Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
mrieder79

Question about BB shell arcs

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

149
[ICBM]
Members
335 posts
5,074 battles

I'm a DD main but every once in awhile I play my New Mexico. I've noticed that my leads for New Mex are very similar to those of my RU DDs. The shell velocity on new mex are a fair amount slower so I'm wondering if they keep their momentum longer due to heavier weight or if it is an artificial change to make it possible to hit things at long distances with BB salvos. 

For what ever reason, I'm glad it works this way because sure makes my life easier.

Thoughts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[SOB]
Members
254 posts
3,399 battles

From what I understand the gunsight is calibrated for the ship you are in making gun velocity irrelevant. Donest matter if you shooting the laser that is the Zao or the rainbow thats the Worcester. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
719
[HYDRO]
Members
1,559 posts
3,751 battles

Heavier shell weight means the shells  retain more kinetic energy. The easiest example that showcases this is Akizuki. The velocity of 1000 m/s is at the moment the shells exit the barrels,making the trajectories very flat up to a certain range. At 8-9km the shells become far floatier due to drag and reduced weight mostly resembling USN DD arcs.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
234
[TDRB]
Members
1,082 posts
4,141 battles

I've been told but have never sought to verify WG makes the guns much more accurate than in real life. My personal shooting experiences tends to make believe  this is a true statement.  There are some exceptions such as the Scharnhorst & Yorck, they shoot nothing alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[SOB]
Members
254 posts
3,399 battles
14 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

I've been told but have never sought to verify WG makes the guns much more accurate than in real life. 

I am not so sure about that. During the Battle of Calabria Warspite landed a hit on the Gulio Cesare at a range of 24 km. 

The Iowa can hit a football field at 20mi. That is sub MOA accuracy done from a moving platform. I would say battleships are VERY accurate. WoWs greatly simplifies the process needed to make hits at such range but it was doable. 

EDIT: Historically the hit rate during WWII naval gunnery was about 32%, better than most do in game. 

Edited by MizzenMast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

Ballistics in game are very accurate to their irl counterparts. However distance is compressed (in general, not shell arcs) so there is a bit of deviation from reality there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
600
[OPRAH]
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
3,855 posts
12,593 battles

the shell arcs are just aesthetic graphics for us to enjoy since the math and physics of a shot and a hit would not make for an entertaining display. The calculations of course are unique for each ship and all operate in the back ground. I have seen many instances where some of my salvo rounds splash well away from the target but the one I see actually hit brings up two or more hit ribbons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
234
[TDRB]
Members
1,082 posts
4,141 battles
3 hours ago, MizzenMast said:

I am not so sure about that. During the Battle of Calabria Warspite landed a hit on the Gulio Cesare at a range of 24 km. 

The Iowa can hit a football field at 20mi. That is sub MOA accuracy done from a moving platform. I would say battleships are VERY accurate. WoWs greatly simplifies the process needed to make hits at such range but it was doable. 

EDIT: Historically the hit rate during WWII naval gunnery was about 32%, better than most do in game. 

I was repeating what I've read.

With the end zones a football field is about 292 meters. I believe all in game BB's dispersion is less than that.

WW2 gunners practiced, many people playing this game never practice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 battles

I just go for the "feel" of the gun. I like IJN 127s, 140s, 203s, French 380s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
277
[RUST]
Beta Testers
945 posts
10,405 battles
5 hours ago, Doomlock said:

Ballistics in game are very accurate to their irl counterparts. However distance is compressed (in general, not shell arcs) so there is a bit of deviation from reality there.

Distances are capped, not compressed. If it was compressed, you’d get more plunging fire and deck armor would matter more than just thickness vs bounce angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
311
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,058 posts
3,926 battles
5 hours ago, MizzenMast said:

EDIT: Historically the hit rate during WWII naval gunnery was about 32%, better than most do in game. 

 

Not sure where you got that...Garzke, Roberts, and pretty much any other source will tell you that the average hit percentage in engagements from 1898-1945, irrespective of ranges, hovered between 3%-5%. USS Washington seems to be the clear winner when she engaged and sank Kirishima at 2nd Guadalcanal. At night, at ranges of 4-8 miles, Washington achieved a 16% hit rate. The 3-5 and 16% hit rates reflect actual combat action, not the artificially inflated and fudged hit rates during gunnery exercises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[SOB]
Members
254 posts
3,399 battles
1 minute ago, BBsquid said:

Not sure where you got that...

IIRC it was from a Naval War College study done during WWII. I had just read about it semi recently (last few months). When I get home from work I will dig up the source. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
311
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,058 posts
3,926 battles
2 hours ago, MizzenMast said:

IIRC it was from a Naval War College study done during WWII. I had just read about it semi recently (last few months). When I get home from work I will dig up the source. 

Please do. If you know anything about ballistics and the factors that cause dispersion I think you would agree that 32% is a bit high for optical or even phenomenal mechanical fire control systems like the Mk 38 GFCS we carried on New Jersey under combat conditions. I'd say its a little high even for target practice. Hell, we probably didnt achieve 32% hit rates with the Mk 45 5"/54s on the two Aegis ships I served on after I left the battleship.  Operational Experience of Fast Battleships in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, published by the US government printing office, gives a pretty good overview. That pub and Garzke quote Washington with ~75 rounds expended against Kirishima for 9-12  (.12-.16%) 16" hits. This was done, again, with what is widely considered the best FCS of the war, at night, 4-8 miles range, and while Washington herself was not under fire. In other words, nearly perfect, point blank conditions.

Naval War College? These are the same guys that ran a war game in the fall of 1945* and "determined" that if the fleet would have sortied after Ward's submarine sighting report that Pearl Harbor wouldn't have been the disaster that it was. In that finding they are semi correct. if the fleet had sailed, the losses would have been catastrophic, and in deep water to boot. No resurrected Standards forming a battle line at Surigao Strait. You also have to consider that during the war, ship losses and damage to the enemy were greatly exaggerated on both sides, either to rationalize blue losses or simply errors in perception and judgement due to fog of war and the heat of battle. Take a look at what damage and losses Daniel Callaghan reported inflicting on the IJN at Cape Esperance as an example.  

The big problem with assuming a 32% hit rate is the dispersion associated with naval gunnery. There are numerous factors that lead to dispersion, such as rotation of the earth, temperature, pitch, roll, and yaw of the firing platform, variations in gun discharge timing (even in director control), barrel droop, variations in propellant charge, variations or improper seating of projectile and propellant, and a metric crapton of other factors.  To illustrate somewhat, Colorado, West Virginia, and Maryland conducted a gunnery shoot in '30-31. Target was an assumed 785' BB at 12,800 yds (7.2 miles). Each ship was allocated 56 rounds to fire:

 

no31991-pic4.jpg

 

In a controlled environment, during peacetime, Colorado scored 4.2% hits, West Virginia scored 3.7, and Maryland 5.4. All this without the bedlam and chaos of combat.

TLDR; real life ballistics and gunnery do not yield the same hit results as a point and clicky arcade game.

also ,WG: note the shape of the pattern: its elliptical along the axis of the gun target line.

 

*: Looking for the write up on that war game but I think I found in the late 90s. Gimme some time.

 

 

Edited by BBsquid
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,468
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
550 battles
46 minutes ago, BBsquid said:

Stuff

 

Dispersion doesn't work in this game the way it does in real life. Dispersion is a horizontal ellipse, or at best a circle, instead of being a vertical ellipse like it was in real life. It would actually be easier to land shots ingame (because every ship ingame essentially has US RADAR FCS and remote gunlaying) if dispersion worked properly. It doesn't. Which is why you get shells flying wildly horizontally, which is just physics-defying.

 

This is one of the reasons why "crossing the T" in our game is exactly opposite of what it should be. In real life, a ship crossing another ship's T should have a much bigger target to shoot at because of how dispersion actually works (and as your graphs show). Instead, a target presenting it's bow is instead presenting a smaller target and is harder to hit. It's like Bizarro world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
311
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,058 posts
3,926 battles
16 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

Dispersion doesn't work in this game the way it does in real life. Dispersion is a horizontal ellipse, or at best a circle, instead of being a vertical ellipse like it was in real life. It would actually be easier to land shots ingame (because every ship ingame essentially has US RADAR FCS and remote gunlaying) if dispersion worked properly. It doesn't. Which is why you get shells flying wildly horizontally, which is just physics-defying.

 

This is one of the reasons why "crossing the T" in our game is exactly opposite of what it should be. In real life, a ship crossing another ship's T should have a much bigger target to shoot at because of how dispersion actually works (and as your graphs show). Instead, a target presenting it's bow is instead presenting a smaller target and is harder to hit. It's like Bizarro world. 

Exactly.

On the other hand...if you consider that WoWS is simply a re-skin of WoT with water and little boats...it kinda makes sense. Russians aren't exactly world renowned for their naval history or expertise. They have had a relatively solid experience with land combat though. The muffed dispersion, the capture points, and the peek-a-boom, rock back and forth island humping meta...it just reeks of a tank game.

Edited by BBsquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
Members
1,590 posts
4,356 battles

There can be a lot of similarity between different guns inside 10-12 km.  Depending on the guns, dissimilar guns can have similar arc much further out too, as you've noted.  The point of differentiation is really beyond 10-12 km or so in my experience.  I say that as someone who has experience with a variety of USN ships, renowned for rainbows, and VMF and KM ships on the other side of the spectrum.  

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.

×