Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Helstrem

Battleship gun accuracy

101 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,046
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,924 posts
2,810 battles

I have seen a number of recent claims from posters such as @Wye_So_Serious that BB accuracy is buffed to make them more fun to play and that, perhaps, their accuracy should be reduced to more realistic levels.

Yes, it is true that BB accuracy is buffed far above realistic levels.  However, cruiser and DD accuracy is buffed to an even greater degree.  Naval guns were all relatively close to each other in terms of accuracy and the big BB artillery was not magically less accurate.

Arguing that BBs ought to be less accurate for balance purposes is fine, but appealing to reality is not a winning move here due to the massive accuracy buffs that cruisers and DDs also receive for gameplay reasons.

  • Cool 10
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,697
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,582 posts
2,097 battles

It's worth noting that cruisers and BBs generally all have the same 29-33% hitrate in-game. Destroyers have a higher hit rate, but that's usually a product of fighting at closer ranges where it's harder to miss.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,924 posts
2,810 battles
15 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

It's worth noting that cruisers and BBs generally all have the same 29-33% hitrate in-game. Destroyers have a higher hit rate, but that's usually a product of fighting at closer ranges where it's harder to miss.

That is likely due to target choice.  I know that for me, shooting at DDs with cruisers means an awful lot of misses.  An evading DD at 10km is a hard target to hit for many players.  When I shoot at BBs with my cruisers I have a far higher percentage of hits than I do in BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,264 battles
27 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I have seen a number of recent claims from posters such as @Wye_So_Serious that BB accuracy is buffed to make them more fun to play and that, perhaps, their accuracy should be reduced to more realistic levels.

Yes, it is true that BB accuracy is buffed far above realistic levels.  However, cruiser and DD accuracy is buffed to an even greater degree.  Naval guns were all relatively close to each other in terms of accuracy and the big BB artillery was not magically less accurate.

Arguing that BBs ought to be less accurate for balance purposes is fine, but appealing to reality is not a winning move here due to the massive accuracy buffs that cruisers and DDs also receive for gameplay reasons.

I would be all in favor of reducing Battleship gun accuracy the moment destroyers move to a realistic torpedo reload time. 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,924 posts
2,810 battles
Just now, Belthorian said:

I would be all in favor of reducing Battleship gun accuracy the moment destroyers move to a realistic torpedo reload time. 

I don't think either need to be changed.  I started this thread so as to not derail, or make an off topic post, in the Asashio thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,099 posts
6,270 battles
1 minute ago, Belthorian said:

I would be all in favor of reducing Battleship gun accuracy the moment destroyers move to a realistic torpedo reload time. 

Let me take my Fletcher back to port to rearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,822
[5BS]
Members
7,014 posts

There is a *high* degree of fundamental misunderstanding's on the forums to how naval gunnery, ship type notwithstanding, functioned and the accuracies associated with: most seem to be basing their knowledge and understandings of accuracies 100% on this picture:

no31991-pic4.jpg

This is a bad picture, taken WOEFULLY out of context, and ignoring some BASIC facts and realities of how ships function.

This, is a far better example of what gunnery on a 1940's era Battleship was capable of:

 

TPeCem8.gif

I cannot stress this enough: Battleship guns are ABOUT as accurate in game as they were in reality; the chief difference is that we don't have the same problem with *range* finding that they did, ergo, we get brackets on first salvos instead of 3 or 4th.

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
76
[APOC-]
Beta Testers
328 posts
4,082 battles
3 minutes ago, Vangm94 said:

Let me take my Fletcher back to port to rearm.

Or let the DDs respawn 10 times per battle because cost and build time is at least that much lower/faster than a BB.

 

Seriously how many "not a sim" threads does there need to be.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,315
[SIM]
Members
3,583 posts
5,723 battles

Battleships are already pretty inaccurate, only performing with any consistency against other battleships, or players that sail in easily followed straight lines (before you come back with your outliers, forum warriors, go look up the word consistency). Battleships firing at extreme ranges are even less likely to score meaningful hits against targets that aren’t AFK, making the empty arguments of players like WSS even less credible. 

Tl;dr Ignore the haters

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,289
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,734 posts
15,946 battles
38 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Yes, it is true that BB accuracy is buffed far above realistic levels.  However, cruiser and DD accuracy is buffed to an even greater degree.  Naval guns were all relatively close to each other in terms of accuracy and the big BB artillery was not magically less accurate.

This is not true, as the larger the caliber of the gun the greater the inaccuracy of the shot. Combine that with the extra level of dispersion any gun will get when fired at longer ranges and, yes, BB sized guns are very inaccurate when compared to CA/CL/DD guns. Consider also that BB guns require greater clearances due to temperature changes during firing, and that most BB shots were/are taken from greater ranges and BB accuracy ends up in the toilet. It would be interesting to see whether BBs were as accurate when the ranges they're firing at are the same as the ones DDs and cruisers normally engage at, but for that you'd have to pry them off the back wall of the map.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,924 posts
2,810 battles
1 minute ago, Umikami said:

This is not true, as the larger the caliber of the gun the greater the inaccuracy of the shot. Combine that with the extra level of dispersion any gun will get when fired at longer ranges and, yes, BB sized guns are very inaccurate when compared to CA/CL/DD guns. 

You can provide supporting documentation?

 

The rest of what you posted is 100% irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
654
[LUCK]
Members
1,684 posts
23,298 battles
17 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

There is a *high* degree of fundamental misunderstanding's on the forums to how naval gunnery, ship type notwithstanding, functioned and the accuracies associated with: most seem to be basing their knowledge and understandings of accuracies 100% on this picture:

no31991-pic4.jpg

This is a bad picture, taken WOEFULLY out of context, and ignoring some BASIC facts and realities of how ships function.

This, is a far better example of what gunnery on a 1940's era Battleship was capable of:

 

TPeCem8.gif

I cannot stress this enough: Battleship guns are ABOUT as accurate in game as they were in reality; the chief difference is that we don't have the same problem with *range* finding that they did, ergo, we get brackets on first salvos instead of 3 or 4th.

.........and they did say these were under ideal conditions and not to be relied upon in battle conditions, as I recall from the Iowa report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,822
[5BS]
Members
7,014 posts
9 minutes ago, Umikami said:

This is not true, as the larger the caliber of the gun the greater the inaccuracy of the shot

You are 100% patently incorrect as this is not how *physics* works: heavier objects maintain both momentum (in all 3 axis) and rotational acceleration BETTER than smaller, lighter objects. This is basic, Secondary school physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,289
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,734 posts
15,946 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

You are 100% patently incorrect as this is not how *physics* works: heavier objects maintain both momentum (in all 3 axis) and rotational acceleration BETTER than smaller, lighter objects.

All metal expands as it heats: also basic, secondary school physics. So a 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 18 inch gun will require more initial clearance in the firing chamber to allow for heat expansion as the gun fires, and continues to fire, than a 5, 6, or 8 inch gun would. More clearance equals less accuracy. And, again, the further the range, the greater the inaccuracy, as dispersion increases geometrically, not linearly. Sorry, but I took secondary school physics, and stayed awake through the entire class.

8 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

This is basic, Secondary school physics.

Shame you didn't get anything out of basic, secondary school grammar.

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,662 battles
51 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I would be all in favor of reducing Battleship gun accuracy the moment destroyers move to a realistic torpedo reload time. 

Sure, as soon as the damage is realistic as well considering torps had a much higher chance to detonate a ship, or even simply blow an entire bow off.

Lets not make the realism argument.
It is about gameplay balance.
Statistically, if the game was balanced, BB accuracy would be very poor compared to cruisers and DDs. Why is that? Range.
Having the longest range, especially when the potential gap is so large in comparison to the other ship types, the average accuracy (MBH) should be far lower than it is.
I mean, we all know the current BB meta is back camp and sniping. It is simple, they wouldn't do it en masse, if it wasn't effective. There is no if, and, or butts about it.

What metrics are showing DD torps being unbalanced?  None.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,924 posts
2,810 battles
55 minutes ago, Umikami said:

@Helstrom, what you posted is 100% irrelevant.

So I take you you can't support your claim.

Ok then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,822
[5BS]
Members
7,014 posts
1 hour ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

.........and they did say these were under ideal conditions and not to be relied upon in battle conditions, as I recall from the Iowa report.

You misunderstand; the accuracy of the Iowa's is indicative of a ship *moving,* with properly aligned turrets, and with a crew with actual practice on gunnery, *and* the fact that the same ships in the Colorado picture achieved *first* salvo hits at the Battle of Suragao Straight. Accuracy DOES NOT WORK the way you think it does; again, I cannot stress this enough: ranging was a FAR bigger problem than 'dispersion.' To put it in target shooting terms: ALL naval gunnery gets pretty good GROUPINGS, what they don't get is good *sights* and thus that grouping will be relatively tight, but potentially *1000's* of meters away from one another. That's the problem with using the Fall of Shell diagrams found on NAVWEPS: they don't circle the salvo's (groupings) so you have NO idea what the ACTUAL nominal dispersion is.

Also, scientifically speaking, ALL gunnery trials are almost always bad science, since they are changing more than 1 variable: if they kept the guns locked in both a SINGLE bearing *AND* declination, the fall of shells would be representative of their dispersion, but since nearly ALL of these examples involve ships TRYING to hit a particular target, thus changing declination after each salvo, you have no idea what the ACTUAL dispersion is (especially without disseminating which shells come from which salvo) since the experiment CHANGES salvo to salvo. It's poorly controlled and CANNOT be used for the purposes YOU and others are trying to use them for: they cannot tell you the accuracy of the GUNS, only the accuracy of the *FCS* and directors trying to hit a particular target. And this is a VERY important difference from accuracy, in either direction, as a better trained, higher quality range keeper/director would achieve DIFFERENT results than that of a poorly trained one.

Put in a simple analogy: this is a test in firing a rifle at a range where after each shot you changed where you were aiming; thus it is only testing *your* ability to do Kentucky Windage. A PROPER test of the *GUNS* ability would be to place it in a vice. Those tables are NOT of a gun in a vice, and thus are suspect for the way you are using them.

1 hour ago, Umikami said:

All metal expands as it heats: also basic, secondary school physics. So a 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 18 inch gun will require more initial clearance in the firing chamber to allow for heat expansion as the gun fires, and continues to fire, than a 5, 6, or 8 inch gun would. More clearance equals less accuracy.

Shells use this thing called a driving band; no additional clearance is necessary. In fact, most shells have less than 0.1mm of clearance between the barrel and shell. That's why they use liners and why liners wear out in only a few hundred shots. It's also why a Missfire takes so long to clear: you can't just open the breach and let the shell 'slide' out of the barrel, the driving band will have been engaged when it's driven into the barrel and thus it will 'hold' itself in and it takes a serious amount of work to remove it.

Also, drag *AND* turbulence is multiplicative, not additive, in Bernoulli's and as such it doesn't care about the diameter or the actual physical distance, but rather the % of the whole.  I.E. 0.01% of a 16" or 2" shell is treated as the same factor even if the physical distance is greater between them.

And you are mistaking that momentum of different sized objects, at the same velocity, the heavier one will maitnain that momentum in the X Y and Z better than the lighter one: a 2000 lb 16" shell with a V_0 of 830 m/s will better maintain 3D Momentum than a 200 lb 8" shell with a V_0 of 830 m/s. Assuming they fire at the SAME range, let's say 15 km, and assuming PROPERLY aligned guns and rangekeeping, the 16" guns will have FAR less dispersion than the 8" ones. This is a FACT of mathematics.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
826
[STAR]
Members
3,303 posts
8,120 battles
1 hour ago, Belthorian said:

I would be all in favor of reducing Battleship gun accuracy the moment destroyers move to a realistic torpedo reload time. 

LUL, which means most DDs would have to go back to port to reload their torps. Most DDs only had one set of torps, two ar best with 15 min reload. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,822
[5BS]
Members
7,014 posts
2 minutes ago, Xlap said:

LUL, which means most DDs would have to go back to port to reload their torps. Most DDs only had one set of torps, two ar best with 15 min reload. 

I believe that was his point.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
826
[STAR]
Members
3,303 posts
8,120 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

I believe that was his point.

I know, its just fun to think about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,662 battles
2 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

There is a *high* degree of fundamental misunderstanding's on the forums to how naval gunnery, ship type notwithstanding, functioned and the accuracies associated with: most seem to be basing their knowledge and understandings of accuracies 100% on this picture:

no31991-pic4.jpg

This is a bad picture, taken WOEFULLY out of context, and ignoring some BASIC facts and realities of how ships function.

This, is a far better example of what gunnery on a 1940's era Battleship was capable of:

 

TPeCem8.gif

I cannot stress this enough: Battleship guns are ABOUT as accurate in game as they were in reality; the chief difference is that we don't have the same problem with *range* finding that they did, ergo, we get brackets on first salvos instead of 3 or 4th.

Oh please. 

After action reports of actual real world naval battles say completely otherwise.  Battleship main batteries in game are an extremely bloated sci fi values. In real world applications, and actual events, the secondaries had a higher successful hit rate... and BOTH Main and secondary had single digit hit % hit rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,326
[CUTE]
Members
5,202 posts
3,461 battles
3 hours ago, Helstrem said:

I have seen a number of recent claims from posters such as @Wye_So_Serious that BB accuracy is buffed to make them more fun to play and that, perhaps, their accuracy should be reduced to more realistic levels.

Yes, it is true that BB accuracy is buffed far above realistic levels.  However, cruiser and DD accuracy is buffed to an even greater degree.  Naval guns were all relatively close to each other in terms of accuracy and the big BB artillery was not magically less accurate.

Arguing that BBs ought to be less accurate for balance purposes is fine, but appealing to reality is not a winning move here due to the massive accuracy buffs that cruisers and DDs also receive for gameplay reasons.

You mean appealing to reality like you're doing as well? Yeah, ok. 

You said it yourself, its buffed beyond realistic so how are these guys wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
654
[LUCK]
Members
1,684 posts
23,298 battles
18 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

You misunderstand; the accuracy of the Iowa's is indicative of a ship *moving,* with properly aligned turrets, and with a crew with actual practice on gunnery, *and* the fact that the same ships in the Colorado picture achieved *first* salvo hits at the Battle of Suragao Straight. Accuracy DOES NOT WORK the way you think it does; again, I cannot stress this enough: ranging was a FAR bigger problem than 'dispersion.' To put it in target shooting terms: ALL naval gunnery gets pretty good GROUPINGS, what they don't get is good *sights* and thus that grouping will be relatively tight, but potentially *1000's* of meters away from one another. That's the problem with using the Fall of Shell diagrams found on NAVWEPS: they don't circle the salvo's (groupings) so you have NO idea what the ACTUAL nominal dispersion is.

Also, scientifically speaking, ALL gunnery trials are almost always bad science, since they are changing more than 1 variable: if they kept the guns locked in both a SINGLE bearing *AND* declination, the fall of shells would be representative of their dispersion, but since nearly ALL of these examples involve ships TRYING to hit a particular target, thus changing declination after each salvo, you have no idea what the ACTUAL dispersion is (especially without disseminating which shells come from which salvo) since the experiment CHANGES salvo to salvo. It's poorly controlled and CANNOT be used for the purposes YOU and others are trying to use them for: they cannot tell you the accuracy of the GUNS, only the accuracy of the *FCS* and directors trying to hit a particular target. And this is a VERY important difference from accuracy, in either direction, as a better trained, higher quality range keeper/director would achieve DIFFERENT results than that of a poorly trained one.

Put in a simple analogy: this is a test in firing a rifle at a range where after each shot you changed where you were aiming; thus it is only testing *your* ability to do Kentucky Windage. A PROPER test of the *GUNS* ability would be to place it in a vice. Those tables are NOT of a gun in a vice, and thus are suspect for the way you are using them.

Shells use this thing called a driving band; no additional clearance is necessary. In fact, most shells have less than 0.1mm of clearance between the barrel and shell. That's why they use liners and why liners wear out in only a few hundred shots. Also, drag *AND* turbulence is multiplicative, not additive, in Bernoulli's and as such it doesn't care about the diameter or the actual physical distance, but rather the % of the whole.  I.E. 0.01% of a 16" or 2" shell is treated as the same factor even if the physical distance is greater between them.

First of all, I applaud your thoroughness and precision of your explanations, as usual.

Your precision in language is proportional to my misapplication in this context but I'm a simple guy and, with regard to the game, conflate dispersion and grouping and the like to the term "accuracy". The diagrams you showed are at 11.7km and in my definition of "accuracy", as inaccurate as it is, the game battleships are way more "accurate". A good exercise would be to take Colorado to the training room and plot the shots in similar fashion, alas I'm way too lazy to do that so if anyone is interested, have at it.

That said, the ships in game are modeled 2:1 so that may also be a factor in all of this. I took the diagram and traced the target ships and scaled them 200%. The Maryland would land a few more but that's not much difference for my definition of "accuracy".

Again, you are way more precise with regard to accuracy but in my alternate hapless gaming lexicon, battleships in WoWs are hyper "accurate". That's my observation/opinion not a value judgement nor a suggestion to alter anything.

It is curious though that in the past year we have witnessed AP bombs, DWT and now Asashio with the commonality being BBs so there must be something to it in the developers' strategy. I point to the "accuracy", someone else may look elsewhere but there is an element of truth to BBs being both boon and bane to the game. Another statement I put in a post and was booed for.

Respectfully.

no31991-pic4 2-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
7,662 battles
10 minutes ago, Canadatron said:

You mean appealing to reality like you're doing as well? Yeah, ok. 

You said it yourself, its buffed beyond realistic so how are these guys wrong? 

Technically he is wrong anyway. You have to go by after action reports. Those are real world naval battles and document the performance. Range played the largest factor. 

So the actual, real world performance of the smaller guns were more accurate. Yes, cruiser and DD guns in game are unrealistically bloated as well, however the amount they are "bloated" isn't even in the same galaxy as the amount BB guns are.   BBs had single digit hit %..... single digit... imagine if your average BB in game had 5% main battery accuracy stats.  In the real world, destroyers had double digit hit %

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.

×