Gunnery Accuracy in RL Jutland

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
I think we have been debating expectation from the gunnery in the game. Various people have quoted various stats. Here is the key data from Campbell (Jutland an analysis of the fighting). He doesn't discuss miss distances, but it is useful for accuracy. There are averages and specific ship performances.

Germans
1st SG fired 1670 heavy shells for 65 hits (3.89%)
Battleships 1927 shells for 57 hits (2.96%). If 12 'easy hits on Black Prince' are excluded, c1900 for 45 hits (2.37%)

British
1 and 2 BCS (Beatty's BCs) 1469 for 21 (1.43%)
3 BCS (Hood, ex gunnery practice at Scapa) 373 for 16 (4.29%)
5th BS (in similar but worse conditions to 1 & 2 BCS) 1099 for 29 (2.64%)
Rest of battleships 1593 for 57 hits (3.7%)

So we have 4 groups firing 1000+ rounds and getting 1.4% to 3.9% hits. However if we look at smaller groups and shorter spells of firing (and probably should include 3BCS in this...) we get some very interesting stuff.

Overall best spell was Iron Duke: 7 hits from 43 rounds at c12600yds (11500m) for 16.3%.

For a longer period, Barham and Valient managed 23 or 24 hits from 625 rounds (3.68% to 3.84%). More telling possibly is that by subtraction from above, the other two (Warspite and Malaya), with any rounds B & V fired outside this spell managed 5 or 6 hits from 474 rounds (1.05 to 1.26%)!

For the Germans Campbell is less specific, but Lutzow got c19 from 380 (5%), and for a shorter period, Moltke fired very well (2 hits in 3 minutes from opening fire, and continued to fire well)

When Beatty opened fire, all except Princess Royal were 'far over', Lion managing to drop in amongst the German Destroyers probably at least 1000yds over at c18000yds.

In 12 minutes (or so) the Germans managed up to 15 hits vs 4 for the British, but Lutzow's first salvo was 'well to the left'

Finally, Tiger at Dogger Bank got 1 hit in 255 rounds for 0.4% (but she wasn't fully worked up. This is not a Campbell stat...)

We need to make sure we aren't getting statistical flukes when we discuss gunnery...
 

Starlight

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
126
Reaction score
0
Location
Bristol - UK
Country
ll
Thanks for the stats, this shows just how hard it was for these ships to get hits at range. Now if over the course of a battle in the game we achieve similar hit percentages, then does it matter if the miss model is throwing some wild shots off target.

From real accounts this appears to be realistic.
 

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
Thanks for the stats, this shows just how hard it was for these ships to get hits at range. Now if over the course of a battle in the game we achieve similar hit percentages, then does it matter if the miss model is throwing some wild shots off target.

From real accounts this appears to be realistic.
It only matters if 'misses' end up hitting other ships too often, but I cant see that is an issue really - have seen it happen once or twice but not enough to worry about.
 

RAMjb

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
81
Reaction score
1
Location
madrid
Country
llSpain
I don't think anyone is complaining about accuracy at ranges over 10.000m in the game.

However some (including myself) have issues with the way gunnery is reflected at much shorter ranges. And for those Jutland (the historic battle) has no numbers to compare with.

I will refrain on making further comments, as my point of view has been well stated elsewere.
 

MUTbKA

Recruit
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
Moscow
Country
llRussia
Accuracy is heavily depending on shooting distance. At some distance almost 100% of bullets should hit the target. Sometimes it's very hard to miss, if target is as big as 150x10 meters or even larger.

For example, when shooting at 4.3 km distance there's no need to estimate the movement of enemy ship - it's sufficient to visually aim at his nose, and with correct vertical aiming you always hit BB. There will be no deflection, because we know that guns itself are sufficiently accurate - just look at tight shot placement.

But in game... I've posted it here: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showpost.php?p=1092651&postcount=8

I think, that is simply impossible to enter effective torpedo shooting range at clear day without being heavily damaged. Even destroyers in reality were not able to attack BBs with torpedoes on daylight, and they are very small compared to battleships...

Let's look on last screen - there was 1178 seconds of battle without any hits! EoI put 10 bullets every 40 seconds on enemy - so I've fired almost 300 bullets without any hit, and distance was not 11+ km!

That's completely wrong. Something is broken in fire director modelling.

It's interesting to notice that continious shooting results in huge misses in bearing, but with relatively correct distance, but if I press "cease fire" and then almost instantly issue "fire" order (at close distance - 6-7 km), then bearing error magically disappears, but huge distance calculation error emerges.

It's also interesting to see that 6" guns often (in fact, very often) place their shots almost in the same spot as 13.5" guns, but they are aiming independently, they do not use fire director data, as far as I know. So may be there is global error in determining bearing or so.

May be this information will help. BTW, in 1.002 shooting were more realistic.
 
Last edited:

Xavier

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Location
Liège, Belgium.
Country
llBelgium
That's completely wrong. Something is broken in fire director modelling.

It's interesting to notice that continious shooting results in huge misses in bearing, but with relatively correct distance, but if I press "cease fire" and then almost instantly issue "fire" order (at close distance - 6-7 km), then bearing error magically disappears, but huge distance calculation error emerges.

.
In game, at short range, local controlled guns are more accurate than Central Fire Controlled guns.
Bullethead said than below 7000 meters (or 5000 meters ?), Fire Directors are swith off, but maybe this is not the case in the game, the program continues to calculate a fire solution with Fire-Directors on target even if they're 2000 meters away....So this can explain why at short ranges tertiary guns are more accurate : tertiary guns fire directly on target and primary and secondary guns having to have a fire solution from fire control team (from sometimes bad data given by crew) even if the target is 1000 meters away....and ending with a miss.........:nuts:

Well, maybe it's not an easy task with a 32cm or 15" gun to have to track and hit a fast moving target like a torpedoboat full-speed 1000 meters away, but secondary battery 6", 4" or 15cm, 10.5cm this should be more easy or more accurate ?

A solution could be to add a switch button for second battery to become central controlled to allow player firing them on long distant target, or switch them to local control for dealing with closing CL, DD and TB.

However at long range everything seems to work properly, except the "bug" if you press "cease fire" and order "fire" again, bearing error cancel....

:toast:
 

Porkchop

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
142
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Country
ll
It's also interesting to see that 6" guns often (in fact, very often) place their shots almost in the same spot as 13.5" guns, but they are aiming independently, they do not use fire director data, as far as I know. So may be there is global error in determining bearing or so.
I've also noticed this. I know whether my next salvo from the main guns are going to hit or not by watching where the 6" gun splashes land.
 

Hetzer_II

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Location
Luenburg
Country
llGermany
I can second this... often you can also see the 6" shells fly by in the shell-cam so you realy always know where the next salvo will hit. I realy was confused about this before i read that even the secondaries are centrally controlled.

Is this correct?
 

Zakalwe

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
665
Reaction score
1
Location
Ecktown, S-H, German
Country
llGermany
Yup!

You can see wether a gun is locally or centrally controlled in the info screen.

From the main and the secondary guns often shooting at the same place can make you guess that the actual shooting is very accurate while the aiming ist off.

Z.
 

MUTbKA

Recruit
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
Moscow
Country
llRussia
You can see wether a gun is locally or centrally controlled in the info screen.
As concerns EoI, 13.5" guns have "central+director" aiming system, and 6" have "central" aiming system.

So, as I think, 6" guns are centrally controlled, but they have no link with fire director...
 

MacGregor

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
4.3 kilometers is a long distance away. Go outside and eyeball it some time. Now add in your ship bobbing about and the other guys ship bobbing about and try and hit his with any kind of regularity even with small swells.

These ships do not have the tech to keep the tube stable and on target. Even hitting at short range can be problematic.

I'm not saying the game is right on nor am I saying it's off. Just trying to throw in some common sense and real life experience. Hitting anything at ranges over 1 kilom with the old gear is difficult. Throw in the sea and even close up is hard. Now, if they had current tech...
 

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
Accuracy is heavily depending on shooting distance. At some distance almost 100% of bullets should hit the target. Sometimes it's very hard to miss, if target is as big as 150x10 meters or even larger.

For example, when shooting at 4.3 km distance there's no need to estimate the movement of enemy ship - it's sufficient to visually aim at his nose, and with correct vertical aiming you always hit BB. There will be no deflection, because we know that guns itself are sufficiently accurate - just look at tight shot placement.
I am afraid you are wrong here. If a ship is rolling 1/2 degree (almost nothing - +/- 6" at the waterline on a 100' beam), the aim point moves +/-37m at 4.3 km. And this is if the ship is in pure roll and firing exactly on the beam. If the ship is firing on a quarter the guns do a little arc. If the ship is corkscrewing (a combination of pitch and roll, probably out of phase), the muzzles do little circles - so you can easily end up 37m ahead of the aiming point. Now do the maths with s a 5 degree roll and 2 or 3 degree pitch :)

But in game... I've posted it here: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showpost.php?p=1092651&postcount=8

I think, that is simply impossible to enter effective torpedo shooting range at clear day without being heavily damaged. Even destroyers in reality were not able to attack BBs with torpedoes on daylight, and they are very small compared to battleships...

Let's look on last screen - there was 1178 seconds of battle without any hits! EoI put 10 bullets every 40 seconds on enemy - so I've fired almost 300 bullets without any hit, and distance was not 11+ km!

That's completely wrong. Something is broken in fire director modelling.
You are correct: destroyers ought to be massacred under these condtions, but NOT by main armament. The error in the game is secondaries not firing at torpedo threats. A target doing 30kts (relative) in the opposite direction (say if both ships are doing 15kts which is slow) needs a turret traing rate of 11 degrees/min. Now turrets can train at several degrees per second at full rate but are not accruate in training rate at these speeds. It is hard to track a small ship in a hurry with 80+tons of turret!
It's interesting to notice that continious shooting results in huge misses in bearing, but with relatively correct distance, but if I press "cease fire" and then almost instantly issue "fire" order (at close distance - 6-7 km), then bearing error magically disappears, but huge distance calculation error emerges.

It's also interesting to see that 6" guns often (in fact, very often) place their shots almost in the same spot as 13.5" guns, but they are aiming independently, they do not use fire director data, as far as I know. So may be there is global error in determining bearing or so.

May be this information will help. BTW, in 1.002 shooting were more realistic.
I am not saying shooting is correct in Jutland (if anything I think it is a little too effective). Secondaries are certainly not targetting correctly. But no one is producing evidence for the nature of the problems yet...
 

MacGregor

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I found this to be a fun read when I found it. Especially the part about which smoke column the turret was supposed to be firing at. :laugh:

Hope it's not too long:

Notes from the Turrets on the Action of January 24th, 1915, H. M. S. New Zealand
The following has been transcribed from The Naval Review, Volume 5 - 1917. Traditionally, the authors were anonymous. However, James Goldrick, in Mahan is Not Enough (James Goldrick and John B. Hattendorf, editors, Naval War College 1993) identify him as Lieutenant the Earl of Medina, formerly Prince George of Battenburgh - eldest son of the former First Sea Lord, and brother to Lord Louis Mountbatten.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


With regard to the action of January 24th: -
For approximately the first two hours after the chase had commenced, the spray from the forecastle caused the greatest possible inconvenience to the gunlayers, trainer, rangefinder operators, and myself. It was found to be almost useless to wipe over any of the glasses, as the spray came over practically continuously. for a few seconds after the glasses had been wetted a fairly good view was obtained (ie when there was a complete film of water over the glass), but as soon as the water started to run off and dry up the glasses became blurred.

The spray being driven in through my observation slit made my eyes extremely sore, and the blast from my own guns firing made this soreness worse. In a very short time I was wet through to the skin and very cold. I propose to try and fit a talc shield which I can place in the slit at will.

My rangefinder operator did not obtain one good reading the whole time.

The water from the hoses ran forward and over the side, where the wind caught it and immediately blew it back over the turret. I sent one man out to shut off all the forecastle hoses.

At one period, after a lull and slight alteration of course, the fire gongs were rung and one of my guns fired at the fourth cloud of smoke from the right. I then noticed that there was yet another cloud of smoke to the left of this one, and immediately asked the conning tower which was our target. They replied: "The left-hand cloud of some - the fifth cloud." (The fourth had been our target all the time previously.) I had considerable difficulty in making the trainer hear my orders through thee voice pipe, due to the noise and the voice pipe being too far from the trainer's ear.

I was unable to use my glasses (except at the very end), and my field of view was interrupted by the muzzles of both guns. Consequently I never obtained a detailed view of the enemy; in fact, during the chase, I never saw the ships, but only the clouds of smoke. (A description of the target would have been useless to me.)

The gunlayers reported that they could have fired more often if the order "Independent" had been given. The fire gongs seldom appear to have been rung at just the right period of the roll. The right gun fired their first round with 18,700 yards on the sights. The left gun fired their first round with 18,800 yards on the sights. The right gun missfired on two occasions, but fired with a second tube each time. The left gun missfired once, and also fired with the second tube.

The vent bit was passed through after each round.

Slight delays were experienced on loading the left gun owing to the wire for lifting the gunloading cage stretching. The cage came up within 3 / 4 inch, and the charges had to be lifted over the edge of the shot guide, otherwise sticks of cordite were forced out. The wire was readjusted, but continued to stretch, and eventually the adjusting screw reached the limit of its travel.

The shell in the gunloading cages in the working chamber flew forward every time the guns were fired. They were pulled to the rear by hand, but on three occasions the fuse cap struck, and was distorted by the nose guide leading up to the large flash floor. These shell were fired with their caps on. Two of them burst and one did not. Chocks are being fitted to the fore side of the gunloading cage with lanyards attached, to prevent the movement of the shell.

Pliers were provided for extracting the safety pins, but a hook to take through the eye of the split pin is also needed. The telescopic rammer appears to bend the pins sometimes. The voice-pipe and bell to the shell room were of the greatest use. The shell room and handing room appreciated it all the more, as I was able to pass down items of interest and the progress of the action. This, I consider, is of the utmost importance in keeping the men cool and keen.

The voice-pipe to the working chamber was also most useful, as all orders and reports are received first-hand and are not distorted en route, as is so often the case.

The "gun-ready" lamps worked throughout, and were useful, inasmuch as I do not consider it right or pleasant to be told by the G. L. that the reason he doesn't fire is because the gun is not loaded.


________

When the orders "salvoes" and "fire" were first given, the gunlayers could not fire as they could not get the elevation on the guns.

The ship had an appreciable list to port.

"P" turret did not fire until after the other turrets, and only got off two rounds before the fire became general. The maximum range at which the gunlayers fired was 17,800 yards. The gunlayers found that after each round their glasses were dulled by cordite, smoke, and spray, but not to any serious extent.

A man with a big hand cannot get at his glasses to wipe them.

As there was a lot of smoke obscuring the enemy, it was found to be difficult to pick up the right target.

Shortly after the New Zealand opened fire the third ship in the enemy's line was observed to be on fire for about three minutes, and again later on.

Many hits were observed on the Blucher from time to time.

When the airship was bearing about starboard 90, and was at about its closest range, the guns were trained on to it.

Sights were set at about 6,500 yards.

There were no defects except a slight leakage in a gunhouse air head [? can't make this out in the original], which was replaced after the action.

There was one missfire, due to a bad tube.

Left Gunlayer. When periscope became fogged, it was found that in order to reach the wiper it was necessary to cease working the elevating wheel, and consequently lost target. It seems that it should be possible to make the handle of the wiper easier of access.

Right Gunlayer. Noticed that the trainer had difficulty in keeping the target, due to his periscope become fogged. Wiped his own glass with chamois leather; did not use the wiper. Did this when the other gun was firing, and consequently does not think that it interfered with the trainer. also slightly depressed the muzzle when loading; this also when the other gun was firing, and so caused no interference. Salvo firing.

Trainer. Found glass became fogged and consequently very difficulty to keep on the target. If he had wiped his glass he would have had to take his hands off the training wheel and would consequently have lost the target.

In spite of the above difficulties, I think a gun was fired with each salvo when the turret would bear, but I certainly realised that the trainer was having difficulties as I heard the gunlayers talking to him.


________

The first shot was fired on the extreme port foremost bearing, which opened the gunports of L4 4-inch gun, blew away the canvas round the after searchlight platform, and caused most of the gear in the port seaboat to fall on top of the turret.

The canvas hung down in front of the rangefinder, and had to be cut off.

The boat's gear might easily have fallen in front of the sights or on to the rangefinder.

Spray from the water on the midship deck kept wetting the sights, and made it necessary to send a hand out of the turret to dry them. Owing to this, the wipers soon became sodden and useless.

Midshipman Baker went and turned off all the hoses on the midship deck; he performed this duty cooly and with great daring. I submit that hoses should not be kept running on the midship deck during the action, and even if the deck is wet, the blast from the foremost turret is liable to send spray into the sights of "X" turret.

All hydraulic gear worked without a hitch.

The catch retaining breech screw open of the right gun would not go forward in the middle of the action, and consequently the breech screw revolved before the breech was closed. This was at once repaired by the turret armourer, and did not happen a second time.

The air bottles were charged to 2,000 lbs. The pressure from the main was only 300 lbs. for the first two rounds, and consequently the turret filled with smoke on opening the breech. The pressure then went up to 2,000 lbs.

The left gun missfired once. The tube was shifted and the gun fired. The protrusion of the striker was afterwards measured and found correct.

The right gunlayer reported that his gun had hung fire once. The follow the pointer of the left centre sight broke down and the sight was set by order. The other sights were correct.

The rangefinder operator reported early in the action that the could not take ranges owing to the vibration at high speed.

The safety pin in the cap of one lyddite shell could not be removed and the shell was fired with the cap on.

Submitted that No. 5 be supplied with a pair of pliers each.
 

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
Dreadnoughts are not so small, go outside and eyeball it some time. :smoke:
Pun intended. ;)
A Dreadnought at 4.3 km subtends the same angle as about a car at 100m. Go and look. Now do it while rolling, and having the view obscured by smoke and splashes, with the optional extra of several hundred pounds of high explosive going off a few hundred (or few ) yards every minute or so...
 
Last edited:

MUTbKA

Recruit
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
Moscow
Country
llRussia
Anyway, in general, accuracy is proportional to 1/R^2, where R is distance to the target. So if in real life battlecruisers were able to get 3% hits on 11.5km range - that means at 8 km percentage of hits have to be 11.5^2/8^2=6%, and at 4.3km = 21%.

That is emphasized by the fact that on close distance bullet trajectory become very flat, and that increases the hit ratio even more.

Once again - in reality destroyers were no able to get so close to BBs even in kamikadze-style. That was simply impossible. But DD is much faster ans smaller, and it rarely can be stopped by just one hit. In game we may get no hits at all on such a huge target...
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I don't think it is as easy as that. You are missing tons of variables with the gun laying system itself. Powder variation, shell variation, gearing variation that may not be proportional from high elevation to flat, etc.

Also, as have been said, main guns wouldn't be firing at DD's that close.
 
Top