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

real life USN cruiser firing arc

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

233
[TNG]
Members
821 posts
6,188 battles

just curious, were USN cruisers shell trajectory this floaty and slow in real life? considering fighting battles in pacific ocean meant very little islands to hump, having floaty shells almost means you are at a huge disadvantage versus japanese cruisers such as the atago and myoko.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
917
[LEGIO]
Members
2,990 posts
5,408 battles

Realistically it didn't matter much as even higher velocity guns have flight times that can be over a minute long and in order to get a good fire control solution you have to be on a steady course and speed anyway. Plus in real life shells don't have highly visible tracers like they do in game.

Edited by Lampshade_M1A2
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,176 posts
11,693 battles

The trajectories are...not historical.  Velocity is, and striking angle are.  Time to target is compressed.  Shell arcs are also capped.  IRL ALL of the shells fly higher than they do in game.

In WW2, you didn't aim at a ship, you aimed at the point in the water where you thought that enemy ships would be.  In practice, none of the 8-inch ships were very good shots until late 43 or so, USN or IJN.  Theoretically the 8-inch ships had better ballistics at long range.  In practice, fire control was not good enough to take advantage of it.  At close range, the ROF of the smaller guns was more important.  At practical combat ranges, the 6-inch cruiser was superior to the 8-inch cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[-TDF-]
Beta Testers
255 posts
3,194 battles

No it's purely a game balance thing. The Des Moines in real life could hit targets at 25,000 yards(22km) with ease...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,150
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,178 posts
18,904 battles

There is some clip about the sinking of the Bismarck at YouTube where a former gunner from the Belfast explains how aiming worked at that time. He said that 1% hit ratio was considered as good against a moving target.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
297
[KNTI2]
Members
786 posts
4,302 battles
34 minutes ago, _Dracarys said:

just curious, were USN cruisers shell trajectory this floaty and slow in real life? considering fighting battles in pacific ocean meant very little islands to hump, having floaty shells almost means you are at a huge disadvantage versus japanese cruisers such as the atago and myoko.

Shells were MORE "floaty". You would be throwing shells close to 75 degrees from horizontal at normal combat ranges (i.e how the game treats "max" range, except far enough that you could mistake a Kongo for a Yamato that is further away).

> slow

Our shells in-game move incredibly fast even with the range compression.

The game treats these guns like you would small arms; direct gun laying is pretty common within 10 km. In real life, it was more like firing an artillery gun....off of a moving vehicle, going through bocage terrain, as your opponent does the same. Hit rates were proportionally low.

The Mk 37 GFCS bumped that up to what we would consider "secondary specced" hit rates at their maximum range. Still a far cry from what is possible in-game.

Edited by NATOMarksman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles

In Neptune's Inferno, cruiser crewmen talked about seeing the tracers for their rounds disappear in the cloud layer and reemerge later. And that was at Guadalcanal where most of the battles happened at near point-blank range. 

 

According to Navweaps, the flight time for the US 6"/47 AP with a 2,500 ft/sec muzzle velocity was as follows:

 

10,000 yards (9,140 m) 16.2 seconds

20,000 yards (18,290 m) 44.7 seconds

26,000 yards (23,770 m) 77.3 seconds

 

So yeah. Much more floaty IRL than in the game. Max flight time for the Helena at 14.6km is like 11 seconds, if I recall.

Share this post


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

REALITY:

Nobody pointed their own guns, unless the Fire Control System was destroyed.

Every FCS tower had a computer.  Before digital computers, an Autistic Human was the computer...  I'm not kidding.  They could recite the ballistics charts.

There were also mechanical aiming hacks that were a complex contraption of gears, strings, knobs, and bits of bicycle chain.

When the American radar fire control system came out on the Clevelands, it was a secret as the Norden Bombsight.  If there was a danger if sinking in shallow water, there was a procedure to destroy it completely.

I'll post a link to it in action..   BE WARNED -- IT'S UNFILTERED.  It's heavily laden with racist remarks, even the last word (against African Americans).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
179
[-DPF-]
Members
769 posts
8,214 battles
2 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

REALITY:

Nobody pointed their own guns, unless the Fire Control System was destroyed.

Every FCS tower had a computer.  Before digital computers, an Autistic Human was the computer...  I'm not kidding.  They could recite the ballistics charts.

There were also mechanical aiming hacks that were a complex contraption of gears, strings, knobs, and bits of bicycle chain.

When the American radar fire control system came out on the Clevelands, it was a secret as the Norden Bombsight.  If there was a danger if sinking in shallow water, there was a procedure to destroy it completely.

I'll post a link to it in action..   BE WARNED -- IT'S UNFILTERED.  It's heavily laden with racist remarks, even the last word (against African Americans).

 

Actually there were no digital fire control systems.  They used analog computers with mechanical components to do addition, multiplication and differentiation.  Back in the early Dreadnought days, these were fairly simple, and only handled a few variables, but by WWII they were extremely complex and handled many variables.  The analog fire control computers are still mounted on all four of the Iowa class BBs because even in the early 1980's, when they had their last major refits, the digital fire control systems were no more accurate than their analog systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles

Guns could be aimed either from director control (US ships had RPC on elevation and training) or under local control, but more often than not it was done by the fore/aft director. Gunnery officer had a firing key and there was literally a "fire" button. US generally preferred salvo fire over ripple fire, Japanese generally preferred ripple fire over salvo fire. Then you got firecontrol RADAR and it almost literally became point-and-click for firing on US ships. 

 

Also, Dallas, Helena and Cleveland should be firing 10 rounds per minute per gun. Helena was rated at 10 rounds per minute per gun and exceeded that many times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,197
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,808 posts
10,315 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

The trajectories are...not historical.  Velocity is, and striking angle are.  Time to target is compressed.  Shell arcs are also capped.  IRL ALL of the shells fly higher than they do in game.

 

In game ships move 5.25x faster, while shells only travel about 3x faster. Overall that means the targeted ship can travel further during shell flight, disadvantaging slow guns in particular.

More realistic would either be ships seeming to travel no more than about 18kt for a 30kt ship currently - if that were the case I think the USN arcs wouldn't even be commented upon. The other way to equalize things would be to reduce shell flight times a lot for everyone, narrowing the gap.

Shockingly the developers have, through their arbitrary choices seriously disadvantaged slow MV guns while making the flat shooting (and predominantly Russian) guns frequently the best of the bunch.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,176 posts
11,693 battles
Just now, mofton said:

Shockingly the developers have, through their arbitrary choices seriously disadvantaged slow MV guns while making the flat shooting (and predominantly Russian) guns frequently the best of the bunch.

Amazing how that works, innit?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
720
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,175 battles
3 hours ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Realistically it didn't matter much as even higher velocity guns have flight times that can be over a minute long and in order to get a good fire control solution you have to be on a steady course and speed anyway. Plus in real life shells don't have highly visible tracers like they do in game.

In real life radars traces income shells, far more accurate than tracers in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,201 posts
8,185 battles
4 hours ago, _Dracarys said:

just curious, were USN cruisers shell trajectory this floaty and slow in real life? considering fighting battles in pacific ocean meant very little islands to hump, having floaty shells almost means you are at a huge disadvantage versus japanese cruisers such as the atago and myoko.

Where are you getting the idea that USN cruiser shells are "more floaty" and a "huge disadvantage" compared to the ones fired by Atago and Myoko? Go take a Myoko and New Orleans and aim at a target 15 km away with both.  You'll see they have virtually identical flight times.  The only real exception is the fantasy guns on Zao.  Even the super heavy AP shells on the higher tier USN CA's aren't that much slower, at most you just increase your lead by about half a boat length.

At any rate, plenty of other people have already commented that real life naval guns were fired in much higher arcs than we see in game and shells were in the air much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
13 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

Where are you getting the idea that USN cruiser shells are "more floaty" and a "huge disadvantage" compared to the ones fired by Atago and Myoko? Go take a Myoko and New Orleans and aim at a target 15 km away with both.  You'll see they have virtually identical flight times.  The only real exception is the fantasy guns on Zao.  Even the super heavy AP shells on the higher tier USN CA's aren't that much slower, at most you just increase your lead by about half a boat length.

At any rate, plenty of other people have already commented that real life naval guns were fired in much higher arcs than we see in game and shells were in the air much longer.

 

The 8" rounds are comparable to the IJN rounds, but the 6" rounds are definitely floaty. 

 

12.10 seconds to 14.61km for HE

11.11 seconds to 14.61km for AP

 

Still, that's much faster than they were in real life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
119
[SF-A]
Beta Testers
302 posts
9,887 battles
14 hours ago, NeutralState said:

In real life radars traces income shells, far more accurate than tracers in game.

Radar did not track shells. Sometimes the Fire Control Radar operator could see a glimpse of shell flights or their splashes  on the A (ranging) scope, but that view was along the radar beam, pointed at the tracked target. The A scope display was a horizontal line across a CRT, with a vertical spike corresponding to the target. The spikes position horizontally corresponds to the target range. Typically, the CRT display represented an operator selectable portion of the total range. When tracking a surface target the A scope may have hash on the horizontal line caused by sea returns, but the target spike is much larger.

This information is brought to you by a former Fire Control guy, who turned 74 today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
720
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,175 battles
53 minutes ago, CaptnAndy said:

Radar did not track shells. Sometimes the Fire Control Radar operator could see a glimpse of shell flights or their splashes  on the A (ranging) scope, but that view was along the radar beam, pointed at the tracked target. The A scope display was a horizontal line across a CRT, with a vertical spike corresponding to the target. The spikes position horizontally corresponds to the target range. Typically, the CRT display represented an operator selectable portion of the total range. When tracking a surface target the A scope may have hash on the horizontal line caused by sea returns, but the target spike is much larger.

This information is brought to you by a former Fire Control guy, who turned 74 today.

They absolutely did. Ships, at least USN ships, had two types of radars, surveillance (surface warning) and gun control. The gun control radar can trace ship's own shells' fired as well as incoming shells. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
Just now, NeutralState said:

They absolutely did. Ships, at least USN ships, had two types of radars, surveillance (surface warning) and gun control. The gun control radar can trace ship's own shells' fired as well as incoming shells. 

 

New York could track her own shells (and splashes) with the XAF system she had installed in 1938...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×