6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Tiornu
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:59 pm

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by Tiornu »

I wonder if it's a related "deeply ingrained, almost dogmatic, prejudice" that led to the reversion to incremental armor in the Bismarck class. Whatever its flaws the Deutschland design was innovative with an armor scheme fitting in the AoN category. Things started to go wrong in Scharnhorst, and then Bismarck returned to standards that were fading even before the Armistice.
The original Ship D would have been an enlarged Deutschland with better armor and no increase in main battery. A similar progression for the CLs would have made sense. I too like Galissonniere.
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by Dili »

Via http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... .google.pt where we can see that google isn't up to translation of Russian i came to this post :http://bismarck-class-forum.dk/thread.p ... 933&page=5

I once again see that very-long range hit probability subject popping up, and I continue to be more pessimestic than many about the possibility of obtaining hits beyound 25-27K. Of course, history strongly supports the view that hits are not seen beyound this range, but in addition to all that - we have ongoing work in the current USN with battle simulations. These are electronic wargames, with the mechanistic underpinnings being based on both historical battles and live shoots at various static and moving targets. I am blessed in having a friend who is instrumental in developing the protocols that govern modern versions of these games, and he told me the following:
"People have it in their minds that with modern radar and fire control sensors hits at long range are nearly automatic. They think we have some sort of lazer gun accuracy. Hitting a moving target at sea has never been easy, and especialy at ranges of 10 miles and beyound. " He went on to describe live shots that he had been on wherein hits at far less than half that range with modern 5 "guns were very rare. In fact, he collapsed all the data, and found out that faith in gunnery accuracy stood in sharp contrast to the actual results achieved. His data is now used in some USN simulations, and it has been predictive of actual results - as one would expect.
Nor is he sanguine about the mathmatical models wherein dispersion vs target size, etc., Are used as a basis for some rather fantastic claims regarding long-range hit probabilities. He notes that minor deviations in predicted vs actual courses, upper-level wind effects, gun-tube variables, powder variables, etc., Etc., All combine to make achieving hits at very long range very improbable. He puts it this way, according to my notes: "If the target's course and speed relative to one's ship could be perfectly predicted, and if all the factors associated with propellant, shell weight, internal ballistics and external ballistics were perfectly valued, then one might be able to achieve very long range hits. But these things don't happen in real life. " He went on to note that this was the reason the Navy was developing projectiles that can be directed toward targets as per smart missile / bomb tecnology.
I tend to accept this view. So when a captain finds it futile not to engage at 22-24K in very bad weather - perhaps we ought not to be so hard on him. And when we achieve a straddle at 30 + K, perhaps we ought not to make to much of it - unless we want to make the Italian Navy one of the best shooting in WWII. Yes, I tend to go with the statistics, and these speak quite clearly about the possibility of obtaining hits at 25K and beyound. And Gosh, hitting anything that is 13-15 miles away seems a tremendous task - even if it is the size of a BB. Add movement to the complications - and I find it remarkable that hits were scored at the ranges they were. As for what is possible, I love the Sci Fi channel ... but I'm not going to argue in favour of a fantasy's technical merrits.

George


I checked Galissonniere data and they are probably the best CL in specs when they appeared.
Tiornu
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:59 pm

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by Tiornu »

Ton for ton, it's hard to find anything better. The Abruzzis entered service just after the Galissonnieres and were generally superior, but also much larger.
mikemike
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: a maze of twisty little passages, all different

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by mikemike »

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

I wonder if it's a related "deeply ingrained, almost dogmatic, prejudice" that led to the reversion to incremental armor in the Bismarck class. Whatever its flaws the Deutschland design was innovative with an armor scheme fitting in the AoN category. Things started to go wrong in Scharnhorst, and then Bismarck returned to standards that were fading even before the Armistice.

I think that is another case of "preparing to win the previous war", a common military malady, one more recent example being the USAF acquisition policy in the 1970s/1980s which was clearly geared to have the optimum force composition to win the Vietnam War. Concerning the Bismarck design, apparently combat under the same conditions as at Jutland (or Skagerrak, depending on your language) was regarded as the most likely scenario. Observe that the maximum elevation of Bismarck's guns was lower than that of the Scharnhorsts, with 30 or 35 degrees being in the same ballpark as many WWI mountings, and the German Navy again went for guns firing comparatively light shells at high velocity, obviously going for flat trajectories that make for a higher hit probability - an analogy to land warfare would be that the Germans (and the Italians) went for anti-tank guns while Britain and the USA went for howitzers - easier to hit a moving tank with but only at short ranges. The armor on Bismarck was also optimized for protection against low-angle fire, and worked well in that respect. As Nathan Okun says, even Yamato would have had to fire its guns muzzle to the armor belt to penetrate through Bismarck's main belt and armor deck slope into the ship's vitals. Unfortunately, if the enemy didn't cooperate with the favorite scenario, the chosen armor layout was defective.
DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Dili
they have much higher speed and much stronger firepower when compared with boats of similar displacement (say Vanguard, Richelieu, Vittorio Venetto and Bismarck

Iowas had about 10000t more displacement than Vanguard, Richelieu, Vittorio Venetto and Bismarck. In another words almost 20% more, roughly the same difference between Yamato and Iowa.

The various figures are hard to sort out--standard and full load displacement. The Iowas were about 3000-5000 tons larger than the Vanguard, VV, and Bismarck and about 10000 tons larger than the Richelieu. That was taken up by propulsion plant.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The Germans apparently felt their system of gunnery control was better served by twin turrets. I believe that was the deciding factor in returning to twins.
Subdivision in the Iowa bow was relatively elaborate. The good news for the narrow cross section was the increased possibility of a shell passing through without exploding.


what´s the difference in fire control between a twin turret and a tripple turret (or even a quadruple turret)?

As I vaguely recall, usually you fired the guns in alternation, rather than in a full broadside, until you straddled. It was also slower than full RoF at long range to conserve on ammunition.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The British came out of the Battle of Jutland with the impression that German stereoscopic rangefinders caused a downgrade in performance as actions dragged on, but I don't know if anyone agreed with that assessment. The British were the only major fleet that failed to adopt stereoscopic rangefinders as standard before WWII. The Americans kept single coincidence rangefinders in their modern BBs for the specific purpose of fixing on spotlights during night engagements, but the advent of radar prompted their removal.
It was Dunkerque that suffered the turret hit at Mers el Kebir, and the armored partition within the turret allowed the two guns on the other side to remain serviceable. Ironically, it appears that both Scharnhorst and Bismarck suffered single hits that disabled both forward mounts, at least for a time.
The Germans did work out a system for half-salvos in their triple-mount ships, but for some reason they found it preferable to revert to twins. I can understand why the Scharnhorst mounts might have left a bad taste in the KM's mouth, but why the 15cm triples? These were good mounts, perhaps the best feature of the German CLs.

This was discussed in the tank design literature during the Cold War. Stereoscopic rangefinding was more accurate than coincidence, but more fatiguing, and you needed to select your gunners--most people couldn't do it.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

The Germans did work out a system for half-salvos in their triple-mount ships, but for some reason they found it preferable to revert to twins. I can understand why the Scharnhorst mounts might have left a bad taste in the KM's mouth, but why the 15cm triples? These were good mounts, perhaps the best feature of the German CLs.

Actually, they were lousy mounts. The 15cm triples were hand-loaded, not power-loaded, and the space in the turret was *extremely* cramped. Nathan Okun told me the gun crew had footprints painted on the deck to show them where to stand to avoid getting hit by the various moving masses of metal.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Tiornu
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:59 pm

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by Tiornu »

The mounts may not have been roomy, but they were reliable and capable of extreme rapid fire. For a time, they could fire as rapidly as the Brooklyn-type 6in triples. The main wrinkle had to do with the light construction of the ship rather than the guns themselves. A full broadside would overstress the flimsy hull, so one turret would fire with an automatic 1-second delay. Remarkably, the "M" class cruisers had hulls that appear even flimsier than those of the complete ships.
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by Dili »

The various figures are hard to sort out--standard and full load displacement. The Iowas were about 3000-5000 tons larger than the Vanguard, VV, and Bismarck and about 10000 tons larger than the Richelieu. That was taken up by propulsion plant.

May data is this. full load:
Richelieu 47458
Vanguard 51420
KGV 45000
VV 45752
Bismarck 50900
IOWA 58000
User avatar
Zemke
Posts: 665
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:45 am
Location: Oklahoma

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by Zemke »

According to this, by the Authors of "Shattered Sword", American fire control was second to none.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by Dili »

Where does it says it was by them? I hope they didn't made that thing.
Tiornu
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:59 pm

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by Tiornu »

The Combined Fleet site is run by Jon Parshall. The "baddest" competition is getting rather long in the tooth these days. Must be near 15 years old by now.
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: 6x 20", 9x 18" or 12x 16"??

Post by Dili »

15 years explains a bit. Thanks for the info.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”