akd
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by akd on Jul 21, 2020 15:37:55 GMT -6
N/T accidentally posted
|
|
akd
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by akd on Jul 21, 2020 15:45:47 GMT -6
That was the change in understanding in effective gun ranges, increase in absolute gun ranges and fire control, not ships seeing further in WWII (excluding the effects of radar on aiding tracking targets beyond visibility or in intermittent visibility). From Friedman’s Great War at Sea: Well then you're talking about precipitation, which is a whole different issue. The point is, the max range for clear weather in game is too short. That's simple, historical fact. Now, from what I've been reading compared to pictures, it seems that visibility from a wwII system ranged about 25,000 yards in conditions that were cloudy, windy, and dark, but without rain, fog, or mist. You're saying that ships couldn't see further in WWII. I follow your logic, but historically, that's wrong. Ships optically identified and fired upon ships and much greater ranges in WWII. There are a few possible reasons for this 1. Improved telescopic sights allowing greater visual clarity 2. Larger rangefinders, placed higher in the ship, allowing for a simple increase in mathematical line of sight 3. Doctrinal changes related to longer gun range, causing additional effort to be placed on identifying ships at those long ranges Well, seeing and being able to engage are not the same thing. Right from 1900 on, in clear atmospheric conditions funnel smoke could be seen at 40,000 yards or so. There was no fundamental change in the ability to detect ships via optical means, especially in the clearest conditions.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jul 21, 2020 15:51:35 GMT -6
Okay, I did some quick calculations. For Yamato, Rangefinder to Mast spotting distance is 35,800 yards Rangefinder to Rangefinder sighting distance is 34,900 Yards Rangefinder to Hull sighting distance is 26,800 Yards However, Yamato was engaging starting at 33,000 yards and scoring hits at almost 35,000 yards Logically, this follows that they must have been engaging when the enemy hull was concealed, and maybe even only the top of the superstructure was visible on the horizon
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jul 21, 2020 15:54:06 GMT -6
Well then you're talking about precipitation, which is a whole different issue. The point is, the max range for clear weather in game is too short. That's simple, historical fact. Now, from what I've been reading compared to pictures, it seems that visibility from a wwII system ranged about 25,000 yards in conditions that were cloudy, windy, and dark, but without rain, fog, or mist. You're saying that ships couldn't see further in WWII. I follow your logic, but historically, that's wrong. Ships optically identified and fired upon ships and much greater ranges in WWII. There are a few possible reasons for this 1. Improved telescopic sights allowing greater visual clarity 2. Larger rangefinders, placed higher in the ship, allowing for a simple increase in mathematical line of sight 3. Doctrinal changes related to longer gun range, causing additional effort to be placed on identifying ships at those long ranges Well, seeing and being able to engage are not the same thing. Right from 1900 on, in clear atmospheric conditions funnel smoke could be seen at 40,000 yards or so. There was no fundamental change in the ability to detect ships via optical means, especially in the clearest conditions. Are you saying they should be pushed up to 30,000 yards from the get go then? There was no fundamental change, but they did increase spotting clarity, and the height of rangefinders over time
|
|
|
Post by fleet5 on Jul 21, 2020 15:59:23 GMT -6
I think effective fire ranges should increase greatly as technology starts to allow it.
|
|
akd
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by akd on Jul 21, 2020 16:36:30 GMT -6
Well, seeing and being able to engage are not the same thing. Right from 1900 on, in clear atmospheric conditions funnel smoke could be seen at 40,000 yards or so. There was no fundamental change in the ability to detect ships via optical means, especially in the clearest conditions. Are you saying they should be pushed up to 30,000 yards from the get go then? There was no fundamental change, but they did increase spotting clarity, and the height of rangefinders over time Under perfectly clear conditions and assuming spotting heights for a battleship or battle cruiser, yes probably so. But it also needs to be clear to players that there is a huge difference over time between maximum gun range and effective range, with only the latest WWII-era tech extending effective range to, or even beyond, the visual horizon. See 1914 Battle of Falklands Islands where atmospheric conditions were described as maximum possible and the opponents could see each other long before they could effectively engage. I believe the spotting top height of Invincible and Inflexible was around 30m.
|
|
|
Post by thorthemighty on Jul 21, 2020 17:13:09 GMT -6
I haven't looked up the circular probability error for an Iowa's guns, but - given other gunnery from WW2 - you'd be wasting shells and killing fish while praying for the golden BB of a hit. Until or unless you use spotting aircraft or get some sort of fins and guidance package to make a 16" projectile 'smart', being able to reach that far doesn't mean you can hit a target - even something 800 feet long - because of error, wind, inability to spot and too long a flight-time to make correction meaningful. I'm a great believer in gunnery, gunnery control systems and radar... I just think you're over the limits of what the system can reasonably do and over the limits of ammunition stowage. If you fire your stocks dry trying to land a couple of hits, you'll need the Iowa's speed to disengage. So... I do think the game should let you do it. Maybe there should be a naval 'Doctrine' checklist for things like that. If the game doesn't permit, protecting the inexperienced player from a serious mistake is a likely reason. You, being quite experienced, should be able to do as you like - I'm just stating reasons why I wouldn't, if I could. The 16in/50 Caliber Mark 7 Naval Gun was so accurate it was outright insane at least in the 1980s, with a shell-to-shell dispersion of 123 yards. To put this in perspective, a standard NFL Football Field if you count the endzones is 120 yards in length. For Battleship guns that is sniper rifle levels of accuracy and even the 18.1in guns on the Yamatos with their optical systems were pretty accurate guns too, Navweps which is the source I used for the Mark 7 Naval Gun source, notes that those had a grouping of 400 to 500 meters at maximum range of the gun which could hurl a shell over 42,000-meters. Source
Plus the identification thing could be solved at long range by having spotter aircraft they spot the target at oh, say some 30,000 yards and then they give you identification of the target as well as its class.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Jul 21, 2020 20:29:36 GMT -6
Questions for this discussion in general. Assuming you could see the other ship(s) that far away (and probably their mast and funnel smoke even sooner: 1. Were the optical rangefinders broad enough to give you an accurate range at that distance? (Radar obviously helps here, but at what point do you get some issues with its accuracy?) 2. Were the "clocks" and fire control computers that good at those ranges to accurately predict closing rate, relative directions, etc. to score a hit with shells with that long of a period in the air?
And once you get into historical examples the naval doctrine of the various navies varied in regard to when they expected to open fire for ranging purposes, for effective purposes, etc.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jul 21, 2020 20:41:47 GMT -6
Questions for this discussion in general. Assuming you could see the other ship(s) that far away (and probably their mast and funnel smoke even sooner: 1. Were the optical rangefinders broad enough to give you an accurate range at that distance? (Radar obviously helps here, but at what point do you get some issues with its accuracy?) 2. Were the "clocks" and fire control computers that good at those ranges to accurately predict closing rate, relative directions, etc. to score a hit with shells with that long of a period in the air? And once you get into historical examples the naval doctrine of the various navies varied in regard to when they expected to open fire for ranging purposes, for effective purposes, etc. I think part of this is just accuracy. Ships could and did fire at those ranges, but its more of a question of whether you can actually hit the target reliably at a given range. Even with perfect FCS hit chances at these engagement ranges aren’t going to be high. As for the specifics of tech, that largely comes down to an individual basis. Something like Littorio and its multitude of rangefinders absolutely could precisely direct fire at those ranges(If she had working shells, anyways). Rangefinders and GFCS were a constantly developing technology, thats best represented by FCS tech in game, not an arbitrary hardcap on engagement ranges
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jul 22, 2020 3:55:03 GMT -6
Questions for this discussion in general. Assuming you could see the other ship(s) that far away (and probably their mast and funnel smoke even sooner: 1. Were the optical rangefinders broad enough to give you an accurate range at that distance? (Radar obviously helps here, but at what point do you get some issues with its accuracy?) 2. Were the "clocks" and fire control computers that good at those ranges to accurately predict closing rate, relative directions, etc. to score a hit with shells with that long of a period in the air? And once you get into historical examples the naval doctrine of the various navies varied in regard to when they expected to open fire for ranging purposes, for effective purposes, etc. Based on what happened to SMS Bismarck, it seems very likely. Although the combat wasn't initiated until 0847 at 25,100 yards, it took only 23 minutes to silence the ship. More importantly: It should also be noted that HMS Rodney was supposed to be en-route to the USA for a refit and so would have had a lower quality inexperienced crew on board (quality -1? ). www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-016.php and similar accounts would help confirm this. Although it does show issues with firing under radar control - HMS KGV was targeting shell splashes from HMS Rodney for much of the initial 23 minutes
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Jul 22, 2020 8:32:03 GMT -6
www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-078.phpSomething on rangefinders and some of the associated issues. Also points out how important precision is with even the later optical high width ones like the Iowa had. Also, in game terms, what would be the complications for the AI opening fire from even further away with quite low hit probabilities? Barring extra coding, would this open the possibility for dodging about at that range and letting the opponent waste their limited ammo? (And given the AIs propensity to fire at fairly agile CLs and probably meeting them before it encounters an opposing battle line it could be considered a factor.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 22, 2020 8:39:14 GMT -6
thorthemighty - I understand the accuracy of the 16"/50. Being able to hit somewhere inside 120 yards is... well, a battleship would be less than 40 yards wide and 250 yards long, and if moving at 25 knots would pass through 800 yards per minute. So in theory, and keeping it very simple, the target could be anywhere inside a triangle composed of its initial point, 800 yards out at a 45 degree angle one way, and 800 yards out at the other 45 degree angle. The target is going to pass through at least three times its own length every minute. The 16"/50 has a muzzle velocity of 2500 fps at maximum. Let's assume it maintains that for the entire flight-time. If the target is 30,000 yards away (90,000 feet - very roughly, leaving out the difference between sea and land measurements) then the flight time is at least 36 seconds. The battery can continue to fire at where the target is projected to be - but it can fire off its AP load in 10 to 30 minutes. I don't see anything here to convince me that naval gunnery is anything but an exercise in probabilities. I don't think ships can accurately get a firing solution from funnel smoke or a bit of superstructure - you need speed and bearing, and with a flight-time of half a minute while both ships are steaming fast you'd need good predictive ability and a large component of luck, or at least a target steaming toward you with minimal deflection (IE Hood). Battleships carry a limited number of shells, particularly AP shells - call it 100 total or 50 AP for an estimate. IF you can land a few critical deck hits at long range then it might be worth it; if you cannot then you are out of your best ammunition, or worst case out of everything. Given 100 shells per gun, and assuming 4 shells per minute (which really can't be sustained, or 2 shells a minute for more deliberate fire) then you are out of AP in 10 or 20 minutes and out of everything in half an hour to 45 minutes. Given BEST hit percentages from other combat actions (5% was good shooting in WW1 and would be good at the long ranges we are discussing) you might get 5 hits from 100 shells. Obviously it depends on where they hit, but you can't control that at over-the-horizon range the way you can at 10,000 yards or less. So... is 5 hits worth burning through your ammo? Maybe... but I wouldn't bet on it. That's why I prefer to wait to engage, closing the range until I can reliably score more hits, even if those are against belt rather than deck armor. I take nothing away from British gunnery (except that I wouldn't have used those short rangefinders) but it is notable that Bismarck was almost unmoving and could not manuever. A lot of this is personal preference - IE doctrine - and depends on how the navies in question intend to fight. The US Navy intended to fight a gunnery duel at long range, trained for it and built its systems around that concept. But actual long-range battles (like some stages of Java Sea or Komandorski Islands) show that was not productive in terms of damage done for shells expended. Radar could change that... but I'm not convinced that it changes the equations enough to justify firing off a significant percentage of my ammo at long range. And as British experience against Bismarck showed, you can't always depend on radar to keep working once the guns start firing, or on trained fire-control people being able to separate out what the returns mean. At Surigao Strait, West Virginia picked up the Japanese at 42,000 yards but did not open fire until 23,000 yards. She did score immediately - but it is worth noting that the Japanese had been tracked for over 30 minutes and they were not manuevering. If the professional gunners, using radar, were willing to hold until 23,000 yard - and if the British, against Bismarck, opened at 25,000 yards and closed to 15,000 or less - then for my part I'd take the advice of their actions. oaktree - that is a tactic I have used against AI light forces, letting them fire away at long range while I keep my ammo ready. Sometimes they score a hit but it is rarely serious (as opposed to enemy capital ships, which can hammer a CL flat with a hit or two).
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jul 22, 2020 10:34:31 GMT -6
I think an extended engagement at 30,000 yards or more is pretty much out of the question. Both sides will invariably close the distance, both in game and irl(what range they close to is a different question). But the point is that ships did see and fire upon each other at greater ranges then in game, so at the very least, spotting and recognition distance should be increases to realistic levels
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jul 22, 2020 12:32:27 GMT -6
Guys, I'm looking at the calculations on the first page, and I think you are all forgetting about refraction. The bending of light through air can let you see a bit beyond the geometrical horizon, and could lead to longer spotting ranges in certain conditions. Refraction over the ocean also typically winds up being more severe than that over land.
|
|
akd
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by akd on Jul 22, 2020 13:15:15 GMT -6
Guys, I'm looking at the calculations on the first page, and I think you are all forgetting about refraction. The bending of light through air can let you see a bit beyond the geometrical horizon, and could lead to longer spotting ranges in certain conditions. Refraction over the ocean also typically winds up being more severe than that over land. True, but refraction is extraordinarily complex and in many circumstances probably not significantly different than the simple horizon calculation: aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html
|
|