optimum bombardment range

[bush]

In the thread on the Yamato vs. 6-inch shells one post talked of a "sweet spot" for range. Would there be anything like this for bombardment missions?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

In the thread on the Yamato vs. 6-inch shells one post talked of a "sweet spot" for range. Would there be anything like this for bombardment missions?

IMO, no. There are many variables involved in answering a question like this. Some values, like accuracy fall-off by weapon per 1000 yds, are not completely known by the player and might be somewhat random. Others might differ based on the value/danger the player assigns to that place on the map, in that era, with those ships, and on the value of being more offensive or more defensive. The trade-off of going in close might be accuracy (don't know the numbers), but for sure more types of weapons are unmasked due to their max range. The flip side of that is more exposure to CD fire, maybe (we don't completely know) more exposure to mine fields, and ammo consumption by the shorter-range weapons which tend to be your AA guns.

So, if you feel pretty safe from air attack on the withdrawal, you might go in all the way and empty your 40mm and 20mm onto the beach. If you don't feel that safe you might stay out past those weapons' max range.

There are multiple things to consider. I think for most players the ammo issue and AA is at or near the top of the list.

[kbfchicago]

+1 to all of Da'Moose's notes...I would add; if you're looking to keep your DDs out of range of shore batteries I think about a 6000 yard limit does it.

[bush]

Yes, thank you, I understand there can be many factors in deciding a range. My question was actually about if there is an optimum range for the bombardment to cause the most damage.

[rms1pa]

detection level is far more important for destructivness.
if you get the FPs to spot shells the damage far exceeds expectation.

rms/pa

[Gaspote]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Yes, thank you, I understand there can be many factors in deciding a range. My question was actually about if there is an optimum range for the bombardment to cause the most damage.

The closest you are the better it is even with BB.

Considering you shot from 1k yard only to get good result is the mistake.

The factors are :
Weather, leaders skills(of ship and taskforce), float plane in recon during bombardment, light, detection and range(on map not during bombardment).

If one of them is bad it's enough to radically reduce effects of your bombardment.

ps : each factors is more important than the others [:D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Yes, thank you, I understand there can be many factors in deciding a range. My question was actually about if there is an optimum range for the bombardment to cause the most damage.

Zero. If you pose the question that way. It's a very incomplete question, but if that's the one you're asking . . . zero.

A pistol one inch from a chest does more damage than a pistol from across the street.

[witpqs]

A pistol one inch from a chest does more damage than a pistol from across the street.

A bullet fired from a pistol does even more. [:'(]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

A pistol one inch from a chest does more damage than a pistol from across the street.

A bullet fired from a pistol does even more. [:'(]

Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. [:'(]

[bush]

Mr. Moose,

Sorry my question seemed incomplete. As I said in the OP, I was basing this question because of the discussion about shell hits on the Yamato. In that thread there was an advantage to putting some distance between the target.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Mr. Moose,

Sorry my question seemed incomplete. As I said in the OP, I was basing this question because of the discussion about shell hits on the Yamato. In that thread there was an advantage to putting some distance between the target.

I don't recall the details of that other thread, but I think the issue there was belt armor, plunging fire vs. flat trajectory, and topics such as those. Ship-to-ship with kinetic, armor-piercing ammo is a different animal. Hitting a beach is HE shells and they don't care if they traveled 1000 yards or 30,000. How accuracy falls off in a bombardment mission I have no idea, nor do I think has ever been disclosed.

[Disco Duck]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Mr. Moose,

Sorry my question seemed incomplete. As I said in the OP, I was basing this question because of the discussion about shell hits on the Yamato. In that thread there was an advantage to putting some distance between the target.

I don't recall the details of that other thread, but I think the issue there was belt armor, plunging fire vs. flat trajectory, and topics such as those. Ship-to-ship with kinetic, armor-piercing ammo is a different animal. Hitting a beach is HE shells and they don't care if they traveled 1000 yards or 30,000. How accuracy falls off in a bombardment mission I have no idea, nor do I think has ever been disclosed.

Actually there is a difference but I don't know if it is modeled. If my memory does not betray me, during WWI it took at least a 200mm shell from a high trajectory to destroy the fortifications on the front lines. One of the things that has always bothered me about Tarawa is that no one asked the experts, Army Artillery men from WWI, about what it would take to destroy fortifications. They would have told them that pre-landing bombardment was way too weak.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Mr. Moose,

Sorry my question seemed incomplete. As I said in the OP, I was basing this question because of the discussion about shell hits on the Yamato. In that thread there was an advantage to putting some distance between the target.

I don't recall the details of that other thread, but I think the issue there was belt armor, plunging fire vs. flat trajectory, and topics such as those. Ship-to-ship with kinetic, armor-piercing ammo is a different animal. Hitting a beach is HE shells and they don't care if they traveled 1000 yards or 30,000. How accuracy falls off in a bombardment mission I have no idea, nor do I think has ever been disclosed.

Actually there is a difference but I don't know if it is modeled. If my memory does not betray me, during WWI it took at least a 200mm shell from a high trajectory to destroy the fortifications on the front lines. One of the things that has always bothered me about Tarawa is that no one asked the experts, Army Artillery men from WWI, about what it would take to destroy fortifications. They would have told them that pre-landing bombardment was way too weak.

If only the game modeled naval bombardments destroying CD.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Yes, thank you, I understand there can be many factors in deciding a range. My question was actually about if there is an optimum range for the bombardment to cause the most damage.

Zero. If you pose the question that way. It's a very incomplete question, but if that's the one you're asking . . . zero.

A pistol one inch from a chest does more damage than a pistol from across the street.

Yes and no to both.[:)]

There is a decrease in effectiveness beyond 2/3 of gun range. Gun effectiveness is constant up to 2/3 range. But other things also affect effectiveness.

This is a quote from michaelm made on 9 June 2010.



This is some of the tweaking done to Naval Bombardments:
----------------
Spotting:
All locations have a 'spotted' status which gets clear during the night phase.
If the ship has a float group and its mission is RECON - needs to be either a day or night mission so applicable flies - and the target has not been spotted yet, the group 'spots' for this ship and any others attacking the same target. A message shows up if this is the case.
To keep planes from flying RECON all over, just set the range to '0'. It doesn't matter how many planes are available, just that you have the mission.
Spotted targets at night don't have the weapon penalty for night naval bombardment attacks.

Supply:
Supply loss points are a factor of the device(shell size) and damage inflicted, rather than by a fixed modifier. Smaller shell, less supply loss. Bigger shell, bigger loss.

Bombardment by ship:
Weapons get penalties;
(a) FLAK-type devices not as effective.
(b) devices firing at over 2/3rd of their max range are less effective.
Attack at night with the target not spotted are less effective. Moonlight helps offset this disadvantage.
Presence of friendly units in hex assists accuracy of the firing ships.
Hits are determined by turret rather than by total number of devices. Once a 'turret' hits, the barrels determine damage.

Return fire from shore guns:
Weapons get penalties;
(a) FLAK-type devices less effective.
(b) devices firing at over 2/3rd of their range less effective.
Attack at night and the target hasn't been spotted has the weapon accuracy lowered.
Supply and support state of the LCU can affect how many guns return fire.

Bombardment process change:
Rather than start the ship bombardment at a fixed range of 3 to 12 depending on the ship type, the start range is 30 for day and 15 for night.

As range closes, weapons become more accurate. This also means weapons become available to fire as range closes, rather than be mainly available immediately as currently.
If a minimum Bombardment Range is set, then the ships will outside that range of the shore and only guns with the range will fire. Setting the range to 0 will make the TF behave as now.

One change that missed this build was adding unit fatigue based on the effect of the shell not causing damage but impacting the LCU area. Higher fort and better terrain would lessen the impact of the 'shell shock'. This would be more obvious at night with higher fatigue generation.
-------

How well it does is up to you players.



Alfred

[Bullwinkle58]

Alfred, a good quote I either forgot or never saw.

But what in your opinion does Michael mean when he distinguishes between effectiveness--which has a 2/3 floor--and accuracy, which he says improves the closer one gets to the beach? Is effectiveness a combo of penetration and explosive rating in the DB? Is penetration even a factor in beach bombardment with HE? The game doesn't model taking out CD or shore fixed defenses such as pillboxes so far as I know, concrete or wood structures where kinetic penetration would be relevant. It models anti-soft effects on men and machines/guns.

Reading Michaels' quote I'm left thinking that inside 2/3 is better than outside 2/3, but closer up to point-blank is still better than 2/3.

[Alfred]

Now I am being asked to be a mind reader.[:D]  Well OK.[;)]
 
I don't really think there is any inconsistency between what michaelm says and your points.  Other than the 2/3 range threshold, everything else you point out in this thread is correct.  Michaelm's comments should be read as being loosely phrased to cater for all possible bombardment settings ie no escorts/yes escorts bombard, no range limit/a minimum range set before the turrets start firing.
 
When michaelm refers to effectiveness and accuracy my interpretation is that effectiveness means participation and accuracy means how many shots are not misses.  Just like there is a diminishing return on flak fire from those ships in a TF after the 15th ship, the same principle applies to guns beyond the 2/3 range.  Accuracy is a dangerous concept because it is largely a string term in this game but in this context I have seen michaelm use it in the sense of not wasting ammo if firing from far out but landing more shots on target closer up.
 
But, and this is important to bear in mind, both the effectiveness and accuracy terms were used to also cover situations where the old style bombardment runs (ie no minimum distance set) are used.  With those in particular, but also applicable to any bombardment run, shorter range guns only fire when within range.  So as the bombardment TF runs in (it starts firing from afar and moves closer to land) the overall "effectiveness" of the bombardment increases as a greater weight of shell is poured in as the shorter range guns join in.
 
Ideally michaelm would drop by if I have misinterpreted his meaning.  Of course Symon would also be able to correct any inaccuracies in my interpretation.
 
Alfred 

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Now I am being asked to be a mind reader.[:D]  Well OK.[;)]

I don't really think there is any inconsistency between what michaelm says and your points.  Other than the 2/3 range threshold, everything else you point out in this thread is correct.  Michaelm's comments should be read as being loosely phrased to cater for all possible bombardment settings ie no escorts/yes escorts bombard, no range limit/a minimum range set before the turrets start firing.

When michaelm refers to effectiveness and accuracy my interpretation is that effectiveness means participation and accuracy means how many shots are not misses.  Just like there is a diminishing return on flak fire from those ships in a TF after the 15th ship, the same principle applies to guns beyond the 2/3 range.  Accuracy is a dangerous concept because it is largely a string term in this game but in this context I have seen michaelm use it in the sense of not wasting ammo if firing from far out but landing more shots on target closer up.

But, and this is important to bear in mind, both the effectiveness and accuracy terms were used to also cover situations where the old style bombardment runs (ie no minimum distance set) are used.  With those in particular, but also applicable to any bombardment run, shorter range guns only fire when within range.  So as the bombardment TF runs in (it starts firing from afar and moves closer to land) the overall "effectiveness" of the bombardment increases as a greater weight of shell is poured in as the shorter range guns join in.

Ideally michaelm would drop by if I have misinterpreted his meaning.  Of course Symon would also be able to correct any inaccuracies in my interpretation.

Alfred 

I agree accuracy is self-explanatory. I took "effectiveness" to mean "per munition" which was the source of my head-scratching on supposed HE anti-soft bombardment as we see in the game.

I suppose effectiveness could also refer to per tube, per turret/mount, or per ship. I don't think it does, but the 2/3 hard floor is odd to me. I do see what you mean about him commenting pre- and post-patch which added the range spinner. That device changed the whole bombardment part of the game a lot from the player's POV and control.

For me I don't get that into the weeds on bombardment. As I said before it's the AA ammo question/decision, coupled with an overall ROI consideration on the mission. If I'm taking a large number of good ships out of other uses for many days I want more return on that investment, as well as the risk of mines, subs, LBA attack, collisions, shore fire, etc. If I send 1 BB and 8 DDs to bombard something a week away it's a pretty good bet the DDs are going to shoot and they're all going in to 6000 yards or even less. But that's me.

[obvert]

More on this.

Also, does shore battery fire disrupt bombardment? I've gotten decent results at max range with BBs and CAs, and some less good in at 15k yards. Other perimeters the same.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: obvert

More on this.

Also, does shore battery fire disrupt bombardment? I've gotten decent results at max range with BBs and CAs, and some less good in at 15k yards. Other perimeters the same.

I believe it does, but I should say "can". It seems that shore batteries have a tough row to hoe when it comes to opposing bombardments. They do much better more consistently against invasions. With bombardments they often don't even get firing, let alone effectively.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I believe it does, but I should say "can". It seems that shore batteries have a tough row to hoe when it comes to opposing bombardments. They do much better more consistently against invasions. With bombardments they often don't even get firing, let alone effectively.

That is my experience too.