Naval bombardment too inaccurate?

Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (Full Version)

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

Message

Gneckes -> Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (6/22/2015 2:24:45 PM)
Hello everyone, I just bought Command last night, and while I initially had qualms about spending so much money, I think I'll have a loooot of fun with this. That said, I noticed something a bit strange yesterday, related to naval gunfire against ground targets. I tried myself at the "Battle of Chun..something" scenario (sorry, I can't remember the exact name, and can't look it up as I'm at work now), the one that takes place in the Korean war and gives you two light cruisers and a Frigate to attack a convoy. When firing at ships, the 6" and 4" guns on my cruiser were reasonably effective, rarely missing by more than 200 or so feet, but when I tried shelling some shore batteries, the accuracy went to hell. I observed salvos miss by more than 2000 feet! I also noticed the same thing when shelling the D-30 battery in the Surface Warship tutorial. My theory is that this is due to the Fire-control radar unable to lock-on to the ground targets?

DavidRob0 -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (6/24/2015 1:28:43 AM)
Back in the Korean war, many ships used visual targeting against shore targets primarily because the GFCSs would not always be able to find a small target such as a gun battery's individual guns. Using this technique, accuracy depends a lot on the sea state effects on the firing ship. But in general, I agree with you Gneches - accuracy against the small (manoeuvring) PTs is much better than against the stationary guns.

Gneckes -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (6/24/2015 12:34:53 PM)
Well I can see how this would be the case in the Korean War, and I guess that's somewhat understandable- but for an Arleigh-Burke-class DDG firing at a fixed position? Missing by 1000 feet in this day and age shouldn't be happening. (Or am I overlooking something very serious?)

Gunner98 -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (6/24/2015 3:04:01 PM)
quote: Back in the Korean war, many ships used visual targeting against shore targets primarily because the GFCSs would not always be able to find a small target such as a gun battery's individual guns IIRC HMS Ajax knocked out 2 guns out of a 4 gun Bty on D-Day, not sure how many salvos she used but sea state was 3-4. I also agree that gunfire is not optimized as much as it could be, but it is a relatively minor issue in a game for this timeframe. Would be nice if it was addressed better but I'm sure that it will be at some time in the furture. B

DavidRob0 -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (6/27/2015 3:43:49 AM)
quote: Well I can see how this would be the case in the Korean War, and I guess that's somewhat understandable- but for an Arleigh-Burke-class DDG firing at a fixed position? Missing by 1000 feet in this day and age shouldn't be happening. (Or am I overlooking something very serious?) If I remember correctly - a Spruance firing at an oil platform in the Gulf back in the 80's - at point blank range - managed to miss the platform many times by an often considerable margin. I understand that the GFCS in the Burkes is upgraded from the Spruances, but accuracy depends on the skill of the console operator in the CIC/Operations Room!

Gneckes -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (6/27/2015 7:36:03 AM)
Oh really? That's pretty interesting. I figured that, with modern fire-control Radar and/or Laser Rangefinders, guns would have relatively little possibilities for errors. Guess I was mistaken. I would like to read about that Spruance however, do you have a source?

DavidRob0 -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (6/27/2015 7:50:28 AM)
Not any more. That was a loooooooong time ago.

Gneckes -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (6/27/2015 9:25:45 AM)
Ah, that's fine. Just would've been interesting, that's all.

chrisol -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (6/27/2015 2:21:27 PM)
In Zatarain's "Tanker War" book he describes 4 US ships attacking 2 Iranian platforms at a range between 6000 and 2,300 yards. They started at the structures on top and then moved on to the supporting legs, overall firing 1,065 high explosive and armor piercing rounds (the small diameter made the legs a poor target) - at a total cost of between $200,000 and $1,000,000. Apparently reporters needled the defense spokesman for using a thousand rounds to hit a "stable target".

p1t1o -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (6/29/2015 10:02:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DavidRob I understand that the GFCS in the Burkes is upgraded from the Spruances, but accuracy depends on the skill of the console operator in the CIC/Operations Room! Does it? How? I would have thought that accuracy depends most on the quality of the gun-laying/stabilisation mechanics and sensor accuracy. What can the guy in CIC do to affect accuracy?

DavidRob0 -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (7/4/2015 2:57:49 AM)
quote: Does it? How? I would have thought that accuracy depends most on the quality of the gun-laying/stabilisation mechanics and sensor accuracy. What can the guy in CIC do to affect accuracy? He can "mis-lay" the gun(s). Fire at the wrong time.... remember the old adage from sailing ship days? "Fire on the uproll." Not altogether the case now, but there is still a human being in the chain.

SeaQueen -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (7/6/2015 2:05:32 PM)
1065 rounds fired. How many of them hit? There are lots of reasons to pour cannon fire into a target. They might not have been missing. The 5" rounds might not have been doing that much damage to something as large as an oil platform. quote: ORIGINAL: chrisol In Zatarain's "Tanker War" book he describes 4 US ships attacking 2 Iranian platforms at a range between 6000 and 2,300 yards. They started at the structures on top and then moved on to the supporting legs, overall firing 1,065 high explosive and armor piercing rounds (the small diameter made the legs a poor target) - at a total cost of between $200,000 and $1,000,000. Apparently reporters needled the defense spokesman for using a thousand rounds to hit a "stable target".

Primarchx -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (7/6/2015 3:15:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SeaQueen 1065 rounds fired. How many of them hit? There are lots of reasons to pour cannon fire into a target. They might not have been missing. The 5" rounds might not have been doing that much damage to something as large as an oil platform. quote: ORIGINAL: chrisol In Zatarain's "Tanker War" book he describes 4 US ships attacking 2 Iranian platforms at a range between 6000 and 2,300 yards. They started at the structures on top and then moved on to the supporting legs, overall firing 1,065 high explosive and armor piercing rounds (the small diameter made the legs a poor target) - at a total cost of between $200,000 and $1,000,000. Apparently reporters needled the defense spokesman for using a thousand rounds to hit a "stable target". Hitting is one thing. Doing significant damage to something that big with a 127mm shell is something else.

DavidRob0 -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (7/7/2015 1:38:08 AM)
I remember seeing some video of the particular incident I'm thinking of, and some of the shell splashes were a long way from the oil platform. Not withstanding all that, SeaQueen and Primarchx are dead right on the damage that might be caused to something as large as an oil platform - they're very substantial structures. [sm=fighting0083.gif]

Belthorian -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/25/2015 6:13:41 PM)
I was there during operation preying mantis, the vast majority of shots fired on the platforms were hits. A lot of the misses came from firing through the platform without hitting any infrastructure. Hitting the oil platform was no challenge at all.

SeaQueen -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/25/2015 6:20:39 PM)
I've been told that gun fire uses a CEP model. I can't help but wonder if some of the wild shots one sees has to do with the choice of distributions used estimating the distance by which gunfire misses, the estimates of lethal radius, and the assumptions about the size of the targets. Hitting a small boat ought to be harder than hitting an oil platform or large surface combatant. Determining hits by naval gunfire against land units is probably more complex.

Belthorian -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/25/2015 6:25:06 PM)
Naval gunfire is horribly incorrect both against shore targets and ships. People have posted that Korean war era ships would be inaccurate which is incorrect as well, The analog ballistic computers the Navy used were really good. When the Iowa class battleships were reactivated in the 80's it was decided to keep the MK9 range keeper fire control computer because in the digital age they could build a smaller fire control computer they could not build one that did the job any better. The fire control computers were even able to spot shell splash and adjust fire accordingly. If air assets are available they should be able to spot for the naval platform doing the shelling. What I think is broken is that Naval gunfire should get more and more accurate the longer a target is engaged. I routinely see my shells missing a fixed position by 1700 feet or more. In the REAL world that would NEVER happen. I also see where one shell misses by 80 feet than the next shell misses by 450 feet. Once again in the REAL world that would NEVER happen. For bombarding shore targets, locking radar on them is not how it works. The fire control computer will be firing at a grid specific location. If the location of an enemy fixed position is known it will only take a couple of salvos to correct fire and deliver accurate gunfire on the target. Please guys fix this, older scenarios that rely on gunfire as the primary offensive weapon are hopelessly broken as it stands. I served as a gunners mate in the Navy and fired everything from 2", 5", and 16" rounds. I have a pretty good understanding of how naval gunfire works in the real world.

Belthorian -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/25/2015 6:29:17 PM)
Yes hitting a small fast target is a pain in the ass. When I was in the Persian gulf the Iranians would attack us using Boghammers. They were capable of speeds of 50kts. Shooting at them with the 76mm on a Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate and scoring direct hits was difficult. Most of the time our 25mm bushmasters .50 cal machine guns, and MK19 grenade launchers were more effective.

mikmykWS -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/25/2015 6:32:55 PM)
Belthorian thanks for the input. We'll take a look Mike

Belthorian -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/25/2015 6:44:51 PM)
I would like to say that you guys have done an incredible job with this sim. I absolutely love it and I have been playing Naval warfare sims all they way back to pen and paper Harpoon.

SeaQueen -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/25/2015 7:09:16 PM)
So a 25mm, 0.50 cal or MK 19 ought to have a smaller CEP than a 76mm, even if the 76mm has a larger lethal radius. There's other things that I think make things complicated. There's lots of different sorts of 5" rounds (HE-CVT, KE-ET, HE-ET, HE-MOF) and all of them have their various uses. How do they effect things in terms of the game's model? quote: ORIGINAL: Belthorian Yes hitting a small fast target is a pain in the ass. When I was in the Persian gulf the Iranians would attack us using Boghammers. They were capable of speeds of 50kts. Shooting at them with the 76mm on a Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate and scoring direct hits was difficult. Most of the time our 25mm bushmasters .50 cal machine guns, and MK19 grenade launchers were more effective.

Gunner98 -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/26/2015 12:12:46 AM)
Posted something one this a while back but can't find it. Naval guns should not be using a CEP model, they should be using a PER (probable error in range) model which is much more accurate. Agree with Belthorian that the errors should get smaller fast as you adjust either with radar, acoustic or eyeball, using a PER model your reducing the number of variables drastically. Small fast targets are something else, in the army we would stonk the area we think they will be - but we have more guns[sm=00000036.gif][:D] B

Coiler12 -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/26/2015 3:12:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gunner98 Posted something one this a while back but can't find it. Naval guns should not be using a CEP model, they should be using a PER (probable error in range) model which is much more accurate. Agree with Belthorian that the errors should get smaller fast as you adjust either with radar, acoustic or eyeball, using a PER model your reducing the number of variables drastically. Small fast targets are something else, in the army we would stonk the area we think they will be - but we have more guns[sm=00000036.gif][:D] B Found what I think was your quote here.

Gunner98 -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/26/2015 3:18:51 AM)
Yes that's the one. Thanks Coiler. Used to teach this stuff back in the day, but am a bit rusty. B

SeaQueen -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/26/2015 12:38:38 PM)
In reality, the distribution of where shots land (for all types of weaponry) generally follows some sort of bivariate normal distribution. The CEP model is inaccurate for all kinds of weapons, even ballistic missiles and bombs, in the sense that it forces the distribution of shots into a symmetrical normal distribution. For smaller CMANO scenarios, people might care about the difference. For larger ones, it's completely uninteresting. quote: ORIGINAL: Gunner98 Posted something one this a while back but can't find it. Naval guns should not be using a CEP model, they should be using a PER (probable error in range) model which is much more accurate. Agree with Belthorian that the errors should get smaller fast as you adjust either with radar, acoustic or eyeball, using a PER model your reducing the number of variables drastically. Small fast targets are something else, in the army we would stonk the area we think they will be - but we have more guns[sm=00000036.gif][:D] B

Dysta -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/26/2015 1:14:24 PM)
76mm? Overkill for one boat, and slow rate of fire for amass. .50 cal? Not good enough to instantly sink a boat even with higher rate of fire. Despite of the good anti-flesh effectiveness, bullets aren't easy to hit oscillating targets. My solution? 57mm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rldn9Hvzih4

Gunner98 -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/26/2015 1:32:06 PM)
.50cal sniper rifle into the engine usually works in real life from what I understand. B

Dysta -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/26/2015 1:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gunner98 .50cal sniper rifle into the engine usually works in real life from what I understand. B The problem is you just disable its power plant, not the weapon system, and the boat is still afloat when only one hole punch through a weak hull. Besides, sniper's range is same as HMG's range, expect their return fire for sure if they also got .50 cals. You are definitely need something to "INSTANTLY OBERILIATE" a threat before they can return fire. One stray ATGM or rocket, someone will take more blame to you than the enemy.

SeaQueen -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/26/2015 1:42:12 PM)
That's a Coast Guard thing for catching drug runners. It's pretty neat now they make those shots from a moving helicopter. quote: ORIGINAL: Gunner98 .50cal sniper rifle into the engine usually works in real life from what I understand. B

Dysta -> RE: Naval bombardment too inaccurate? (11/26/2015 1:50:29 PM)
Speaking of Snipers. CMANO doesn't have any. Should High-precision infantry/sniper/marksman have laser-like accuracy, and slightly faster firing response (but very long cooldown/reloading time) to them? I believe one sniper in land-assault scenario can make tactical deployment a lot more challenging.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625