AA Stuff

[Symon]

I’m dialing in the Acc numbers for AAA and they are looking good, so far. Once again, the numbers represent a measure of the potential (ideal) ballistic accuracy of a tube/shell combo. This will be a starting point for some very scary and out-of-the-brown-spot assumptions.

So far, the AAA Acc is in the nature of artillery type CEP calcs, It’s a measure of how many shells will burst within that standard, nominal, engagement envelope, ASSUMING the gunners have perfect range, altitude, and deflection data.

The whole issue of evolving, modern directors and VT fuses is not addressed, because there is a code abstraction that deals with this. So AAA data, pretty much, has to go with the ballistic profiles.

Poop-hot directors can find efficient range, altitude and deflection values. VT fuses (given all that) can pop a shell at a more efficient range and altitude. There’s a ton of square roots involved. VT ain’t smart and they don’t do squat if the other data ain’t right. They don’t do squat if the shell isn’t put into proximity. Basically, VT ain’t jack without a serious director to get the shell to the right range, altitude, and deflection. So we’re back to ballistics and directors.

Can you imagine how much my butt hurts? Ciao. JWE

[Symon]

In and among all the other stuff, I still have this and the finalization of Nav Acc on the plate. For them of you asking, especially MateDow, all I can say is patience is a virtue.[;)]

J

[el cid again]

While your language is a tad bit too colorful for me, as an AAW guy who LIKES guns and even used them
in missile defenses, I think you are "spot on" (to use the British vernacular). Yep - if you can't solve the
fire control problem - the VT frag means nada. My first ships gunnery chief took it to an extreme: he permitted
only ONE round per tube in practice: either you solved the problem or you didn't - and no point confusing the
spotting with more shots. He rewarded gun crews with liberty if they were best - only one of four could win any given time - and ended up with probably the best gunners in the fleet (winning Es was the least of it - observers were uniformly amazed). Later, working up a ship with an anti-cruise missile mission, I borrowed his idea - except with rather more impressive guns. The 3 inch 50s of late design were fabulous - but the 5 inch 54 of that era was (when it worked) breathtaking. The shell weighed more than a WWII six inch, and had more range, but it could spit 42 a minute. With constant maintenance you could beat the typical 50% of the time down problem - and I felt they were a whole lot better than nothing if countermeasures or SAMs failed. In the Falklands a 4.5 inch did manage to down an Exocet - so I think the theory was sound. But we rarely needed weapons and never got to use the guns at all vs SSCMs - and only once used a SAM (USS Sterette in 1972 with the first missile on missile kill in combat in history) - probably just to show we could. Mostly countermeasures did the job. Still - I think it is a mistake not to have modern high performance AA dual purpose guns on warships. A present day gun is about twice as effective as its WWII counterpart was and present day gun fire control radar can also be used to guide a Standard missile in a nasty jamming situation that defeats an AGEIS radar at range. For one thing, guns don't run out of shots as fast as SAMs do, and gun ammo can reload at sea.

ORIGINAL: Symon

I’m dialing in the Acc numbers for AAA and they are looking good, so far. Once again, the numbers represent a measure of the potential (ideal) ballistic accuracy of a tube/shell combo. This will be a starting point for some very scary and out-of-the-brown-spot assumptions.

So far, the AAA Acc is in the nature of artillery type CEP calcs, It’s a measure of how many shells will burst within that standard, nominal, engagement envelope, ASSUMING the gunners have perfect range, altitude, and deflection data.

The whole issue of evolving, modern directors and VT fuses is not addressed, because there is a code abstraction that deals with this. So AAA data, pretty much, has to go with the ballistic profiles.

Poop-hot directors can find efficient range, altitude and deflection values. VT fuses (given all that) can pop a shell at a more efficient range and altitude. There’s a ton of square roots involved. VT ain’t smart and they don’t do squat if the other data ain’t right. They don’t do squat if the shell isn’t put into proximity. Basically, VT ain’t jack without a serious director to get the shell to the right range, altitude, and deflection. So we’re back to ballistics and directors.

Can you imagine how much my butt hurts? Ciao. JWE

[Symon]

Okay then, here's a snapshot of the spreadsheet, so far. Altitudes and Effect are finished for all AAA and DP guns. It's just a snapshot. The spreadsheet is 3 times longer.

Note: the Col F Eff for DP guns is the std Nav Eff, so be careful to put the AAA Eff into Col W and flag it with a 2 in the Attribute field (Col V). Straight AA guns have AA Eff in Col F. There's more tricks with the attributes to have them do Nav combat as a secondary function, but that's for later. It's more generally usefol for AAAW guns on 'small boys' anyway. Land AAA doesn't generally get to shoot at ships. [8D]

Algorithm is simple: cube root shell wt was too flat, square root shell wt was to curved, so find them both and take an average. Multiply by the cube root of Charge Weight % (% of shell wt represented by wt of explosive charge). Aaand ... bingo. Don't forget, this is merely the magnitude of the "boom and frags" you get from individual shells. The rest is wrapped up in the Acc calculations (coming soon).

Another note: these were all done exactly the same way. They relate mathematically to one another. So if you find that the values are too low, or too high, they can be changed by simply multiplying EVERYTHING by 0.8 or 1.2 or whatever. But changes MUST be uniformly applied to everything. No fanboi onseys-twoseys, now [:-]

Hope ya'll like it. JWE

[Symon]

And here's Mr Spreadsheet.

Ya'll have fun now, hear. Ciao. JWE

[MateDow]

ORIGINAL: Symon

And here's Mr Spreadsheet.

Ya'll have fun now, hear. Ciao. JWE

Thank you for this.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: dwg
Picture the engagement envelope ....

Hi brother dwg, Going to post the Eff numbers. Thought of you and ran some values for the LA 4.5s.

JWE, apologies for not getting back any faster, I've been dealing with visiting family and haven't been by here in weeks. Thanks for all this, I'm heading off for a reciprocal family visit, so I'll store all this away to look at when I get the chance.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: dwg

...I'll store all this away to look at when I get the chance.

+1

[&o][&o][&o]

[Symon]

Ok, here's the finalized spreadsheet for Ceilings and Effect numbers for AAA and DP. If it's in red, then substitute those numbers in your scen. Need to use the csv files.

Acc coming shortly. J

[Symon]

The new Acc values for ACC for AAA and Sec_Acc for DP are done. Since the AA algorithm is totally different from the Nav algorithm, it made sense to define Acc for AA guns and DP guns used in the AA mode. Once again, the numbers aren't that far off from the Babes values. So the AAA and DP spreadsheet will be revised to include the calculated values for Col H Acc for AA guns and Col Y Sec_Acc for DP guns.

The numbers are a truncated parameter set of what is almost universally considered as the "effectiveNESS" of AA artillery. The previously calculated AA-Eff numbers are individual "effectivITY" values. They use a first portion of the effectivity algorithm. The newly calculated AA-Acc numbers use a second portion of the effectivity algorithm. Taken together, they define relative effectiveness very well within the game system.

God love Michaelm for tweaking the code and allowing for this capability back in the 1107 days.

New spreadsheet to come soon. Ciao. JWE

[sandman455]

Thank you JWE for this massive effort. I like what I see. Borrowing/stealing them means you will at the very least earn a north facing salute the next time I cross Mobile Bay on I-10 heading to the inlaws.

A beer at the USS Alabama memorial or NAS Pensacola museum would be more appropriate. Just need to retire some day.

[Symon]

-

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: sandman455
Thank you JWE for this massive effort. I like what I see. Borrowing/stealing them means you will at the very least earn a north facing salute the next time I cross Mobile Bay on I-10 heading to the inlaws.

A beer at the USS Alabama memorial or NAS Pensacola museum would be more appropriate. Just need to retire some day.

If you are crossing Mobile Bay on I-10, Fairhope would be to your south [8D] If you get a wild hair and go off piste onto the 90/98 parkway at Spanish Fort, Fairhope is still south, but there's some wicked oyster, crab, shrimp, and fish places over by the Lower Delta cut.

[Symon]

The spreadsheet for AA Artillery (both Type-12 AA Guns and Type-17 DP Guns) is finished. It has recalculated values for Eff, Acc and Ceiling. Here’s a snapshot of the first few lines.


WeapNum is right off the csv. WeapName is kinda the same but made an effort to name and define them more correctly. Type is self-explanatory, but there is a small differentiation between AA and DP guns on a ship and those mounted on land. On the far right are the numbers taken from a current Babes csv file. In the middle are the replacement values.

If they are in red, replace what is already there with the new values. Don’t forget, this is only for AA Artillery, not for AAAW. This should pretty much finish up the AA work. Will be folded into all Babes device files in the comprehensive update (coming soon).

Ciao. JWE

[Symon]

And here's the spreadsheet.

[Symon]

The new Ceiling numbers are based on actual AA shell weight, AA shell muzzle velocity, and shell drag coefficient adapted for a reliable ballistics program. The new Eff numbers are based on actual AA shell weight, radius, and bursting charge %: needless to say there’s square and cube roots involved. The new Acc numbers are based on actual AA shell weight, section density, and “EFFECTIVE” RoF, all from consistent sources (no picking and choosing); needless to say there’s some cube roots running around here, as well [8D]

Acc was a real witch, because there’s no universally acceptable way of mathematically measuring it for AA Arty. There IS a universally acceptable way of measuring the general AA effectiveness of an AA Artillery piece. So I did an allocation of terms; those relating to shell power got pulled into the Eff calcs, those relating to volumetric density got pulled into the Acc calcs. The raw values were plotted and the curve was adjusted by a uniform value to get it into the game algorithm sweet spot. The game treatment of AAA is a matrix of Ceiling, Eff and Acc. All 3 parameters work together within the algorithm. The sweet spot is actually a 3-D surface plot of C, A, and E.

Hope ya’ll like. Juan, have all the individuals with internal raw data; yours if you want it.

Ciao. JWE

[Symon]

Yes, Brian, the comprehensive update will include tweaks to several Fighter and FB planes, for both sides, using Mike Williams’ data curves. This will mostly re-evaluate planes at a universal, standard Military power; no more Japs at a guess and a golly, and Allies at WEP. They are all done to a universal, and consistent standard, relative to one another.

A few IJ planes show up very well under this paradigm. Jacks, and Franks and Georges, oh my! have some wicked good specs, a couple can get to 422 mph. This is from normal test data taken the same way, by the same people, as did the Allied planes. They used normal fuel (92:92) and tuned the turbochargers with the same dynamometer. What they found for the IJ is very likely what the IJ could have done with the model if they coulda, shoulda, woulda, had decent fuels and a corps of Iron Chef mechanics; but of course, they didn’t. But Heck, wtf, hey?

Not as gnarly as the airplane tweaks in Brian’s scenarios. Babes has to correspond, somewhat, to stock and play within the game sandbox, so Babes can’t do fundamental paradigm shifts. Too bad, would have liked to, but …

Plane values were tested; with equally good pilots you get some rational exchange rates in A2A combat. With nominal Allied pilots and IJ tyros, you get equivalent rational exchange rates in A2A combat. I like it. Matt likes it. Apicelli likes it, too.

But that’s the subject of another thread.[8D]

Ciao. JWE

[witpqs]

Nice - thanks! [:)]

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Symon

The new Acc values for ACC for AAA and Sec_Acc for DP are done. Since the AA algorithm is totally different from the Nav algorithm, it made sense to define Acc for AA guns and DP guns used in the AA mode. Once again, the numbers aren't that far off from the Babes values. So the AAA and DP spreadsheet will be revised to include the calculated values for Col H Acc for AA guns and Col Y Sec_Acc for DP guns.

The numbers are a truncated parameter set of what is almost universally considered as the "effectiveNESS" of AA artillery. The previously calculated AA-Eff numbers are individual "effectivITY" values. They use a first portion of the effectivity algorithm. The newly calculated AA-Acc numbers use a second portion of the effectivity algorithm. Taken together, they define relative effectiveness very well within the game system.

God love Michaelm for tweaking the code and allowing for this capability back in the 1107 days.

New spreadsheet to come soon. Ciao. JWE

Does anyone know if these changes were ever implemented in DaBabes, etc? I've decompiled different scenarios, and I don't see these values in the V/W/Y columns.

Am I missing something?

[LargeSlowTarget]

I assume you have used witploadAE.exe to decompile the scenario files?

There are two versions of the witploadAE.exe, one from 2009 and another from 2013.

IIRC only the 2013 version can handle certain additional values / columns.

I might be wrong, has been a while I have tinkered with that - but might be worth a try.