|
|
Post by mycophobia on Aug 7, 2019 15:30:09 GMT -6
One hit knocking off both turret definitely seems a bit too common for ships in RTW2, and while it maybe skewed by confirmation bias, in my French playthrough in 1.00 I noticed a lot of "1 hit knocking off both AB turrets" on all forward AB ships. ( I think 4-5 time over the course of about 7-8 large battles involving these BBs). While "One shell knocking off both turret" should certainly happen, and are not necessarily isolated incident either, they seem a bit too common on AB all forward arrangement ships that historically have taken steps to put additional distance between their turrets specifically to avoid this.(Then again, we only have the French ships for reference, but their measure of dividing the turrets in halves have proven somewhat useful).
I can see a good hit between the barbette of the turret or some secondary explosion jamming both turrets, or a rarer scenario where a shell ricochet off one turret and hit another. But they seem to happen a bit too often for AB arrangement ships (In fact I don't remember ever seeing 1 shot knocking out two turret happen in RTW 1, but im not sure if this was modelled back then)
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 7, 2019 16:19:10 GMT -6
i have noticed turrets take a good beating in battle so i'v already started planning on increasing my turret armour by +2" next game to see if it helps - i generally only build 3 turret BBs so it shouldn't be a huge increase in weight anyways
i already go overboard with TT armour by always making it half of my turret armour and i basically never get flash fires, so going overboard on turret armour isn't much of a stretch for me
|
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Aug 7, 2019 16:23:43 GMT -6
I only skimmed through the bottom/latest comments, but what I would say is this: I have definitely had too many "two turrets damaged/destroyed by same hit" events. It's very neat that this can happen (bravo!). It seems that it should not be happening multiple times in a battle or even in a high frequency of battles. I'm sure there is a historical precedence for this, but it's rare enough that skin-deep naval historians like myself do not know of it. SMS Seydlitz lost both of its after turrets to a shell that struck the rearmost barbette and detonated powder charges inside of it at the Battle of the Dogger Bank (24 January 1915).
Thank you. Left with only this, I still want to assume that there are other instances? But even with other instances, I've had this happen to multiple ships in the same battle. In one war, I probably had ~5-10 such events. Depending on other's experience, this double turret thing was either extremely unlucky for me, or it's programmed to occur a bit too often. |
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 7, 2019 16:24:57 GMT -6
Another thing to keep in mind when looking at turrets is that often gunners will be trying to hit the turrets to knock them out. Given the accuracy of gunnery it's unlikely to be anything like a perfect science, but I can definitely recall accounts of gunnery aiming at the turrets. For general shots just trying to hit the ship, the fact that the turrets are closer to the centre of the ship should also increase their probability of being hit.
I could be off, but I'd imagine looking at actual "shots fired:turret hits recorded" data would also give a higher-than-just-based-on-their-proportion-of-the-ship's-surface-from-angle-of-the-incoming-shell percentage as well. To get an idea of whether turret hit proportions are off, it's necessary to have both the in-game and historical figures, rather than assuming historical data are a flat percentage based on their proportion of the ship's surface from angle of the incoming shell.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaguya on Aug 7, 2019 18:09:21 GMT -6
Another thing to keep in mind when looking at turrets is that often gunners will be trying to hit the turrets to knock them out. Given the accuracy of gunnery it's unlikely to be anything like a perfect science, but I can definitely recall accounts of gunnery aiming at the turrets. For general shots just trying to hit the ship, the fact that the turrets are closer to the centre of the ship should also increase their probability of being hit. I could be off, but I'd imagine looking at actual "shots fired:turret hits recorded" data would also give a higher-than-just-based-on-their-proportion-of-the-ship's-surface-from-angle-of-the-incoming-shell percentage as well. To get an idea of whether turret hit proportions are off, it's necessary to have both the in-game and historical figures, rather than assuming historical data are a flat percentage based on their proportion of the ship's surface from angle of the incoming shell. Robert Lundgren has done an excellent job trying to track down hits at the second battle of Guadalcanal, which can be seen here and here. |
|
pcasey
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by pcasey on Aug 7, 2019 18:52:15 GMT -6
Another thing to keep in mind when looking at turrets is that often gunners will be trying to hit the turrets to knock them out. Given the accuracy of gunnery it's unlikely to be anything like a perfect science, but I can definitely recall accounts of gunnery aiming at the turrets. For general shots just trying to hit the ship, the fact that the turrets are closer to the centre of the ship should also increase their probability of being hit. I could be off, but I'd imagine looking at actual "shots fired:turret hits recorded" data would also give a higher-than-just-based-on-their-proportion-of-the-ship's-surface-from-angle-of-the-incoming-shell percentage as well. To get an idea of whether turret hit proportions are off, it's necessary to have both the in-game and historical figures, rather than assuming historical data are a flat percentage based on their proportion of the ship's surface from angle of the incoming shell. Robert Lundgren has done an excellent job trying to track down hits at the second battle of Guadalcanal, which can be seen here and here. Assuming I'm reading that properly it shows 2 turret hits and one barbette hit out of a total of 27 hits ... so about 10%. I don't think any of the turrets were disabled by these specific hits though. |
|
|
|
Post by kaguya on Aug 7, 2019 22:55:05 GMT -6
Robert Lundgren has done an excellent job trying to track down hits at the second battle of Guadalcanal, which can be seen here and here. Assuming I'm reading that properly it shows 2 turret hits and one barbette hit out of a total of 27 hits ... so about 10%. I don't think any of the turrets were disabled by these specific hits though. The hit on the South Dakota jammed the turret without a penetration (the shell shattered since its cap was knocked off from hitting the 38mm deck at a shallow angle) and the Kirishima reported the two front turrets disabled, with Washington noting that one turret had been disabled |
|
pcasey
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by pcasey on Aug 8, 2019 8:36:15 GMT -6
Still we are talking 1 jammed turret from 27 hits.
I believe the in-game ratio of "turrets jammed/shell hits" is higher than 1/27.
Although I am happy to be wrong if anyone actually parses a lot of logs and has the data to share.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 8, 2019 11:10:43 GMT -6
At Jutland almost all capital ship kills were from turret hits, and Bismarck had all of her turrets knocked out while the rest of the ship was fine(No penetrations of the main belt)
IIRC Scharnhorst also lost a turret quite quickly
|
|
pcasey
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by pcasey on Aug 8, 2019 11:26:41 GMT -6
At Jutland almost all capital ship kills were from turret hits, and Bismarck had all of her turrets knocked out while the rest of the ship was fine(No penetrations of the main belt) IIRC Scharnhorst also lost a turret quite quickly I think we're coming different questions though. Question #1 is : Is the frequency at which shells strike turrets in game too high relative to history? Question #2 is : When a shell does strike a turret in game, is the rate at which non penetrating impacts disable the turrets too high relative to history? I'd agree with you that most of the battlecruiser losses at Jutland were cause by penetrating hits to turrets which, coupled with poor ammunition handling practises in the British ships led to flash fires and magazine explosions. I don't think that really sheds light on either of the questions at hand though since we don't know how many hits the battlecruisers took before they got hit in the turrets ... they were blasting away at the the high seas fleet at like 9000 yards so I'm sure they took a lot of hits before they got hit in the turret. My guess is that the ratio of turret hits to overall hits on the ships was about 1:10 or lower. I'd also argue that there is plenty of evidence that those same battlecruisers which were killed at Jutland due to *penetrating* turret hits shrugged off large numbers of *non penetrating* hits at the battle of the falkland islands and kept right on blasting away. Invincible was hit something like 20 times by 8" shells at the falklands, didn't lose any turrets, and only took like 15 casualties. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 8, 2019 12:24:46 GMT -6
There is some statistics.
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 8, 2019 12:26:29 GMT -6
Another thing to keep in mind when looking at turrets is that often gunners will be trying to hit the turrets to knock them out. Given the accuracy of gunnery it's unlikely to be anything like a perfect science, but I can definitely recall accounts of gunnery aiming at the turrets. For general shots just trying to hit the ship, the fact that the turrets are closer to the centre of the ship should also increase their probability of being hit. I could be off, but I'd imagine looking at actual "shots fired:turret hits recorded" data would also give a higher-than-just-based-on-their-proportion-of-the-ship's-surface-from-angle-of-the-incoming-shell percentage as well. To get an idea of whether turret hit proportions are off, it's necessary to have both the in-game and historical figures, rather than assuming historical data are a flat percentage based on their proportion of the ship's surface from angle of the incoming shell. Well, you have to consider night/bad weather and daytime actions separately here. At close range (mostly night and bad weather), if the turrets are firing in local control, aimed shots at particular parts of an enemy ship are certainly possible. In long-range daytime engagements (or nighttime engagements with radar) the CEP (circular error probable) will be too large for aiming at any particular part of the enemy ship to be meaningful*, and in any case turrets firing under director control don't choose their own aiming point. *Even at 40,000 yards, however, it will still be better than the CEP achieved by the average user of a public men's restroom. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 8, 2019 12:59:27 GMT -6
I remember seeing WW1 US battleships training gunfire results. But I do not remember where it was. If somebody has that source, it is good example of shell fire patterns.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 8, 2019 13:12:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 8, 2019 18:37:21 GMT -6
Another thing to keep in mind when looking at turrets is that often gunners will be trying to hit the turrets to knock them out. Given the accuracy of gunnery it's unlikely to be anything like a perfect science, but I can definitely recall accounts of gunnery aiming at the turrets. For general shots just trying to hit the ship, the fact that the turrets are closer to the centre of the ship should also increase their probability of being hit. I could be off, but I'd imagine looking at actual "shots fired:turret hits recorded" data would also give a higher-than-just-based-on-their-proportion-of-the-ship's-surface-from-angle-of-the-incoming-shell percentage as well. To get an idea of whether turret hit proportions are off, it's necessary to have both the in-game and historical figures, rather than assuming historical data are a flat percentage based on their proportion of the ship's surface from angle of the incoming shell. Robert Lundgren has done an excellent job trying to track down hits at the second battle of Guadalcanal, which can be seen here and here. This is a good start  We need a lot more than one battle at one time to get the kind of data needed to be confident of the results though (particularly given the wide distribution curve of 'gunnery accuracy' for different actions, and ships, in different circumstances). 27 hits is a tiny number in terms of getting an idea of statistical regularity, even if all of those hits were made under exactly the same circumstances. Another thing to keep in mind when looking at turrets is that often gunners will be trying to hit the turrets to knock them out. Given the accuracy of gunnery it's unlikely to be anything like a perfect science, but I can definitely recall accounts of gunnery aiming at the turrets. For general shots just trying to hit the ship, the fact that the turrets are closer to the centre of the ship should also increase their probability of being hit. I could be off, but I'd imagine looking at actual "shots fired:turret hits recorded" data would also give a higher-than-just-based-on-their-proportion-of-the-ship's-surface-from-angle-of-the-incoming-shell percentage as well. To get an idea of whether turret hit proportions are off, it's necessary to have both the in-game and historical figures, rather than assuming historical data are a flat percentage based on their proportion of the ship's surface from angle of the incoming shell. Well, you have to consider night/bad weather and daytime actions separately here. At close range (mostly night and bad weather), if the turrets are firing in local control, aimed shots at particular parts of an enemy ship are certainly possible. In long-range daytime engagements (or nighttime engagements with radar) the CEP (circular error probable) will be too large for aiming at any particular part of the enemy ship to be meaningful*, and in any case turrets firing under director control don't choose their own aiming point. *Even at 40,000 yards, however, it will still be better than the CEP achieved by the average user of a public men's restroom. Absolutely - although that also brings up another issue - at what distance are people engaging where they're experiencing the relatively high turret hits, and is it close to the engagement ranges to which any data relate? Also, wouldn't the CEP (thanks for using the proper term) still have a 'turret bias' if aiming at the centre of the ship, as the turrets are close to the centre than the outer parts of the ship. How much that was would depend on the size of the CEP and the distribution of the shots within the CEP (and the capacity of the fire control solution to accurately target the centre of the ship), which would be a function of particular turrets/barrels, but I'd imagine it'd be possible to make a broad generalisation given enough data (although short of going through lots of detailed reports, I wouldn't know where to find these data). lol at the men's restroom comment - note, I'm not suggesting I disagree, I sometimes wonder exactly what people are doing to achieve the results they do (but am glad I'm not around to find out)! Also, I'm not saying the game's figures are off - I don't know the answers to a lot of the questions I've asked - just that we need to be careful before assuming their off, given the complexities involved. |
|
We need a lot more than one battle at one time to get the kind of data needed to be confident of the results though (particularly given the wide distribution curve of 'gunnery accuracy' for different actions, and ships, in different circumstances). 27 hits is a tiny number in terms of getting an idea of statistical regularity, even if all of those hits were made under exactly the same circumstances.