|
Post by christian on Dec 31, 2021 11:30:02 GMT -6
I discount both of the very-extreme-range hits as being pure luck. Neither ship made further hits at that range, nor did those two single hits significantly affect the battle. You could shoot your entire magazine away for 2-3 hits at those ranges, and that's not worth doing. What could be worth doing is mounting a slow ranging fire and checking shell splashes against fire-control data, which I suspect is what they were about. Add to the factors against long-range gunnery the effects of atmospheric phenomenon at moderate and high altitudes, where winds and humidity are certain to be different from those at sealevel. Battleship-caliber shells are heavy and fast moving, but even a few grams of thrust can throw them off course. The Indian Scout in 'The Courtmartial of George Armstrong Custer' said, "Too many Yellow Hair - Too many." I'd paraphrase that as "Range too far, sir - too far." I'm simply not convinced it is worth it. If I am declining action I'll gladly bang away, but if I am accepting action then I'll wait until my finite store of shells can score repeatedly. For accuracy at long range against a moving, maneuvering target you need 'smart' shells and a spotter, and those didn't come along until late-Vietnam era. if my enemy wants to shoot himself dry at extreme ranges (and I can still force battle on him) then I'd count myself fortunate. I would support extending sighting range as technology improves (and masthead heights get higher). And as I said earlier, if you want to fire at extreme ranges, you should be allowed to do so. I've never satisfied myself as th why British ships carried such small range-finders. Anyone know? You can read article 6.2 of this study. The length of rangefinders has less effect practically than was expected theoretically. But why British ships has such small range-finders, I do not know why KGV main rangefinders were smaller than the ones on turrets. Bit of a necromancy but its somewhat explained here www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-052.phpThe british generally used the turret rangefinders as the primary rangefinders for their guns but after bismarck they realised that this posed significant problems (outlined in the article) and sought to improve on it but due to limits on superstructure and the fact rangefinders are heavy you cant just put a 15 m rangefinder on a superstructure not designed for it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2022 14:45:18 GMT -6
More thread necromancy:
At 0659, Kurita gave the order, “Ready for surface battle”; the Yamato opened fire from her forward 6.1-inch guns, quickly followed by both forward main battery turrets. The range was an estimated distance of 34,524 yards. The first salvo for the main battery was loaded with Type 3 AA shells because Kurita believed the fleet would come under air attack before they reached Leyte Gulf. The 6.1-inch/55-caliber gun’s maximum range was 31,784 yards but due to tradition Yamato opened fire despite the range. At 0700, after this first salvo, Kurita gave the order to the rest of his fleet, “Transmit order to battleship and cruiser divisions to open fire and attack.”
Captain C. J. Sullivan on board the White Plains received reports from his lookouts at 0659, “The enemy force was observed bearing 289°, distance 31,300 yards. Splashes were observed approximately 4,000 yards astern,[34] and followed immediately by a salvo of heavy caliber shells falling approximately 300 yards on the starboard bow. The Samuel B. Roberts reported splashes off her stern.”[35] (Splash from shells falling short are the 6 inch shells)
NAGATO At 0701, Kobe gave the order to “Commence firing at carrier from main guns bearing 063°, distance 35,948 yards” and noted the Yamato was firing at the same target. The Nagato’s two forward main turrets fired, and her lookouts evaluated the first four-shell salvo as a straddle
On board the White Plains Captain Sullivan reported at 0700, “Straddled by a salvo estimated to be three 14-inch or greater caliber shells. At 0700, all power failed in communications as a result of near miss by battleship salvo, silencing all receivers and rendering transmitters useless. Same salvo buckled leg of radio table canting two receivers. The TBY radio was set up on the bridge replacing the TBS. Then at 0702, another straddle, several splashes were observed.”
White Plains:0704: Straddled again. This salvo measured the carrier as
calipers, diagonally from port quarter to starboard bow, four shells dropping microscopically close
forward and aft. One of the latter two exploded below the surface under the port side of the stern. ... The vessel was shaken and twisted violently ... Steering control was lost, gyro and radar failed, damage received in starboard engine room and all lights were extinguished throughout the ship. All electrical power was lost ...
Distance 34,587 yards, second 6 shell salvo, near miss! 18.1 inch AP, Yamato
Damage: Target crippled, ship never sees action again due to the structural damage inflicted by the near miss.
“The First Battleship Division commenced firing with the fore turrets at a range of 33,976 yards, destroying a ship with two or three salvos the target was changed to another one. The enemy turned back spreading a smoke screen and began retreating to the east, taking advantage of a rain squall.”
An enemy destroyer is making smoke, a carrier received a hit, and the enemy formation was retiring in the southeast direction.” Soon after 0704, the Nagato fired her second salvo, and at 0705, a third. A fourth salvo was fired and may have fallen ahead of the White Plains at 0707 or 0708, and then she lost sight of her target and checked fire.
On the 51st page the book comments: Kurita thought that the battleship and cruiser gunfire alone could destroy the enemy fleet and wanted the destroyers available to mop up the Americans as their ships became disabled.
Fanshaw Bay In her action report she says that the first four salvos directed at the ship were battleship-caliber projectiles from a range of 29,000 yards
First salvo (Johnston exits smoke and Yamato spots her), distance 20,300 yards, target ship USS Johnston. Six hits. USS Johnston damaged. 3 hits from main battery guns, 18.1 inch AP shells, 3 hits from secondary battery gun, 6.1 inch, AP. Johnston takes heavy damage and is crippled. Fire control for several turrets is down, electrical power is out, shell hoists disabled. Propulsion heavily damaged, ship reduced to manual steering.
So what we are seeing is: Remarkable Japanese accuracy and precision. Target sighted, fire, target straddled, systems damaged or destroyed with the splash. Shooting from ranges of about 35,000 yards. We can see that unlike game gunners and the AI, who are happy to fire every shell available, real gunners exhibit something called "fire discipline". While it is technically possible to silence your gunners in game, this is quite inconvenient to do in practice.
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 12, 2022 13:33:54 GMT -6
What we are seeing is not remarkable Japanese accuracy and precision, but rather a wastage of shells and a vanishingly small percentage of hits due to the extreme range and the agile nature of the targets. I grant you that hitting USS Johnston at 20k yards is good shooting, but... six hits over what interval of time?
I am reminded of the Civil War general who ordered the artillery to fire despite the enemy being out of range and under cover, 'for the sake of the noise'. If you can't hit the target you are wasting shells and eroding your gun's capabilities by barrel wear and heat, to no purpose.
Had I been in command (I'd have been a failure - I don't speak Japanese) I would have weighed the finite number of shells carried by my ships and the unlikeliness of scoring at such long ranges against what I thought was a speed advantage to the enemy (since I'd think at first that he had fleet carriers) and the likelihood of enemy carriers launching planes to attack me.
The US, British and Japanese navies all worked on long-range fire during the inter-war period and all believed they could accurately destroy targets at extreme ranges. The facts of actual live-fire incidents in WW2 don't bear that out... you could waste your whole magazine for a couple of hits. It's been a long time since I read action reports of the battle, but I suspect one reason Kurita finally withdrew was ammunition shortage...
His basic command problem was that he did not realize the enemy was running away in a semi-circular path. He followed their course instead of cutting across the arc to shorten the range more quickly - and of course the constant aircraft attacks and threat of destroyer attacks meant his ships had to bob and weave.
But still... the ratio of his losses versus the damage he was able to do by gunfire, indicates that something was very wrong with his battle plan. He had at least a 10-knot advantage over the jeep carriers - more for his cruisers and the Kongo-class.
I do heartily agree with you about fire discipline in RtW2. There absolutely should be separate 'hold fire' buttons for main and secondary batteries... and someone should tell my guys that when I shift fire to a new target they should stop pounding the old one and, you know, actually fire at the new target. Oh, and an admiral should be able to say, 'Hold fire' to his entire force, not just the few he's riding with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2022 18:24:10 GMT -6
What we are seeing is not remarkable Japanese accuracy and precision, but rather a wastage of shells and a vanishingly small percentage of hits due to the extreme range and the agile nature of the targets. I grant you that hitting USS Johnston at 20k yards is good shooting, but... six hits over what interval of time? I am reminded of the Civil War general who ordered the artillery to fire despite the enemy being out of range and under cover, 'for the sake of the noise'. If you can't hit the target you are wasting shells and eroding your gun's capabilities by barrel wear and heat, to no purpose. Had I been in command (I'd have been a failure - I don't speak Japanese) I would have weighed the finite number of shells carried by my ships and the unlikeliness of scoring at such long ranges against what I thought was a speed advantage to the enemy (since I'd think at first that he had fleet carriers) and the likelihood of enemy carriers launching planes to attack me. The US, British and Japanese navies all worked on long-range fire during the inter-war period and all believed they could accurately destroy targets at extreme ranges. The facts of actual live-fire incidents in WW2 don't bear that out... you could waste your whole magazine for a couple of hits. It's been a long time since I read action reports of the battle, but I suspect one reason Kurita finally withdrew was ammunition shortage... His basic command problem was that he did not realize the enemy was running away in a semi-circular path. He followed their course instead of cutting across the arc to shorten the range more quickly - and of course the constant aircraft attacks and threat of destroyer attacks meant his ships had to bob and weave. But still... the ratio of his losses versus the damage he was able to do by gunfire, indicates that something was very wrong with his battle plan. He had at least a 10-knot advantage over the jeep carriers - more for his cruisers and the Kongo-class. I do heartily agree with you about fire discipline in RtW2. There absolutely should be separate 'hold fire' buttons for main and secondary batteries... and someone should tell my guys that when I shift fire to a new target they should stop pounding the old one and, you know, actually fire at the new target. Oh, and an admiral should be able to say, 'Hold fire' to his entire force, not just the few he's riding with. Read the facts before making a reply. The Yamato scored 6 hits in her first salvo on Johnston. Its the first words of the line. Out of a designed capacity of 810 shells for her main battery, Yamato expended 100 main battery shells (and 24 anti aircraft shells) in the battle. What are you even talking about? Again, as you didn't read. (701, just after Yamato) The Nagato’s two forward main turrets fired, and her lookouts evaluated the first four-shell salvo as a straddle distance 35,948 yardsA fourth salvo was fired and may have fallen ahead of the White Plains at 0707 or 0708, and then she lost sight of her target and checked fire. "wasting ammo" >4 salvos. 700 target straddled (yamato?), Carrier communications knocked out, 702 target straddled (Nagato), 704 straddled (Yamato) electrical power knocked out, propulsion damaged, ship suffers significant structural damage, straddle. 34,587 yards second salvo Yamato"Its just luck". Here I will use information outside the previous post. Here is the Americans for comparison Iowa: from 14000 yards she fired 46 main gun rounds and 125 secondary gun rounds for 2 main gun hits and 6 secondary gun hits. Her target was the Katori, a training cruiser which had already suffered a crippling torpedo hit. Iowa and New Jersey: At operation Hailstone Iowa and New Jersey fired 58 rounds at Destroyer Nowaki which was fleeing the battle space. They lost track of Nowaki at 35,000 yards. A glance at Nowaki's AAR and you notice the American shooting was of such precision that she only recorded 3 shell splashes (for fire which these American battleships are responsible) at 200-300 meters distance. In the plainest english; 58 shells fired and only 3 warranted any attention. forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/49162-how-38036-are-you-against-an-iowancsodak-class-battleship-with-radarcomputer-guided-guns/&do=findComment&comment=950607Another more damning example, out of 279 heavy caliber rounds fired at <20k yards, 2 hits. Out of 3379 medium caliber rounds fired at the ships, 23 hits. For an impressive hit rate of about... 0.68%. Also: As Kurita himself says, and as I am told the USN AAR for Samar says; it was the 400 aircraft at Samar, more aircraft than the US had at Midway, which turned back the Japanese.
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 14, 2022 11:03:33 GMT -6
I won't respond to insults.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 18, 2022 8:46:58 GMT -6
Folks, lets keep it civil...telling someone to essentially 'not post', in any manner, is unacceptable - that is against the rules of these forums and I will keep an eye on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2022 9:28:09 GMT -6
He was arguing that my point was wrong, when his argument was already debunked by my previous post. Asking questions that I had already answered before he had thought to ask them. The post he made was deceptive, and I cleared away all "ambiguity", shattering his position, and now he is personally offended. I felt it was important to do this so no readers would be deceived. I was not telling him not to post, but to have the decency to read the post he was responding to.
I don't know how much more clear it should be.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 18, 2022 9:36:49 GMT -6
He was arguing that my point was wrong, when his argument was already debunked by my previous post. Asking questions that I had already answered before he had thought to ask them. The post he made was deceptive, and I cleared away all "ambiguity", shattering his position, and now he is personally offended. I felt it was important to do this so no readers would be deceived. I was not telling him not to post, but to have the decency to read the post he was responding to. I don't know how much more clear it should be. Your opinion that the OP had no reason to post what he posted because you "shattered his position" is exactly just that.... your opinion, and does not mean that someone cannot reply in any manner that they see fit as long as such reply is not insulting or breaks the rules. Your reply in my opinion did so, which is why I posted the above. You can argue that you believe that I am wrong, but as administrator of these forums my reply and view of this still stands as is. Lets move on.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 19, 2022 0:34:49 GMT -6
What we are seeing is not remarkable Japanese accuracy and precision, but rather a wastage of shells and a vanishingly small percentage of hits due to the extreme range and the agile nature of the targets. I grant you that hitting USS Johnston at 20k yards is good shooting, but... six hits over what interval of time? I am reminded of the Civil War general who ordered the artillery to fire despite the enemy being out of range and under cover, 'for the sake of the noise'. If you can't hit the target you are wasting shells and eroding your gun's capabilities by barrel wear and heat, to no purpose. Had I been in command (I'd have been a failure - I don't speak Japanese) I would have weighed the finite number of shells carried by my ships and the unlikeliness of scoring at such long ranges against what I thought was a speed advantage to the enemy (since I'd think at first that he had fleet carriers) and the likelihood of enemy carriers launching planes to attack me. The US, British and Japanese navies all worked on long-range fire during the inter-war period and all believed they could accurately destroy targets at extreme ranges. The facts of actual live-fire incidents in WW2 don't bear that out... you could waste your whole magazine for a couple of hits. It's been a long time since I read action reports of the battle, but I suspect one reason Kurita finally withdrew was ammunition shortage... His basic command problem was that he did not realize the enemy was running away in a semi-circular path. He followed their course instead of cutting across the arc to shorten the range more quickly - and of course the constant aircraft attacks and threat of destroyer attacks meant his ships had to bob and weave. But still... the ratio of his losses versus the damage he was able to do by gunfire, indicates that something was very wrong with his battle plan. He had at least a 10-knot advantage over the jeep carriers - more for his cruisers and the Kongo-class. I do heartily agree with you about fire discipline in RtW2. There absolutely should be separate 'hold fire' buttons for main and secondary batteries... and someone should tell my guys that when I shift fire to a new target they should stop pounding the old one and, you know, actually fire at the new target. Oh, and an admiral should be able to say, 'Hold fire' to his entire force, not just the few he's riding with. Someone else has already outlined how wrong your opinion on "wastage" of shells is The ammunition expenditure for the gained hits outlined by the other person is small. Calling it a waste of ammunition is frankly an insult to every other warship to not achieve a hit or straddle within 4 salvoes. I would heavily recommend reading what other people have written, the ammunition expenditure's for hits were clearly stated in the other persons post, if you intend to reply to something please read it. And as mentioned most of the battleships did not unload any significant amount of ammunition. As you yourself outline the Japanese thought the targets were fast carriers, if they were fast carriers you want to fire early so the enemy does not escape gun range. If the enemy is faster than you why would you wait to fire until they are even further away? So would you have weighed the ammunition count and the enemy aircraft and would just decide to retreat because according to your information you are slower and have no air cover? or what would you have done in this scenario ? His battle plan wasn't flawed, it was just a case of target misidentification and lack of airpower. The American's effectively used smoke screens to conceal their ships while making torpedo attacks with destroyers and attacking the Japanese with aircraft, this made advancing and pushing for the attack nigh impossible due to the heavy smokescreens and presence of destroyers potentially coming out of smoke at extremely short range. Also artillery even in the case of it not being effective or actually dangerous to the enemy can serve significant morale purposes which might warrant expenditure of ammunition.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 19, 2022 11:54:58 GMT -6
This thread topic is "increasing sighting range", and is not one of the endless "Dude, nation X had by far the best gunnery/ships/tactics!" topics...lets stick to the subject thread, please.
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 19, 2022 12:58:05 GMT -6
christian - as I said before, I try not to respond to insults beyond restating what I've already said. If you offer something other than insults, a conversation might be possible. Since you haven't - then not. Trolling is tiresome. It is juvenile. It is evidence of poor manners. The proper way to respond to someone who says something you don't like is, "I don't understand your point and I believe thus and so. Would you care to explain your position?" But post-insult I'll just say, "I will not talk to you." williammiller - I apologize for the controversy and pledge not to say anything more.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 20, 2022 6:59:31 GMT -6
christian - as I said before, I try not to respond to insults beyond restating what I've already said. If you offer something other than insults, a conversation might be possible. Since you haven't - then not. Trolling is tiresome. It is juvenile. It is evidence of poor manners. The proper way to respond to someone who says something you don't like is, "I don't understand your point and I believe thus and so. Would you care to explain your position?" But post-insult I'll just say, "I will not talk to you." williammiller - I apologize for the controversy and pledge not to say anything more. First of all, not once did i even attempt to insult you, what i did was merely explain how the current sources and information presented by both me and another user directly contradicts what you stated. (ammunition expenditure, amount of hits scored, ect.) that is not insulting people, if i overlook some critical part of a message (in this case ammunition expenditure stated by the other user.) i personally would prefer that people correct my mistake so that i can properly understand the argument, and have a better understanding of what actually happened. I did offer something other than insults, in fact i asked you a question. I dont think any of what i wrote can be defined as trolling, everything i wrote was for the sake of clarifying and correcting incorrect information regarding long range gunnery. As has been shown gunnery in real life many times opened up at ranges over 30000 yards which is beyond what is currently possible in game examples of this would be Battle of komadorski islands opened fire at 20000 yards, nachi achieving straddles on third salvo against richmond, with Salt lake straddling nachi on second salvo. Battle of surigao straight (already mentioned but opened fire at 27000 yards at night with straddle on first salvo Battle of samar already mentioned, opened fire at 34-35k yards with damaging straddles on a CVE Battle of casablanca where USS massachusets opened fire on a stationary Jean bart and scored several hits at 24000 yards to 29000. Second battle of sirte where littorio hit a british cruiser (although only with fragments) from a long range. (cant find exact sources on range but above 22000 is the closest i could find Iowa at 39000 yards against Nowaki with iowa opening fire at 37500 yards with the first salvo being a straddle. Engagement near punta stilo between gulio cesare and warspite (hit at 26000 yards) Engagement between german battlecruisers and HMS glorious hit at about 26000 yards too Engagement between spanish cruiser and destroyer at 20000 yards during spanish civil war hit scored on second salvo. (20000 yards is very far for 8 inch armed ship) Now before anyone misunderstands me i dont think long range gunnery should be laser accurate sniping with extremely high hitrates. but a normal battleship carries about 130 rounds per barrel thats over 1000 projectiles in total. ( 1170 for a ship with 9 barrels) even a 2% hitrate (which is what US ships achieved at 35000 yards) would mean over 20 major caliber hits on the enemy ship. Considering how devastating a single hit can be for ships (penetration of turret, penetration of machinery, penetration of firecontrol center, or other critical part of a ship.) even a single hit can in RTW turn the tide of a battle. and as thus i believe that modelling long range gunnery is important because hits achieved at long range while ships close to more effective firing ranges can potentially tip the scale in favor of either side. If either side wished to duel it out with 2% hitrates that is technically an option, as 20 major caliber penetrations is enough to sink most battleships. especially considering most battleship projectiles weight twice as much as most armor piercing bombs. Longer firing ranges would also mean there is a lower chance of enemy ships escaping from your firing range and thus being able to run away. From personal experience the hitrate at 25000 yards in RTW with electro optical rangefinders (and max firecontrol tech) is also sub 2% which is extremely poor even by ww2 standards.
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Apr 20, 2022 8:57:05 GMT -6
I do think increasing sigthing range with technology makes a lot of sense, and is something I would like to see in game.
|
|
|
Post by ludovic on Apr 20, 2022 9:52:59 GMT -6
I think sighting ranges are one of the several things that make > 13 or 14 inch guns less useful than their lighter and faster firing alternatives. The other two are the relative inaccuracy of long range fire, although I wouldn't want to alter that too terribly much compared to some suggestions, and the AI's penchant for a short range melee and their ability to maneuver to create one that beats even the best PC micromanagement. The extra range of the 15 and 16 inch guns are wasted if the AI will always be able to move close in anyway.
Furthermore, the AI will also usually let you move close in if you have smaller guns and they have the larger, rendering a defensive selection of large guns not that great either.
|
|
|
Post by elouda on Apr 20, 2022 11:58:54 GMT -6
Chiming in with some thoughts on this as its a fairly familiar topic; If the game tops out ~26kyard (and we assume this to be from rangefinders, as we can open fire at this range), that means either -We are assuming a rangefinder height of ~145ft -We are assuming a rangefinder height of ~60ft, and a 'target height' of ~20ft (which would mean deck and up is visible for many ships, for larger ones also part of the freeboard) We can discard the first, as its higher than Yamatos rangefinders which were at ~125ft, so clearly we are already accounting for target height as well, along with a more conservative rangefinder height. Rangefinder HeightPart of the problem here is that rangefinder height varied a lot between ships, and also depending on era - with a steady increase from early WW1 to the 1920s, after which things start to settle, barring a few exceptions. Thus, 60ft is probably a somewhat conservative figure for battleships/cruisers, and probably on the high end for cruisers and the like. As I do not know if the ingame spotting range varies by ship type, I will restrict consideration here only to capital ships. One possible solution to extend things a little and represent the progression, would be to tie rangefinder height to tonnage, such at at ~20kton you would start at a baseline of 80ft, and by say 50-60kton you would max out at ~100ft. In addition, an additional option like the one for colonial duty etc, could be added, for 'elevated rangefinders', giving a fixed increase of say 10-15ft. This would be locked behind tech (probably mid 1920s?) and represent additional efforts and weight put into raising rangefinders above 'typical' heights. With these changes, spotting distances would be (with current target height); 20kton baseline (80ft) ~28.9kyards 20kton elevated (95ft) ~30.6kyards 60kton maximum (100ft) ~31.2kyards 60kton elevated (115ft) ~32.8kyards
Obviously, radar horizon would be adjusted to also use these new heights.
At first glance this seems more reasonable, though we are still below the very long range historical shots (will not get into the accuracy debate here, but suffice to say pattern sizes at that range are pretty large, and danger space for a shell decreases as angle of fall increases - not a good combination).
So, clearly the second component of the equation also needs a bit of looking at.
Target Height As said, we can assume current target height is ~20ft. This is below the freeboard height for larger battleships (Yamato is ~27ft, Queen Elizabeth as built is ~24ft), but above it for some cruisers. Again for the purposes of this comparison I will continue to use capital ships as the measuring stick.
Visibility to freeboard is basically 'complete' visibility, as at this point you are able to discern fall of shot to full accuracy, there is no ambiguity between over/under impacts. As visibility decreases to only part of the superstructure, this becomes more difficult, especially forward/aft of the superstructure (moreso aft, as forward the ships motion may still carry it past the water column from the impact). At this point rangefinding also become more difficult. Further up, with only the top of the superstructure and masts visibile, fall of shot become much harder to discern, and rangefinding even more difficult. At this point fire begins to become 'blindfire', and at these ranges and beyond optical spotting from a floatplane etc is the only way to correct. Beyond this, for spotting purposes, funnel smoke will be visible even if the ship is not, but fire against only smoke without a spotter aircraft is likely to be a complete exercise in futility.
From the above, we could assume the current number is slightly conservative. So as I see it there would be two ways to address this, a simple one and a slightly more nuanced one.
Simple - increase the height assumed for targets to ~30ft for capital ships. This would give a range of 34.9kyards for the 'maximum elevated' 115ft rangefinder. While this is still below some of the historical shots, its a 'close enough' approximation, and at 30ft the target is still more or less fully visible.
More complex - increase the height assumed for targets to ~25ft as a baseline for capital ships - this is the 'full accuracy' (obviously accounting for already existing range penalties) height (33.9kyard vs 115ft RF). Beyond this there would be a region where ships can fire, but will do so at steadily increased accuracy penalties on top of the standard range ones, to account for difficulty in discerning fall of shot and accurate rangefinding. The maximum height for this would be double the baseline, so 50ft. With a 'maximum elevated' 115ft rangefinder this would give a maximum range of 38.4kyards.
Summary I would agree current maximum optical firing ranges are somewhat short in good visibility conditions. I would suggest the baseline be increased to atleast around 30-31kyards if nothing else is done, though I would suggest a more detailed solution as proposed above.
Actual spotting distance should probably be 10-20% further than these firing range, to account for seeing mast tops and smoke even if the ship itself is not visible.
Someone also mentioned radar-blindfire capable ships not being able to fire at daytime until within visual - this should obviously change, though you should still take significant penalties for blindfire regardless of time of day.
|
|