Are big guns unproportionally better? An opinion and discussion starter.

[Absolute0CA]

I had a game last night that really really pissed me off because of the inexcusable accuracy of the small guns... (1 hit in 1200 for 2”) (1 in 1140 for 4”) And yet got (1 hit in 4 with torpedos) Something is really screwy here. That’s worse gun accuracy than WWII manually aimed Heavy AA.

[RedParadize]

@ThatZenoGuy White Powder is better if you are going for pen damage. Higher range mean higher accuracy. And you get bonus pen and damage. That plus a big gun with bigger shell and you are in business.

Edited October 28, 2019 by RedParadize

[ThatZenoGuy]

5 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@ThatZenoGuy White Powder is better if you are going for pen damage. Higher range mean higher accuracy. And you get bonus pen and damage. That plus a big gun with bigger shell and you are in business.

Ignore pen damage, go Superheavy max size guns with Lyddite 2, and you nuke enemies.

[RedParadize]

2 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Ignore pen damage, go Superheavy max size guns with Lyddite 2, and you nuke enemies.

If you want these juicy +1200 damage against battleship you gonna need pen!

[ThatZenoGuy]

1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

If you want these juicy +1200 damage against battleship you gonna need pen!

Speak for yourself man, I get those juicy hits with HE! Just gotta hit the right places. Causes half the enemy ship to turn red and 70% of it on fire.

[Ignominius]

I build TNT pretty much always in the late game because of the amount of fires it sets with AP, makes it very easy to deal damage to more heavily armored ships.

[RedParadize]

On 10/29/2019 at 3:16 AM, Ignominius said:

I build TNT pretty much always in the late game because of the amount of fires it sets with AP, makes it very easy to deal damage to more heavily armored ships.

TNT would be great if it was not of its cost. White powder is like a lesser version of TNT, with a range bonus. (greater range= better accuracy)

[Hangar18]

Part of the problem right now is armor over performing.

[Lobokai]

First of all HMS Nelson never fired on Bismarck so any sourcing discussing that get questionable and Bismarck wasn’t sunk by shells anyway and second, while bigger is better, when looking at WW1 ships (far more relevant to this game) and staying away the World of Warship top tier/you should barely see them in this game and balancing around them would be a mistake type ships, rate of fire, crew skill, unified ammunition etc become much more important than just size of gun.

Please stop trying to tech this game for its what if end game ships and look at its heart.  

[The Fundamentalist]

11 hours ago, Lobokai said:

First of all HMS Nelson never fired on Bismarck so any sourcing discussing that get questionable and Bismarck wasn’t sunk by shells anyway and second, while bigger is better, when looking at WW1 ships (far more relevant to this game) and staying away the World of Warship top tier/you should barely see them in this game and balancing around them would be a mistake type ships, rate of fire, crew skill, unified ammunition etc become much more important than just size of gun.

Please stop trying to tech this game for its what if end game ships and look at its heart.  

I think it was just a reference to the shell diameter not necessarily being the most accurate benchmark for range, which is a correct assertion. I agree with your intent, but I think you missed the mark here. 

The point of the thread is that larger diameter guns are disproportionately accurate at closer ranges, which basically voids the effectiveness of small diameter guns altogether. Even when dealing with small Torpedo-boat and Destroyer sized-craft, it's a rarity that the secondary batteries kill or disable the vessel before the big guns. 

[Steeltrap]

I know we've mentioned this elsewhere, but it's as much the development of fire control systems and quality of mounts that are responsible for the improvements of accuracy over the years than the guns themselves.

Think of the Littorio class as an example of the mount having negative effects on accuracy outside the gunnery fire control system.

Until such time as truly effective central fire control directors come along, however, rate of fire and ease of training the gun on target and tracking it are also significant. More shots per minute mean more observations and more opportunities to get a reasonable gunnery solution.

I think it's really the question of the performance of secondaries v main guns on CAs (or protected cruisers as I suspect they should properly be called) and pre-dreadnoughts, or indeed anything that carries a relatively smaller number of large calibre (call it 10" or more) and a crap-ton of casemate and other popguns.

It's hard to justify the big guns being so accurate compared with the smaller ones when firing at ranges for which the smaller ones were intended, at least until some more advanced centralised fire control benefits come along for the main battery but not secondary.

Combine that with some of the wonky elements of the damage systems and it can seem at times that secondary/casemate guns might be wasted tonnage. In fact I think the damage model might be as much to blame, because riddling a DD with 4"-6" shells ought to make it a bit of a shambles pretty soon, yet it often appears that it's always the main guns that blap things out of existence, regardless of what they are or the range at which you're firing.

The extreme range accuracy of "The Modern Battleship" is also broken IMO, but that's a different question.

I suspect it's as much the damage model as the accuracy, although @Absolute0CA's example of accuracy numbers are a bit of a worry (were they all firing at near max ranges?). I sometimes set my guns to "save" so I don't waste so much ammo where the hit rate is only 2-3%.

Not sure of the solutions.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Steeltrap
minor additions/amendments

[Absolute0CA]

1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:

I suspect it's as much the damage model as the accuracy, although @Absolute0CA's example of accuracy numbers are a bit of a worry (were they all firing at near max ranges?). I sometimes set my guns to "save" so I don't waste so much ammo where the hit rate is only 2-3%.

Not sure of the solutions.

It was 2-4 km not super range but not point blank for it either.

[Christian]

On 10/27/2019 at 3:35 AM, Evil4Zerggin said:

Yep. Here's some stats from The Modern Battleship 

 

If it was primarily shell weight, Tube Powder would increase accuracy, but it rather decreases it pretty significantly. Compared to this, using Super-Heavy Shells + Ballistite leads to 127% the hits for the 18" even at a distance of just 5 km.

Meanwhile, the 18" has 531% of the accuracy of a 5" at the same range, despite being two Marks lower. It's not like even the 5" is struggling to reach that range either, it's under half of the maximum range.

Bigger guns do seem to have an accuracy advantage even beyond their range advantage, but it's a lot smaller.

hmmmmmmmmmm

why does the 18 inch shell weight 2421 kg

the 5 inch weights 44 kg

that seems uhm kinda heavy

 

i mean historically speaking the german 21 inch gun had 2100 kg projectiles

american 5 inch had a 25kg projectiles

muzzle velocity also seems very low at 717 m/s though it might be because of super heavy shells

were you using super heavy shells on all the guns ?

Edited November 4, 2019 by Christian

[Absolute0CA]

8 hours ago, Christian said:

that seems uhm kinda heavy

The dev's kinda had a critical research failure when it came to shell weights, like the Us 18" SHS was only 3850 lbs which is a far cry from the 2421kg projectile in game which is well over 5500 lbs if I remember my conversions right.

[Tankaxe]

The jump of damage from 8" to 9" is so significant that it isn't worth going lower. 8" and below should also be the focus on bringing their damage in working but perhaps once the accuracy issue is resolved we can see if they can produce actual results the way they are.

[Aetreus]

Big guns(and each caliber increase within this) are definitely way too effective relative to small guns. Basic accuracy off of maximum range all the way through is definitely a big part of it. In general the way that guns effect accuracy is either via their precision- which was pretty much constant across all categories of guns and mostly dealt with their technology. Older guns were less stiff, had less consistent powder, had more problems with shell interference and blast effects, etc. This also applied to guns that were particularly powerful, though it could be mitigated. The quest for more power was frequently limited by the ability of more powerful guns to maintain consistent accuracy.

The other main thing was time of flight, and therefore the ability of a ship to not be where predicted, magnifying errors in the firing solution. This is related to maximum range but primarily when ranges were relatively far. So for instance the USN 8" gun has a time of flight of 14.7 seconds at 10k yards, versus the 16"/50 having 13.2 seconds, a difference of only 11%. But at 30k yards, near the 8" guns maximum range, the difference is 77.8 seconds versus 50.3 seconds. A 54% difference!

Basically, at very short ranges small and large guns should have almost identical accuracies if they're using the same fire control. As range increases accuracy should drop similarly for all guns, with a "cliff" near the maximum range where the accuracy drops off much more quickly. As tech improves, smaller guns gain range faster than larger guns(basically, big guns have longer range because they experience less drag, so overall drag reduction impacts small guns more).

[Evil4Zerggin]

9 hours ago, Christian said:

were you using super heavy shells on all the guns ?

Everything was at default values except where explicitly listed. So only the one on the far right had super heavy shells.

[ThatZenoGuy]

On 11/5/2019 at 12:07 PM, Absolute0CA said:

The dev's kinda had a critical research failure when it came to shell weights, like the Us 18" SHS was only 3850 lbs which is a far cry from the 2421kg projectile in game which is well over 5500 lbs if I remember my conversions right.

A little over 5300 pounds. But still absurdly impossible in reality.

Superheavy shells were only around 25% heavier than traditional shells.

Assuming an 'average' shell for 18 inch guns (Type 91 was about normal weight) with 3200, a 'super heavy' 18 inch shell would weigh 4000 pounds, wayyyyyyyy less than 5000.

[Absolute0CA]

7 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

A little over 5300 pounds. But still absurdly impossible in reality.

Superheavy shells were only around 25% heavier than traditional shells.

Assuming an 'average' shell for 18 inch guns (Type 91 was about normal weight) with 3200, a 'super heavy' 18 inch shell would weigh 4000 pounds, wayyyyyyyy less than 5000.

And that's only the mark 3 18" gun the mark 5 has a shell weight of nearly 2927kg or...6452 lbs... with SHS we shouldn't be shooting loaded light work trucks at each other.

[ThatZenoGuy]

4 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

And that's only the mark 3 18" gun the mark 5 has a shell weight of nearly 2927kg or...6452 lbs... with SHS we shouldn't be shooting loaded light work trucks at each other.

Jesus christ, that's literally double historical weight of a Yamato shell.

 

[Aetreus]

On 11/7/2019 at 5:03 AM, ThatZenoGuy said:

A little over 5300 pounds. But still absurdly impossible in reality.

Superheavy shells were only around 25% heavier than traditional shells.

Assuming an 'average' shell for 18 inch guns (Type 91 was about normal weight) with 3200, a 'super heavy' 18 inch shell would weigh 4000 pounds, wayyyyyyyy less than 5000.

It might be that the "shell weight" is the value used for tonnage needed for ammunition, in which case it would be including the propellant charge and extra tonnage for storage. Wouldn't be unreasonable then, 18" propellant charge was 403 kg so 2100kg total, plus some extra overhead would get you to 2400kg no problems. Also the USN did contemplate 40% overweight shells(so did Italy, weirdly), and those would be extremely heavy - the 16" 40% overweight tested was 3150lbs/1430kg.

[flyingtaco]

It's a tricky thing historically  adm sims and mahan had a back and forth and this very topic and the break even point for larger fewer guns is when better fire control comes along. Uncontrolled... tou increase your  chance of hits with more faster firing guns.  The great American victory at the battle of Santiago was the result of around 2 percent hits with locally controlled guns without range finders for the most part   .... fast forward to guadalcanal Washington I think got 9 out of 40 or so  but it seems that the measuring stick for the interwar battleship was around 30 percent hits with large caliber guns. 

[ThatZenoGuy]

11 hours ago, Aetreus said:

It might be that the "shell weight" is the value used for tonnage needed for ammunition, in which case it would be including the propellant charge and extra tonnage for storage. Wouldn't be unreasonable then, 18" propellant charge was 403 kg so 2100kg total, plus some extra overhead would get you to 2400kg no problems. Also the USN did contemplate 40% overweight shells(so did Italy, weirdly), and those would be extremely heavy - the 16" 40% overweight tested was 3150lbs/1430kg.

Those extensively heavy shells would likely have faced accuracy problems, long projectiles don't like being spin stabilised, and the superheavies were already getting quite long.

The weight ingame seems to imply only projectile, shells aren't propellant.
 

 

[Riccardo Cagnasso]

My two cents having played the game a bit: yes big guns are op.

The most powerful ship at a tech level is basically a hull with the best fire control and the biggest guns that you can fit. The more the merrier but bigger is better than more numerous.

Secondaries are completely useless. Doesn't matter how many you cramp on the ship, they won't hit.

This is, as far as I understand, because the accuracy is calculated mainly by range vs maximum range of the gun.

This is arguably wrong from both historical and gameplay perspective. A much better model would be the accuray mainly given by range vs fire control capability and then the caracteristics of guns modelled as relatively minor bonuses/maluses.

[flyingtaco]

Imagine it depends on the navy... the HTC and a0 rounds on the iowas were pretty similar in dimensions  but the ap only had like 40 pounds of explosive D vs around 140 ir so in the hugh capacity shells.. of course they hollowed out the shell to make room for the explosive so they shattered easier but...