Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Sabot_100

Gun depression

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,315
[CVA16]
Members
8,880 posts
27,102 battles

In game, most guns can target the waterline of ships at extremely close ranges (even when that would mean firing thru your own ship). IRL, how far could cruiser and BB guns actually depress in a best case, broadside target? 

My assumption is that it would not be much below actual horizontal to facilitate gun cleaning by the crew. Even for DDs I remember reading about an engagement where a u-boat was so close in that the DD crew was using rifles and tommyguns to engage the sub crew who could have used their lower mounted deck gun to shoot the DD.

Obviously IRL war planners did not envision the engagement ranges we see in WOWS. One side or the other was supposed to be sunk by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,267
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,729 posts
26,569 battles

Here the information for the 16"/50s on Iowa:

5FJqaUm.jpg

-2 degrees for turrets 1 and 3, 0 degrees for turret 2. I'm sure you can find a lot more information on a lot more guns where I got this from, on navweaps.com.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,315
[CVA16]
Members
8,880 posts
27,102 battles
34 minutes ago, Lert said:

-2 degrees for turrets 1 and 3, 0 degrees for turret 2. I'm sure you can find a lot more information on a lot more guns where I got this from, on navweaps.com.

Pretty much what I was thinking. WG (and many players) obviously wants us in at brawling/spitting ranges so these numbers would not go over well. Anything under 3K (or more?) and you can only blow holes in the targets superstructure. Can't target much lower than where your guns are mounted at close range. DDs would have a safety zone once they got in close (except for that Russian cruiser with zero freeboard).

I assume cruiser guns are the same?

Edit: I notice the US late/postwar 8" mount could depress 10 degrees, (from the navweapons)

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,267
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,729 posts
26,569 battles
20 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

Anything under 3K (or more?) and you can only blow holes in the targets superstructure.

Gravity accelerates an object downward at 9.8m/s^2. Horizontal velocity does not affect this, only lift effect on the object. Assuming no lift effect though, at 3km you're looking at a shell flight of several seconds at least, especially for battleship guns with their slower velocities, with drag constantly decelerating them in flight. Objects fall more than a few meters in several seconds, meaning that even at 3km you're going to need some elevation to hit a waterline target. For example, in 3 seconds, an object fired at a level trajectory will lose S=1/2*9.8*9=44.1 meter  or almost 45 meters of altitude and it'll be traveling at a downward rate of 29.4 m/s and accelerating.

20 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

I assume cruiser guns are the same?

Idunno. Look it up. I gave you the link.

Edited by Lert
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[BTLST]
Members
889 posts
4,185 battles

In general, shell trajectories were much more parabolic in real life than in the game. So, you need unnatural elevation abilities to compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[WOLFG]
Members
89 posts
14,258 battles

Note that the gun depression of the mount isn't always the actual limit. Most ships had safety interlocks to limit depression (and train) being too low and causing damage to decking and superstructure, which often limited depression angles more than the design of the mount.

For an interesting example, Rodney was to be sent up the Ofotfjord to sink the German destroyers at Narvik. However, her guns would not be able to depress enough to engage the destroyers, so it was proposed to disable the safety depression locks. It was decided the damage to the Rodney's decking would certainly require repairs, and with Nelson damaged Rodney could not afford to be out of action. Warspite was sent instead for her famous run up to Narvik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
618
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,876 posts
7,317 battles

Actually, the more important limitation on gun aiming was the structure of the ship itself.  For example, the British wanted to be able to fire over the bow of a ship at 0 elevation so they kept the deck flat.  If you look at most of the modern US BB's they can't do this as the bow rises.  Firing on extreme angles of traverse is allowed in the game, but in reality many of these would result in serious damage to the ship's superstructure.

As for the game, the ranges as depicted are not realistic with respect to target size.  If they were most of the time you'd be shooting at a speck in the ocean so you really can't go by those to judge what would be required elevation or depression to aim at a target.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,267
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,729 posts
26,569 battles
14 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

As for the game, the ranges as depicted are not realistic with respect to target size.

This. Ships are about twice the real size and distances are about 5 times compressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,361
[REVY]
Members
9,649 posts
7,316 battles
3 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

In game, most guns can target the waterline of ships at extremely close ranges (even when that would mean firing thru your own ship). IRL, how far could cruiser and BB guns actually depress in a best case, broadside target? 

My assumption is that it would not be much below actual horizontal to facilitate gun cleaning by the crew. Even for DDs I remember reading about an engagement where a u-boat was so close in that the DD crew was using rifles and tommyguns to engage the sub crew who could have used their lower mounted deck gun to shoot the DD.

Obviously IRL war planners did not envision the engagement ranges we see in WOWS. One side or the other was supposed to be sunk by then.

Hiei and USS Laffey came within 20 feet of each other.  Hiei was able to score 14" hits on USS Laffey (perhaps at a slightly greater range), but it's still effectively point blank.

x6ef1ze3loxz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,598
[PVE]
Members
10,597 posts
32,076 battles

If you suffer from gun depression there are hotlines for that:

1(800) CITADEL

1(800) DEV-STRIK

1(800) HIGHCAL

1(800) 4KRAKEN

1(800) 4CONFED

1(800) GR8-SHOT

1(800) ALL-SUNK

1(800) NOMO-DDS

1(800) EAT-THIS

Operators are standing by...

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
833 posts
12,757 battles

In terms of in game I can tell you that Halland has a dead ahead blind spot against targets that get too close as the front turret will not shoot. Presumably the depth charges(?) in front are in the way.

Yamato also has a dead ahead blind spot with her leading fore turret at close enough ranges, though the last time I observed this was pre-armour/model update for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,973 posts
13,731 battles
5 hours ago, Sventex said:

Hiei and USS Laffey came within 20 feet of each other.  Hiei was able to score 14" hits on USS Laffey (perhaps at a slightly greater range), but it's still effectively point blank.

x6ef1ze3loxz.jpg

Japanese 14" mounts could manage 5 degrees of depression. 

USS Laffey probably has about 20 feet of freeboard forward, with maybe 10 feet amidships and aft.

Hiei's aft weather deck is only about 15 feet above the water, with the rest of her deck maybe 25. Her barrels are maybe 5 feet above the deck. Hiei's "X" turret can probably hit Laffey's hull at very close ranges, and most Hiei's turrets (A, Q and X) can hit Laffey's superstructure. Hiei's "B" turret could probably hit Laffey's Bridge or director.

Hiei's rounds went though Laffey's bridge and number 2  turret and Hiei later on put a salvo into her amidships, at presumably longer range.

Summary of War Damage to US BBs, CVs, CA, and DDs: 17Oct41-7Dec42 Page 24.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,257
[NYAAR]
[NYAAR]
Members
4,800 posts
20,759 battles
20 hours ago, Murotsu said:

Actually, the more important limitation on gun aiming was the structure of the ship itself.  For example, the British wanted to be able to fire over the bow of a ship at 0 elevation so they kept the deck flat.  If you look at most of the modern US BB's they can't do this as the bow rises.  Firing on extreme angles of traverse is allowed in the game, but in reality many of these would result in serious damage to the ship's superstructure.

Most of the British BBs were from WW1 and their primary operation area was the North Sea facing off against the Germans. Thus alot of ships were built with this in mind and later were found to be quite wet when out on the Atlantic.

Many of the later German ships were also built with the north sea in mind, and later were modified to get an 'Atlantic bow'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×