - this could probably be done with 17-18th century mechanic calculators. But the direct link optical - computing puzzles me when theres no digital computing in use...

a coincidence rangefinder is basically two mirrors, set a certain distance apart (in this case 4meters). both pointed in roughly the same direction, the operator would see a split image, which he then adjusted by turning the mirrors until the image was whole and lined up correctly. Then, using high school maths, you can work out how fat the target is. You have a triangle, with the two mirrors at the base and the target at the point. Knowing the angle of the two mirrors, and the distance between them, you can work out how far away the third point of the triangle is.


now, it might be that the FDC (Fire Direction Computer) could take its input readings directly form the sight as the aimer adjusted his views (since you could tie the computer inputs onto the mirror adjusting system so as the gunner adjusts the image, he also inputs the mirror angles into the computer), skipping the "shouting the range to the computer operator" stage, but the system still needed a gunner looking though the sights to match the images manually and generate the range.


So, there is not a direct optical input, but a mechanical input linked to a optical system, adjusted by a operator. make sense?

Again, this is basically the same system as used on naval range finders of the time, though they tended yo use much bigger systems for increased accuracy and range (as the accuracy of these is directly linked to the distance between the mirrors, with a bigger baseline increasing the angle between the mirrors, so letting you work out longer ranges). this is a photo of HMS Hood in 1924, and you can see 4 separate rangefinders in this image (one each of the turrets, one on top of the conning tower, and another at the top of the mast). the rear turrets would also have one each, plus a secondary FDC site, and several more for the AA guns.


and in essence, yes, the system could have been created by a really skilled steampunk type engineer. Babbage'sDifference Engine was designed to solve fire control equations of a similar type. But that was a master crafted item that cost more than 2 1st rate warships of the time, not something that could be issued to every single AA battery in the german army.

[Strigon]

Assuming a solid-hulled spacecraft similar in design to modern-day warships, how would various types of projectile weapons likely inflict their damage?
We're not thinking flimsy ISS-type, or Lunar Landers of course, but properly armed and armoured warships, with similar interior layouts to those used today. The primary difference is the presence of a vacuum, and 0 G.

If relevant, what would be the effects of a 30cm, 10cm, or 5cm rounds?
The velocity would be ~3km/s, and the rate of fire would be 1000 RPM, but the majority of shots would likely be ricochets or misses.

What would be the effects if these rounds:
Overpenetrated, passing entirely through the hull intact?
Fragmented upon piercing the hull, spraying the interior with smaller shards that spread out?
Rounds that detonated upon piercing the hull?
Rounds that flattened like hollow-points upon piercing the hull?

The relevant details I'm looking for include how it would affect the crew in the compartments being targeted, how it would affect the components being targeted, how it would affect the ship's capabilities as a whole, and what damage control would likely be performed following such an assault.

[Max_Killjoy]

Assuming a solid-hulled spacecraft similar in design to modern-day warships, how would various types of projectile weapons likely inflict their damage?
We're not thinking flimsy ISS-type, or Lunar Landers of course, but properly armed and armoured warships, with similar interior layouts to those used today. The primary difference is the presence of a vacuum, and 0 G.

If relevant, what would be the effects of a 30cm, 10cm, or 5cm rounds?
The velocity would be ~3km/s, and the rate of fire would be 1000 RPM, but the majority of shots would likely be ricochets or misses.

What would be the effects if these rounds:
Overpenetrated, passing entirely through the hull intact?
Fragmented upon piercing the hull, spraying the interior with smaller shards that spread out?
Rounds that detonated upon piercing the hull?
Rounds that flattened like hollow-points upon piercing the hull?

The relevant details I'm looking for include how it would affect the crew in the compartments being targeted, how it would affect the components being targeted, how it would affect the ship's capabilities as a whole, and what damage control would likely be performed following such an assault.

For reference, most modern warships aren't really that armored, they rely on active defense systems, electronic warfare, range, and obfuscation / evasion.

If you want substantial armor, you're looking at ships from the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s.

[Strigon]

For reference, most modern warships aren't really that armored, they rely on active defense systems, electronic warfare, range, and obfuscation / evasion.

If you want substantial armor, you're looking at ships from the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s.

It's true, but they are "armored" just by dint of being solid, massive vessels. They might not have dedicated armor, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) you still wouldn't be able to pierce its hull with anything that wasn't at least an anti-tank weapon.
Besides, all my questions were explicitly about the rounds that penetrated, so it's something of a moot point.

[Yora]

I would expect such weapons and armor work the same way as they do in atmosphere and gravity. If you shot a missile at a ship that floats on water or that flies through space shouldn't make a difference with the same warhead and propulsion. Missiles could go faster because they don't experience air drag, but with explosive warheads I don't think this makes a difference. It would only help with hitting the target.

For people inside the ship the initial hit should again feel the same, though after that you obviously have the air rushing out of the hole into space. Depending on the size of the hole and the compartment behind it, it can actually take quite a long while to vent all the atmosphere. But when we're talking a missile hit the hole would probably be big enough to make this irrelevant. The ship would probably also be designed to have pretty small compartments with sealed doors between them so that any hole would only mean the loss of a relatively small section of the ship. However, this means that anyone inside that compartment would be running out of air much faster.
Things might look different with solid penetrators from rail guns, though. Those might perhaps cause pretty small holes that would leak air over several minutes. Though everyone inside that compartment would probably be dead from the force of the impact. Solid penetrators look pretty much like explosive warheads when they hit, simply from the force of the impact that causes a lot of heat.

The biggest difference would be that a space ship can not sink and will not slowed down unless it uses its engines to decelerate. You also don't have to worry about structural strength while moving at a constant speed. So when a space ship loses engine power and can neither accelerate or decelerate, you could keep shoting holes into it for hours and it would still retain its shape and continue to fly on its current course at its current speed. You probably would have everyone on board dead from constant explosions a good time before you'd see the ship actually disintegrate.
Exceptions would obviously be a hit in the ammunition storage that sets off a good number of the warheads stored there resulting in a massive explosion that could rip apart significant portions of the ship and send the fragments drifting in different directions. Space Operas like reactor explosions, but that's actually something that can only happen with steam boilers (which are sitting on top of the uranium heating element in current nuclear power plants) but that seems very unlikely as a power source for space warships. Since this all sounds rather low-tech as sci-fi goes, the most likely power source would be fusion power and all the concepts currently in development can't explode. If something goes wrong they immediately cease functioning and can't possibly lead to an overload or chain reaction from damage.

[Strigon]

Snip

So, in summary, it would likely be similar to Age of Sail naval combat, in that the ship on the whole can keep on chugging pretty much indefinitely, but the crew will tend to be where the damage shows itself?

Edit: Holy crap, just got out of class and watched that video. Suddenly, the space combat just became a heck of a lot grittier, scarier, and more epic.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's true, but they are "armored" just by dint of being solid, massive vessels. They might not have dedicated armor, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) you still wouldn't be able to pierce its hull with anything that wasn't at least an anti-tank weapon.
Besides, all my questions were explicitly about the rounds that penetrated, so it's something of a moot point.

The current cruisers and destroyers of the USN typically have their "armor" listed as something like "limited Kevlar splinter protection in critical areas". A .50BMG AP round could penetrate the steel outer hulls in some places.

[Yora]

While railguns are a cool idea in fiction, they are probably really impractical for actual space battles. In space you could see enemy ships from huge distances and if you shot a railgun from that far away it will be several seconds at the very least until the projectile gets to the target. And then you have the target moving at incredible speeds as well and even small nudges in course corrections will lead to the projectile going wide by a considerable distance.

At the same time, missiles have the ability to make course asjustments while they are on their way to the target and so completely avoid this problem.

But then again, a missile in space travelling a long distance should be a relatively easy target for automated missile defense railguns. So you could somewhat reasonably argue that nobody bothers with shoting missiles from extreme distances because they always get shot down anyway. Getting close enough to literally slug it out with short range railguns could be made into a somewhat plausible scenario. The optimal engagement distance would be close enough to land hits but still far enough to make evasive maneuvers. Whoever has the longer "effective range" would be at a massive advantage. Once one ship loses engines and can no longer make evasive maneuvers the fight would be over as every shot would hit it every single time.

One possible solution to counter defensive maneuvers would be to shot all guns at once with each ones targeting at different locations above, below, before, and behind the enemy ship so that whichever way it attempts to evade, it will still move in the course of one other gun. Wouldn't work 100% of the time, but would become exponentially more effective the closer you get.

Now that I think of it, such battles could indeed become pretty oldschool. Like 1930-40s.