Secondary battery vs Destroyer testing

[RedParadize]

Did some secondary battery vs DD testing. I hoped to keep it brief... Looks like I did not succeed in that. I ended up focusing not only on secondary battery but also on Anti destroyer warfare in general. I did all my test in custom battle with best technology available (1940) and against 4 DD of the same era.

Secondary Battery on big ship VS Destroyer:

I made a BC armed with token main battery and 51x5" guns per sides, a unreasonable amount really. On this test I manually controlled the BC to range where I can kill DDs with the 5" gun.

I could not dodge one of the torpedo salvo. Above 4km secondary barely hit anything. Its only once I got in the 2.5 km range I finally started scoring some hit and killed one of the DDs. However at that point the other DDs were point black and almost ready to fire torpedo again. They did not launch trough. The front DD got damaged and moved to the back of the formation, messing with the other DD path in the process. They did not fire that point on, not until I got them all. I think its due to turret tracking issue, more on that later.

My conclusion is that 5" secondary are marginally useful on BB and BC. They can kill DD, but not before its too late. In term of balance I am fine with that part, Battleship should struggle against DD when unescorted. However at extremely close range secondary battery just do not deliver the firepower that they are capable of.At 0,6km, the dd on the picture should have been obliterated given the hit probability and the amount of gun I had. It took a good 10 salvo to kill it. Basically, its better to rely on the main battery, as in Alpha 2.

Secondary Battery on Cruiser VS Destroyer:

For this test, I made a dedicated DD hunter Heavy Cruiser with a heavy emphasis on secondary battery, a CL basically. At first I tried to leave it under AI control, it did not work, the CA is trying to stay as far as possible of the DD and is permanently running away in the opposite direction. That behavior is different when screening other ship trough, CA will get between target and escorted ship, but too far to have good chance of scoring hit. Doing this the CA is the one being targeted by torpedo and most case scenario will easily avoid them.

When controlling the CA myself to get closer to decent hit chance I started noticing few weird behavior.  The CA did not fire until the target was way closer than guns range. Not sure why. Also, it did not fire at all when turning. At first I trough it was due to turret not being able to turn fast enough, but when I did a sharp turn turrets did not just struggle to track, they started turning away from target. I think there is a weird calculation on where the target will be after the maneuver here. Regardless, at close range ship often do turn after turn guns ends up rarely firing. It also seem that in some case secondary will not fire until all turret of the same caliber in firing arc are aimed. Since secondary are often have very different firing arc it can slow fire rate allot. To make it worst, secondary battery often get the bug where they get stuck in ladder fire. On the image here 3 of the 5 battery are bugged.

At the end, most of the work was done with done by the 8" Main battery. About CA countering DDs, if I did not micro manage the CA at all time it would have been sunk quickly. However UA:D is focused on fleet engagement, not micro managing a single ship. My conclusion is that within a fleet, dedicated DD hunter cruiser are not that great. Specially if it rely heavily on small caliber gun.

Destroyer VS Destroyer

What about countering Destroyer with destroyer? I packed as much gun as I could on a destroyer. AI behavior suffer from the same problem as CA. It turn away and run. So I placed the DD on screen duty. The Screened ship had its gun at off. On the bright side, the DD got focused on and easily dodged all incoming torpedo. That's mostly a exploit, DD should launch their torpedo at battleship, not other DD. On the negative side the DD stay too far from each other and could barely hit and damage each other. I ended up taking control myself. Under 2.5 km DDs start hitting each other and doing some damage. Mine being all guns and armor it was a easy win. even in a 1v4

Overall, it is a valid strategy. DD are cheap. In fact, it is the only strategy that is actually cheaper than what it counter.



Here is the summary of the problem of secondary gun. Some of them are not exclusive to secondary, but affect them more.

Secondary battery issues:

1-Small caliber accuracy is still too low at close range.

2-Secondary often get stuck in ladder fire bug.

3-Secondary turret turn too slowly to track target.

4-Secondary will not fire until all turret of the same caliber in firing arc are aimed.

5-Turret sometimes stop turning during maneuver. (Sometimes it even start turning in opposite direction.)

Edited December 11, 2019 by RedParadize

[captinjoehenry]

I do agree with you.  As it is though I feel 5" secondaries should have a larger effective range than just 2.5km just due to how those types of secondaries functioned in WWII where 5" where common secondaries.

[RAMJB]

4 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Secondary battery issues:

1-Small caliber accuracy is still too low at close range.

2-Secondary often get stuck in ladder fire bug.

3-Secondary turret turn too slowly to track target.

4-Secondary will not fire until all turret of the same caliber in firing arc are aimed.

5-Turret sometimes stop turning during maneuver. (Sometimes it even start turning in opposite direction.)

1- Agree but I think the issue here is not small caliber accuracy. It's the tremendous hit modifier penalties DDs have because of small size and speed. Which are quite logic for long range engagements, but not for point blank ranges. Yet they are weighed the same no matter the range.

2- Never have had that problem in any of my games yet.

3- never found that one either. I've had guns stop firing on sharp turns at very strong rudder inputs, always assumed it was related to the ship's heel angle while turning. Not about traverse at all.

4- Doctrinary principle. Game uses salvo firing, and in salvo firing you wait until your whole salvo is ready. Maybe a "fire at will" option might be implemented to let all guns let loose at whatever they wish, albeit on a hit penalty, might be handy here, because it wasn't uncommon to see something like that on confused short range engagement (thinking mainly guadalcanal engagements and Jutland's night encounters here).

5- never saw something like that.


Some more things:
My conclusion is that 5" secondary are marginally useful on BB and BC. They can kill DD, but not before its too late. In term of balance I am fine with that part, Battleship should struggle against DD when unescorted. 

Secondary guns weren't envisioned to "Kill DDs". They were intended to fend them off, while adding quick firing weapons to riddle enemy big ships superstructures with holes. Of course their role included killing them if possible, but it wasn't not the main goal. The main goal was to keep DDs away and to force them to act at ranges where their torpedoes could be avoided. THey were more of a deterrent and supression tool, than a killer tool.


And that part never changed. It was the same in WW1 as it was in WW2, even with the big improvements in FCS that happened across the way.

- Scharnhorst's array of secondary and main guns wasn't able to fend of the determined attack from a destroyer before it had made good an un-avoidable torpedo launch. Acasta went down after sustaining  numerous secondary hits and after a prolonged engagement only where she was staying and fighting, not once trying to flee.

-Hipper's experience with Glowworm was also representative. Hipper had with her 12 4'' battery, one of the largest secondary batteries on a heavy cruiser. It did hit Glowworm repeatedly but couldn't sink it before it had lodged herself against the hull of the heavy cruiser.

- Bismarck's night action against Vian's destroyers is considered, in general, a good show of german performance because the battleship's secondary battery threat was enough to protect the battleship from the concerted attack of the destroyer force - even if not one of Vian's destroyers was sunk. Of course that was a night action with moved seas (and bismarck wasn't the most stable gun platform ever at that stage given the damage to her rudders) which added to the difficulty of achieving hits, but the action was a german success nonetheless. Bismarck didn't sink any of the enemy destroyers, but avoided being hit in return. The second being the main goal of the secondary battery of a battleship, the result is considered a very good show of the german split secondary battery.


All of these (And more) it gives a good picture of what  a secondary battery was designed to do. Even battleships with the largest secondary arrays in the world at the time (mixed caliber 6'' and 4'' battery, while most treaty nations were trying to push for a single DP battery) had problems with destroyers. And in game you shouldn't expect much more. Even while I'll agree that at short enough (point blank) ranges the hit chance is really, really, really too low due to the hit penalties DDs moving at full speed enjoy.


Yet somehow you're expecting secondaries to be a lot more effective here. Why?.



 On the bright side, the DD got focused on and easily dodged all incoming torpedo. That's mostly a exploit, DD should launch their torpedo at battleship, not other DD. 

What's your source about it?. In every naval engagement where destroyers used torpedoes, those torpedoes were used on whatever  target was close by and the highest threat at the time. From Jutland to the night battles of the Solomons, there's plenty of instances of DD-on-DD torpedo drops, more than often with devastating results for whatever was hit.

If what you want is for your DDs to save their torps for big ships, you can actively force them to - just use the "off" selection in their contextual menu. But don't expect the AI not to use those torpedoes on your small ships - because if given a chance they would in the real world too, without a doubt. And here they do it aswell.



On the negative side the DD stay too far from each other and could barely hit and damage each other. I ended up taking control myself. Under 2.5 km DDs start hitting each other and doing some damage. Mine being all guns and armor it was a easy win. even in a 1v4

While agreeing again that at point blank range DD gunnery should be better (Again, result of the hit penalty modifiers which really should'nt weigh that much so close in), theres once more plenty of instances of DD vs DD actions, in fact much more than BBvsBB, in the dreadnought era and all of them show exceedingly low per-shot hit ratios and very long engagement times: Those kind of battles were usually decided by sheer volume of fire over time, and the results were usually a couple DDs sunk for the losing side at best. Not the anihilation of the "Loser" force by the "winning" one.

And it makes sense - destroyers are exceedingly lively platforms, which move a lot, and usually don't enjoy the kind of FCS refinements, much less the heavy stabilizing gear that made firing from bigger platforms less problematic. Aiming at a small ship moving at high speed beyond anything but point blank while your ship is pitching and rolling like mad even on the slightest of the waves isn't the most easy thing to do - and getting hits is even more complicated.

Again, plenty of engagements to pick from. From the desperate destroyer flotillas engagements during Jutland (specially during the german attempt to relieve Wiesbaden) to night Solomon campaign destroyer engagements there are lots of good instances of DD vs DD fighting - all of them shared a common denominator and that was that even at the rather short ranges involved, hit ratios were tremendously low. It also showed that victory or defeat didn't mean a crushing one for the respective sides: once the action was over the "loser" had not been anihilated and sunk. Rather it had retired, maybe leaving a ship or two sinking behind. Sometimes not even that.

Edited December 11, 2019 by RAMJB

[RedParadize]

@RAMJB The way I mixed secondary battery and Destroyer topic might be confusing. I have the impression you have miss interpreted many of my statement. I feel that in many case you focused on a single sentence and missed the overall point. Anyways I will try to answer what I can and maybe clarify what I think you missed.

 

1 (Small caliber accuracy ) We seem to mostly agree on that one. Your contention point seem to be that in your opinion inaccuracy is mostly due to DD hit penalty. It is a factor for sure, but accuracy is not terribly better vs a light cruiser. Accuracy is still too low in my opinion.

4 (secondary battery volley fire) I do not disregard the doctrine origin of volley fire. For main gun it work fine.  But game mechanic are more dogmatic than humans. The result is that a single weirdly positioned secondary turret entering firing arc will delay all the other. BBs at close range have turret entering and leaving firing arc constantly. Resulting in battery no firing at all.

As for 2, 3 and 5 can be easily reproduced in game reliably. It wont be visible at range, you have to get close to see what I am talking about.

 

Yet somehow you're expecting secondaries to be a lot more effective here. Why? (and all the explanation and example preceding that statement)

I said I am fine with 5" not being able to kill DD before they launch torpedo. You quoted that part, yet somehow answer like if I stated the opposite. If you want to know why I think secondary are under performing... well the very next two sentence you left out of the quote answered your question:

14 hours ago, RedParadize said:

My conclusion is that 5" secondary are marginally useful on BB and BC. They can kill DD, but not before its too late. In term of balance I am fine with that part, Battleship should struggle against DD when unescorted. However at extremely close range secondary battery just do not deliver the firepower that they are capable of.At 0,6km, the dd on the picture should have been obliterated given the hit probability and the amount of gun I had. It took a good 10 salvo to kill it. Basically, its better to rely on the main battery, as in Alpha 2.

There was 51 5" guns firing at least 10 salvo at 15% hit chance at 0.6km. So of the 510 shot fired +-75 hit. Ignoring accuracy, isn't 75 5" hits a bit much against a DD?

About DDs firing torpedo at DDs being a exploit.

You missed the point. The enemy AI, the one not under player control, will always fire at closest enemy. That mean that in a fleet engagement player can effectively counter all the enemy destroyers with a single one. In term of meta, player only need allots of BBs and very few DDs. No need for CA and CL. Don't you see this as a exploit?

 

[RAMJB]

However at extremely close range secondary battery just do not deliver the firepower that they are capable of.

 

I didn't specifically adress this with a quote. But you can see in my previous answer that the first thing I said was:

 

11 hours ago, RAMJB said:

1- Agree but I think the issue here is not small caliber accuracy. It's the tremendous hit modifier penalties DDs have because of small size and speed. Which are quite logic for long range engagements, but not for point blank ranges. Yet they are weighed the same no matter the range.

Basically I'm agreeing with you on that account. At point blank range naval gunnery wasn't conducted through elaborate plotting and salvo spotting. Guns were directly aimed at the target. Whatever bonuses destroyers deserve because of small size and high speed because they make sense in the way fire was conducted beyond point blank, shouldn't be applied with the same ferocity at point blank (they still should exist, but not to the same extreme extent). Hit chances at such short ranges are way too low currently in game as a result of severe hit penalty modifiers that make sense beyond point range being applied with the same severety where they don't make sense, that's something I've agreed upon in that message, and in several other posts in other threads ;).

Also, that doesn't only apply to small guns nor against DDs only - big guns suffer from the same problem, and against all targets that are very close. It's just that the small gun-vs-DD scenario is the one where the problem is most visible and noticeable because the hit chance penalties applied to represent the difficulty of conducting normal plot-and-spot firing against small size and high speed ships as destroyers being so extremely high and applied the same way at a target 15km away than at a target only 1km away. Which shouldn't be the case.
 

So basically the first thing I said in my post is to agree with precisely what you're telling me I didn't adress ;).



As for "triggering DDs to fire torpedoes at something other than your battleship by putting your own DDs in the way"... well, again, this is something that happened in reality, and the main reason torpedo boat and destroyer flotilla torpedo attacks usually weren't called on enemy battlelines if enemy light forces were screening the approach. You'd wait for them to be out enough of position as to make them unable to intercept the force before they could release. Otherwise ordering such an attack usually wasn't done unless the situation was desperate.

Because as an admiral you can order such a charge inferring that your destroyers will "save their torpedoes" for the big guys. But when those destroyers are engaged in a fight to the death with the enemy screening forces, they'll be quite more worried about getting rid of those in any way they can than on saving any torpedoes for the battleships at the cost of their very own skin and ship. Besides, saving a torpedo is worthless if you don't reach the point where you should launch it. If the choice is between saving the torpedo but losing the ship, or not saving the torpedo - the answer is obvious. Accordingly I don't think there was a single case of light forces fighting it out where torpedos were held back at all. And I don't see why they should in this game either ;).

Basically what you perceive as an "exploit" I perceive, based on historical accounts, as the expected outcome of a flotilla being ordered to charge an enemy big warship which is screened by a sizeable force of protecting destroyers that are fast enough to intercept them before reaching the release point  ;).
 

Edited December 11, 2019 by RAMJB

[RedParadize]

I am sorry. But you are doing it again.

[Illya von Einzbern]

To be fair.
DDs should be scared of all ships that has fast firing guns. This was also highlighted in Taimenchi Haras book. During the first engagement while escorted by two Myoko class heavy cruisers.
The DD flotilla was found a formation of light cruisers and DD escorts. The DDs took distance from the light cruisers and fell back so that the CAs could engage the hostile fleet.

It was considered suicidal to have DDs engage CL,CA,BC,BBs due to the massive advantage of guns.
Long lance torpedoes allowed to launch torpedoes from safe distance. Why so? In UltAdmiral it's completely fine to charge formation of ships with guaranteed torpedo strike. The accuracy of secondaries and light guns should be better. Another issue raises from DD vs TP. The accuracy modifiers makes it nearly impossible to hit one another. To be honest you have better chance hitting enemy TP with torpedoes than with guns.

[RAMJB]

17 minutes ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

Long lance torpedoes allowed to launch torpedoes from safe distance. Why so?

The true reasoning?. Because nobody else knew those torpedoes had that reach. The expected big battlefleet encounter of the "decisive battle" doctrine the Japanese patterned their navy around established gunnery faceoffs at long ranges. Ranges at which the enemy (I.E. the americans) would not engage in preventive evasives from those long distances, thus increasing the odds of achieving solid hits with them. Long Lance capabilities were top secret information in the Japanese navy. Nobody out of those in the business of operating them knew their true ranges and speeds - and certainly other navies knew nothing about it, sometimes not even after being subjected to their effects.

Torpedo charges were problematic because if the enemy saw a DD line maneouvering for a torpedo firing position, they'd know what's up and they'd answer accordingly (engaging in preventive maneouvers and changes of course to throw off the chances of any incoming torpedo to hit).

By launching from extreme ranges, the japanese expected a very high hit rate. Even above of whatever odds  they'd had at shorter ranges, as the enemy wouldn't try to avoid what they didn't suspect was coming.

The rationale behind the Long Lance wasn't to avoid getting scared by defensive fire. I mean, who were the ones doing banzai charges and kamikaze attacks during WW2?. Out of any navy of the time, the least you would expect to be affected by the fact that they were focus fired were...the japanese.


Now I'm making an historical remark here to answer that question you asked. I know it was rethorical but it's based on wrong grounds. the Long Lance had the range it had for tactical reasons, not to prevent destroyers being subjected to fire. Because that part they really never didn't care about.

Now, the rest of the navies of course did care about that, and of course crews would be heavily supressed when subjected  to heavy fire. That part is currently not in the game yet. Does it need to be modelled?. Yes it does. Do I expect it to be modelled?. Yes I do.

Supression due to being subjected to enemy fire was a very real effect, and it didn't concern only destroyers. Cruisers and battleships also suffered from it, to the point that in battle if one ship was "clear" of enemy gunfire their gunnery performance was, statistically, proven to be much superior than others that were not (was clearly seen in several stages of the Battle of Jutland, for instance). It was an important factor in naval warfare, and as an immersive simulator I expect UA:D to eventually model them in too


 

Edited December 16, 2019 by RAMJB

[RedParadize]

Torpedo started to out range secondary battery as early as 1900. That was one of the main driver for bigger caliber.

[RAMJB]

29 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Torpedo started to out range secondary battery as early as 1900. That was one of the main driver for bigger caliber.

Hm not sure about that. The british 18'' MK.VII torpedo (Standard at the beginning of WW1 in most british destroyers) had a range of 7000 yards on the "slow" setting... The new 21'' ones that were progressively coming online since 1914 had a top range or around 10.000 yards on slow settings too, still within range of secondary batteries of the time.

Maximum range however is not exactly as the "effective" range. We have the circunstancial proof of Jutland where destroyer flotilla torpedo attacks were ordered and all involved the DDs closing in as much as they could.


More or less to give a proper idea of what the long lance entailed:

A "classic" WWII torpedo, the german G7A had a top range of 14km  at 30 knots on it's longest ranged setting.

A Japanese long lance could reach 40km at 38knots. Or 32km at 42 knots. Or 20km at 50 knots.

They just were in a whole different dimension.

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by RAMJB

[NickCageTheDickMage]

46 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

Hm not sure about that. The british 18'' MK.VII torpedo (Standard at the beginning of WW1 in most british destroyers) had a range of 7000 yards on the "slow" setting... The new 21'' ones that were progressively coming online since 1914 had a top range or around 10.000 yards on slow settings too, still within range of secondary batteries of the time.

Maximum range however is not exactly as the "effective" range. We have the circunstancial proof of Jutland where destroyer flotilla torpedo attacks were ordered and all involved the DDs closing in as much as they could.


More or less to give a proper idea of what the long lance entailed:

A "classic" WWII torpedo, the german G7A had a top range of 14km  at 30 knots on it's longest ranged setting.

A Japanese long lance could reach 40km at 38knots. Or 32km at 42 knots. Or 20km at 50 knots.

They just were in a whole different dimension.

 

You probably have way more knowledge on this than me, but weren't long lances incredibly volatile and prone to destroying the ship if they were hit?

[akd]

Straight from Wikipedia:

Quote

A disadvantage of the Type 93 was that it was far more likely to detonate due to shock than a compressed-air torpedo. The explosion from one Type 93, with its heavy warhead, was usually enough to sink the destroyer, or heavily damage the cruiser, carrying it. As American air strikes against IJN ships became more common, captains of destroyers and cruisers under air attack had to decide whether or not to jettison torpedoes to prevent them from being detonated during the attack. In one instance, the heavy cruiser Chikuma jettisoned her Type 93s just before being hit by bombs from several USN dive bombers at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. During the Battle off Samar (in the eastern Philippines) a five-inch (127 mm) shell from escort carrier USS White Plains^[6] struck the heavy cruiser Chōkai which detonated the cruiser's Type 93 torpedoes, disabling her rudder and engines; she was scuttled the next day (while in most circumstances a five-inch shell would not penetrate a cruiser's armored deck nor cause serious damage). The same Samar engagement saw heavy cruiser Suzuya sunk by the detonation of her own Type 93 torpedoes: a bomb near miss starboard amidships set off the torpedoes in the starboard tube mounts; the resultant fires propagated to other torpedoes nearby and beyond; the subsequent explosions damaged one of the boilers and the starboard engine rooms and eventually reached the main magazines.

 

[RAMJB]

3 hours ago, NickCageTheDickMage said:

You probably have way more knowledge on this than me, but weren't long lances incredibly volatile and prone to destroying the ship if they were hit?

yup, but what I was pointing out is that Long Lances had enough range not only to stay out of secondary range.

damned things could be launched from 40km. That's beyond MAIN battery range for a BB
 
As for their explosiveness go, I already made mention of it in another thread where someone was talking about massing torpedo launchers on a warship... not only LLs went off, all torpedoes were vulnerable to that. You had very big warheads in the middle of the deck, for crying out loud. Long Lances were even more dangerous on top of that because of the pure oxygen they used. Talk about a highly flammable material...

[Reaper Jack]

6 hours ago, akd said:

Straight from Wikipedia:

 

It has been proven by Petrel's dive on Chokai that her torpedoes did not detonate the ship, rather that the sealed oxygen generator possibly contributed to spreading fires faster. That's it. She was sunk by other means (magazine detonation I believe, not torpedo detonation.) 

The only Japanese shipwreck studied that has been 100% confirmed to have been destroyed by it's Type 93's detonating is the Akizuki. 

They were more volatile for sure, and I have little knowledge of detonations that did not sink their respective ships, but as far as we know they were a contributing cause to losses, not a leading one. 

[disc]

9 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Torpedo started to out range secondary battery as early as 1900. That was one of the main driver for bigger caliber.

This is exactly correct.

 

One of the prime reasons for going to all-big-gun ships was a fear of torpedoes.

Although guns could be terribly destructive, they had limited ability to actually sink a ship, as it was hard to destroy a vessel's buoyancy. A torpedo, on the other hand, would cause tremendous underwater damage and conceivably could sink even a battleship with just one hit (see HMS Audacious, lost to a single mine).

Torpedoes were considered a powerful threat, but they were very inaccurate in the early years. This changed in 1896, when gyros were introduced. Suddenly torpedoes could remain accurate out to a thousand yards, and the danger grew. For example, the 1897 gyro-equipped 14in Japanese Type 30 could travel 800m at 24 knots -- dangerous, but still short-ranged, and avoidable. But torpedoes began to get larger, and with greater size came greater range. The 18in version of the Type 30 could travel 1000m at 27 knots, carrying twice the warhead weight (100kg vs 50kg). 

Most torpedoes before 1900 ran off of compressed air. In 1901, heaters were introduced; this increased range to alarming levels. Japan's 1905 Type 38 No.2B could reach 4000m at 23 knots. By 1911, the 18in Type 44 No.2 could reach 8000m, and the 21in Type 44 could reach 10000m. 

Mind that this was a fear less of torpedo boats and destroyers, but rather long-range torpedoes fired by an opposing fleet's battleships. A force attacking a battleline would not need remarkable accuracy to make hits. If firing at the center of a line formation, at least some of the shots "into the brown" (as in duck hunting) would probably hit targets. Since any one torpedo could be devastating, a fleet would be in serious danger.

This is why the Royal Navy invented fire control. Starting with Dumaresqs and range-clocks, progressively more advanced devices were implemented specifically to allow engagements outside of increasing torpedo ranges. With increasing range, smaller "secondary" guns like the US 8-in progressively lost value, while big guns remained powerful. Thus a ship like Dreadnought makes a lot of sense. With the large number of 12-in guns on Dreadnought, local control was insufficient: the Royal Navy invented the modern director, which would control all guns at range. Battle charting became important to track one's own fire and the movements of ships. [Most other navies basically leached off of the Royal Navy's ideas (and those of its erstwhile employee, Arthur Pollen), to the extent that Norman Friedman posits that German WWII fire-control was British in origins.]

On the other hand, until larger destroyers appeared, it was considered unlikely that torpedo boats and destroyers would form part of a battlefleet. Instead, they would attack at night, especially the night after the daylight battlefleet clash, as occurred in the Russo-Japanese War. For the quick actions this entailed, small, handy guns would be needed to drive back torpedo-vessels closing to point blank range: the motto of the Japanese destroyer force was "press closely, strike home."

Thus, on Dreadnought, we see 3in guns atop the turrets. In these high places, they would have excellent command for quick actions against destroyers suddenly appearing in the darkness. However, they would be exposed to extreme blast and were unprotected. At first, this was not considered an issue. Destroyers would not be present at the big daylight gun-duel, so these guns would be unmanned then. This changed, as Royal Navy fears of daylight attacks increased. Then we see bigger 6in guns return, to fight off destroyers and cruisers closing for ancillary attacks during the daylight battle.

[The Fundamentalist]

On 12/10/2019 at 7:56 PM, RedParadize said:

 

 

I'm not saying you don't have some solid points, but you're conducting shooting 'tests' at flank speed. I think that's a significant flaw in your theory of accuracy, as there are plenty of reasons a vessel operating at its max capable speed should be incapable of hitting anything. 

I've found that at cruise, 5" and 6" guns will cripple Destroyers at about the range they can launch torpedoes, even while maneuvering.