Accuracy

[MUTbKA]

So, I've tested it once again...

Again, demo-version, 1.007, "The Duel" scenario, I'm on EoI, paused just after start, issued the followed orders:

1. Course 210;
2. Max speed;
3. Fire at will.

and then just looking, no control.

So, once again I've received a lot of hits from the only (1st) german gun, once again no hits from my guns at all, but... at the distance approx. 9500 meters my ship received a hit into command center, I've lost captain and fire director (that was stated in game window).

Guess, what happened later?

You are right! My fire instantly became simply deadly. I've started to hit the enemy almost every salvo! After loosing my fire director there was no chance for the enemy. I've scored hits 4x or 5x times more than he can provide.

I've posted pictures at distance ~4000m with fire director, and do not want to repeat. And that is the picture of firing at ~8000m without fire director:

What else do you need to see, that in game fire director simply useless?

 

[RAMjb]

What else do you need to see, that in game fire director simply useless?

I'd say that what your example at most can be a proof of the fire without director being too accurate...not the fire with director being too inaccurate.

Anyway, set up a battle between two predreads (which have no directors) and you'll see that their fire is not exactly ultra-accurate at anything but quite low range (Anything under 7000m)

What you saw isn't normal at all, but I repeat that now with 1.007 I see a quite believable gunnery in all battles I fight...

 

[rgreat]

Ok, tested more, German BB and 3 CL's against division of maneuvering Brit DD's.

Range about 4 km and increasing to 5 later.

Most fast+precise was secondary guns of BB.
They found targed near instantly. Hits usually starts in first 30 seconds. And never miss too much after that. Usually like 5 salwos and DD sinking.
And these guns have are very quick realod.
Only 10sec to reload, same as written in gun info.

Second place taken by for Main Guns of BB (these 30.5 cm spend like 5 salvos to found correct bearing and range...)
Then 1-2 hits and DD is sinking. So, kinda delayed, but sure death for DD's.
35 seconds to realod (compared to written 24)....

Third place go for secondary 8.8 cm guns of CL's (but they seems like spread a bit more and only do light damage)
They similar to secondaries of BB's in how fast they gather correct shot.
So, third place go to them.
Only 10sec to reload, same as written in gun info.

Last place go for 15cm main guns of CL's.. similar for 30.5cm they are slow to get correct shoot, and does not seem to keep it... miss alot.
And of cause they have lower firerate and while do alot less damage compared to 30.5 cm... heh...
35 seconds to realod (compared to written 15!).
And you can do 50 (!) salvos and DD will still be alive.

I guess main problem of CL guns it their awful realod times compared to other guns...
Take ALOT more (like 10+ times more) of time to sink a DD by CL's 8x15cm compared to 14x15cm of a BB...

IMHO now we have either BB secondary armament too powerful or CL's main guns too weak (or both)...

After all BB using only 15cm guns killed 5 DD's at the same time while 3 x CL's got not even one..

For now is much more usefull to guard main battle line against DD attack by assigning 1-2 predreads for that task instead of 5-10 CL's.

 

[Bullethead]

IMHO now we have either BB secondary armament too powerful or CL's main guns too weak (or both)...

After all BB using only 15cm guns killed 5 DD's at the same time while 3 x CL's got not even one each..

All 15cm guns fire exactly the same ammo with exactly the same ballistics. Thus, a hit from a BB's 15cm does exactly the same damage as a hit from a CL's 15cm. There are only 2 ways in which 15cm guns differ between ships:

1. Different mounts have different max elevations, and those with higher elevations shoot a littler further, but are otherwise the same.
2. Those in capital ship 2ndary batteries shoot a lot faster than those mounted as CL main armament.

The thing that is affecting your results is the ROF difference. This ROF difference comes from differences in ammunition supply. It's not a difference in the gun or the performance of its ammo.

In German capital ships, there were a bunch of separate 2ndary magazines along the length of the ship. Each such magazine fed 1 or 2 2ndary guns with dedicated hoist for each gun. This meant that there were no bottlenecks in the system and one gun never had to wait on another for ammo. These guns could therefore approach their maximum theoretical reate of fire.

In German (and Brit, for that matter) CLs, OTOH, the magazines were fore and aft, because the whole central volume of the ship was taken up by the machinery. As a result, the ammo had to be moved from the ends of the ships to the guns in the middle. There were 2 ways to do this. Either the hoists came up to the main deck, from whence the ammo was carried along to the midships guns, or there was a below-decks "ammunition passage" that ran along the side of the ship, with hoists under every gun. But either way, there was a bottleneck, because there was only 1 way out of the magazine, either the hoist or the ammunition passage. Thus, each gun had to wait on the others' rounds just to leave the magazine, and then there was however long it took to move the ammo 1/2 the length of the ship.

Think of it this way. On the capital ships, the time to reload the whole broadside of 2ndary guns was the time required to load 1 gun, because they could all be loaded simultaneously. On the CLs, the time to reload the broadside was approximately the time required to load each gun 1 at a time in sequence, because they all depended on the same source of supply.

The 2ndary guns of German capital ships are therefore very deadly. Brit capital ships can't compare, because they were arranged just like in cruisers. Their 2ndary magazines were at the ends next to the main magazines, so had the same bottleneck problems. This was because the Brit ships were proportionately narrower than German capital ships, so didn't have room for the 2ndary magazines between the machinery and the torpedo bulkhead. Thus, German DDs won't face the same storm of fire, plus most Brit 2ndary guns don't have as good a fire control system.

 

[rgreat]

Isnt there were any way to compensate for this weakness?

I have read about ammo storages near the guns themselfs... (it was done before battle) and alot of crew whos only task was to bring ammo...

I think noone is dumb enough to have ammunition storage hole small enough to severely limit firerate of the guns?!
What the point to have 8 guns if due insufficient ammo flow you only can fire 2 at the same time, max?

Also, i think accuracity problems of CL's are partially based upon awfully slow firerate.
CL director have too rare splashes to quickly estimate correct target situation... Can you at least compensate for it?
I wish there was a way to toggle betwing directed fire and local control...

For now CLs are quite weak at task they are supposed to do...


Recollection from the battle of falklands (1914) AC Kent vs CL Nurnberg:

Both ships were now firing away as fast as they could, and getting closer and closer. The Kent was steaming much faster than the Nürnberg now It was now 6 o'clock. The range was down to 4000 yards. Both ships were using independent firing, and firing as fast as the guns could be loaded and fired. The Kent was firing lyddite shell. We could see our shell bursting all over the Nürnberg, and we could see that she was on fire. There was a tremendous noise, guns firing and shell bursting, with a continuous crash of broken glass, splinters flying, things falling down, etc.

P.S. My test show old CL wihtout director have same (or better) efficiency as new directed ones, althrough both suck.
Can be just a one time situation though...

 

[Bullethead]

I have read about ammo storages near the guns themselfs... (it was done before battle) and alot of crew whos only task was to bring ammo...

I think noone is dumb enough to have ammunition storage hole small enough to severely limit firerate of the guns?!
What the point to have 8 guns if due insufficient ammo flow you only can fire 2 at the same time, max?

There was what they called "ready use" ammo stowage at the guns. This did not hold many rounds and was soon exhausted. Thus, for the long haul, the ammo had to be carried along the ship.

The Brit ACs worked this way, too. All those side turrets were fed via ammo passages from magazines at the ends.

Note that the Brits were much more concerned about the danger of cordite explosions due all the exposed propellant forming a line from the battery to the magazine. As such, they took much more care to limit the amount of propellant in the battery than they did with the main guns.

 

[MUTbKA]

I'd say that what your example at most can be a proof of the fire without director being too accurate...not the fire with director being too inaccurate.

May be, but it need to be fixed anyway.

Anyway, set up a battle between two predreads (which have no directors) and you'll see that their fire is not exactly ultra-accurate at anything but quite low range (Anything under 7000m)

I can't, I have only demo-version. Actually, I don't want to spend money on game in its current state...

What you saw isn't normal at all, but I repeat that now with 1.007 I see a quite believable gunnery in all battles I fight...

May be, there is a difference between demo and registered version?

 

[rgreat]

You can set accuracy slider to your liking, as well as do some more customisations.

Well, and gunnery can be finetunded in time i beleave.
It is already became much better compared to release.

 

[bolitho]

yesterday I fought a saved computer-generated battle.

on the german (my) side:
Baden
Pommern
Deutschland
Schleswig-Holstein

on the british side:
Renown
Repulse
Agincourt
Hercules

gunnery accuracy was set to 80, all other settings on default.
From the number of guns the germans are clearly outnumbered, my first try with a older patch resulted in the expected desaster for the germans...

The actual battle started at daylight at about 18000 m

The two british BC steamed with 30 knots towards me and scored a hit on Baden at the 3. Salvo, knocked out one turret :angry:

A few minutes later Baden scored hits which resulted in the magazine-explosion of repulse :devious:
The AI seems trying first to reduce the distance instead of bringing all turrets to bearing, which would make a vast effect regarding Agincourt :horse:

Back to topic... at the end of the battle all british were sunk except of Hercules, Schleswig-Holstein was badly damaged and doomed.
No complain about accuracy (only the british guns fired quite less shots, Renown stopped firing without turrets knocked out, they were still training to their expected target...?)
Baden shot at the crippeled Hercules (5 knots) from a distance of 10000 meters and set about 5 salvos with a clear off-target bearing (about 2 times the length of Hercules and vast too short into the sea. The salvo-pattern was quite narrow. After the first salvo I expected to see a correction but the next 3 or 4 salvos hit the same spot of water clearly off a quite stationary target! Baden wasn´t under enemy fire at this time, but maybe Jutland simulated some kind of mechanic problem in the director of Baden??
As other users mentioned there might still be a issue in the algorithm of director-simulation which causes sometimes a drift-off or dead-end of the fire-solution after working fine at the first salvos.
Nevertheless patch 1.007 shows a increase of accuracy at all.

But I hope SES is already working on this.:hail:


regards,
Thomas

 

[HMSWarspite]

The two british BC steamed with 30 knots towards me and scored a hit on Baden at the 3. Salvo, knocked out one turret :angry:

A few minutes later Baden scored hits which resulted in the magazine-explosion of repulse :devious:

Well if you will play with the accuracy up that high...

The AI seems trying first to reduce the distance instead of bringing all turrets to bearing, which would make a vast effect regarding Agincourt :horse:

Well known issue and been commented on lots of times...

 

[kotori87]

The AI seems trying first to reduce the distance instead of bringing all turrets to bearing, which would make a vast effect regarding Agincourt :horse:

I remember doing an experiment a while ago, purely out of curiosity, where I set an AI-controlled line of 9 brit battleships against an AI-controlled line of 9 German battleships. Both sides started at about 15000 meters range. I maxed out accuracy and damage control, turned off ACH, and dropped damage, torpedo accuracy, and torpedo damage as low as they could go. Both sides began a kamikaze charge at the other, but changed their minds once the first salvo hit. They then turned roughly parallel at around 10K-12K meters range, and sailed around at roughly the same range pounding on each other until both sides were out of ammo. They then turned back to their respective bases and sailed away. I got the impression that, if they could, either the British or German admiral would have invited the other for tea afterwards, because of how sportingly regular the whole thing seemed.

This was in contrast to earlier observations (during regular me vs AI battles) that the AI agressively charges in to torpedo range, and only turns away to dodge torpedoes. I'd bet (but don't quote me on this) that the AI decides what range is "safe enough" based on how often it gets hit. Not hit often enough? get in closer. Hit too much? open the range.

With the various patches, the AI has been getting a lot better about this, too. Just last night, I played Jutland at 1548 and both lines of battlecruisers were happily thumping away at each other at 12 kilometers range, using default accuracy and damage settings.

 

[Von der Tann]

I have done a little single player battling myself the last few days and had some surprising results. I had that one scenario where each side have 1 DD and one CL fighting up close with 2 BB approaching. While all ships were very adept at evading torpedoes automatically (very useful as you generally see them rather late), the shooting was quite pitiful at times. This, however, did not stop DD S 58 to take an eventually lethal hit only a few minutes into the battle, uncontrollable fire and most weapons out, while CL Rostock took multiple 6" hits without even flinching. In the end, CL Falmouth made the mistake of running straight in front of the BB guns, but it took over 15 minutes to sink her after that and most 11" salvoes were far from where they were supposed to go, with a wounded target limping away and hardly being able to retaliate at about four thousand yards. Despite a dozen or so 6" hits, Rostock lost almost no performance - a few searchlights smashed and a couple of holes, but all weapons still operational although there had been some damage. The RN BB, however, never even showed up.

It certainly seems as if targeting is quite a headache to fine tune, but I had expected nothing else in a simulation this complex. Even in the simple HPS Jutland, targeting troubles and ways to circumvent them were always a problem, even after several years.

 

[oz_boater]

Think of it this way. On the capital ships, the time to reload the whole broadside of 2ndary guns was the time required to load 1 gun, because they could all be loaded simultaneously. On the CLs, the time to reload the broadside was approximately the time required to load each gun 1 at a time in sequence, because they all depended on the same source of supply.

Surely not Bullethead. The ROF of the set of guns should be limited to the rate at which ammo can be brought to the guns (rate of supply) rather than treating them as being loaded in sequence. The rate of supply would be limited by two main variables

1) The rate at which ammo can be removed from the magazine and got to the point where it needs to be carried

2) The rate at which it can then be distributed - which is function of how far it has to move and the amount of people available to move it, with an uppoer limit of the amount of people who can effectively use the ammo passageways.

The ROF then becomes (at best) the lesser of those two and the ROF of the gun (unless ammo is being humped by the gun crews).

Am I missing something here?

Regards

Boater

 

[Bullethead]

Surely not Bullethead. The ROF of the set of guns should be limited to the rate at which ammo can be brought to the guns (rate of supply) rather than treating them as being loaded in sequence. The rate of supply would be limited by two main variables

I said approximately like being loaded in sequence, by way of illustration, to contrast with the German 2ndary guns which really are effectively loaded simultaneously. The Brit guns are closer to be loaded in sequence than they are to being simultaneous. Obviously, there's some overlap--Gun B doesn't have to wait until Gun A is completely loaded before it can start.

However, due to every gun in the battery often having to draw ammo from the same hoists, and some of the guns being nearly the length of a football field away from the hoists, with a number of intervening bulkheads and hatches en route, ROF was not going to be fast. Some guns were necessarily going to be delayed due to having to wait for the ammo of other guns to go by before its own came along. And if the battery was firing salvos, which was usually the case at least to start with, then every gun had to wait on whichever gun took the longest to reload.

The ROFs for 2ndary batteries and CL main guns were taken primarily from Campbell, BTW. He discusses the subject in his Jutland book.

 

[rgreat]

AFAIK ammo flow is fairly constant, and not limited to one shell per time moved in passages from magasine, and to shells movement only possible after all guns fire a salvo.
If one gun is much farther away from magasine you just use more crew to tranfer ammo to it (more shells in transit at the same time).

Thats why you don't need to wait untill ammo is transferred to gun A from magasine to load next ones..
So called 'ready use' ammo supplies are being refilled constantly.
These are just several rounds but usually enough to fill possible gaps in ammo suply.
I'm talking about ideal situation, and life can bring extra obstacles, but still...

CL 10-15cm firerate can be slower compared to BB, but 10 vs 35 seconds? That way much difference i think.
Made CL uselless.

I think it is better to have CL guns to fire at designated 15 sec salvos (in central directed mode), but maybe have some guns miss the salvo sometimes.
Will be alot better for overall CL accuracy.

 

[oz_boater]

The ROFs for 2ndary batteries and CL main guns were taken primarily from Campbell, BTW. He discusses the subject in his Jutland book.

Thanks Bullethead,
Thats a big book and I don't remember that discussion (its been a while since I read it). Do you happen to recall or have a note as to about where that discussion is?

Thanks

Boater

 

[HMSWarspite]

AFAIK ammo flow is fairly constant, and not limited to one shell per time moved in passages from magasine, and to shells movement only possible after all guns fire a salvo.
If one gun is much farther away from magasine you just use more crew to tranfer ammo to it (more shells in transit at the same time).

First, the shells aren't actually the problem, they are fairly stable and short of a direct hit not too likely to go up (they are after all fired up the barrel!), the issue is the propellant - you really do not want too much propellant around on these battery decks - at least a couple of ships had a nasty fire in the secondary batteries from one hit. Also, the point is the hoists work at max rate and that sets the number of shells that can be fed per min - that is the RoF

Thats why you don't need to wait untill ammo is transferred to gun A from magasine to load next ones..
So called 'ready use' ammo supplies are being refilled constantly.

Not usually - you feed the guns off the main supply as much as possible and only use 'ready use' ammo if there is an interuption. Most navies that I am aware of viewed it as better to fire at the sustained rate continuously, with ready use ammo to cover breakdowns, rather than fire off all the ready use to get a better rate of fire for a short period

These are just several rounds but usually enough to fill possible gaps in ammo suply.
I'm talking about ideal situation, and life can bring extra obstacles, but still...

CL 10-15cm firerate can be slower compared to BB, but 10 vs 35 seconds? That way much difference i think.
Made CL uselless.

I think it is better to have CL guns to fire at designated 15 sec salvos (in central directed mode), but maybe have some guns miss the salvo sometimes.
Will be alot better for overall CL accuracy.

Why do you say Cls are useless at 35 sec RoF? And have you got a source for your 15sec RoF with a few guns missing the salvos?

 

[Paladin851]

Rate Of Fire 15cm/45
(see Note) 5 - 7 rounds per minute
Note: In "Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting" by John Campbell, it is stated that German capital ships were provided with an ammunition hoist for each 15 cm (5.9") gun and that these could provide 7 or more complete rounds per minute. For light cruisers the rate of supply was about three to five rounds per minute per gun once the ready ammunition had been used up.


Rate of fire 6"/45

Rate Of Fire
(see Note) 5 - 7 rounds per minute
Note: The Rate of Fire figure given above is found in references for British guns of this caliber, but "Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860-1905" quotes Jellicoe's 1906 figures for rates of fire for these guns in gunlayers' tests and in battle practice and notes that the latter figures corresponded well to those actually attained by the Japanese at Tsushima:

Gunlayers Test: 12 rounds per minute
Battle Practice: 4 rounds per minute

In "Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting" by John Campbell, it is stated that almost all British capital ships had few or slow hoists for their 6" (15.2 cm) guns and that once the ready ammunition was used up, the rate of fire dropped to about 3 rounds per minute. For light cruisers the rate of supply was was about three to five rounds per minute per gun, and usually closer to the lower figure.

My own testing : German Cl's fire an average of 3 rounds every 1 minute 10 seconds over a 1/2 hour period.so as far as i am concerned it sort of comes down to how much we want to knit-pic !!!!!

I dont know if this is modeled in game but Brit 6" guns had AP (CPC) and HE available and the German 5.9 only had HE that could account for why the 5.9s in the German CL's are less effective against lightly armored British ships.

All things considered I would say SES and BH have things rite

 

[rgreat]

Currently CL's 15cm guns are only provide 1.7 rounds per minute... not 3-5 as stated by John Campbell.

3-5 rounds per sec = reload times of 20-12 sec. Not 35 as we have now.

And we dont have 'ready use ammo availiable' mode for CL's which must give out 8-10 secs of reload...

Also, this 'ready use' reserve must be replenished as soon as cruiser cease fire.

Kinda big difference.
And yes - CL's are uselless. Nearly as uselles as current DD (with current lazy torpedo fire).

One BC/BB can kill as much DD's as entire division of CL's and do it much faster...

 

[Slider6]

One BC/BB can kill as much DD's as entire division of CL's and do it much faster...

I think the point is the effectiveness of CL's is not being modeled. (both gunnery and torpedos)

Given the recent change to BB/BC secondary targeting effectiveness this is true.

I now just use my division of 20 CL's to sweep edges of conflict and clean up stragglers etc. One BC would do what they do as effectively.

What I'm still trying to figure out is why the AI seems to be able to fire torpedos at will and in droves but I can't get an entire division to shoot but one or two.