RE: Max range of 406mm/50

RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

Message

jdkbph -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (12/17/2013 8:23:05 PM)
I think you're right. JD

geozero -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (12/19/2013 9:10:14 PM)
Range of the main gun's 16inch guns will be dependent on which type of round it was fitted to fire. There were different types of rounds which included the MARK 8 super heavy round of 2700 lbs versus the lighter 2240 lbs round. Max range was 24 miles or 39 km. Or 20.8554 nautical miles.

StellarRat -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (12/19/2013 9:21:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geozero Range of the main gun's 16inch guns will be dependent on which type of round it was fitted to fire. There were different types of rounds which included the MARK 8 super heavy round of 2700 lbs versus the lighter 2240 lbs round. Max range was 24 miles or 39 km. Or 20.8554 nautical miles. Is that the absolute max. range or the maximum effective range? I have doubts they'd be able to hit another ship at that distance in combat. That's over the horizon by X2.

geozero -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (12/19/2013 9:29:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StellarRat quote: ORIGINAL: geozero Range of the main gun's 16inch guns will be dependent on which type of round it was fitted to fire. There were different types of rounds which included the MARK 8 super heavy round of 2700 lbs versus the lighter 2240 lbs round. Max range was 24 miles or 39 km. Or 20.8554 nautical miles. Is that the absolute max. range or the maximum effective range? I have doubts they'd be able to hit another ship at that distance in combat. That's over the horizon by X2. I do not know how accurate this is what I found online (there are also a number of calculations available): assuming a clear day with 'unlimited' visibility, the formula is 1.17 * SQRT(height above sea level). So a 6' person standing on the shore is seeing the horizon approximately 3 miles away. Same person on a 100' tower (so eye is 106' above sea level) is seeing the horizon at a little over 12 nautical miles. So the MAX range of 20.8554 nm is beyond even the normal visible distances (over the horizon if you will). HOWEVER, the IOWA employed spotter aircrafts and with these used it is possible that you could hit over the horizon. Lastly, most over the horizon bombardments would likely be against land targets (hard targets) rather than moving ships IMO.

BB62squid -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (2/10/2014 2:15:15 AM)
This is correct. Warspite did have the longest gun hit in history. I want to point out that Warspite was a World War I retread and managed to pull off tthis remarkable feat. The Iowa's in World War II, even with the Mk 8 radars, had a much more accurate and reliable FCS. After the 80's refits and the addition of the 810 MVRs and reworked powders, accuracy and CEP were at an all time high. Iowa was the trials ship for 16" gunnery improvement project. IIRC, off San Clemente we were dropping pretty tight patterns in excess of 30kyds. Granted, test conditions on a NGFS range and the ship wasnt maneuvering at speed. Regardless, I dont see why there is apparent bias. The 5" guns in the game are all quoted at 9 miles which is pretty standard. Why impose a personal belief system on your favored or not so favored platforms, weapons, and sensors? As I see it, we are modeling real world systems...so go with whats in the widely available sources out there. Personal opinion seems irrelevant here. --Mike

ComDev -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (2/10/2014 7:32:38 AM)
Hmmmmm yeah tough call. May even have to separate surface and land ranges in the database for this to work properly. Seems this is a post-1.03 item.

StellarRat -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (2/10/2014 4:35:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BB62squid This is correct. Warspite did have the longest gun hit in history. I want to point out that Warspite was a World War I retread and managed to pull off tthis remarkable feat. The Iowa's in World War II, even with the Mk 8 radars, had a much more accurate and reliable FCS. After the 80's refits and the addition of the 810 MVRs and reworked powders, accuracy and CEP were at an all time high. Iowa was the trials ship for 16" gunnery improvement project. IIRC, off San Clemente we were dropping pretty tight patterns in excess of 30kyds. Granted, test conditions on a NGFS range and the ship wasnt maneuvering at speed. Regardless, I dont see why there is apparent bias. The 5" guns in the game are all quoted at 9 miles which is pretty standard. Why impose a personal belief system on your favored or not so favored platforms, weapons, and sensors? As I see it, we are modeling real world systems...so go with whats in the widely available sources out there. Personal opinion seems irrelevant here. --Mike My point was that the Warspite had visual contact with the target and the range was WAY less than the max. range, but even then that was considered a "record" shot at the time. I'm thinking that the effective range ship to ship is far less than the max. range or the effective range against land/stationary targets. Just the amount of time it take the shells to reach a moving target at max. range would make a moving/dodging target difficult to hit not considering any other factors. The 16" has a muzzle velocity of 2500 ft/sec with AP. To reach 20 miles would take around 42 seconds. That would make a small target maneuvering nearly impossible to hit and a even a large ship at speed could probably change course enough to get out of the way.

jdkbph -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (2/10/2014 5:59:00 PM)
Do ships in the game have an actual size and shape? If so wouldn't the gun's CEP provide a way to differentiate between a hit and a miss without having to fiddle about with the max range values? I am assuming now that the gun calculations are based on a predicted point of impact generated when it is fired, and that target motion is factored. For example... 1 Classify target. 2a Generate solution for target range/range rate of change, and target bearing/bearing rate of change. 2b Factor wind, temp, humidity, etc. (are we factoring environmentals?). 2c or just fudge 2a and 2b and set a desired point of impact, then apply the proficiency factor. 3 Shoot. 4 Calculate actual point of impact. 5 Determine target's movement during projectile flight. 6 Apply CEP. 7 Calculate hits. No? JD

jdkbph -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (2/10/2014 6:09:27 PM)
Also, I don't think Warspite's performance is a relevant example of the best that can be done, say, today... or in the recent past. Since then we've added target spotters/trackers in various forms that can communicate target and environmental factors in real time; computers that can adjust for that when calculating fire control solutions; better manufacturing, storage and handling process controls around ammo and propellants; sensors that can track the actual projectile in-flight and correct for subsequent shots; and who knows what else. Yes, at the surface this appears to be the same basic evolution, but factoring all of the above, I think it's really a completely different ball game. JD

BB62squid -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (2/10/2014 9:30:00 PM)
As JD said...the ship's FC system generates a solution based on ownship movement AND target movement, and predicts future movement. Is it 100%? Hardly. Believe it or not, a large ship (BB/BC) moving at 30+ knots doesnt actually travel that far in the time it takes a salvo to cover the distance...relative speed of target ship vice projectile is negligible. Does this mean Im going to start lobbing 16" salvoes, rapid and continuous, at a destroyer maneuvering erratically at full speed @ 40k yards? No. Do remember that Iowa got a straddle on Nowaki at Truk lagoon @ 32kyds. Also remember that shorts and overs within certain parameters may constitute hits due to the possibility of striking masts and upperworks, or projectiles traveling underwater trajectories. Bottom line is...a computer game can never model all the intricacies of real war...its just a number crunching beast. It cant account for errant shots or blind luck. I think the weapons should be entered based on specs in source material, and let the players use or not use them as they see fit. My personal input: having worked with it personally, the Mk 1A and the 16"/50 is an amazing weapon system that has had some teething issues. In the NFS role it is more than satisfactory (ask any Army grunts that called for fire during Vietnam). While maybe not as pinpoint accurate as the 5"/54...it doesnt have to be. The weight of explosives tears up alot of real estate, and gives you better stand off ranges too. A battleship can do in minutes what would take a CG or DDG hours or days to accomplish--assuming they can reach the target.

AndrewJ -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (2/10/2014 9:39:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jdkbph For example... 1 Classify target. 2a Generate solution for target range/range rate of change, and target bearing/bearing rate of change. 2b Factor wind, temp, humidity, etc. (are we factoring environmentals?). 2c or just fudge 2a and 2b and set a desired point of impact, then apply the proficiency factor. 3 Shoot. 4 Calculate actual point of impact. 5 Determine target's movement during projectile flight. 6 Apply CEP. 7 Calculate hits. No? No. Instead of calculating independent ballistic impact points based on an aimpoint and an associated CEP, the impact point sticks to the targeted unit no matter where it happens to manuever, and the miss chance is applied around that. See the following thread for more information HERE.

jdkbph -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (2/11/2014 5:36:13 PM)
Ah. This must be what was referred to some time back when it was said the modelling would need work before it could be applied to a WWII or earlier game. JD

StellarRat -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (2/11/2014 9:59:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jdkbph Ah. This must be what was referred to some time back when it was said the modelling would need work before it could be applied to a WWII or earlier game. JD Yes, it's very complicated. Your basically "guessing" where the target will be when the shells land IF they land accurately in the first place. IMHO, there is also some "luck" involved in long range "gun fights" too. If I remember right the average chance to hit was something less than 3% per round. That being said, those large naval guns are so powerful that it only took few hits to sink or disable almost any target.

.Sirius -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (7/7/2014 5:55:11 AM)
The two turret version was a proposed conversion to an Iowa Class to be used as a fast Amphib fire support for Vietnam but didn't get off from the planning stage

Belthorian -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (7/10/2014 12:27:42 AM)
I served as a gunners mate onboard the Iowa in Turret #1. We could hit targets ACCURATLY out to 23 miles. The Mk-8 was such a good fire control computer that when the Iowa's were modernized in the 80's a modern digital computer couldn't do the job any better. We did experiments using a 7th powder bag called an overcharge bag and we hit a school bus sized target on the first shot at 27 miles. As an illustration to how effective the MK-8 was during the battle of the Surigao Strait the West Virginia opened fire on the Yamashiro as 22,800 yards striking the Japanese ships with the FIRST salvo. On the Iowa in the 80's we also had drones to spot shell fall but the MK-8 was capable of picking up shell splash on radar and correcting. 23 miles is the max range and the effective range because of the fire control computer. You would put information like your speed and course, targets speed and course, temperature, wind speed, sea state into the computer, once the solution was achieved you could change course and speed and the computer would make corrections in real time. Same thing if your target changes course and speed the computer made those changes on the fly. It is why I said the Iowa would have mopped the floor with the Yamato, she would have stayed at long range and pounded her with highly accurate fire beyond the Yamato's ability to use optical ranging equipment.

Belthorian -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (7/10/2014 12:32:31 AM)
The armor modeling needs some work, I was able to sink the New Jersey with SSN2B stix missiles. The worst the stix would do to a Iowa class is mess up the paint. None of the anti ship missiles were designed to penetrate armor belts they would be completely incapable of penetrating an Iowa class battleships main belt.

mikmykWS -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (7/10/2014 2:20:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Belthorian The armor modeling needs some work, I was able to sink the New Jersey with SSN2B stix missiles. The worst the stix would do to a Iowa class is mess up the paint. None of the anti ship missiles were designed to penetrate armor belts they would be completely incapable of penetrating an Iowa class battleships main belt. Yeah it does however very few modern ships have armor like that so it becomes a one off in our model. It is definitely on our list and is a must if we decide to do anything with WWII. Mike

ComDev -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (7/10/2014 7:31:49 AM)
Yeah okay how about splitting the existing surface range into two figures: surface range and ground range. The surface range will be limited by the horizon (to simulate FC limitations), the ground range will be the max (practical) firing range. Would that work for you? In any case, a fix will have to wait until everyone on the dev team are back from their summer breaks. Thanks! [8D]

jdkbph -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (7/10/2014 4:58:04 PM)
Sounds like a good compromise Ragnar. Regarding the horizon though... I don't think the target would need to be completely hull up from the shooter's RADAR mast head in order to get good range and tracking data. If I'm right, that would make your max surface range "horizon +". I'm not sure what the + should be though. But just as an example of how much difference that makes... the sighting range from the top of an Iowa's superstructure (where the FC Radar is) to a point at a target's water line is like 12 miles. But if you use a point nearer the top of the target (assume significant structure extending 100' above the waterline), the sighting distance is about double that. JD

ComDev -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (7/11/2014 4:47:04 PM)
Yeah we already use mast height, superstructure height etc in the models so should be ok [8D]

Belthorian -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (7/12/2014 4:54:22 PM)
Actually the Arleigh Burks vital areas are protected by 2 layers of steel and 70 tons of Kevlar Armor, they were the first ships to incorporate armor since ww2, not to mention they re all steel construction.

jdkbph -> RE: Max range of 406mm/50 (7/12/2014 6:24:46 PM)
Back in the day that would have been called "splinter" armor. [:D] JD

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.796875