ProteinBar69

So the Des Moines main guns are dual purpose

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

48 posts in this topic

53 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

Here's the thing. The auto loaders would have to go. You can't elevate those guns very high. Only to a 41 degree elevation. That's not enough elevation. The 5/38s on Atlanta for example elevate to 85 degrees and the 6 inch DP gun could elevate to 78 degrees. I doubt with the 8 inch DP you could get the guns elevated high enough.

Strictly linear/trigonometric calculation suggests at 20 miles you could get up to 17.38 (and change) miles (91K feet/27.7km) of altitude at a 41 degree angle.  Please check my maths - I usually suck at trig.  Of course, that's not ballistic.  I haven't calculated vertical acceleration over the flight path, so I would expect the real altitude of a fired shell at that range to vary by a figure of miles.

That's well over the flight ceiling of any combat aircraft at the time.  Sure, at closer ranges it becomes more limiting, but that's when the 5 inch guns kick in.

50 minutes ago, Carl said:

Unfortunately at that range against a real aircraft being flown properly by a real pilot no hits would have occurred.

It's the same reason cruisers can dodge BB fire in game. The flight time of the shell is long enough for random evasive maneuvers to carry the plane out of the kill zone. There probably is a limited range band where the guns can get a flight time low enough to get hits and where the plane wouldn't require greater elevation than the guns could manage, but i likely wouldn't be an especially big engagement window.

If they could do that to drones, reliable hits should have been obtainable at least once.  You'll note in the article that the control craft expressed surprise that their drone was shot down before they'd even closed range enough to begin their planned evasive maneuvers.  You should get at least that one surprise encounter with enemy aircraft, too.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

Strictly linear/trigonometric calculation suggests at 20 miles you could get up to 17.38 (and change) miles (91K feet/27.7km) of altitude at a 41 degree angle.  Please check my maths - I usually suck at trig.  Of course, that's not ballistic.  I haven't calculated vertical acceleration over the flight path, so I would expect the real altitude of a fired shell at that range to vary by a figure of miles.

That's well over the flight ceiling of any combat aircraft at the time.  Sure, at closer ranges it becomes more limiting, but that's when the 5 inch guns kick in.

If they could do that to drones, reliable hits should have been obtainable at least once.  You'll note in the article that the control craft expressed surprise that their drone was shot down before they'd even closed range enough to begin their planned evasive maneuvers.  You should get at least that one surprise encounter with enemy aircraft, too.

Yeah but at 20km especially going up you're fighting drag and gravity. And good luck hitting anything at that range.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attacking aircraft wouldn't even be able to tell they were being shot at until things started exploding around them.

 

And an 8" shell airburst has a much larger kill radius than a 5" one. If its a group of planes flying in a formation, they may well be hit if they aren't expecting to be fired on from that great of a distance.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronWolfV said:

Yeah but at 20km especially going up you're fighting drag and gravity. And good luck hitting anything at that range.

But that's what the article is saying, though - they did, and at 20 miles, not kilometers.  Theoretically the first enemy pilot they shot it at would be just as ready as the guy controlling the drone.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Pata1985 said:

 

I was referring as in the amount of resources destined to each cause.  One for the destruction of others vs a common health problem we as a living form of this planet encounter.

 

Depends though. You can literally improve your destruction efforts by throwing more money at it, and you have a pretty good idea of return. (ie. if I spend x dollars on x weapon systems, I can achieve this) Throwing a ton of extra money at cancer research is iffy, because you can't directly equate it to results. You could discover a cure tomorrow, or never, and the amount of money you spend may not be a factor. 

 

Also, (and I say this purely objectively, cold though it may sound) maybe things like space exploration are more in mankind's interest than eradicating leading causes of death.

 

We're doing well enough making our planet uninhabitable as it is with the 6-7 billion people we have now. The longer people live, the faster we kill our planet, or reach a point where, regardless of what we do, there's just too many people to live here.

 

IMO, space exploration and  ever "greener" lifestyles is what we need to throw money at, and maximum effort to get everyone on board and working together.

 

Once we can deal with a much heavier population increase, THEN we can blitz cancer.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More AA buffs easily means DDs and BBs get to run more rampant since no planes to hold them in check.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it would be cool to have a maximum and minimum range, if only for the thought experiments.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Pata1985 said:

 

I was referring as in the amount of resources destined to each cause.  One for the destruction of others vs a common health problem we as a living form of this planet encounter.

Another catagory error. The problem of curing cancer has nothing to do with throwing money at the problem.

 

Going to the moon involved taking top end 1960s technology and adapting/advancing it into machines that could take men to the moon.

 

Curing cancer involves controlling molecular level machines that we didn't build ourselves, that we can't build ourselves, that we don't completely understand how they work, and that we can only crudely control some functions.

 

It's like trying to build a 747 in the year 1909. Even if you gave the engineers from that time the complete blueprints and manuals, no amount of money would get one built. Not because they are dumb, but because the society wide technological base that makes a 747 possible doesn't exist.

 

The engineers will look at the plans and say, "We've never heard of these alloys, our tooling can't manufacture parts to these tolerances, these lubricants required are beyond anything we have available, and what the hell is a transistor?"

 

We have no idea what it will take to cure cancer and won't know until we do. We don't know if we are missing some critical technology that changes how we do things. We don't know if that tech is in a completely unrelated field and won't be invented for another 20 years. So we work with what we have at a pace that's in line with the rest of societies technological progress.

 

The Manhattan Project produced a grand total of FOUR bombs, and we used one for testing because we didn't know if it would work. The Apollo project put a dozen people on the moon. Curing cancer needs to do more than that.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

Another catagory error. The problem of curing cancer has nothing to do with throwing money at the problem.

 

Going to the moon involved taking top end 1960s technology and adapting/advancing it into machines that could take men to the moon.

 

Curing cancer involves controlling molecular level machines that we didn't build ourselves, that we can't build ourselves, that we don't completely understand how they work, and that we can only crudely control some functions.

 

It's like trying to build a 747 in the year 1909. Even if you gave the engineers from that time the complete blueprints and manuals, no amount of money would get one built. Not because they are dumb, but because the society wide technological base that makes a 747 possible doesn't exist.

 

The engineers will look at the plans and say, "We've never heard of these alloys, our tooling can't manufacture parts to these tolerances, these lubricants required are beyond anything we have available, and what the hell is a transistor?"

 

We have no idea what it will take to cure cancer and won't know until we do. We don't know if we are missing some critical technology that changes how we do things. We don't know if that tech is in a completely unrelated field and won't be invented for another 20 years. So we work with what we have at a pace that's in line with the rest of societies technological progress.

 

The Manhattan Project produced a grand total of FOUR bombs, and we used one for testing because we didn't know if it would work. The Apollo project put a dozen people on the moon. Curing cancer needs to do more than that.

 

The more ammount of money being spent into R&D the faster and better tech will be obtained, same as in medicine breakthroughs.

 

 You are just not getting that idea, but w/e, not the direction of the thread anyway.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ProteinBar69 said:

WG please make it happen:cap_rambo:

 

 

 

           1vt5d4.jpg


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carl said:

 

Unfortunately at that range against a real aircraft being flown properly by a real pilot no hits would have occurred.

 

It's the same reason cruisers can dodge BB fire in game. The flight time of the shell is long enough for random evasive maneuvers to carry the plane out of the kill zone. There probably is a limited range band where the guns can get a flight time low enough to get hits and where the plane wouldn't require greater elevation than the guns could manage, but i likely wouldn't be an especially big engagement window.

I think it'd depend greatly on the circumstances.

At the ranges a Des Moines class cruiser would begin engaging the enemy planes would be far enough out they would be completely unprepared to suddenly come under fire and presumably would be flying in a straight line until they are suddenly under fire.

And other than the testimony by that crew member of Newport News I can't really find anything on the accuracy of the guns against planes but Gene Slover said one intended purpose was to disrupt and break up inbound enemy plane formations when they were far away and in that regard the 8/55 seemed to function successfully although it arrived too late to prove itself in combat.

I can't say for sure but I'm pretty sure the engagement window was bigger than one would think.

I know the archive where the AA range charts are for the 8/55 and I do need to request a copy at some point but there isn't a copy online but during the war the US experimented with using the 16"/50 for engaging aircraft and those charts are online, its obviously a very different gun but it can give us a very very rough look of what the engagement window at certain elevations is like.

1650-range-table-trajectories-page.jpg

 

 

This isn't an area I know much about and I'm curious now, for German and Japanese land and naval bombers when they would head out to engage enemy ships what altitude would they normally fly at?

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Pata1985 said:

 

The more ammount of money being spent into R&D the faster and better tech will be obtained, same as in medicine breakthroughs.

 

Or not. The microwave oven was kickstarted by a combination of military radar research and a 5-cent chocolate bar.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sure the first time it was used it would surprise living hell out of the enemy, but so long as at least 1 plane survived that initial surprise, (and in a decent sized attack someone would), it would only work once.

 

@MJPIA I believe 20k feet, but dodging factors would make them relatively ineffective at extended ranges, (max elevation for those mounts was 45 degrees AFAIK), Nav Weps actually has the AAA table for the guns. As well no flight time above 10 seconds is listed which is probably the considered maximum effective flight time. So reaching 20k feet is completely impossible for them as the minimum flight time at allowable elevations was 14 seconds.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reymu said:

More AA buffs easily means DDs and BBs get to run more rampant since no planes to hold them in check.

 

Wait what.  Don't buff a cruiser because then DD and BB will run rampant.  I bet you believe in the wage gap and the flat earth don't you.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, KmsH44 said:

Iirc DM lost her title of AA Devil to Minotaur . So buff DM to, you know, her old rank of AA platform #1.

mino has more range but DM has Defensive AA...id go with DM anyday.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Grizley said:

 

Wait what.  Don't buff a cruiser because then DD and BB will run rampant.  I bet you believe in the wage gap and the flat earth don't you.

The campfest at high tiers is that bad. Nobody wants to risk getting shot at unless opponent becomes visible. DDs have the edge in smoke and sudden torps. BBs park behind an island and wait for someone to approach. WG again not scaling defense to match offense.

 

Mid-tiers is reasonably dynamic still, but it's still annoying when they bring the campfest down there.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Pata1985 said:

 

I was referring as in the amount of resources destined to each cause.  One for the destruction of others vs a common health problem we as a living form of this planet encounter.

Actually, death from cancer has decreased by 25% since 1991  So, some progress is being made.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170105123106.htm

 

https://costprojections.cancer.gov/expenditures.html

Edited by ExploratorOne

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Reymu said:

The campfest at high tiers is that bad. Nobody wants to risk getting shot at unless opponent becomes visible. DDs have the edge in smoke and sudden torps. BBs park behind an island and wait for someone to approach. WG again not scaling defense to match offense.

 

Mid-tiers is reasonably dynamic still, but it's still annoying when they bring the campfest down there.

 

Some games it is, some games it isn't.  Mostly it's bad on those wide open maps where there is no forward position that is safe from BB guns.  I don't disagree that offense outscales defense.  The worst offenders are BBs and CVs. 

 

At low tiers you can dodge the aircraft and can take little or no damage from a strike.  Higher tiers increase the speed of the bombers and the number of bombers while reducing the ship maneuverability and increasing ship size.  So at high tiers your only real defense is shooting down most/all of the bombers before the drop.

 

BB guns scale faster in damage than health scales, plus the get pretty silly overmatch mechanics.  In addition, they go from being relatively wild shotguns to precise snipers inside 16km.   

 

Generally I would say it's a problem with multiple offensive factors scaling up while only a couple of defensive factors scale up and some scale down.  Size, maneuverability and stealth all get worse.  Armor and health improve.  Offensively damage, pen, accuracy and shell speed all increase.  Number of bomber squads, bomber speed, bomber damage, aircraft health all increase for the CVs.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 9:45 AM, ProteinBar69 said:

WG please make it happen:cap_rambo:

EX Gunners Mate here the 8 inch 55 where not built to be Dual Purpose guns for two reasons the Turret itself could not rotate fast enough and the barrel elevation could not either same issue the US had with the Dual Purpose 6 inch gun till it was corrected for the Worchester Class and was then deemed a failure not to the guns problem but where radar and gun sightes where located on the ship. The 5 inch 38 where dual purpose and was used only for that rare was the 5 inchers used in ship to ship fighting on a Heavy Cruiser.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grizley said:

 

Some games it is, some games it isn't.  Mostly it's bad on those wide open maps where there is no forward position that is safe from BB guns.  I don't disagree that offense outscales defense.  The worst offenders are BBs and CVs. 

 

At low tiers you can dodge the aircraft and can take little or no damage from a strike.  Higher tiers increase the speed of the bombers and the number of bombers while reducing the ship maneuverability and increasing ship size.  So at high tiers your only real defense is shooting down most/all of the bombers before the drop.

 

BB guns scale faster in damage than health scales, plus the get pretty silly overmatch mechanics.  In addition, they go from being relatively wild shotguns to precise snipers inside 16km.   

 

Generally I would say it's a problem with multiple offensive factors scaling up while only a couple of defensive factors scale up and some scale down.  Size, maneuverability and stealth all get worse.  Armor and health improve.  Offensively damage, pen, accuracy and shell speed all increase.  Number of bomber squads, bomber speed, bomber damage, aircraft health all increase for the CVs.

Honestly I'd prefer a rudder buff solely to BBs, or at least add another module that reduces rudder shift by 40%, but slot 4 and BB-only. Dodging is a favorite vs. torps and aircraft, though less certain against incoming BB rounds given the velocity. CVs, by their design, stay hidden a lot anyway, so pointless buff for them.

 

Ship size isn't really too much concern since you go up the tiers, logically you'd expect it to grow a bit. Maybe not DDs so much, but other 3 classes yes. If they can turn pretty well, then it puts more work on CV to aim for that too, you know? Wouldn't mind it in my Haku since only means "aim better."

 

BB accuracy is a problem, but WG doesn't want to touch a big part of fanbase temper. I'd be fine changing dispersion to be that accurate only within 15km or so, where they have to risk getting damage. If snipe, they get Nassau-level dispersion at any range beyond 15km. Would they protest? Sure, but I'd just like to see something that will tune down the campfest. I like being aggressive in my BBs and it's very tiring having to see if the campers can grow balls.

 

Very insightful. I'd say the best way to counter that offense > defense progress is the shell speed. Basically, it never gets faster, but range goes up. So it becomes easy for even a newbie to figure out how to avoid long-range fire, and players who want to do damage have to close in. Will the bad players that snipe complain? Absolutely, but I'd love to see the bad gameplay become far less rewarding, not just in low base XP and credits, but even more pronounced in the gameplay itself.

 

Of course, CAs will neeed a shell speed nerf too so BBs don't feel overwhelmed, but if that makes sniping extremely unrewarding at high tiers, seems a fair trade.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 1:59 PM, HazardDrake said:

This is known as a "catagory error".

 

"...the error of assigning to something a quality or action that can properly be assigned to things only of another category, for example, treating abstract concepts as though they had a physical location..."

 

Saying "we can go to the moon, so why can't we cure cancer" is comparing two completely unrelated problems as if they were similar. It's as inane and incoherent as saying, "If a pilot can fly a 747 on instruments, then why can't they swordfight while blindfolded?"

That's the kind of logical fallacy that conspiracy theorists cling to like a drowning man.

"We supposedly went to the moon before but NASA says we can't go back right now, so we never went to the moon in the first place"


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with shell speed nerfs is that we have anywhere from the mid 700s to high 900s.  The high 900s are a little overwhelming, but the 700s are already plenty challenging to use.  Picking two T10 CAs for example, the Moskva can land nearly all it's shells on a DD at 14km with little effort, a Des Moines is lucky to do the same at 8km.  

 

I don't disagree that offense needs some sort of toning down at higher tiers.  Especially the BB main batteries they kind of went nuts with this one.  My favored solution is removing or reworking the overmatch mechanics.  If you discount overpens, since they're relatively low damage and mostly repairable then the target area on a cruiser that is well angled is fairly small.   In theory that combined with some reduction in sigma should bring things into line.

 

Ship size is a factor, especially for torps but for main battery too.  For guns the citadel size and location is more important than the total ship size, but it has an impact.  


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually health scales faster than BB AP damage, at least for cruisers. Average non-prem cruiser health at T3 is 21k and change, at T10, 51k and change. A kawachi does 8100 alpha, a Yamato 14800 alpha. Sigma plays a part too but honestly i think most of it comes down to layout of the ships. You can't really bow tank in many lower tiered ships because they have too much bang at the rear or in middle mounts. I suspect range plays another factor, not because of what the range allows, but just because if you give players that range they'll use it.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.