AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 1, 2019 17:37:53 GMT -6
I will agree that we were light years ahead of the British which is hard to understand with their advancements in land based fixed ground radar. Our Mark 1A fire control radar computer which was electro-mechanical analog ballistic computer did provide accurate firing solutions and could automatically control at least one or more mounts. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-056.phpI wouldn't think radar would be the limiting factor for radar based firing computers. They couldn't go past the horizon and ships are presumably fairly easy to detect given how massive they are. Once they go past the horizon it would suddenly start mattering a lot more but that wasn't until after WWII IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 1, 2019 17:49:26 GMT -6
I will agree that we were light years ahead of the British which is hard to understand with their advancements in land based fixed ground radar. Our Mark 1A fire control radar computer which was electro-mechanical analog ballistic computer did provide accurate firing solutions and could automatically control at least one or more mounts. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-056.phpI wouldn't think radar would be the limiting factor for radar based firing computers. They couldn't go past the horizon and ships are presumably fairly easy to detect given how massive they are. Once they go past the horizon it would suddenly start mattering a lot more but that wasn't until after WWII IIRC. Well, it actually can be a limiting factor. At Savo Island, the Blue, IIRC, had a CXAM radar but Savo Island was actually causing problems with the reception as most mountains will do. The long range radars in NORAD that I worked on, were on mountain tops, (Ich) for that very reason. The range to the horizon is governed by the height of the antenna. Destroyers cannot have long poles for their antennas because the antennas are usually very heavy, believe me they are, whereas battleships and carriers will so their sets will be able to see farther. You also have the problem of sea clutter. The formula is Radar horizon is equal to 1.23 x square root of height. An antenna, that is positioned 120 feet above the sea, will have a radar horizon of about 13.473 miles. Now, the CXAM was designed as an aircraft detection radar so its surface detection might have been limited but the power out limited the aircraft detection. Another issue is ducting. If a radar signal gets caught between to layers of the atmosphere it can be ducted or refracted out a long way and then return. We detected at Fallon an aircraft but could not find it, it ended up being an airliner over Tokyo, that was interesting. The term is Atmospheric ducting if you are interested. You might find this website interesting and informative- www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Radar%20Coverage.en.html
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 9, 2019 6:15:38 GMT -6
I am kind of ambivalent about whether to include the historically accurate but apparently pretty ineffective main battery AA shells the IJN had, but while I was thinking about it something else occurred to me. I seem to recall that those shells produced excessive wear on the barrels when they were used, significantly reducing the life of the barrel, and barrel wear in general was a major concern for all capital ships during the RTW2 time period. I think that would be a great feature for RTW2 - Barrel wear tracking for all main guns over 11" with corresponding reductions in accuracy as wear increases and a specific option to take a ship into the dockyard to have its barrels replaced.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jan 9, 2019 6:31:40 GMT -6
Thinking about Guadalcanal, the Type 3 shells might actually have a better use against ground targets in certain situations. Question is, for a bit quicker "ground target(s) destroyed" message does it worth to drag along a handful of shells that may or may not be the cause of some capital ships getting Mutsu'd. While I am all for "more complexity" and "more choice" in the game hands down, I am admittedly torn if such a niche does worth the effort on part of the development. (Edit: My bad for being somewhat off-topic, first read the posts, then the title...)
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jan 10, 2019 20:35:01 GMT -6
I am kind of ambivalent about whether to include the historically accurate but apparently pretty ineffective main battery AA shells the IJN had, but while I was thinking about it something else occurred to me. I seem to recall that those shells produced excessive wear on the barrels when they were used, significantly reducing the life of the barrel, and barrel wear in general was a major concern for all capital ships during the RTW2 time period. I think that would be a great feature for RTW2 - Barrel wear tracking for all main guns over 11" with corresponding reductions in accuracy as wear increases and a specific option to take a ship into the dockyard to have its barrels replaced. Currently there are factor simiulating reduced performance from extended combat, I feel that captures barrel wears to an extent.( I also feel that generally it takes more than a ship’s ammo load to truly wear out the barrels). Having to do all these logistic by hand is also imo a big hassle. But I’m not opposed to have ship that seen extensive action consecutively be forced to go into maintenance even if they aren’t damaged.(though again, this is partly simulated since otherwise ready and able ship sometime still miss a battle, which can be explained as scheduled maintenance)
|
|