Aiming and fire control system

[Meriv]

I have searched for aim (but unlukly it is under the 4 letters search parameter) and no result for aiming, at the same time I have doubt if to post this here or in battleship era topics.

 

I was curious  about the aiming doctrines, I know that in Wows the size of the aim will go down after each shot, simulating the correction of the aim by the crew(computers too no? Analogic ones) but I read also that in ww2 there were different doctrines on fire control system but since I am an illeterate on battleships I wanted to ask for information :)

 

I read that for example german fire control system and rangefinder were easier on the user allowing him to use them for long periods while british one were more complex, getting better results but more exhausting on the officer allowing him to just use it for shorter periods of time.

 

Plus there is the use of radar aiming? Will it be I game?

 

But what makes me more curious is that I read somewhere that italian doctrine was different, something like doing the most damage already with the first salvos is this correct? Since italian and french fleet were in a tech confrontation (that never happened at the end) which doctrine the french used?

 

can someone make something like a vademecum of how the aim process works? Like for example how much will influence ship speed on the aim etc.. Etc...

 

Thanks a lot for the answers I am hoping to get

[Crag_r]

Take a look at the FAQ section for some of the answers.  :Smile_honoring:

[JeeWeeJ]

Radar will be ingame, but only as an extention of your view range. And it is true that various navies had different methods of finding the correct range, but i don't know if that'll make a big difference in this game.

Firecontrol systems will probably be upgradable equipment where i can see targeting computers and the like as mountable upgrades (like the gunrammer etc in WoT).

 

For the rest, you've already stated what we know! All we know is that large caliber guns will work a bit like arty in WoT, with accuracy improving with each shot fired. That's all we know! :Smile_sad:

Please do keep in mind though: this will be an arcade game, not a simulator. So a lot of thing will be ignored or streamlined for the sake of gameplay.

[Meriv]

I don't like sims :) I am wondering it more about an historic point of view :) since after 2 weeks reading the forum (in silent mode :Smile_hiding: ) looks like you all are quite informed :) I was wondering if some time in the future I would find something like the french 6 barrel surprise (loved it) I mean some extravagant way to fire or something that could affect gameplay

[madogthefirst]

Meriv, on 06 November 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

after 2 weeks reading the forum (in silent mode :Smile_hiding: )

This may just be the smartest new guy to get on the forums. Also he is a lurker, run get your wife and or kiddies and hide quickly before he gets you. :Smile_hiding:

[Meriv]

madogthefirst, on 06 November 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

This may just be the smartest new guy to get on the forums. Also he is a lurker, run get your wife and or kiddies and hide quickly before he gets you. :Smile_hiding:

We really need a more accurate or interactive Q&A, easier to consult, 1100+ post makes you a lurker... Eventhought I am still an  information lurker, I hope WG changes his policy on real time stats in match (idk if it has been implemented in Wot since I left 5 months ago) like the efficiency mod since it helps greatly in teamplay, if you are a teamplayer style you will be able to know who is the weak sleeve in your fleet and you will be able to cover him, help him, improving his survivability and the damage he does and honestly who to attack first  :Smile_izmena:after all ULTRA played a major role in Europe.

[Appollosnos]

Meriv, on 06 November 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

since after 2 weeks reading the forum (in silent mode :Smile_hiding: )

You know I might put a couple of Cheetahs on this guy as a security detail. He deserves it for doing this great job. Reading the forums before posting is how you join the family. :Smile_honoring: So come on in the Cats are waiting

[Abyssaltech]

Meriv, on 06 November 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

I was wondering if some time in the future I would find something like the french 6 barrel surprise

Dont let Ari find out about that one.

[PhilJD_NA]

Meriv, on 06 November 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

I read that for example german fire control system and rangefinder were easier on the user allowing him to use them for long periods while british one were more complex, getting better results but more exhausting on the officer allowing him to just use it for shorter periods of time.

Actually, this is back to front:-
The Germasn used a stereoscopic rangefinder which was faster to focus on target but degraded as time passed due to the strain on the crew members. The RN used a 'coincidence' range finder that was slower than the German stereoscopic but more accurate in the long run.

Sadly, he who hits first has the advantage and the germans tended to hit first - especially at Jutland in the run to the south :)

[brodymain]

You guys need to look at a game called naval ops because it has a aiming system which makes you guess where your shells will land  :Smile_playing:  Which will make the game a lot more competitive. the aimer is also inside of a radar/control system so you always know your surroundings. This aiming system is what i want to use

(naval ops uses lazers somtimes)

[klentz]

I would love to see the gun aiming as a direction with an angle of fire for the guns, this would make the more skilled player able to be much more effective. so a mouse turret control like in WoT but a angle control to range you guns so at longer distance it will really come down to skill to judge the fall of shot.

[brodymain]

Like i said before the best aimer and radar system i have ever seen is on a game called naval ops because you have to guess your trajectory of your bullets :Smile_playing:  This makes the game more challenging so people dont troll to much.

 

hint: you can see your shells.

[brodymain]

the guns on the ship should also turn very slowly because these guns weigh tons and tons

[Gigaton]

Meriv, on 06 November 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

I read that for example german fire control system and rangefinder were easier on the user allowing him to use them for long periods while british one were more complex, getting better results but more exhausting on the officer allowing him to just use it for shorter periods of time.

As Philjd said, this is backwards. In addition, during WW1 most major navies used coincidence rangefinders and during WW2 most used stereoscopic ones at very least as supplement to coincidence.

Meriv, on 06 November 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

But what makes me more curious is that I read somewhere that italian doctrine was different, something like doing the most damage already with the first salvos is this correct? Since italian and french fleet were in a tech confrontation (that never happened at the end) which doctrine the french used?

While I'm not familiar with Italian spotting rules, it sounds correct to me that they tried to do most damage with first salvos. It was what everyone wished to do. Afterall, if you are doing damage with the first salvos you have the correct firing solution (that is the MPI, or mean point of impact, is on the target). If you have the correct firing solution then you only need to keep it on the target to keep hitting it. If you can find target quickly, hit it quckly and keep hitting it you have achived everything that can be achived with gunnery.

On more practical level, the minimum effective group for spotting is 3 shells as I understand it. By virtue of their armament, all Italian battleships were thus capable of putting 3 spotting salvos in the air with a single loading. Perhaps their firing practises for spotting/ranging salvos worked with this in mind?

Meriv, on 06 November 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

can someone make something like a vademecum of how the aim process works? Like for example how much will influence ship speed on the aim etc.. Etc...

I'm not entirely sure if you are looking for the historical answer or how it works in game. Since the latter was already covered more or less, I'll try to provide a very general overview of the former in it's WW2 form, since it seems you are interested in it.



In the picture is an overview of the British system centered around the Admirality Fire Control Table (AFCT, fire control table being British period term for FC computer). It's from gunnery pocket book (http://www.hnsa.org/...br224/index.htm). Key components are 1. the director at the upper left hand corner (in this case situated in DCT, or director control tower), 2. the transmitting station with it's computer at lower left hand corner (called plot in US) and 3. the gun turret at the lower right hand corner.

In case you are wondering where the optical rangefinders are since only radar is apparent in the picture, in the modern British system the main rangefinders would be situated in the turrets with smaller base one in the DCT. In other systems there might be a seperate main rangefinder. The picture is just for reference, I'm not attempting to describe the British system in particular.

The aiming process starts from someone choosing a target. It may be the captain, or it may be leader of the formation the ship is part of. Whoever it is, someone somewhere on the ship will train a sight on the target to designate it. The bearing is then transmitted onwards to the relevant positions, so that they are then (hopefully) looking at the same thing.

The 1. important component is the director. It will normally look like a small gun mount or turret without any guns, bristling with optics instead. Normally it and it's crew has a dual function. First, it chooses where the guns should be pointed at and then transmits these orders onwards. In effect, it aims the guns from centralized position high up on the ships. In addition, it and it's crew form an important part of the whole data gathering process that is needed to land the shots on the target. It tracks the target and gathers information on it's activites. Bearing, speed, course and so on. The director and it's optics may be, or may not be, gyrostablized to varying degree.

The 2. important component is the transmitting station with it's computer(s). The function of the computer and it's operating crew is to solve the firecontrol problem and produce a firing solution. In barest essence, the problem is: "how do I hit another moving ship from my own moving ship." The solution to the problem are the training and elevation orders that are passed onwards directly to the turrets (usually), so that when the shells land at the end of their flight they land on the area where the target is then. The transmitting station handles information about both the target and the own ship. Target information from the director and it's crew, from optical rangefinders and/or radar and other locations. Own ship's speed and course. The roll, yaw and pitch of own ship are often tracked here as well (though at least in one example, corrections are applied at the director for these).

The 3. important component are the gun turrets. Their function is obvious. During WW2 the most common method for layers aka. pointers (in charge of gun elevation) and trainers (in charge of training the turret) for following the elevation and training orders passed down from the transmitting station was still by means of matching pointers on receivers (follow-the-pointer, or FTP method). A more advanced method was remote power control (or RPC) in which the training and elevation orders were automatically followed by servos without further input from human operators. When an otherwise gyrostabilized firecontrol system was operating the guns by means of RPC, it could keep them level on the target despite own ships rolling, yawing and pitching. In systems where FTP was used, equipment and practises of varying sophistication existed to allow the guns to fire at correct point even if the operators weren't constantly capable of following such movements.

While the many details varied, systems like this were used by all major navies (and minor ones as well). Battleships and cruisers usually shared similar or simply same systems. Light cruisers might, or might not, have somewhat more simple systems than heavy ones. Destroyers had most simple systems. There were additional systems for AA, AAA (HA) and torpedo firecontrol, this being for low angle (LA) one.

When it comes to ship speed (own or target), it depends on the situation. The rate of range change is not great if two ships are on roughly parallel courses, no matter if they are both going at 20 knots or 30 knots. But if they are going directly away from each other, the rate of range change will be highest and will naturally be higher if both ships are going at 30 knots than 20. In general, the more advanced the firecontrol system the higher rates of range change it can handle. The maneuvering that was carried out in combat during WW2 tended to be rather wilder than during WW1, but successful hits were still possible at ranges that would have been extreme by WW1 standard. This is even without considering radar. Basic directors and various mechanical firecontrol calculators were quite well spread around during WW1, however.

[Meriv]

THANKS (capital letters required) for the explanation  :Smile_smile: