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

Battleships firing from the Bow?

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
228 posts
1,077 battles

I was reading how most 20th century Battleships, Dreadnoughts and Battle cruisers could not fire forwards. Mainly due to the bow design, radio lines and other obstructions also the Royal Navy never designed their ships to do this. HMS Rodney fired a forward salvo at the Bismarck and had to have major repairs done afterwards as it damaged the mounts and hull. 

 

 Would it be a good idea to make Battleships fire broadsides but re-enforce their side armour (as this was historically accurate) and it's what they were designed for. 

A pic of the Tirpitzmarc (not sure what boat) showing forward firing works be almost impossible at any target closer than 15k.

32764906_2483447305014445_1412014509089882112_n.jpg

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,271
[RKLES]
Members
7,210 posts
8,982 battles
18 minutes ago, awiggin said:

No? 

Welcome to the Arcade......

 

Now let’s not be too hasty with saying no, this might just be good way to rid ourselves of Radar since maybe ships like Atlanta can blast off their Radar arrays for us... :Smile_teethhappy:

But yeah few ships in WOWs do bend the rules just a little on some ships as fire as main gun arcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,722
[TBW]
Members
6,403 posts
12,050 battles

It was also historically better to "Cross the T" as it was called. You wanted to be broadside to your target to get all guns to bear.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
519
[-1]
Beta Testers
1,862 posts
19,057 battles

My favorite are the Radars that can see through islands and spot the enemy hiding on the other side of the island now that's realistic   

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,228
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,405 posts
9,562 battles

Torpedoes were fired ONLY in the best direction for ease of water entry.

The faster the DD was going, the further forward the torpedo was aimed.

After water entry, the programmed gyroscope guided the torpedo to the intercept point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
9,078 battles

The chief main error players make is confusing this arcade game with history.  Don't do it.  Drop back and punt, do whatever you need but don't bother making that error.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
228 posts
1,077 battles
6 minutes ago, KURT_WOLFF said:

My favorite are the Radars that can see through islands and spot the enemy hiding on the other side of the island now that's realistic   

They use satellite radar, it was very advanced for the 1940s. It was so advanced thatmodern navies still haven't worked it out how to ping through land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,347 posts
9,543 battles
56 minutes ago, LunchCutter said:

I was reading how most 20th century Battleships, Dreadnoughts and Battle cruisers could not fire forwards. Mainly due to the bow design, radio lines and other obstructions also the Royal Navy never designed their ships to do this. HMS Rodney fired a forward salvo at the Bismarck and had to have major repairs done afterwards as it damaged the mounts and hull. 

 

 Would it be a good idea to make Battleships fire broadsides but re-enforce their side armour (as this was historically accurate) and it's what they were designed for. 

A pic of the Tirpitzmarc (not sure what boat) showing forward firing works be almost impossible at any target closer than 15k.

Well, you already have the reinforced side armor, it's just that:

A) matches are fought at distances that in real life would be considered point blank. Shell flight times in game I've never seen over 20 seconds, and they're rarely much over 10. In real life, at normal battle ranges, flight times were about a minute.

B) In real life, it was harder to determine range than bearing, so going broadside was the safest thing you could do. In game, we are eyeballing both, so our "picking the wrong spot on the ocean to shoot at" is more or less a circle instead of a line pointing away from the firing ship.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[HELLS]
Members
1,702 posts
15,518 battles
5 minutes ago, BullHalsey said:

The chief main error players make is confusing this arcade game with history.  Don't do it.  Drop back and punt, do whatever you need but don't bother making that error.

Exactly. If they did do historical accuracy they would have to double the size of the big maps and triple the size of small ones. They would still be too tight for CVs with realistic air groups, and in battles it would take at least a half-hour just to get within historical fighing ranges and get the job done at 28 knots! Keep it arcade style. The virtual ships we all drive ar just eye candy, and expensive eye candy at that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,226
[WOLF3]
Members
6,439 posts
2,405 battles

It's probably wise to not fire directly bow-on even in-game.  Always angle a little so that there's a chance that forward bulkhead hits will ricochet.  Easy to forget, I know...

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[DPG]
Members
896 posts
4,435 battles

If you wanted to get really historically accurate then each salvo would get increasingly closer to the target as the range to target was dialed in.  That would mean BBs sitting at about 35-40 kms out firing until they finally nailed one shell.  If you really, really want to nitpick then they could restrict queuing up your BB to about once every year or so, since BB on BB engagements weren't that common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,936 posts
1 hour ago, KURT_WOLFF said:

My favorite are the Radars that can see through islands and spot the enemy hiding on the other side of the island now that's realistic   

We made it to post 5 lads

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
242
[TDRB]
Members
1,099 posts
4,193 battles
Quote

The chief main error players make is confusing this arcade game with history.  Don't do it.  Drop back and punt, do whatever you need but don't bother making that error.

It is not an error to compare and there is nothing wrong with doing so. The more realistic the better IMO. But we MUST keep in mind this is a game and some "tweaking" must be done to balance the game. And making the game attractive to the most players is a high priority.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
974
Members
4,551 posts
6,467 battles
1 hour ago, Amenhir said:

If you wanted to get really historically accurate then each salvo would get increasingly closer to the target as the range to target was dialed in.  That would mean BBs sitting at about 35-40 kms out firing until they finally nailed one shell.  If you really, really want to nitpick then they could restrict queuing up your BB to about once every year or so, since BB on BB engagements weren't that common.

What BB ever fired 40km? ?  That is over 50 miles. Just curious, 

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,119
[NDA]
Supertester
3,896 posts
1,487 battles
11 minutes ago, dmckay said:

What BB ever fired 40km? ?  That is over 50 miles. Just curious, 

Umm, not much on math, are ye?  It's 24.8 miles.  I mean, your point is still valid - the record is Warspite's hit at something like 24,000 yards, or about 13.7 miles.

 

Edited by kerensky914

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
974
Members
4,551 posts
6,467 battles
14 minutes ago, Admiral_Ballsey said:

40km is actually closer to 24 miles, but still a long way.

Yes. I was off!  Still a long way.  I was thinking meters. I DA.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[OBS]
Members
1,243 posts
9,078 battles

An interesting thing about actual BB hulls is the USS Nevada.  After "several" hours of broadsides from USN ships, including the IOWA, Nevada finally rolled onto her side but still refused to sink.  Finally she was dispatched by an aerial torpedo.  These hulls were tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles

USS South Dakota in her duel at Guadalcanal shot over her stern, blasting off it’s own aircraft from the catapult.  Just because a ship was not intended to fire from certain arcs did not mean they couldn’t or shouldn’t.  Thus the game should not artificially restrict the gun arcs.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135
[VIP-2]
Members
804 posts
2,832 battles

I believe one of the reasons is a lack of reinforcement in the long axis of the ship to handle the recoil, thus torquing the rotational ring would occur. Although I could be wrong. However there would be no reason in the designers mind to engineer the loads in the long axis directions, because 1. it had ever been done, 2. the superstructure is in the way, 3. the bow is curved upwards (in the way).

The other thing I can be pretty certain of, is the shockwave produced could damage structures, this is very much a reason why the big guns either hang over the side of the ship, or are long enough to come within a few feet of the side, so that the angles of those shockwaves are strongest once they are past the hulls.  Any angle of steel will absorb that air pressure and could rip off.  You will see a similar thing on most tanks, artillery, etc.  Starting around 0.300" projectiles, the shockwave can be equally, or more, dangerous than the bullet. This I learned the hard way when we mounted a M2 just a little too far behind a dust shield on the cab roof of a pickup truck. After firing, the thin aluminum sheet acted like a sail and ripped off not only the dust shield but large chunks of the roof it was mounted to. Ill see if I can find the pictures....

That being said, if I was capt, and I had an urgent need to, you can bet for sure i would fire the guns any direction I please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116
[WOLF6]
Members
488 posts
8,139 battles
4 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

It was also historically better to "Cross the T" as it was called. You wanted to be broadside to your target to get all guns to bear.

 

 

No you did not, but that is a common misconception. Crossing the T was done with battle groups, not individual ships, and that distinction matters.

 

Lets spawn in two teams and have them form up in lines. The line on top can bring all guns to bear, and can focus fire on a single target. The line on the bottom can bring few guns to bear, and may not be able to focus fire. The action had naught to do with armor or penetration etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
104
[HSD]
Members
292 posts
9,563 battles

Not sure if it occurs with any other ships, but the in game Yamato actually does have a bow forward blind spot for 1 of it's turrets, if a ship gets close enough (sub 5km IIRC, and possibly only small ships such as a DD) the foremost turret can't actually shoot because of the bow. Turn to the side however and the turret clears itself.

So for at least 1 ship at point blank, direct bow on ranges against a small enough ship there is a ship that can't fire all of it's forward turrets.

Granted it could be more but the Yamato is the only ship I have ever noticed being unable to shoot directly over the bow (with 1 of the turrets) at point blank ranges.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,683 posts
7,756 battles
29 minutes ago, Xechran said:

 

 

No you did not, but that is a common misconception. Crossing the T was done with battle groups, not individual ships, and that distinction matters.

 

Lets spawn in two teams and have them form up in lines. The line on top can bring all guns to bear, and can focus fire on a single target. The line on the bottom can bring few guns to bear, and may not be able to focus fire. The action had naught to do with armor or penetration etc.

Adding to this, on later designs both the gun arrangement and armor scheme was set up so that ideal engagements would be at an angle off the bow (not straight ahead, but not broadside either). This allowed weight savings by removing rear turrets, and by using lighter armor in the rear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
279
[LHG]
Members
1,193 posts
4,965 battles

Ships wanted to get as many of their guns on target as they could because:

1. Arbitrary amounts of thin angled plate didn't bounce shells that could pen 20x their thickness

2. Fights occurred at like double the ranges that we're used to seeing in-game, and accuracy was in the single digits for everyone involved

 

Video games aren't real-life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×