RE: CD fire issues

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: CD fire issues

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: CD fire issues

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 3:06:02 AM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

I would like to point out that at Sovetska Gavan my two superdreadnoughts and two heavy cruisers were facing the firepower and fire control equivalent of a pre-WWI armored cruiser. This was most certainly not the guns of Singapore, Corregidor, or Vladivostok.

The guns may be older models, but the fire control was FAR superior to your "superdreadnoughts". Monter got it right..., the fire control of a fixed Coast Defense Installation is much more accurate than anything carried on ships.

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)

Post #: 61

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 4:00:56 AM

seydlitz_slith

Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

I would like to point out that at Sovetska Gavan my two superdreadnoughts and two heavy cruisers were facing the firepower and fire control equivalent of a pre-WWI armored cruiser. This was most certainly not the guns of Singapore, Corregidor, or Vladivostok.

The guns may be older models, but the fire control was FAR superior to your "superdreadnoughts". Monter got it right..., the fire control of a fixed Coast Defense Installation is much more accurate than anything carried on ships.

obviously so....in the game.

The fire control can be superior if one was indeed installed. The forts at Gavan, Olga, and a couple of other places look identical in game. My guess is that they were added as an afterthought to toughen up the Soviets. Did these guns in fact exist in real life?
Even if the guns did exist, I would be surprised to find a modern fire control system for such old guns.
Either way, in real life the ships would have simply stayed outside the effective range of the guns.
I am sorry, but an admiral would have to be a real moron to set there and allow his ships to be sandpapered to death.
Perhaps I should send the Yamato in the next task force. I'd bet those light cruiser caliber guns would find a way to sink her also with the way the routine is written.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 62

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 5:08:37 AM

YankeeAirRat

Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

It has been years since I was there so my memory is a little hazy, but at Fort Monore in Virginia they had a whole wing of a museum there dedicate towards the Costal Defense Artillery branch of the US Army. They had a mock up of how Fort Monore, Fort Story, and Fort Wool would have defended the Hampton Roads/Virigina coastline from an enemy invasion in the mid-30's. One of the things they talked about was how three forts would form an interlocking field of fire. Also how every one of the spotting/fire control towers were built with the same idea as the US Forest Service fire warning towers. In that each tower was in a know geographic spot and via triangulation from its partner, the fire control bubbas could sovle the basic issue of where the bad guys were. How far away isn't that hard if you consider that each battery fires a spotting round. The fire control tower knows where they are in relation of that battery followed up by where the opposing forts batteries are and their range from that tower. I.E. FC Tower Able controls Batttery Able, Bravo, Charlie; they also know that George, Mike, Indigo (Controlled by Tower Charlie) are 10k yards from them at a bearing of 65 degrees relative, as well those opposing batteries fire red marked rounds. So knowing all that data it becomes that much easier to not only triangulate, but also speed the range computations with the use of plotting tables or slide rules/mechanical computers. Most of the US Costal Defense stragety (at least for CONUS) seem to also force the bad guys into a "kill box" through the use of PT boats, mine fields, and mobile mines--I mean submarines. That is what I have seen explained for the defense of Puget Sound/Seattle area was that some approaches were to be mined, others were to be infested with torpedo boats and submarines and that Fort Casey, Fort Flagler, Fort Worden could effectively engage with their disappearing rifles, and rapid fire guns, mortars, and barbette guns. The kill box was at a known range where after a couple of straddling rounds the forts could effectively fire for effect until the survivors either retreated or pushed on through out of the box. Note that the Japanese used the kill box idea at Tarawa, where they had plotted out basically every approach to the only known beaches and had basically put marker posts so thier FC could solve not only the bearing but also the range rapidly.

I would also throw this though out there with regards to Coastal defense guns. Most of the dedicate coastal defense guns after the turn of the 20th century were basically ship based guns redesigned to operate from shore mounts. Before anyone bites on that statement. What I mean is for example Fort Story in Virginia Beach or Fort Funston outside of San Fransico had a battery of 16in guns that were taken from battleships which had to be removed from service cause of the inter-war naval treaties or weren't finished while they were still in the slips. The same was true of a number of the rapid fire guns found in places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Guam, Bataan. Most of these guns were going to be used on ships, but were either not installed cause the ships were upgraded or the ships were removed from service cause of a treaty. Those weapons were then sold off to the army for useage ashore. The mortars installed in some of these locations were completely different beast. Most of these were dedicated beasts build for the coastal artillery regiments. However, those weapons were trying to achieve the plunging fire effect that most everyone knew could defense even the best battleship armor. The rifles and rapid fire guns were there to try and stop the ship so the mortars could pour on the most destructive fire.

The only time that coastal defense should suck is when you use standard artillery units to try and provide coastal defense. Most of these guns, whether Self Propelled or even towed just don't have the speed to engage a rapidly shifting target or even the training. Even harder is when the forward observers don't know or can't effectively bring the batteries to bear nor adjust the batteries fire fast enough to engage a rapidly speeding ship that is doing a bombardment/harassing fire mission.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an �International Incident�.

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)

Post #: 63

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 7:52:46 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

When speaking about Corregidor, PH, or Singapore you can probably argue about all outcomes because all outcomes could be possible. When speaking about such places like the Dutch bases in the SRA or those Soviet forts with pre WWI or WWI guns of medium calibre then every discussion about it is totally off anyway as there�s no reason on Earth that justifies the sinking for two BBs. The possibility of Germany and Japan overrunning the whole world, then the Moon and the Mars is bigger than actually see such loopsided results happening in real life.

The only explanation is that the combat routine has it�s flaws also in this case and every sane man that has read only 1/3 of the books the usual forum member has read about WWII knows it. No reason to justify anything but saying the routine still produces off results and if it would happen in my PBEM I would immedietely offer a redo of such a stupid turn. As there�s only bug busting, there won�t be a change so we�ve got to live with it (same as with the "nothing happened at all results").

_____________________________

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)

Post #: 64

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 9:36:31 AM

PMCN

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

Festigung Ambeon has done a good job with its coastal defense guns but nothing absurd has shown up. Several xAP, and xAKs have been set afire and badly damaged by hits from 150 mm and 75 mm, this drove off a couple of assault groups. I actually think the 150 mm should be doing better it is difficult to imagine 7 or 8 direct hits on a converted merchant vessel would not sink them...but I see things like: critical damage, explosion below decks, fuel cargo burning, damage to fire control, upper works carried away, etc so I assume that the ships are in very bad shape.

So far the Japanese have not lost any warships (maybe a DD) and the CA bombarding the shore didn't take anything out of the ordinary...I don't even think it got hit.

Naval theory has been for the past several hundred years: "The ship's a fool that fights a fort." I agree though that there is no reason why a damaged BB or other ship would not withdraw to sea.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 65

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 10:03:04 AM

PresterJohn001

Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline

Heres some info on Soviet Costal Defences, very long article just search for:
De-Castri
Sovietskaya Gavan
Sovietsko-Gavanskaya

http://www.fsgfort.com/DB/F035/02/Text.htm

Part of the problem is the game has to simulate a whole range of different type of costal defences. Getting bogged into too much detail about this fort and that forts individual capabilities doesn't help that much, the scale of the game means its just a fort with these guns. In the end we're trying to judge on whats reasonable, yes costal defences should be tough, but yes also ships would retreat. Tough is also not neccesarily invulnernerable.

just for interest some info on the guns the game has in those forts:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_71-57_m1932.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_6-45_m1892.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-50_m1936.htm

< Message edited by PresterJohn -- 4/14/2010 10:18:00 AM >

(in reply to CarnageINC)

Post #: 66

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 10:10:27 AM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

I would like to point out that at Sovetska Gavan my two superdreadnoughts and two heavy cruisers were facing the firepower and fire control equivalent of a pre-WWI armored cruiser. This was most certainly not the guns of Singapore, Corregidor, or Vladivostok.

The guns may be older models, but the fire control was FAR superior to your "superdreadnoughts". Monter got it right..., the fire control of a fixed Coast Defense Installation is much more accurate than anything carried on ships.

obviously so....in the game.

The fire control can be superior if one was indeed installed. The forts at Gavan, Olga, and a couple of other places look identical in game. My guess is that they were added as an afterthought to toughen up the Soviets. Did these guns in fact exist in real life?
Even if the guns did exist, I would be surprised to find a modern fire control system for such old guns.
Either way, in real life the ships would have simply stayed outside the effective range of the guns.
I am sorry, but an admiral would have to be a real moron to set there and allow his ships to be sandpapered to death.
Perhaps I should send the Yamato in the next task force. I'd bet those light cruiser caliber guns would find a way to sink her also with the way the routine is written.

The forts are not identical and they and their guns existed during WW2 (according to my sources - I did the research for the Soviet OOB and added those coastal defense installations to the AE).

Your battleships would haved stayed out of range if they had been in a Bombardment TF set to 'escorts do not bombard'.

Anyway, it would be interesting to know if other Soviet units were present at Sovetskaya Gavan during your invasion attempt (there are some Soviet artillery units with very heavy artillery in the OOB). Not sure if they would have shown up during your combat phase or in the combat report but your opponent could tell us this (considering that this is a PBEM game - if he is willing to do so). Before we know this, it is completely pointless to discuss the effects of coastal defense guns here.

It cannot be stated often enough: The combat reports never tell the whole story.

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)

Post #: 67

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 11:37:03 AM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

I would like to point out that at Sovetska Gavan my two superdreadnoughts and two heavy cruisers were facing the firepower and fire control equivalent of a pre-WWI armored cruiser. This was most certainly not the guns of Singapore, Corregidor, or Vladivostok.

The guns may be older models, but the fire control was FAR superior to your "superdreadnoughts". Monter got it right..., the fire control of a fixed Coast Defense Installation is much more accurate than anything carried on ships.

obviously so....in the game. And even more "obviously so" in real life! Base End Range-finding and fire control as created between 1890-1905 was FAR more accurate than anything mounted aboard ships in 1941 for one very simple reason. The "base ends" of the range-finders were separated by KILOMETERS rather than METERS. The larger the "base", the more accurate the triangulation of the range.

The fire control can be superior if one was indeed installed. The forts at Gavan, Olga, and a couple of other places look identical in game. My guess is that they were added as an afterthought to toughen up the Soviets. Did these guns in fact exist in real life?

Even if the guns did exist, I would be surprised to find a modern fire control system for such old guns. It didn't have to be "modern", it just had to be "better" (and it was.., MUCH BETTER!)

Either way, in real life the ships would have simply stayed outside the effective range of the guns. Easy to say, but if you are trying to suppress the fire of CD batteries, you have to get close enough to sight and range them. Ships stick out like a "sore thumb" on the ocean..., batteries on land can be well hidden or even behind the crest of a hill.

I am sorry, but an admiral would have to be a real moron to set there and allow his ships to be sandpapered to death. Nelson pointed out that an Admiral would have to be a real moron to attack fixed land defenses period.

Perhaps I should send the Yamato in the next task force. I'd bet those light cruiser caliber guns would find a way to sink her also with the way the routine is written. The routine does have a problem in that it fails to adequately differentiate between peacetime constructed Coast Defense Installations and guns mounted on the coast during the war.

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)

Post #: 68

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 11:59:25 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

one has wonder then how the Allied were able to win the war and take all those islands

_____________________________

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 69

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 12:29:37 PM

seydlitz_slith

Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline

Hi Kereguelen,

No, there were no other Soviet artillery units present. Just the two forts and the small garrison unit that was based there.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 70

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 12:34:24 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

1. It doesnt mater how good your Fire Control is if your gun has a high spread.
2. As mentioned the CD guns at Tarawa had greate fire control , yet they were supressed durring the bombardment ( though reopened fire durring the landings) . With the current routine they would have smashed the BBs.
3. The BBs DID stand off read the report , while the other ships closed. The stand off distance was 10K yards , while the light escorts closed to 2K yards.
4. There were no other guns there ( it would be VERY unlikely) since it would prob show up in the ship sinking or combat report.
5. Range finding is everthing it needs to be reasonably modern to be able to fire on those bearings if they have the move and train the gun by hand than it will be in a different position by the time you fire. Even some WWII guns firing at ships the channel had this issue.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 71

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 12:39:54 PM

seydlitz_slith

Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline

Fascinating....
this is outstanding information. After glancing through the article it is clear that Gavan was not an old crumbling outpost.

I stand corrected on that assumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

Heres some info on Soviet Costal Defences, very long article just search for:
De-Castri
Sovietskaya Gavan
Sovietsko-Gavanskaya

http://www.fsgfort.com/DB/F035/02/Text.htm

Part of the problem is the game has to simulate a whole range of different type of costal defences. Getting bogged into too much detail about this fort and that forts individual capabilities doesn't help that much, the scale of the game means its just a fort with these guns. In the end we're trying to judge on whats reasonable, yes costal defences should be tough, but yes also ships would retreat. Tough is also not neccesarily invulnernerable.

just for interest some info on the guns the game has in those forts:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_71-57_m1932.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_6-45_m1892.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-50_m1936.htm

(in reply to PresterJohn001)

Post #: 72

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 12:42:29 PM

PresterJohn001

Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline

from the article the russians appeared to be using DM-6 (6m) rangefinders for their coastal batteries in that region.

added
The DM-6 rangefinders were used on ships such as the Kirov class cruiser

< Message edited by PresterJohn -- 4/14/2010 12:50:27 PM >

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)

Post #: 73

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 1:07:39 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

Hi Kereguelen,

No, there were no other Soviet artillery units present. Just the two forts and the small garrison unit that was based there.

OK, thanks. The presence of (e.g.) the 100th OM Howitzer Battalion at Sovetskaja would have explained everything.

Anyway, I faintly remember (I'm no code expert) that penetration (the chance of penetrating hits) increases at lower ranges (well, it certainly should). And even a 180mm gun would be able to penetrate battleship armor at 2,000 yards. Thusfar I see no problems with the results.

Simple lection: Suppress coastal defences before you invade. This is what Bombardment TF's and airpower are meant to do.

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)

Post #: 74

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 1:58:23 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

The guns may be older models, but the fire control was FAR superior to your "superdreadnoughts". Monter got it right..., the fire control of a fixed Coast Defense Installation is much more accurate than anything carried on ships.

This is only true within certain assumptions.

Long-base-line shore FC has superior range-finding, yes. That's it. This is often compromised by less effective communications between widely-separated stations than are avaialble in a ship environment. But rangefinding is only one aspect of fire-control.

Many of these shore FC systems were designed in an era where line-of-battle ships cruised in formation past shore targets and fired and maneuvered in tight central control by the flag. Analog FC systems (I've actually operated one) are great at predicting along a curve--they're just elegant gear trains after all. If the target maintains course and speed subsequent data inputs from operators gradually refine the FC solution to a hair-bredth, and shore installations are indeed very accurate. But they are terrible, far less effective than modern digital, real-time input systems, when the target is maneuvering, especially when the target is maneuvering in a random matter. They then "chase" the solution, and errors can be multiplicative.

For one, easy example, look at the WWII USN's submarine TDC (Torpedo Data Computer), an analog FC system not too different in theory from shore-based FC systems. (The system I used in a 627-class SSBN, commissioned in 1964 and with 1950s FC technology, was a direct lineal descendant of the TDC. Consisting of an Angle Solver and a Position Keeper, an Assistant Approach Officer from 1943 could have operated it after fifteen minutes of instruction.) The TDC took observed inputs of range, bearing, and angle-on-the-bow, added own-ship data, and output a firing solution of target course, speed, range, and torpedo gyro angle. It was very accurate so long as the inputs were accurate, and predicted along the target track in a useful way, allowing the Approach Officer to plan own-ship maneuvers to maximize the tactical results, and to plan for his escape. Except . . . when the target zigged. Then the solution fell apart and had to be restarted. Of course range doesn't change (targets don't teleport), but speed and course can change rapidly. One, the other, or both at once--bearings don't give that answer right away. It takes multiple looks. Angle-on-the-bow was used to quickly estimate new target course, but speed is more difficult, often requiring turn-counts from sonar (and in modern times, Doppler analysis.) All of this takes time.

So, in a shore-based FC system, if the targets are not behaving and cruising along in lines to their doom, the long-base-line rangefinding is nice, but hardly determinative. The targets can blow the shore FC solution time after time by simply changing course and speed randomly, even if they're running away. And at 30+ knots they will run away pretty fast, certainly in less time than it takes Mr. Shore Battery to fire 150 rounds.

As for ships being less accurate, yes, they are, because they pitch, roll, and yaw. But their targets ashore do not move, and, in daylight, they can do 2-3 crossed-beairng fixes in under a minute and know exactly where they are in relation to the target. Short-base-line range-finding is only a problem against OTHER SHIPS, not against shore targets. Range is not the source of the error--own ship's movement is. Afloat FC systems attempt to correct for 3-D errors imparted by being afloat, but can never really correct in real time. The sea moves too randomly. But in calm seas the platform is stable enough to hit targets ashore. They didn't spend all that money and effort on casemating for nothing.

OTOH, late in the war, the BBs could stand off and let the napalm do its work. Even in casemates men have to breathe.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 4/14/2010 2:07:26 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 75

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 2:25:07 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Anyway, I faintly remember (I'm no code expert) that penetration (the chance of penetrating hits) increases at lower ranges (well, it certainly should). And even a 180mm gun would be able to penetrate battleship armor at 2,000 yards. Thusfar I see no problems with the results.

Yes, penetration increases as the range decreases. But not to a great degree. A loooooonnnnnnng time ago, I posted some results from cruiser surface action (HMAS Canberra vs. Mogami) and complained because I had 1 CA and 3 CL's vs Mogami and not a single hit penetrated, even the 4 8" hits at 1k yards. I wasn't lucky enough to get a torpedo hit on her, so she steamed away (from PM to 2 hexes from Rabaul the next phase). She moderately damaged 3 CL's and took 45 non penetrating hits.

I know that the surface routine has since been modified, but not in regards to penetration (I think).

So, basically, if I couldn't get 8" hits to penetrate a CA at 1k yards, then those Russian CD 180mm hits won't penetrate BB armor at 2k yards.

The routine changed so that there are more superstructure hits. If a BB was hit 150 times, it's probable that 50 of them were penetrating hits on the superstructure. The BB would have SYS and Fire damage of 99 by the end of that ordeal. (which will sink it that turn, or the next.)

I think the CD routine is working well. But, ships and invasion task forces should have a logical withdrawal option. There's no logical reason that a BB would take the punishment as suicide instead of retreating.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 76

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 2:26:27 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Simple lection: Suppress coastal defences before you invade. This is what Bombardment TF's and airpower are meant to do.

I agree, but the attack results in Bombardment, to me, are under what one might expect in a non-casemated environment as found on Japanese-held atolls and islands. The degree of pre-bombardment necessary to get any real level of suppression is excessive as to assets and time. Many times I bombard with 4-6 BBs and CAs and get one gun disabled, not destroyed, and some port and supply destruction. I don't have a month to prep every Mid-Pac target in 1944-45.

In my now infamous Saipan assault, I did put BBs in with my primary infantry landing TFs in the assumption that they would be shell sponges (too true), survivable shell sponges (not true), but also that their close-in range would radically increase their suppression factor (not true either.) Since then, I've done a couple of smaller island experiments with assault TFs without capital ships, and assault TFs with Bombardment TFs in the hex.

I don't believe you're a coder (?), but it "appears" that, yes, Bombardment TFs suffer far less damage on their runs. This is to be expected, due to range. However, assault/aphib TFs DO NOT suffer the same rate-of-fire or damage from CD as those same TFs do when BBs are included. It almost seems as if the code "gives the attacker a break" when there are just merchants and landing ships, but go crazy with volume fire when there are BBs in the landing TF. IOW, those 150 hits on West Virginia would not have been 150 hits spread around my AKAs and APAs if the BB had been absent. CD damages non-warship vessels to a great degree, yes, but there seems to be particular rage directed at major warships in amphib TFs that is absent when no such ships are included.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 77

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 3:12:35 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

?, did patch three alter the cd/ship equation in the bombard rutine
This is a fair ? to ask an dI am not lookin got break into the hiden mystery fileslol
Thanks

This really should be an area of concern as both players need to advance into areas, japs in 42, allies the rest of the war, that are potentially heavily armed cd death traps as the code now stands... to argue that the game works in this one specific element... is absurd... no 5 6 7 8 inch guns are going to probably even hit my BBs at 22k yards, at night, under fire , in the open sea.. seriously this is really obvious... now. if we are talking gunships at 5k supporting an invasion, totally different issue.. but we are not

(in reply to CarnageINC)

Post #: 78

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 3:14:53 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

The guns may be older models, but the fire control was FAR superior to your "superdreadnoughts". Monter got it right..., the fire control of a fixed Coast Defense Installation is much more accurate than anything carried on ships.

This is only true within certain assumptions.

Long-base-line shore FC has superior range-finding, yes. That's it. This is often compromised by less effective communications between widely-separated stations than are avaialble in a ship environment. But rangefinding is only one aspect of fire-control.

I believe the telephone was around in 1890, and telegraphic communications 50 years earlier. So the communications "problem" you mention doesn't exist. And accurate range-finding is the "key" to accurate target plotting and fire control. Guns in static emplacements suffer no problems from the rolling or pitching of ships at sea. And they are in the same place for years on end, meaning all the local "variables" (tide state, wind velocity and direction, barrel wear, etc.) are included in pre-prepared tables.

All this means that the accurate position and movement of a target can be plotted to a few yards, and the guns themselves can drop their shells exactly on those few yards. "No sailor but a fool" takes his ship into such a position. Situations like Wake and Tarawa and such are totally different..., these are at least semi-mobile guns emplaced in a relatively short period and equipped with plain naval-style fire control and range-finders. They are not in the same league with pre-war built fortifications.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 79

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 3:23:58 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

There wasn't an 8" gun in the world that would penetrate a USN BB's armor (talking belt and main turret/control areas here) even at short range. The shell doesn't have the energy to break through the armor, it would just smash to pieces on the face. Could it penetrate the lighter armored areas, sure, but that wouldn't cripple the ship, and meanwhile that 8" gun is facing 14" or 16" shells fired at point blank range in direct fire mode, plus rapid fire from the secondary weapons.

I know for a fact that something has been changed in the ship vs CD routines. Back when I still held Java, the IJN bombarded Surabaya under the first patch and the CD forces there barely got a hit on the cruisers and DD's, much less seriously damaged anything. I send 5 BB's and two CA's to bombard Mili using the latest patch and get 5 BB's with 20+ system damage for my trouble.

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 80

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 3:37:14 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

?, did patch three alter the cd/ship equation in the bombard rutine
This is a fair ? to ask an dI am not lookin got break into the hiden mystery fileslol
Thanks

This really should be an area of concern as both players need to advance into areas, japs in 42, allies the rest of the war, that are potentially heavily armed cd death� traps as the code now stands... to argue that the game works in this one specific element... is absurd... no 5 6 7 8 inch guns are going to probably even hit my BBs at 22k yards, at night, under fire , in the open sea.. seriously this is really obvious... now. if we are talking gunships at 5k supporting an invasion, totally different issue.. but we are not

True enough, if I remember correctly, we are talking about battleships at 2,000 yards supporting an invasion

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 81

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 3:38:39 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

The guns may be older models, but the fire control was FAR superior to your "superdreadnoughts". Monter got it right..., the fire control of a fixed Coast Defense Installation is much more accurate than anything carried on ships.

This is only true within certain assumptions.

Long-base-line shore FC has superior range-finding, yes. That's it. This is often compromised by less effective communications between widely-separated stations than are avaialble in a ship environment. But rangefinding is only one aspect of fire-control.

I believe the telephone was around in 1890, and telegraphic communications 50 years earlier. So the communications "problem" you mention doesn't exist. And accurate range-finding is the "key" to accurate target plotting and fire control. Guns in static emplacements suffer no problems from the rolling or pitching of ships at sea. And they are in the same place for years on end, meaning all the local "variables" (tide state, wind velocity and direction, barrel wear, etc.) are included in pre-prepared tables.

All this means that the accurate position and movement of a target can be plotted to a few yards, and the guns themselves can drop their shells exactly on those few yards. "No sailor but a fool" takes his ship into such a position. Situations like Wake and Tarawa and such are totally different..., these are at least semi-mobile guns emplaced in a relatively short period and equipped with plain naval-style fire control and range-finders. They are not in the same league with pre-war built fortifications.

OK, since you persist in ignoring the rest of my logical points, I'll make this my last post on this with you.

Telephones in 1890 were, to be kind, primitive. I posted eyewitness accounts that the FC wiring at Saipan was shot away by ship bombardment. OTOH, shipboard FC is by local sound-powered phone, or even in the same compartment within earshot. Also, installations like Ft. Story and Ft. Monroe (I grew up in Va. Beach BTW, and have been to both locations many times) are separated by about forty miles and open water. To say there were phone lines between each in 1890? Uh, OK. And telegraphs? You must be joking. Real-time targetting by telegraph? Whatever.

As for your obsession with rangefinding, I posted the counter to that. Rangefinding is NOT the "key" to FC. It's one component. To get accurate fire with rangefinding, one must assume that the target cooperates in the other components of the solution--speed and course--in order to track to the plotted curve predicted with range as only ONE component. If the target maneuvers radically, as ships can do, then range is not determinative. Shells have a time-of-flight. You can SEE 16-in. shells in the air. The shooters cannot know what the target is doing re speed and course changes at the time they pull the trigger. Even in 2010, with digital FC systems operating at the speed of light, a maneuvering target MUST be shot at with homing weapons to have any sort of high PK. Straight-running weapons only work when the target sits there and says "Kill Me."

The truth, re the game, is that there is one CD routine that must work for PH as well as Mili, and those two situations are as unlike each other as assaulting with a Marine Division and an Indian Army artillery unit.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 4/14/2010 3:39:56 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 82

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 3:54:59 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Even in 2010, with digital FC systems operating at the speed of light, a maneuvering target MUST be shot at with homing weapons to have any sort of high PK. Straight-running weapons only work when the target sits there and says "Kill Me."

Classic.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 83

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 4:03:24 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

CD guns have the advantage of being bore-sighted. That gives them far more accuracy than a rolling ship.

The only real issue I see here is that the Japanese ships "stayed in range until sinking"... and that makes me wonder... what was the aggression rating of the TF commander?

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 84

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 4:49:48 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

regarding bb at range.. a bombard mission, not part of a tf invasion, should not get theese results.. so, are we really talkin gabout the same thing? a BB ca at close range is going t obe hit, heck, even a morter batery would have a chance at 2k yards.. but what navy in the world sends a bb in to 2k in suppor tof an invasion? ok.. anyway

again

did the patch three changethe rutine? perhaps we need to split up this thread into micro threads? micro fiber? I crack myself up

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 85

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 5:41:56 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

I think the latest patch has affected the ships vs CD routines somehow, giving the shore based weapons more accuracy and perhaps more damaging potential. I've certainly not seen BB's take as much damage bombarding a defended target as mine did vs Mili just a few days ago (well after the last patch was installed), and from my continuous recon flights, there's only the one CD unit on that island.

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 86

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 5:43:13 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Even in 2010, with digital FC systems operating at the speed of light, a maneuvering target MUST be shot at with homing weapons to have any sort of high PK. Straight-running weapons only work when the target sits there and says "Kill Me."

Classic.

He exaggerates - they don't have to actually say "Kill Me."

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 87

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 5:48:25 PM

Monter_Trismegistos

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
This is only true within certain assumptions.

Long-base-line shore FC has superior range-finding, yes. That's it. This is often compromised by less effective communications between widely-separated stations than are avaialble in a ship environment. But rangefinding is only one aspect of fire-control.

Well it is you who made a hell of an assumption. So you are saying that aiming at ship, seen as small line on water is hard - OK. But you completely ignore the fact that this ship doesn't even see the guns firing at him? What gives better FC if you don't see the target? Destroying randomly trees in closer or further vincinity of enemy battery won't win you a battle.

quote:

Many of these shore FC systems were designed in an era where line-of-battle ships cruised in formation past shore targets and fired and maneuvered in tight central control by the flag. Analog FC systems (I've actually operated one) are great at predicting along a curve--they're just elegant gear trains after all.

I see you problem. You probably visited to often some ancient California forts, built around 1905, which in 1941 should serve as military museums, not military forts. You are confusing very heavy, slowly trimming and firing guns and mortars with modern, built mid-30s rapid firing installations.

quote:

So, in a shore-based FC system, if the targets are not behaving and cruising along in lines to their doom, the long-base-line rangefinding is nice, but hardly determinative.

But let's you get XXX (sorry doesn't know english term for a single salvo falling on different sides of a ship), even before ship decides on which tree should she aim.

quote:

As for ships being less accurate, yes, they are, because they pitch, roll, and yaw. But their targets ashore do not move, and, in daylight, they can do 2-3 crossed-beairng fixes in under a minute and know exactly where they are in relation to the target.

You again assuming they exactly know when their target is. It is ship which is clearly visible, while battery is not. Once again - fioring to the flashlight or smoke is not accurate, but even those appear only after battery decides to open fire.

And to those who say BB is safe beacuse their armour would not be penetrated - armour of Bismarck also wasn't penetrated, and still was changed into piece of junk.

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 4/14/2010 5:51:07 PM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 88

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 6:21:28 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

(sorry doesn't know english term for a single salvo falling on different sides of a ship)

"straddle" as in to straddle a target or straddling a target.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)

Post #: 89

RE: CD fire issues - 4/14/2010 6:35:52 PM

PresterJohn001

Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline

I don't think in this case the Russians had superior range-finding. The russians seem to be using a 6m rangefinder as used on their cruisers (see reference on Russian Coastal Forts), the Battleship Mutsu was fitted with 10m rangefinders 20 Nov 1933.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Mutsu.html

not that its really relevant to how the game models the CD forts.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 90