Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
IronMike11B4O

How wargaming screwed the US 5"/ 38

81 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,066 posts
23,611 battles

I showed the game to a good friend who actually served on a Gearing class back in the late 60's. Gunners mate to be exact. Anyhow I was really excited to show him the Sims. I fired the guns and the first words he said was were the game designers on Meth? The next thing he said to me was the range and elevation tables are easily Googled. So I did I wish I hadn't; to get a round to Max range in game should only take 18.21 degrees of elevation.  I'm no math genius but the Sputnik 7 orbital moon shots are more in line with the tested but never listed In the official charge book Max range off 22km. Which required 47.5 degrees of elevation. Like I said it's easily Googled. I wouldn't recommend it though because it will just piss you off. 

Edited by Mike_Brase
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,066 posts
23,611 battles

The point being to put a round 12.9 km should require half of what's being represented in elevation in degrees or it can be expressed as minutes of angle.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,136
Members
2,335 posts
6,897 battles

This is a video game not real life. distances and shell arc's have to be changed for balance and size of the game board. Not a Simulation it is an Arcade Game.:facepalm:

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
643
[KMS3]
Members
1,293 posts
7,929 battles

You do realise this is an arcade game right?  Your friend needs to not be so arrogant about it it.  I served 20 years in the Navy and I take this game with a grain of salt, it's for entertainment, not historical realism.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
179
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
596 posts
6,464 battles

You can't really use the "it's an arcade game argument" when WG explicitly uses historical gunnery data, except when convenient apparently.

  • Cool 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,066 posts
23,611 battles

He is not a gamer. He is the retired curator of the US Army Ordnance museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground. He is not arrogant just the smartest guy in the room when it comes to long range rifled cannons and there projectiles.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,136
Members
2,335 posts
6,897 battles

Your friend is right if we were on the deck of a Gearing Class destroyer. Sadly we are not.:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
438
[PROJX]
Members
1,120 posts
41,069 battles

I showed the game to a good friend who actually served on a Gearing class back in the late 60's. Gunners mate to be exact. Anyhow I was really excited to show him the Sims. I fired the guns and the first words he said was were the game designers on Meth? The next thing he said to me was the range and elevation tables are easily Googled. So I did I wish I hadn't; to get a round to Max range in game should only take 18.21 degrees of elevation.  I'm no math genius but the Sputnik 7 orbital moon shots are more in line with the tested but never listed In the official charge book Max range off 22km. Which required 47.5 degrees of elevation. Like I said it's easily Googled. I wouldn't recommend it though because it will just piss you off. 

 

Hi Mike - As some of the previous posters have pointed out, there are differences between an arcade game (which WOWS is) vs. a Simulation and many of these inaccuracies were intentional and necessary to make for more compelling gameplay.  I think your friend may instead want to take comfort in how WOWS is introducing new generations to take interest in the historical ship and other ship classes of an earlier generation that he served in.  Thank him for his service on my behalf!
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165
Members
1,464 posts
806 battles

The 5/38 are complete trash in the game compared to their IRL counterparts. But balance I suppose. Although I'm not really sure how they achieve such horrible arcs since I believe they use the correct velocity and a relatively accurate gravitational pull formula.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
179
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
596 posts
6,464 battles

 

Hi Mike - As some of the previous posters have pointed out, there are differences between an arcade game (which WOWS is) vs. a Simulation and many of these inaccuracies were intentional and necessary to make for more compelling gameplay.  I think your friend may instead want to take comfort in how WOWS is introducing new generations to take interest in the historical ship and other ship classes of an earlier generation that he served in.  Thank him for his service on my behalf!

 

You can't really use the "it's an arcade game argument" when WG explicitly uses historical gunnery data, except when convenient apparently.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
438 posts
6,587 battles

The 5/38 are complete trash in the game compared to their IRL counterparts.

 

Indeed.. and WG will always use the video game excuse to justify it..  
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165
Members
1,464 posts
806 battles

 

Indeed.. and WG will always use the video game excuse to justify it..  

I haven't looked though. One justification is how many other countries get dual purpose guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[SYN]
Members
16,027 posts
12,803 battles

18.21 degrees to max range of Sims?

That's correct

The guns don't elevate 45 degrees, they just look that way, because this game uses a fisheye camera.

 

Still, 18.21 degrees of elevation for 12.7km is piss poor performance, when you compare them to other guns from different nations

 

I mean, go ahead, google some more. Here, I will help you

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.php

 Time of flight for AAC projectile with MV = 2,500 fps (762 mps):
   5,000 yards (4,570 m): 8.0 seconds
   10,000 yards (9,140 m): 22.0 seconds
   15,000 yards (13,720 m): 43.0 seconds
   17,270 yards (15,790 m): 68.8 seconds

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,090 battles

This is a video game not real life. distances and shell arc's have to be changed for balance and size of the game board. Not a Simulation it is an Arcade Game.:facepalm:

 

You do realise this is an arcade game right?  Your friend needs to not be so arrogant about it it.  I served 20 years in the Navy and I take this game with a grain of salt, it's for entertainment, not historical realism.

 

While being an arcade game gentlemen, it severly hamstrings USN DDs, and the Atlanta. I mean good god, to reach 13km which is the max range almost for an Atlanta, the guns had to be elevated 20 degrees. Instead I have to go to MAX to hit that 13.3.

 

Or hell, 11.1 km and I have to go to max elevation, when I should barely be lifting my guns 15 degrees. Meaning the Devs royally screwed over the 5/38 for no goddamn reason.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
438
[PROJX]
Members
1,120 posts
41,069 battles

 

 

 

Hi Destroyer_Radford - Actually you can and need to and here's why (WOWS Enjoyment - Great Mix of History as an Arcade Shooter)  - WG doesn't make any claim to absolute accuracy wrt historical parameters.  If you read my earlier post, they have to scale various things and compromise many parameters related to gunnery (e.g. secondary battery consistencies) to make for a better arcade shooter.  

 

Personally, as a History buff - bringing a younger generation of folks who might never otherwise be interested in the technological and engineering marvels these warships (and even the paper designs) were in their day, as well as paying homage to the history and sacrifices involved - is a success by WG.

 

Edited by hangglide42
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,090 battles

 

Hi Destroyer_Radford - Actually you can and here's why - WG doesn't make any claim to absolute accuracy wrt historical parameters.  If you read my earlier post, they have to scale various things and compromise many parameters related to gunnery (e.g. secondary battery consistencies) to make for a better arcade shooter.   Personally as a History buff - bringing a younger generation of folks who might never otherwise be interested in the technological and engineering marvels these warships (and even the paper designs) were in their day, as well as paying homage to the history and sacrifices involved - is a success by WG.

 

 

Ok how bout this. Look at the guns off the Iowa class. They get their best performance possible at the ranges they fight at, but for some reason the 127/38 doesn't? Care to explain why?
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[SYN]
Members
16,027 posts
12,803 battles

You can't really use the "it's an arcade game argument" when WG explicitly uses historical gunnery data, except when convenient apparently.

 

The ranges and time are compressed and there is a maximum shell ceiling in this game.

range is compressed by, I believe it was 5x. This means, your ship, despite it saying it's going 30 knots, is actually travelling at 150 knots, if it were real life.

 

Shell ceiling only limits the maximum height the shell will go, HOWEVER, the range, shell launch and shell fall angles are all historical numbers.

This does cause some shells, like IJN 356mm shot from max range, to look like they are flying like missiles, but it's just visual and the shells themselves have historical performance.

You do have to factor in that range is compressed, so IRL, a shell that takes 50s to travel only takes 10s in WoWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,887
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,304 posts
9,284 battles

The only thing WG has done to nerf the performance of the 5"/38 on Sims is by giving RPC to every ship in the game.

 

Now, it is completely true that they have nerfed the hell out of most of the 5"/38 mounts rate of fire, especially the secondary batteries (as well as having incorrect armor thickness on the battleship mountings, which should have 64mm faces instead of 25mm all around). That in itself is rather insulting when you look at every other nations secondary guns, which get the most optimistic rate of fire used ingame.

 

As for surface engagements, the 5"/38 wasn't the most high velocity gun around, although 792 meters per second isn't slow either, but rather more medium-high velocity. Stop using worn barrel stats, the only ships ingame that use those are Warspite and Hood. They also certainly fired a rather average weighing 5" shell, but it made up for it with its withering rate of fire, great anti-aircraft performance, extreme barrel life, and excellent gunnery control when paired with radar fire directors. To put barrel life into perspective, your average Akizuki player would probably totally ruin his gun barrels in an average game where he fires more than 150 rounds, while a Benson could probably go 22-30 games without needing new ones.

 

Problem is is that none of the good things matter ingame, but all of the bad ones do.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
438
[PROJX]
Members
1,120 posts
41,069 battles

 

Ok how bout this. Look at the guns off the Iowa class. They get their best performance possible at the ranges they fight at, but for some reason the 127/38 doesn't? Care to explain why?

 

Hi Talon - please follow the link in my earlier response and read it - the argument is that WOWS is primarily a Arcade Shooter w/ a Historical Interest focus - WG does not claim absolute historical performance accuracy for many things because it is necessary to make for an actually fun game to play (if it were more of a accurate simulator, just the engagement scaling would make the game very boring and untenable).

 

Also w/ your Iowa class assertion - this is not quite accurate - iChase posted a very detailed video about how US BB armor profiles were created w/ a nod to actual blueprints, but were designed for very long range Pacific engagements taking advantage of it's radar and analog computer fire control gunnery and such it's armor profile & gun performance were designed for such.  Conversely, the German BBs like the Bismarck were designed w/ closer in commerce raiding in mind in the Atlantic theater.  In-game, the US BBs are actually forced to fight closer in, in the German BB's strength - thus we think of the US BBs as being weaker armored and the KM BBs as the best for the game, but they were designed for 2 different engagement regimes.  

 

The 5"/38s are a common sore point because this gun type was prevalent on many US warships in WWII from DDs to BB secondaries and your Atlanta CL class.  WG has taken the liberty of playing w/ gun ranges, ROF, turret rotation out of necessity for game balance and enjoyment for this particular gun.  The most striking example of this is the base gun range of the US BB secondaries is far less than a DD armed with essentially the same gun at the same tier.

 

 

Edited by hangglide42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,090 battles

 

The ranges and time are compressed and there is a maximum shell ceiling in this game.

range is compressed by, I believe it was 5x. This means, your ship, despite it saying it's going 30 knots, is actually travelling at 150 knots, if it were real life.

 

Shell ceiling only limits the maximum height the shell will go, HOWEVER, the range, shell launch and shell fall angles are all historical numbers.

This does cause some shells, like IJN 356mm shot from max range, to look like they are flying like missiles, but it's just visual and the shells themselves have historical performance.

You do have to factor in that range is compressed, so IRL, a shell that takes 50s to travel only takes 10s in WoWs.

 

No, they are not for the 5/38. There is ZERO GODDAMN REASON that at 11.1km(base range of the atlanta) I'm shooting like I'm firing at max possible range of the gun period which is 16km. But the Iowa at 20km fires like it's shooting 20km away, and even at it's max, it's shooting at that maximum range, not being jacked completely up to it's actual maximum range of 33km and given those terminal performances.

 

Sorry the 127/38 is the ONLY GUN that this happens to.

 

47773_cta_015_lg.gif

That's 15 degree angle. Which is the angle of the gun when I shoot 10,880 meters. But when I don't have AFT on my atlanta my guns act like this:

 

45-degree-angle.jpg

 

There is no other gun forced to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
438 posts
6,587 battles

homage to the history

 

Homage to their balance sheet..   this game is a distortion of physics.. starwars on the water. it is fun tho and has it charms...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,544
[PSA]
Members
5,118 posts
3,754 battles

You do realize that *every* ship in the game has their max gun range capped, right? Otherwise, you'd have battleships firing at each other 30km away.

 

They compressed all the gun ranges to make the game more enjoyable. Sniping is already a problem as is. Let's not make it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,090 battles

 

Hi Talon - please follow the link in my earlier response and read it - the argument is that WOWS is primarily a Arcade Shooter w/ a Historical Interest focus - WG does not claim absolute historical performance accuracy for many things because it is necessary to make for an actually fun game to play (if it were more of a accurate simulator, just the engagement scaling would make the game very boring and untenable).

 

 

No, I'm showing that WG is inconsistent with their guns. Iowa for example gets her historical gun firing for all her ranges, Atlanta does not. Cleveland does, as does any other USN ship(not armed with a 5/38), but suddenly the 5/38's don't?  Why the discrepency. And don't give me this Arcade shooter with historical focus, I know this. I'm talking IN GAME performance matching those guns with what they do historically.

 

So please without this canned response try explaining it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
6,090 battles

You do realize that *every* ship in the game has their max gun range capped, right? Otherwise, you'd have battleships firing at each other 30km away.

 

They compressed all the gun ranges to make the game more enjoyable. Sniping is already a problem as is. Let's not make it worse.

 

Kaybe has nothing to do with having full historical ranges. I'm talking about straight gun performance overall.

 

Example again is Iowa, With her upgraded FCS she can hit what 23.3km range, tack on the module for gun extension and IIRC it's like 26km. Her guns don't act like at that 26km range they are firing at the 33km range they are firing at. They act like they are firing at the gun range they are at, the 26km or so range.

 

5/38s don't do that. 

 

Again Atlanta. At 11.1km max range, or 13.3km max range to get that sky high sub orbital shot, they act like they are firing at the 16km mark. At 13.3km, those guns should not have to go clear to max elevation, not even close. Now at 15km, yeah they should go basically to max elevation. But for 13km or so, should be at a 25 degree elevation.

 

Yes that should lob a shot somewhat, but it should be more akin to what Belfast's guns are doing, not what they are doing now.

 

That's the problem I have with the 5/38. They are not shooting like they should be at the ranges they are at. They just go to maximum elevation regardless of what their max range is. 

 

AND IT'S INCORRECT.

Edited by TalonV
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×