Long list of issues (Please read)

[Admiral Lütjens]

he update was very robust But really the British are far behind on trunk a King George V , its body such that , its class has guns but no body  , ı did not find the problem in the update but ı really want to give us suggestions , should come in scharnhorst class and its guns or deuschland class , to russian ships class maybe vladivostok or lenin... And ı know it will be a very annoying question but ı have to ask , a little crazy but if we had a continuation option we  won the game , if we left the match like that ıts enjoyable to watch the ship sink :DDD and the sinking animations of ship should increase capsizing ,split in two specially deadly ammo detenation and need animation the rangefinders , propallers and rudders maybe ı've said this to many times  maybe ı'm tired you too but still ı love the things you do and your game  GOOD LUCK

[Admiral Daniel]

I sincerely advised the UAD could be easily modding,I wonder if your team ever heard the Kerbal Space Program,a game which made in UNITY too,and very easy for modding,a game witch able to modding can significant increase the lifetime of it,I know that most files of UAD has encrypted,but could you protect your core codes but make the models and some files about gameplay able to be change or replace?Or create a external folder for save mods?

I believe there will be many lively contect maker to build a community which full of vigor!

[Steeltrap]

Issue: AI SHIP DESIGNS

@SonicB started a thread which is both entertaining but with some serious points behind it, too.

Clown Car Thread (LOL)

I posted something in there, so thought I'd make the same points here.

I've often wondered at the accuracy penalties some of the AI monstrosities must have from smoke interference, pitch/roll and longitudinal weight imbalances.

Which got me thinking about the AI design parameters. As I've said so many times (yeah, I know I repeat myself), my own professional experience in process design has taught me it's just as vital to have a list of "must NOT" conditions as it is to have the "must" ones.

Some examples inspired by designs in that thread might include:

• Must not place a barbette without a turret.
• Must not place a funnel ahead of the main tower.
• Must not place a main armament super-firing over a secondary mount.
• Must not produce accuracy penalties greater than 'x' in any specific aspect OR greater than 'y' in total. I think this is something the devs might want to experiment with ASAP.
• Must not place extra guns that grossly reduce the firing arcs of existing ones.

It's far more efficient to have a broadside of 10 secondary guns through 5 twin mounts with as good arcs of fire as possible rather than placing 10 twin mounts because they're so close together you need 2 mounts to cover the arc of fire a single one could achieve. I make a point of having as few mounts as possible necessary to achieve the firepower I want, and that means having each with the best arcs of fire to achieve that. Same applies for main guns, obviously. I say that because while it's obvious to us as players, it clearly ISN'T obvious to the AI as is.

• Must provide armour sufficient to meet the requirements of an intended combat role in the campaign, where the durability ought to reflect the degree of financial and resource commitment building the ship represents.

I've noticed the AI tends to build glass cannons. Rather frustrating to face them in a scenario when you consider that they'd be utterly disastrous for the AI in a campaign if a better balanced design can defeat them despite their firepower (especially in light of the issue of gunnery penalties I've mentioned above). In which case I'd suggest there ought to be a minimum armour factor, too. Just as happened with BC v BB, it's fine to have a more lightly armoured version of something with greater speed provided it's at least armoured against likely CA firepower AND the AI has the brains to run away from "proper" BBs that are going to punch holes wherever it hits and from any range. Right now the AI doesn't, although of course in part that's because of the restricted scenario or random battle world we live in.

 

To summarise, I'd suggest at some point some greater constraints ought to be put on the AI's designs. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. Ships armed to the teeth with next to no armour are possible but not a great plan if they're the ONLY things you build, for example. Same goes with considerations of the various gunnery penalties you can stack up.

I'm sure it's something that's being worked on in the background, so my purpose is simply to throw in some thoughts that I think might be useful for "campaign AI" in particular. The game will be pretty pointless if the AI keeps making ships that "don't work" if it's also limited to the same budgets and other constraints as we are, and we know Nick has said he doesn't design AI with "cheats" such as we see all the time in the Total War franchise for example.

Anyone got other rules to add? I don't pretend this to be an exhaustive list by any means, more illustrations of a general principle with some amusing and/or serious examples.

Cheers

Edited November 24, 2020 by Steeltrap
Emphasised purpose, Made clear statement about being sure Nick and co are working on AI ship design constantly.

[madham82]

 

Visibility Concern: Radar

So while playing a test battle the other day, I noticed something strange. Both my and AI ships were equipped with Radar (gen 1 for me, 2 for AI). I had a single BC against 2 DDs. Two observations:

1. I detected the DDs first quite a bit further than the AI detected me. You can see the time difference in the logs on my screen linked. 

2. The range we detected each other is extremely close IMO, especially when you see the weather conditions, about 15kms when I detected the first DD. 

Does that range for a radar detection (or even a visual) seem a bit low to anyone else? With perfect weather conditions, I would have figured a spotting range closer to 20KMs or more. Also seems a bit strange for me to detect the DDs first being the larger ship with earlier radar as well. I know it has been discussed before about ships with taller mast should have greater spotting range, but don't remember the game handling it that way. 

1st screens shows range, 2nd weather conditions.

 

[Masonator]

On 11/25/2020 at 5:24 PM, madham82 said:

 

Visibility Concern: Radar

So while playing a test battle the other day, I noticed something strange. Both my and AI ships were equipped with Radar (gen 1 for me, 2 for AI). I had a single BC against 2 DDs. Two observations:

1. I detected the DDs first quite a bit further than the AI detected me. You can see the time difference in the logs on my screen linked. 

2. The range we detected each other is extremely close IMO, especially when you see the weather conditions, about 15kms when I detected the first DD. 

Does that range for a radar detection (or even a visual) seem a bit low to anyone else? With perfect weather conditions, I would have figured a spotting range closer to 20KMs or more. Also seems a bit strange for me to detect the DDs first being the larger ship with earlier radar as well. I know it has been discussed before about ships with taller mast should have greater spotting range, but don't remember the game handling it that way. 

1st screens shows range, 2nd weather conditions.

 

Your radar set is older, and has a lower range - but it's mounted higher up relative to the water, so it's less affected by the weather conditions and can see further over the horizon. Conversely, the destroyers' radar is newer and thus has a longer range, but is also mounted much closer to the surface relative to your own array, and thus suffers from weather occlusion, sea scatter, and the horizon obscuring the return. All of which affects your equipment to a much lesser degree, due to its mounting position high on the tall mast of an already quite tall warship.

You can see this effect historically during the Pacific Campaign of WWII - older carriers and Standard-class battleships frequently detected incoming Japanese aircraft long before their escorting destroyers did, even though their radar equipment was outdated by 1942. They could simply see significantly further out than the destroyers could because their radar emitters were mounted significantly higher off the surface.

I don't see anything wrong with this. This is the way it's supposed to work.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Masonator

[Mindstrip]

11 hours ago, Masonator said:

". . . it's mounted higher up relative to the water, so it's less affected by the weather conditions and can see further over the horizon and thus suffers from weather occlusion, sea scatter, and the horizon obscuring the return."

(Abridged version)
I feel like this is giving the game waaay too much credit than it deserves as I'm pretty sure the game doesn't take these factors into consideration.
Now, I've not looked at the code nor am I really that qualified to say for certain. Though, I'd gladly be proven wrong.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Mindstrip
how-to-words

[madham82]

3 hours ago, Mindstrip said:

(Abridged version)
I feel like this is giving the game waaay too much credit than it deserves as I'm pretty sure the game doesn't take these factors into consideration.
Now, I've not looked at the code nor am I really that qualified to say for certain. Though, I'd gladly be proven wrong.

Agreed. I've seen no evidence the game has that level of sophistication. In fact I've seen several examples by multiple people of DDs sneaking to close range on a capital ship. Which is completely contrary to the concept of mast height/visibility. 

[Cptbarney]

3 hours ago, madham82 said:

Agreed. I've seen no evidence the game has that level of sophistication. In fact I've seen several examples by multiple people of DDs sneaking to close range on a capital ship. Which is completely contrary to the concept of mast height/visibility. 

Hopefully they fix these issues, would be nice to have as mechanics in-general.

[gamerfromspace]

IM pretty sure the guns are not overlapping, and i really think it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Bigjku]

Ok we need to talk about some things that aren't modeled right as far as I can tell.

Range and Probability of Hit

As best I can tell hit probability is driven by some percentage of the range of the gun in question.  This leads to a HUGE advantage at range for the stupidly heavy guns (which is another gripe in that they aren't modeled right for weight as ships easily carry a dozen 20 inch guns at times) against the regular heavy guns.  This isn't really accurate to what is driving this equation.  It should be a function of fire control capability.

For example the Yamato technically has more range than an Iowa.  However the Iowa is generally expected to hit before the Yamato because it has better fire control technology (not just spotting technology but better fire control).  Regardless once you get within extreme range of the Iowa I don't think it has any less chance to make hits than does the Yamato.

I would suggest that you allocate fire control combo a maximum effective range and then dial down the hit probabilities from there rather than what I think you do which is raise the hit percentage as you use a lower percentage of the guns total range.  Yes an 18 inch gun should be slightly more powerful than a 16 inch one.  But it shouldn't accumulate more hits at the range over which both can fire and right now it does, generally by quite a bit as you close down that range.

Rate of Fire and Auto Loading

You shouldn't apply auto-loader technology to guns above 8 inches.  And historically that wasn't even done until the mid 1940's.  In general it just shouldn't even be an option.  I am unsure what semi-auto means but I personally think that should just apply to cruiser sized guns (8 inches) and down.  In my head it means using semi-fixed (ie non-bagged and fed as one piece).

[Masonator]

Semi-auto means exactly what it says in the description. Mechanical devices assist the gun crew in loading, but still require human input.

An example of semi-automatic guns would be the Iowa-class, seen here. As you can see, the shell hoists and ram are powered mechanical devices, but the actual powder bags and projectile are handled at some point in the process by human crewmen to get them to the gun breech. A fully automatic loading mechanism would dispense with the loading crew entirely and complete the entire process with automated equipment (eg, a shell carousel for the projectiles, dispensers for the charge bags, etc). I don't believe such a system was ever used in practice by a battleship-grade weapon, but they most definitely existed for smaller guns.

Totally agree that weapons ≥8" should be restricted to semi-auto at best, however reload times for capital ship guns need a buff across the board. The Royal Navy BL 15"/42 Mk.I (the guns used aboard the Queen Elizabeths, Revenges, Renowns, Hood, and Vanguard) had a practical - not maximum, but practical, ie sustained - rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute, or a reload time per-gun of ~30 seconds, depending on the specific mounting in question. Vanguard's MkI(N) mounts and Hood's MkII mounts reloaded in 32 seconds, while all MkI and MkI* mounts reloaded in 36 (Jane's).

In-game, the only way to achieve this is with Light or Standard shells and Auto-loading, which is completely nonrepresentative of the historical design and capabilities of the guns in question. Until the USN 16"/45 entered service in the early 1920s, the 15" AP shell was the heaviest shell of any capital ship gun in the world, and the shell weights and velocities as depicted in-game roughly correspond to Heavy shells (as it should). The in-game Mark 3+ guns should thus be able to manage around 30 seconds per salvo with Heavy shells, while guns ≤Mark II should reload in around 35. These numbers simply cannot be achieved in-game even with autoloaders, let alone with Semi-Auto as it should historically be.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Masonator

[Bigjku]

3 hours ago, Masonator said:

Semi-auto means exactly what it says in the description. Mechanical devices assist the gun crew in loading, but still require human input.

An example of semi-automatic guns would be the Iowa-class, seen here. As you can see, the shell hoists and ram are powered mechanical devices, but the actual powder bags and projectile are handled at some point in the process by human crewmen to get them to the gun breech. A fully automatic loading mechanism would dispense with the loading crew entirely and complete the entire process with automated equipment (eg, a shell carousel for the projectiles, dispensers for the charge bags, etc). I don't believe such a system was ever used in practice by a battleship-grade weapon, but they most definitely existed for smaller guns.

Totally agree that weapons ≥8" should be restricted to semi-auto at best, however reload times for capital ship guns need a buff across the board. The Royal Navy BL 15"/42 Mk.I (the guns used aboard the Queen Elizabeths, Revenges, Renowns, Hood, and Vanguard) had a practical - not maximum, but practical, ie sustained - rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute, or a reload time per-gun of ~30 seconds, depending on the specific mounting in question. Vanguard's MkI(N) mounts and Hood's MkII mounts reloaded in 32 seconds, while all MkI and MkI* mounts reloaded in 36 (Jane's).

In-game, the only way to achieve this is with Light or Standard shells and Auto-loading, which is completely nonrepresentative of the historical design and capabilities of the guns in question. Until the USN 16"/45 entered service in the early 1920s, the 15" AP shell was the heaviest shell of any capital ship gun in the world, and the shell weights and velocities as depicted in-game roughly correspond to Heavy shells (as it should). The in-game Mark 3+ guns should thus be able to manage around 30 seconds per salvo with Heavy shells, while guns ≤Mark II should reload in around 35. These numbers simply cannot be achieved in-game even with autoloaders, let alone with Semi-Auto as it should historically be.

The me semi-auto should be semi-fixed (separate) shells really given the time periods they are working with.  I think they just blew the research here.

You basically should have the following reloading capabilities for gun types in this era (excluding the smallest of guns the system offers of like 2 inches)

Unassisted-  Shell and Bags are moved by hand, slowest

Assisted-  Machine Assisted Hoist and Ramming, shells are still bagged, faster than unassisted and doesn't slow down as quickly over time.

Semi-Fixed Ammunition-  This is the critical distinction for mid-sized cruiser guns and is super important.  Ammunition is two pieces (shell and propellant) rather than shell and multiple bags.  Rate of Fire goes up about 40% 

Automatic-  The only large caliber I am aware of that did this was the USN 8 inch mount on the Des Moines.  For the purposes of this game this really doesn't exist as that was mid 1940's tech.  The USN also had automated their 3 inch guns by the late war period but again that doesn't seem relevant here.

 

Here is why it is so important to get the rates of fire right.  The game doesn't really model how dangerous a higher end light cruiser could be to a battleship.  So the game has battleship gun rate of fire about right at 1-2 RPM but it has 6 inch guns in the late period way way too slow.  A Semi-Fixed 6 inch guns should sustain rates of fire around 8-10 rounds per minute.  The game has them around 4 and you have to go to full auto to go to 5.  My 5 inch guns are coming in at like 7 RPM for the USN in 1940.  They should be around 20.  The rate of fire on a bagged 8 inch gun seems to be about right at 3.5 rounds per minute in the game.

 

The only real value the secondary units have because of this is as torpedo carriers.  Indeed historically one might note the USN bought a lot more 6 inch guns cruisers during the war than they did 8 inch gunned ones.  In a gun fight they were just more useful because they could use semi-fixed ammo and thus had twice or more the rate of fire of the 8 inch ships.

 

My guidelines for rates of fire would be along these lines in 1930/40 units.

Bagged Guns (top out at Mechanically Assissted)

17 inch plus:  1-1.5 RPM

14-16 inch:  1.50-2 RPM

11-13 inch:  2.5-3.5 RPM

8-10 inch:  3-4.5 RPM

7-9 Inch (Bagged):  4 RPM

6 Inch (Bagged):  5 RPM

 

Semi-Fixed Guns

6 Inch:  8-10 RPM

5 Inch:  18-22 RPM

4 Inch and Down:  20-24 RPM

 

This would greatly enhance the value of the mid-sized units in the game.  In reality it was very dangerous in WW2 to let a 6 inch cruiser close to effective range against your battleship.

Just my thoughts.

[Bigjku]

Also can we discuss the amount of torpedoes that destroyers carry?  Reloads were almost as much as adding another launcher really.  There is really only one nation that carried reloads for deck launched torps and that was Japan (maybe the USSR tried it).

I have seen some ships listed at time as carrying 40 torpedoes.  A single 5 torpedo launcher in the game with an expanded magazine carries 3 full reloads.  I am not even sure of the mechanics of doing that at sea.

I would suggest looking at photos of Japanese destroyers that carried reloads.  The torpedo launchers are in the middle and the dark grey tubes are where the reloads are.  One reload.  Almost no one else bothered and Japanese ships suffered horribly for doing this (basically the whole middle of the ship was a bomb waiting to go off).

Torpedoes with reloads should be a launcher that takes up additional deck space.  They should take roughly twice as much deck space and weight should go up by 80% or so.  The resulting components should be very vulnerable to fire and explosion as well.  But the big compromise is you simply have very little deck space left if you do it on a destroyer.

[Bigjku]

Formation Transitions

Going from line to abreast (ie turning in a destroyer column for a torpedo attack) the units try to form with the flagship in the middle.  In reality you would take the shortest path to the assigned formation if you turn.

Because usually what I want to do is swing out of a line on one side of my battle line and attack in line abreast.  So I am executing a left turn and changing formation.  In this case the flagships station is on the far right of the line abreast formation.  Stop trying to have units rush from one side of this formation to the other.

 

Torpedo Attacks

I would really suggest automated logic for a torpedo attack where the units in question can be assigned to attack a particular ship or formation and they close to range (based on settings for how close they get) and deliver the attack.  Then make smoke and turn away.  Right now its kind of a cluster to get them to actually launch their torpedoes in a coordinated manner.

[Steeltrap]

19 hours ago, Bigjku said:

In reality it was very dangerous in WW2 to let a 6 inch cruiser close to effective range against your battleship.

Interesting. Could you provide examples/evidence of this?

[jokash]

Quote

19 hours ago, Bigjku said:

Also can we discuss the amount of torpedoes that destroyers carry?  Reloads were almost as much as adding another launcher really.  There is really only one nation that carried reloads for deck launched torps and that was Japan (maybe the USSR tried it).

I have seen some ships listed at time as carrying 40 torpedoes.  A single 5 torpedo launcher in the game with an expanded magazine carries 3 full reloads.  I am not even sure of the mechanics of doing that at sea.

I would suggest looking at photos of Japanese destroyers that carried reloads.  The torpedo launchers are in the middle and the dark grey tubes are where the reloads are.  One reload.  Almost no one else bothered and Japanese ships suffered horribly for doing this (basically the whole middle of the ship was a bomb waiting to go off).

Torpedoes with reloads should be a launcher that takes up additional deck space.  They should take roughly twice as much deck space and weight should go up by 80% or so.  The resulting components should be very vulnerable to fire and explosion as well.  But the big compromise is you simply have very little deck space left if you do it on a destroyer.

This definitely bothers me,if we gonna put reloads on destroyers than they have to be mounted somewhere like a secondary gun or something.And the further away from launcher to slower the reload should be.

 

[Bigjku]

3 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Interesting. Could you provide examples/evidence of this?

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal - Wikipedia

The Hiei was battered to a huge mess by mostly 5 inch guns at close range.

You can look to some other engagements as well.  USN cruisers did terrible damage with 6 and 8 inch guns at Surigao Straight.  Where battleships fired 220ish shells the cruisers put out well over 2,000 shells.

[madham82]

On 1/16/2021 at 3:45 PM, Bigjku said:

Also can we discuss the amount of torpedoes that destroyers carry?  Reloads were almost as much as adding another launcher really.  There is really only one nation that carried reloads for deck launched torps and that was Japan (maybe the USSR tried it).

I have seen some ships listed at time as carrying 40 torpedoes.  A single 5 torpedo launcher in the game with an expanded magazine carries 3 full reloads.  I am not even sure of the mechanics of doing that at sea.

I would suggest looking at photos of Japanese destroyers that carried reloads.  The torpedo launchers are in the middle and the dark grey tubes are where the reloads are.  One reload.  Almost no one else bothered and Japanese ships suffered horribly for doing this (basically the whole middle of the ship was a bomb waiting to go off).

Torpedoes with reloads should be a launcher that takes up additional deck space.  They should take roughly twice as much deck space and weight should go up by 80% or so.  The resulting components should be very vulnerable to fire and explosion as well.  But the big compromise is you simply have very little deck space left if you do it on a destroyer.

I know I have personally beat this topic to death a few times. It used to be worse. Search the treads I've created on the topic. Bottom line we agree, reloads should be expensive in all aspects and dangerous..and most definitely not occur when under fire. 

At the same time torpedo damage and protection are out of whack at high levels. So right now we have a sort of play balanced setup that's neither realistic or fun IMO. 

1 hour ago, Bigjku said:

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal - Wikipedia

The Hiei was battered to a huge mess by mostly 5 inch guns at close range.

You can look to some other engagements as well.  USN cruisers did terrible damage with 6 and 8 inch guns at Surigao Straight.  Where battleships fired 220ish shells the cruisers put out well over 2,000 shells.

Hiei is not a true battleship. It is essentially a battlecruiser like Renown/Repluse. The armor at the max is 8", but that is not the full length of the ship either. So you should actually view them like a 6" gun versus a period heavy cruiser in terms of performance. 

[Bigjku]

1 hour ago, madham82 said:

I know I have personally beat this topic to death a few times. It used to be worse. Search the treads I've created on the topic. Bottom line we agree, reloads should be expensive in all aspects and dangerous..and most definitely not occur when under fire. 

At the same time torpedo damage and protection are out of whack at high levels. So right now we have a sort of play balanced setup that's neither realistic or fun IMO. 

Hiei is not a true battleship. It is essentially a battlecruiser like Renown/Repluse. The armor at the max is 8", but that is not the full length of the ship either. So you should actually view them like a 6" gun versus a period heavy cruiser in terms of performance. 

Oh I agree one what Hiei was.  But I still wouldn't want to sit in any battleship and take a pounding from say a Brooklyn at 12,000 yards.  That's 150 shells a minute coming at you until you kill them.  Its going to break a lot of stuff.

[Durham Dave]

Was reading Neptune's Inferno. At close enough ranges, upperworks will be wrecked, fires started and crew mangled even by light guns. You might not be in danger of sinking and your main armament will still be in action, but the ability to fight the ship will have taken a massive hit, especially as regards to fire control. A battleship will have the ability to mangle a cruiser before that if given the opportunity, but the night actions around Guadalcanal showed what happens if the action starts close, at least for ships at the end of our time period. It's not good for anyone. 

[Cpt.Hissy]

it's Universal law of spam.
It says: no matter what it is, if you have big enough numbers of it, it'll overwhelm everything that doesn't have those numbers.

If battleship grade big booms could spew out 20 rounds per minute, no cruiser would exist. But they can't. And small cannons can do hundreds. Now look at modern navy armament)

[coalminer]

On 1/18/2021 at 9:06 PM, Cpt.Hissy said:

it's Universal law of spam.
It says: no matter what it is, if you have big enough numbers of it, it'll overwhelm everything that doesn't have those numbers.

If battleship grade big booms could spew out 20 rounds per minute, no cruiser would exist. But they can't. And small cannons can do hundreds. Now look at modern navy armament)

Not quite true on this, a 20RPM BB gun could probably reach 45km with ~800kg shell and a traditional gun requires about 1700tonnes for triple mounts (taking 16" mk7 as an example). Assuming a modern system is available (the RF 8" guns were about 78 - 500 tonnes, randomly plopping a number in between for the theoretical single mount 20RPM BB gun would give about 1000 tonnes (+ some ready use ammo). 1000 tonnes is about 10% of the weight of an Arleigh Burke and almost 1/5 the weight of most contemporary destroyers. A platform built to handle this gun would likely be atleast >15k tonnes. 

A modern 5" gun does 30-80km with ~30kg shells coming in at about 30 tonnes for the single gun mount.

A harpoon does 310km with ~140kg warhead and 600kg for a navalised box launcher.

Without going into the maths, a small corvette sized vessel would likely be able to mission kill any vessel designed around the 20RPM BB sized gun just given the target size of things and range difference between the missile system and the gun system. And just as similarly, spamming a bunch of missiles would likely overwhelm any defense systems (or atleast thats what the current naval doctrines seems to lean towards). In this sense in the case of a first hit scenario, neither platforms are likely able to survive (or atleast remain mission capable) hence, a smaller cheaper and lighter armed vessels augmented with missiles would make the most economical and strategic (simply due to volume) sense.

The lethality, first hit probability and weight of missiles simply made large surface vessels obsolete (that is not accounting for airborne and underwater threats). it was simply combining lethality, survivability and mobility (range + speed) into the most logically sized platform (similar to how super heavy tanks gave way to compromised balanced MBT designs).

Large naval assets without the ability to reach out and touch targets and staying out of harms way are probably not going to be viable unless deployed within fleets designed to try to address such vulnerabilities (A CV/CVN is slightly more complex in the sense the airwing gives air cover, strike capabilities, C4 and ASW vs shore bombardment only role of a BB). Active ways of damaging things is probably ahead and still will be ahead of any form of passive or active defense systems for the near future.

OK Im just too bored at work and just decided to ramble on for abit.

Disclaimer: non of the above should be cited, these are numbers plucked off readily available public sources or made up for the purpose of discussion.

Edited January 21, 2021 by coalminer

[Cpt.Hissy]

Well that's a good analysis, yes.
but, not quite sure on what?

[madham82]

1 hour ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Well that's a good analysis, yes.
but, not quite sure on what?

Short answer, modern ships usually use only one or two guns because the reality is they are useless except in non-traditional engagements (i.e. plinking Iranian speedboats in the Gulf). It has nothing to do with their ROF. The missile is the preeminent weapon system.

[Steeltrap]

On 1/18/2021 at 9:17 AM, Bigjku said:

Oh I agree one what Hiei was.  But I still wouldn't want to sit in any battleship and take a pounding from say a Brooklyn at 12,000 yards.  That's 150 shells a minute coming at you until you kill them.  Its going to break a lot of stuff.

I have no disagreement with that.

What I DO dispute is the idea that spamming a crap ton of 6" shells is going to SINK a BB or indeed even disable it.

"Breaking lots of stuff" is NOT the same as "very dangerous", or at least not in my book. That also raises the issue of that BB having, in the case of the USN BBs of WW2, typically 8-10 pretty rapid firing 5" guns of their own on each side. If the Brooklyn is at 12,000 yards, it's going to get a pretty impressive barrage in return, and that's before considering the main battery.

Against the much more lightly armoured ships, which is more or less anything NOT a BB for these purposes, it's entirely right that the 5" and 6" armaments were chosen as it was decided the rate of fire, not to mention potential dual purpose abilities, meant they were likely to be MORE effective in more circumstances than an 8" armament.

That proved a correct assessment, although one might argue the unusual (in the sense of gun v gun action) Battle of the River Plate DID show that the bigger guns DID prove decisive in terms of destructive power over the massed 6" from the 2 RN CLs.

In general I agree with most if not all of your posts here, which to some degree isn't a surprise given I (and others) have raised pretty much all the same things in the past year or more, LOL.

Secondary grade guns, however, GENERALLY do not have a great record against BBs. In WW1 their accuracy was abysmal, and their impact when they DID hit pretty minimal. In WW2 they did well against lightly armoured targets, exactly as was predicted. I certainly wouldn't want a Brooklyn firing at me, either.

Yet for all that, I think the effectiveness of such weapons against a modern BB is still questionable, at least with respect to being a danger to its survival and even ability to fire even if the accuracy will suffer. Bear in mind an Iowa's plot stations are WITHIN the armoured citadel, thus below the main armour deck (and I think the splinter deck below that was the roof of the main gunnery director station).  

The case of USS South Dakota is one I raised along with the damage report as it was largely contrary to the general idea of spam shells = dangerous to a BB. Depends on what we want to consider "dangerous", I suppose, yet the specifics of SoDak's Captain's conclusions are also part of official record. Interestingly, one thing that came from that was the point that the heavily armoured conning tower ought NOT be dispensed with (as the RN later did) as he felt, from memory, it proved vital for the survival of the command crew in that station. Compare that with what happened on HMS Prince of Wales when a 15" shell from Bismarck performed what was essentially a "through and through" over-pen. The concussion and splinters from it smashing its way through killed everyone other than the captain, and he was wounded. Somewhat infamously, blood poured down the voice tubes onto plotting tables etc a few decks down. Had they been in the conning tower, however, they'd almost certainly have been safe if a bit concussed, given the captain was able to give commands very soon after that hit so clearly the concussion from the shell's passage wasn't necessarily fatal, which means in many cases it was the splinters thrown off as it crashed through that was mainly responsible for widespread death. Being in an armoured conning tower would have been effective against the shock and splinters.

Bismarck, of course, is probably the poster child for excessive pummelling by naval weapons. Apart from her loss of mobility being the ultimate root cause of her demise, the real problem was that her main guns were all knocked out within 30 minutes from memory. Her conning tower ultimately was penetrated by at least one 16" shell, too, which of course killed pretty much everyone

Blasting the upper works to wreckage is bad for the crew, but really only for those stationed there. The vast majority of a 'modern fast' BB's crew were NOT in unarmoured locations.

With respect to fire control, it's a mixed picture as to likely effects of hitting something like an Iowa class for example. It has 3 main "spot" positions, the main one atop the superstructure tower (equivalent of 12 decks up from the main deck), a second one aft of the second funnel, and a 3rd built in the top level of the conning tower. Main plot is on 4th deck, INSIDE the citadel, so that's the de-capping deck, the main armour deck below that, then the splinter deck below that. You're not getting to that in a hurry with anything, let alone 5-6" shells. Even if the main director, spot 1, and the aft spot 2 were KO'd, there's still spot 3 behind 17.5" of armour I believe. Yes, the loss of the radar or greater sophistication of the main 2 directors hurts, but it's still not enough to take out the main fire control (and even spot 3 had a rangefinder radar atop the conning tower). In the case of the Iowa class, the secondary/AA directors could, if required, spot for the main guns. Again, not as well, but they can. And ALL those systems feed down to the main fire control station where the real fire control mechanisms are. If you're interested, here's a fun video from the USS New Jersey's channel; the curator puts out all sorts of great stuff, I highly recommend it:

Well that's a typically rambling walloftext from me, lol. In short?

I agree it would not be great being down range of something like a Brooklyn, or the RN's Town Class CLs with their 12x6"/152mm and 12x4"/102mm DP guns. At the same time, if I had to choose being on one of those shooting at an Iowa or on the Iowa that's shooting at THEM, I know which I'd pick.

WoWS has done a terrible thing in making people believe you can sink Yamato with 100mm HE shells. I know YOU'RE not saying that, nor is this particular comment 'directed' at you, lol. But it remains the case that people OVERESTIMATE the effectiveness of secondary batteries or small calibre munitions against something like a BB in particular. THIS GAME has made choice after choice where it has moved further and further AWAY from known realities of the period despite its sales pitch being all about realism blah blah.

For all those reasons, if I had to choose I'd prefer they make those guns LESS effective than they may have been than MORE, because the idea you can kill a BB with a bunch of 6" HE spam is an utter travesty with respect to naval combat history IMO and needs, ironically enough, to be killed with fire ASAP.

Cheers

Edited December 12, 2021 by Steeltrap
12/12/21 Some typos and formatting fixes