The USN - optimistic modelling?

grayst

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Location
Edinburgh
Country
ll
Right, so I know this may be controversial and I'm metaphorically buckling on my tin helmet and clearing for action.

I tried a little mini-sim of the USN BBs against an equal number of Koenigs and Kaisers. The US ships won fairly easily.

I tried it without Texas and NY, just the US 12" ships against their German counterparts; they won again.

Is this realistic?

I know that the option for "crappy AP " is being added for US ships in the new update, but I had gathered the impression that when the historic US Batdiv9 joined the GF as 6BS in December 1917, its gunnery standards were found to be be below those of the GF.

That was late 1917; what would they have been like in 1916?

My question is whether there has been a bit of "star-spangled-bannerism" leading to unrealistic optimism about USN gunnery.

Or, of course, whether my one test was just a freak result, or if I've been reading history through union-jack-tinted sources.
 

barkhauer

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
356
Reaction score
2
Location
Ohio
These results are meaningless without a statisticly significant sample. Say, 100 sims.
 

grayst

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Location
Edinburgh
Country
ll
Well yes, on the other hand someone like BH can tell us exactly what modelling & percentages have been applied for US ships versus GF and HSF.
 

barkhauer

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
356
Reaction score
2
Location
Ohio
You're implying nationlism/patriotism affecting the outcomes of a simulation based on 2 tests under different conditions. You have no way of knowing if the US ships are horribly underpowered and you got lucky on the random number generator on the one match you tried.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
That's why I think he said he was interested in hearing about the figures from BH.

I believe the comment about the US battleships poor gunnery was reported by Jellicoe himself. The US ships went on several gunnery training sorties in their early months at Scapa and improved dramatically.
 

Invincible

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, CA
There are several factors that help the US ships. First they fire all guns in each salvo so they have efffectively double the rate of fire of their German and RN counterparts. Next the spread is greater. Normally a tight spread is associated with better gunnery but I have found the US more likely to get at least one hit on a salvo (but less likley to get multiple hits).

For a similar experience put Westfallen (no central director, all gun salvos) and Posen against similar targets and see who gets more hits over time. I have generally found it to be Westfallen. The ammo does get depleted faster though.
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
My question is whether there has been a bit of "star-spangled-bannerism" leading to unrealistic optimism about USN gunnery.
Nope, it's just what can happen sometimes in any game you play, and at different points in the same battle. Gun accuracy is affected by a huge number of variables that are constantly changing independently of each other. The result is that in any 1 given period of time, individual ships can shoot quite well or quite poorly. The same ship can go through hot and cold streaks in the same battle. Some days, BCF shoots better than I.SG at least for a time, to take an extreme example.

Because of that, it takes lots and lots of test runs, under the same conditions, to determine what the actual hit rate is for any of the several types of fire control systems and methods.. As Barkhauer said, something on the order of 100 runs of the same test over and over.

When we made the original Jutland, I ran such tests for the Germans and British. And I had to do them many times over after each tweak of the fire control systems, until we finally arrived at long-term average hit rates very close to what Campbell says. And let's face it, there's really not a whole lot of other data to work from for 1916. But Campbell is great because that was under combat conditions, not target practice, and the game is about combat conditions.

So then we did the US ships. Given that the USN fought no fleet actions in WW1, there's nothing at all for detailed combat accuracy data for it at that time. We thus had to do a lot of extrapolation and, to be honest, SWAGging. The bottom line is that, over the long haul, USN BB accuracy averages out between RN BBs and BCs. IOW, their shooting is pretty mediocre.

However, as Saddletank said, the peculiarities of USN gunnery methods have a strong effect on any one run of a test shoot. In general, USN ships are slower to find the range and can't keep it as long as RN and KM ships. However, because of their wider spread and more shells per salvo, they can often get hits where the other ships would get near misses or straddles. IOW, USN ships have a wider margin of error when they're close to being on target, but they usually have trouble staying there and once they lose the range, it usually takes them longer to get it back.

As a result, most of the time, when USN ships find the range, they tend to hit with more salvos while they have it, but these relatively short periods are spread out between long intervals of groping for the range. Thus, on average, USN have an overall lower hit rate. However, when a USN ship is on a hot streak, its target is going to suffer many hits in quick succession.

That last point is pretty important. Ships have only so much damage control ability at any given time. Thus, when ships get hit many times in quick succession, damage control is only able to deal with some of the problems at once, not all of them, or perhaps only a little on each of them. And some problems get worse over time if left insufficiently attended to. IOW, a ship that gets hit 10 times over half an hour will usually take less total permanent damage than a ship hit by the same 10 shells in the same places but only over 5 minutes. This factor can make USN ships more dangerous than their rather mediocre overall hit rate would otherwise warrant, especially when they're able to hold the range for longer than usual.

But OTOH, the USN burns through its ammo at twice the rate of the other navies. Thus, cold periods hurt the USN more than other navies because they waste twice as many shells. Then, of course, the higher rate of fire really limits the combat endurance of USN ships, whether they're hitting or not.

The net result is that USN ships are the least predictable of any in the game so far. On average, they're mediocre, but their full broadsides amplify the effects of them going hot and cold. When they're good, they're quite good, but when they're bad they're terrible. But either way, they can't spend all day trading broadsides because they run out of ammo twice as fast as the enemy, regardless of which side they're on.
 

martin worsey

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
115
Reaction score
1
Location
ripley
Country
ll
Would it not be fair to suggest that actual data on ship performance under fire is lacking. The suggestion that an in game trial has to be run about one hundred times to establish true values for gunnery would imply that the same should be true for a similar evaluation under combat situations.

Campbell raises this point in the text accompanying the calculations on percentage accuracy and qualifies that the only really meaningful comparison is that the shooting of 1/2BCS left much to be desired when compared to 5BS. Even then, calculation of the figures for Queen Mary, show a very similar level of accuracy to the 5BS whilst she was in action.

Comparisons of the relative effectiveness of the classes of warship will thus by nature be somewhat subjective.

American battleships were generous in displacement when compared to contemporary British and German vessels and the centreline disposition of turrets saved the weight of superfluous turrets and also aided protection in keeping them inboard. Underwater protection was allegedly in advance of contemporary British and German warships but it has been suggested that there were detail deficiencies. Overall armour protection would appear to have been good (although this is not necessarily reflected in the data for the individual ships in game) and this appears consistent with the allocation of displacement to protection. Consequently, it could be expected that these ships would be capable of withstanding a fair amount of punishment.

Staying afloat and continuing to fire will be something of an advantage, even if gunnery is a little below par.
 
Last edited:

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
Would it not be fair to suggest that actual data on ship performance under fire is lacking. The suggestion that an in game trial has to be run about one hundred times to establish true values for gunnery would imply that the same should be true for a similar evaluation under combat situations.
Yup, and that's been done, too.

Campbell raises this point in the text accompanying the calculations on percentage accuracy and qualifies that the only really meaningful comparison is that the shooting of 1/2BCS left much to be desired when compared to 5BS. Even then, calculation of the figures for Queen Mary, show a very similar level of accuracy to the 5BS whilst she was in action.
In Jutland, QM has the same general accuracy level as RN BBs, which is considerably better than other RN BCs.

Comparisons of the relative effectiveness of the classes of warship will thus by nature be somewhat subjective.
Absolutely. This is true in making any game. While the ideal is 100% historical accuracy, this is never attainable because the data for that simple don't exist or (for games about relatively modern stuff) are still classified. Furthermore, much of the available data always contains at least some anecdotal or subjective component supplied by the person who recorded it, making it extremely difficult to quantify. Thus, game designers inevitably face a large number of points in building game mechanics where they have to make judgment calls based on the data they have and also play balance. Different designers will obviously come to different conclusions, give more or less weight to different pieces of evidence, etc.

Our gunnery system doesn't claim to be 100% historically accurate because that's an impossible dream. It does, however, claim to be a close approximation on 2 different levels. First, under conditions similar to those of the actual battle, it generates generally similar overall results. Second, this is accomplished not by fixing each ship with a constant level of effectiveness, which has been pretty much a fixture of wargames since forever, but by allowing them all to vary over time as they did in real life. This was a difficult achievement of which we're rather proud.

The result, we think, provides a more immersive gaming experience than a more determinative combat system. General expectations of combat results at the big picture level are fairly solid, but the details at lower levels are highly variable. Thus, combat entails a more realistic level of risk than with a more determinative system of game mechanics.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
I wanted to clarify that BH referenced my comments in his first post. I think he meant to reference Invincible's points, not mine. I don't want to be given credit for another forum member's post!
 

grayst

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Location
Edinburgh
Country
ll
You're implying nationlism/patriotism affecting the outcomes of a simulation based on 2 tests under different conditions. You have no way of knowing if the US ships are horribly underpowered and you got lucky on the random number generator on the one match you tried.
Er, I'm not "implying" anything, just "asking".

This is why my original post was:

"My question is whether there has been a bit of "star-spangled-bannerism" leading to unrealistic optimism about USN gunnery.

Or, of course, whether my one test was just a freak result, or if I've been reading history through union-jack-tinted sources. "

I'd have been quite happy to accept an explanation of "We analysed X, Y and Z and it turns out that the usual tale of US gunnery being initially inferior to RN was wrong." I'm not an expert on WWI BB gunnery, I seek merely for information. (However if you want to know anything about the RN FAA and CVs in WW2, try me...

Of course, that's not what BH came back with...
 

grayst

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Location
Edinburgh
Country
ll
The bottom line is that, over the long haul, USN BB accuracy averages out between RN BBs and BCs. IOW, their shooting is pretty mediocre.

However, as Saddletank said, the peculiarities of USN gunnery methods have a strong effect on any one run of a test shoot.
Thanks BH, exactly what I needed to know and I appreciate how many hours of repeated testing would be needed to get this right!

Now, hurry up and release SP2 so I can give you more of my money.

And then get on with SP3, including all not-in-time and never-were designs up to and including G3 and N3. Now!!!
 

delcyros

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
kreuzberg
Country
llGermany
I don´t think USN BB´s would be able to fire effectively out at distances exceeding 8000m. Their 1918 issued gunnery doctrines (which on their own probably does not reflect the lessons learned from british input after attending to the GF) call for effective firing to be around 6000 yard and 9000 yard (=8225m) is the longest range mentioned anywhere in the document (the term used was "extreme range" for anything exceeding 9000 yard). This is of practical importance and associated with a general lack of training in long range firing. Terminology as different: The GF considered long range anything exceeding 12000 yard while the US considered with "long range" such ranges exceeding 6000 yard with 9000 yard beeing called "extreme" range.

Thus, I am kind of sceptical with regard to hitting rates approaching anyhow even the level of the british BC´s at long range (say, 14000m) while fire would be very deadly at close range - even if I take Hood´s BC´s performance at Jutland for a reference, they were shooting well and rapidly at ranges generally exceeding USN period firecontroll doctrines. I doubt the USN would have done any better.
Another problem faced by period US BB´s was inconsistency in dispersion patterns. In ww1 and even for some time after ww1, dispersion was not consistent and You could see one salvo falling with tight and close dispersions and the next scattered all over the area.
It was not either large or close in a technical sense, it was inconsistent. And the problem was not solved until the mid 20´s.
 
Last edited:

Slider6

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
329
Reaction score
5
Location
Rural
Country
llUnited States
I don´t think USN BB´s would be able to fire effectively out at distances exceeding 8000m.
Seems like I've read such declarations about everyones (many nations) gunnery and expected ranges at some time, followed by actual battles at substantially longer ranges. I think we are definate what you want to believe territory.
 

martin worsey

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
115
Reaction score
1
Location
ripley
Country
ll
Our gunnery system doesn't claim to be 100% historically accurate because that's an impossible dream. It does, however, claim to be a close approximation on 2 different levels. First, under conditions similar to those of the actual battle, it generates generally similar overall results. Second, this is accomplished not by fixing each ship with a constant level of effectiveness, which has been pretty much a fixture of wargames since forever, but by allowing them all to vary over time as they did in real life. This was a difficult achievement of which we're rather proud.

The result, we think, provides a more immersive gaming experience than a more determinative combat system. General expectations of combat results at the big picture level are fairly solid, but the details at lower levels are highly variable. Thus, combat entails a more realistic level of risk than with a more determinative system of game mechanics.
Yup; I agree that the game system is superb.

The area that I have a problem is the actual usefulness of the historical data that is available to work with. Clearly this is not a problem that SES can do anything about. There is an interesting post on another thread about the difficulties in simulating crew quality in the RJW and the why Distant Guns does not crew the 2nd and 3rd Pacific Squadrons with Reservists; good point well made.

If we look at the data for gunnery accuracy presented by Campbell, this contrasts Battleship gunnery with that of Battlecruisers; why? As the two types of ship operate the same fire control systems and are equipped with the same guns, I would not expect there to be any difference in accuracy due to ship type; this is unless say increased funnel smoke was an issue and this would affect all Battlecruisers and presumably any ships firing at Battlecruisers. Thus it would only be an issue if a decision was taken to systematically crew one type of ship with better or worse quality crews.

If we take the example of German ships only (to eliminate any difference in the fire control systems) Battleships have a figure of 3.0% for gunnery accuracy as against Battlecruisers 3.9%; the Battlecruiser figure would drop to 3.3% if data is included from Dogger Bank. This includes variables for range, visibility e.t.c.

Contrast this with data for 11” armed German ships (excluding pre-dreads) 2.8% with 12” armed types at 3.4%. This would suggest that the 11” gun armed ships should be downgraded against 12”; I can think of no reason for this unless the newer ships (which did most of the shooting) had better crews. Alternatively, it could just represent statistical deviation.

Also contrast Seydlitz with Moltke; these are about as similar as you are going to get and fighting under almost identical conditions. The gunnery of Seydlitz was inferior in both Jutland and Dogger and the aggregate figures are Seydlitz 2.4% as against Moltke 3.3% (and this is measured for 635 and 766 rounds – more than many squadrons fired at Jutland). This would either suggest that the variability in shooting ability between individual ships was the most significant factor or that the statistical deviation makes the data irrelevant for the sample size.

As most ships in the Jutland campaign fired very few rounds or did not fire at all, it would be pure guesswork to try to produce shooting data for each individual ship
 
Last edited:

delcyros

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
kreuzberg
Country
llGermany
Seems like I've read such declarations about everyones (many nations) gunnery and expected ranges at some time, followed by actual battles at substantially longer ranges. I think we are definate what you want to believe territory.
The point of departure is reference material. We do have primary source evidence that the GF considered long range effective firing possible by 1907 latest with numerous trials carried out to improve gunnery at distances around 10000 yard and more (sometimes substantially more), equally, from 1912/13 onwards, we do have evidence from the german summer maneuvers (isolated long range trials wwere carried out earlier but unsystematic) conducting practice shooting at ranges generally exceeding 10000m, too.
No such evidence from regular or systematic long range practice shoots under realistic conditions comes from the USN side and that´s the point I was trying to outline. This is directly mirrored by official USN period gunnery doctrines. This casts the question as to how the USN can be expected to be better than the UK BCF, which possessed a degree of regular training in long range actions. ...and -if You want to include anecdotical evidence, this issue indeed surfaced by the initial performance of USN forces in joint trials with the GF carrying out long range firing trials in 1918.

I do fully agree that following battles experience may show longer ranges to become feasable, which is- what in the end happened.
 

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
The point of departure is reference material. We do have primary source evidence that the GF considered long range effective firing possible by 1907 latest with numerous trials carried out to improve gunnery at distances around 10000 yard and more (sometimes substantially more), equally, from 1912/13 onwards, we do have evidence from the german summer maneuvers (isolated long range trials wwere carried out earlier but unsystematic) conducting practice shooting at ranges generally exceeding 10000m, too.
No such evidence from regular or systematic long range practice shoots under realistic conditions comes from the USN side and that´s the point I was trying to outline. This is directly mirrored by official USN period gunnery doctrines. This casts the question as to how the USN can be expected to be better than the UK BCF, which possessed a degree of regular training in long range actions. ...and -if You want to include anecdotical evidence, this issue indeed surfaced by the initial performance of USN forces in joint trials with the GF carrying out long range firing trials in 1918.

I do fully agree that following battles experience may show longer ranges to become feasable, which is- what in the end happened.
I think, for 1916 at least, you over state the degree of experience the BCF had of recent long range shooting. The GF had a secure 10000yds gunnery range it could use any time it wanted. The BCF had no such range, and had to put to sea, risking Uboats and mines to get access to enough open ocean. Real actions were very limited, which is why Jutland caused such (additional) heart searching. The gunnery of the BCF was known to need improvement, which is why Hood was with the GF - he was shifted there to have secure practice conditions.

The other likely factor influencing BCF gunnery was leadership. It is at least a realistic question as to the extent that Beatty set an atmosphere where speed of fire was (being polite) at least as important as accuracy. Of course, all things being equal, it is, however trading accuracy for speed it a bad idea.

As for the US, I think they must have had the same experience that every Admiral since the RJW did... as soon as the first battleships saw the enemy, the gunnery drill book, policies and much else got smartly heaved overboard and everyone opened up at the highest range they could. The US would have had an advantage... they didn't start the experence in their first combat. I can imagine the converstions between gunnery officers as the USN arrived at Scapa... After they got past the 'its impossible.... oops no it isn't' moment, they would have joined the policy bonfire party'. They would have discovered drawbacks in their ships (as all navies did) but would have improved very quickly when given the example and assistance that would have been (I guess) freely available.
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
The US would have had an advantage... they didn't start the experence in their first combat. I can imagine the converstions between gunnery officers as the USN arrived at Scapa... After they got past the 'its impossible.... oops no it isn't' moment, they would have joined the policy bonfire party'. They would have discovered drawbacks in their ships (as all navies did) but would have improved very quickly when given the example and assistance that would have been (I guess) freely available.
The learning process was a 2-way street, too. Some US ideas rubbed off on the RN. The real pitty, however, is that the RN's daily booze ration didn't stick to the USN :(
 

HMSWarspite

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
650
Reaction score
1
Location
Bristol
Country
ll
Indeed. In WW2, Pacific, it never ceases to amaze me how much the RN had to learn from the USN about operating an expeditionary fleet, despite having been a world naval power since forever.

As a major off topic, one of the things that annoyed me about War in the Pacific was the one size fits all under way replenishment/fueling. It gave far too much capabilty to the RN, allowing (effectively) alongside refuel/replenishment, when in reality all we had for ages was trailing hose... People neglect the underlying factors that influenced that conflict.
And dont get me on production systems, and 'I want to convert all my rifle factories to building jet engine powered Tiger II tanks'!

One day, someone ought to design a game with a lot of the softer factors in it.

In fact for Jutland 2, I would love to see an option where you dont point and click on any ship, you just have a signal book, and send signals to your AI captains. You can do it MP at present, but I dont have the time, and I am not sure there are that many sadists out there:)
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
We used to play 18th century naval wargames with 1:1200 miniatures like that. Both sides had a signal book and we worked out our own flag codes using printed international maritime flag hoist graphics. Each sides' Admiral had a board about 2 feet square with a simplified image of a 3 masted SOL on it, and using card counters each of which had a single flag on, he would stick these with blu-tak to one of the three masts (hoists from the three masts meant different things), then stand this card at the side of the room. The players had to sit around the wargame table in the middle of the room and stare at the card (about 20 feet away - we used a hired village hall for our monthly games) to decipher the admiral's signals.

To represent different seamanship skills, British Admirals could signal every turn, French every other turn and Spanish every turn in three.

The squadron and ship commanders then issued orders to their ships in writing in response to the admirals messages.

It was, without doubt, some of the most fun I've ever had in wargaming!
 
Top