Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Sorry to keep harping on this, but this is another case where a subjective limit based on historical/operational usage is being placed on a system that is known to be capable of bigger/better/faster/more.

I truly believe we should be using the empirical, and/or published specifications (where available and deemed reliable) for all platforms in the database. Let the player's experience and immediate circumstances drive the operational limits and usage of the system. If the game is good enough (and I think it is) this should be sufficient. There's simply no need to force feed doctrine, historical usage, or someone's subjective opinion as to "practicality" on the player.

It just feels wrong... contrived, fudged... whatever.

IMHO.

JD

quote:

ORIGINAL: STUCKER868
I agree 100%. These weapons also had radar control which made them more effective. In fact, in 1946, the US did a study test with 16/45's and 16/50's vs. a 26" turret plate from a Yamato class battleship and hit is twice at 40,000 yards (about 23 miles)! Here's the link: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm
How accurate is that? ;) Also, firing these weapons inland, accuracy would be somewhat less important because of the destruction in and around the target area, especially in an urban area.

quote:

This, from FM 6-30 - the manual of indirect fire support.

+++++
8-31. 16-INCH NAVAL GUNFIRE MISSIONS
Adjusting fire from the 16-inch guns of a battleship is somewhat
different than adjusting that from the 5-inch guns.

a. Characteristics. The 16-inch gun produces a significantly larger
dispersion pattern than does the 5-inch. The pattern is about 150
meters (or greater) wide and 500 meters (or greater) long. The
pattern depends on the terrain, target range, and number of guns in
effect. The observer should expect 2 to 5 minutes between
transmitting a correction and shot of the next salvo.

<snip>

c. Corrections. Because of the rather large dispersion pattern and the
slow response time for each shot, observers should use bold
corrections to hit the target as rapidly as possible. Bracketing is not
feasible.

d. Erratic Rounds. The observer may want to use the MPI adjustment
technique. On occasion, the dispersion pattern will contain an erratic
round. When determining the MPI, the observer should ignore erratic
rounds and determine the MPI from those impacts which form a
reasonable group.
+++++

Facebook
Twitter

quote:

ORIGINAL: STUCKER868
I agree 100%. These weapons also had radar control which made them more effective. In fact, in 1946, the US did a study test with 16/45's and 16/50's vs. a 26" turret plate from a Yamato class battleship and hit is twice at 40,000 yards (about 23 miles)! Here's the link: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm
How accurate is that? ;) Also, firing these weapons inland, accuracy would be somewhat less important because of the destruction in and around the target area, especially in an urban area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda

quote:

ORIGINAL: STUCKER868
I agree 100%. These weapons also had radar control which made them more effective. In fact, in 1946, the US did a study test with 16/45's and 16/50's vs. a 26" turret plate from a Yamato class battleship and hit is twice at 40,000 yards (about 23 miles)! Here's the link: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm
How accurate is that? ;) Also, firing these weapons inland, accuracy would be somewhat less important because of the destruction in and around the target area, especially in an urban area.

That was a ballistic test, and was not conducted at 40,000 yards. Indeed, I would be surprised if it was conducted at anything more than a thousand yards (if that). The only way 40,000 yards is relevant to the article and test is that it illustrates a point regarding angle of impact and impact velocity.

Pattern sizes for weapons like this were absolutely massive in the 30,000+ yard range, and fire control radar has no bearing on pattern size, only on placement. The addition of DR-810 MV radar in the 1980s along with other improvements were the first changes to actually improve on that aspect.

I am not sure what the correct choice game wise is - I understand the logic in limiting it to effective ranges, though I also think allowing maximum range with adjusted CEP size would also work. After all, it was theoretically possibly to hit something at those ranges, even if it meant expending your entire magazine to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: STUCKER868
I believe the MV at pointblank range was about 2500/FS. The velocities in the article show much lower (<2000). There is nothing in the article that says they did these tests at point blank range using reduced charges either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elouda

quote:

ORIGINAL: STUCKER868
I believe the MV at pointblank range was about 2500/FS. The velocities in the article show much lower (<2000). There is nothing in the article that says they did these tests at point blank range using reduced charges either.

The whole point of tests like these are controlled conditions, so the velocities are achieved by altering the charge to achieve the desired velocity. In many of these tests, multiple impacts are placed onto the same plate (often at different velocities), which by its nature precludes them being conducted at anything more than point blank range.

Indeed, the fact that the range at Dahlgren (where the vast majority of USN ballistic testing, including this specific test, was done) is something like 2km lengthwise at most is also indicative of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: STUCKER868

In fact, I just looked at a several books and almost all of them say 42,345 yds MAX range for the 16/50.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel
I'm not trying to get in this argument because I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject, but is that maximum range or maximum effective range?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel
I'm not trying to get in this argument because I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject, but is that maximum range or maximum effective range?

Well, that's the question.

Maximum range is (or should be) an accepted value based on empirical test or operational data (eg, demonstrated) as reported by a reliable source. In this case, it's fairly straight forward.

Maximum "effective" range can have many meanings. Are we talking about armor penetration (eg, the safe zone of an armor systems vs a specific weapon system)? Or are we talking about the ability to hit something? Is the "something" moving or stationary? Big or small? Do we even need to hit what we're shooting at to be "effective" or is close close enough (eg, suppression)? All of these factors would play into the question of "effective".

IMO, the "max range" should be what we find in the database.

The "max effective range" should be a judgement made by the player given the result of all the system performance factors + target factors + environmental factors + etc., etc., etc., type number crunching the game engine does.

This is essentially the same argument, albeit with better documentation, from a few days back regarding the K278 max depth. That's what I was referring to when I suggested there may be a trend here.

JD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel

quote:

ORIGINAL: STUCKER868

In fact, I just looked at a several books and almost all of them say 42,345 yds MAX range for the 16/50.

I'm not trying to get in this argument because I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject, but is that maximum range or maximum effective range?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flankerk


Do we have any evidence of the guns being fired in anger at ranges beyond the 17 miles?
If so it would give good evidence to adjust for that type of combat.

I can see the idea that you could still hit an airbase with very innacurate shelling, I'm less sure nowadays the collateral damage from shells falling with a massive CEP would be accepted though?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel
I'm not trying to get in this argument because I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject, but is that maximum range or maximum effective range?

Well, that's the question.

Maximum range is (or should be) an accepted value based on empirical test or operational data (eg, demonstrated) as reported by a reliable source. In this case, it's fairly straight forward.

Maximum "effective" range can have many meanings. Are we talking about armor penetration (eg, the safe zone of an armor systems vs a specific weapon system)? Or are we talking about the ability to hit something? Is the "something" moving or stationary? Big or small? Do we even need to hit what we're shooting at to be "effective" or is close close enough (eg, suppression)? All of these factors would play into the question of "effective".

IMO, the "max range" should be what we find in the database.

The "max effective range" should be a judgement made by the player given the result of all the system performance factors + target factors + environmental factors + etc., etc., etc., type number crunching the game engine does.

This is essentially the same argument, albeit with better documentation, from a few days back regarding the K278 max depth. That's what I was referring to when I suggested there may be a trend here.

JD

Well, this is why I said it is a case by case basis. I mean the maximum range of an M-16 is 3600 meters but the max effective range is 550 to point 800 to area targets, and yet I never trained past 300. I never engaged real world targets past 75 meters with one(of course I was a tanker in a city and it was an M-4) The maximum range of the tank rounds I fired was much greater than the ballistic computer could accurately calculate solutions for. The max range of APFSDS-T is much greater than its effective range to have the ability to kill armored targets.

But for a submarine that spent thousands of hours underwater and less than 3 minutes at the depth of 1027 meters, in a controlled environment and only did any operational tests at depths of 800 meters twice, again in a controlled environment it is silly to give players the ability to cruise around the world at 1000 meters because a sub did it once for 3 minutes. I live a 6 minute drive from the Russian Central Naval Museum and a 40 minute drive from the National Submarine Museum and an hour 10 minutes from Kronstadt, I speak Russian and have spent a lot of time and money in the archives of these 3 places for some writing I am doing about the Soviet Navy. The game got K-278 right. However there are some other things they were too conservative or too liberal with in my opinion, but I'm not an expert enough on that subject matter to comment on it.

I don't know anything about battleship gun ballistics so I cant form an educated opinion, but the max effective range isn't 'subjective' it is clearly defined by doctrine developed by dudes way smarter than me testing stuff. As a tank commander I never would fire at targets past my max effective range and would rather them to be closer than that if possible. Direct fire trigger lines were usually well inside max effective range pf direct fire weapons systems. Again that is tanks not battleships though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Exactly. We're not talking about ship targets at 40kyds here, but shore bombardment vs air fields, port facilities, entrenched formations, etc, etc. But even in the case of ship targets... you don't necessarily have to hit anything to disrupt up a formation.

We're not discussing "theoretical" ranges Ragnar. The 40kyd range was demonstrated. The essence of your argument seems to be "yeah, but you can't hit anything at that range". So be it. I assume the game engine is sophisticated enough to accurately factor range into the CEP calculation?

I'm not just complaining about this one system. I'm alarmed by what I'm beginning to understand is a design philosophy that has, at the very least, been applied selectively on a large scale, or perhaps even across the board.

Were this any other game, I would probably shrug my shoulders and say "eh, no biggie... I'll fix it myself". But... well... you know.

Again, apologies for beating on this, but I feel this is important.

JD

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

And none of these criticisms should obscure my overwhelming enthusiasm I have for CMANO--I love the game

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

There was an explosion in #2 turret in 1989. I don't think they ever restored it to operational status before decommissioning her in 1990.

JD