A simple modification to AAA

[el cid again]

It appears that in general, the AAA values of weapons should be in the following ranges:

40 mm Bofors: Range 4,000 yards, ceiling 12,000 feet.
20 mm Orlikon: Range 2,000 yards, ceiling 6,000 feet.
.50 cals (all): Range 1,000 yards, ceiling 4,000 feet.
.30 cals (all): Range 1,000 yards, ceiling 2,000 feet.
25 mm (estimate): Range 3,000 yards, ceiling 8,000 feet.
French 75s (all): Range 7,000 yards, cieling 22,000 feet.

In general, heavy AA guns range should be the ceiling divided by 3,000
(round fractions off). This is very optimistic for the AA guns - it means they can reach targets all the way to maximum altitude out to effective range.

DP guns are a problem. Ideally they should be treated the same as AA guns for AAA purposes. However, if they are, they lose their maximum range for anti-surface combat. This is not very bad - guns near their maximum range rarely hit - but the alternative is to overstate the AA value of the DP guns relative to both reality and to other AA guns. One must compromise, and I am inclinded to lose a few thousand yards of range. A 5 inch 38 would have an effective range of something like 12 instead of 18 in that case, which is right for AA but too short for surface battle. Right now the 5 inch 38 is rated as a SP gun! It does not shoot at planes at all - being rated as a naval gun and having a zero altitude rating. I much prefer DP guns that do both jobs. But I am not happy about giving DP guns the last third of their range against airplanes. At such ranges the shells are approaching the surface again, and the target could not even be observed, not engaged at any significant altitude. On the other hand, it is not nice to lose 1/3 of your range in surface action - even if you rarely hit in that sector. But we must choose - keep the 5/38 SP? Rate it as DP with correct range for AA? Or pretend it is a super AA gun and rate it as DP with SP range? I prefer the center option.

[el cid again]

The historic raid at Clark AAF came in at 25,000 feet. The historic 75mm guns at Clark could not shoot above about 22,000 feet - so the Japanese looked down on the flak bursts. This is not at present possible - since in US service those guns are given the wrong ceiling of 25,000 feet - although in other national service they have the correct altitude!

Changing the range of medium and light AAA should be tied to changing the ceilings of aircraft. Recon aircraft might be an exception, but generally aircraft do not operate above the altitude at which they can maneuver effectively. They also do not lightly operate where it is very cold. And the use of service ceilings misleads players and the game code into thinking a Claude or Nate is similar to a B-29 - since they have similar service ceilings! Planes with turbosupercharged engines should have an advantage at altitude. So - I have not worked this out completely - I propose to rerate ceilings. For one thing, existing ceilings are a mixed bag - many are plain inaccurate - some deliberately so. All planes should have a common standard. Instead of service ceiling - I think it should be halfway between optimum operating altitude and the service ceiling. At that level the plane has resonable performance. And since the OOA of a plane with high altitude engines is much higher than a plane with ordinary engines, it will have an advantage in the form of the game defined ceiling. For simplicty sake, I am doing a study, so we can come up with a way to estimate OOA for all planes, even without a lot of test data. This matters in particular for planes that didn't fly but we have in the game! It also matters for esoteric aircraft where limited information is available. I believe there is a generic algorithm (or two) and I will attempt to find it.

[el cid again]

Even .30 cal weapons will work against ground support in this proposal - since it comes in at 2000 feet.

[witpqs]

Obviously a code change would be best for the DP/SP dilemma.

Failing that, there is a third option to the two that you present. The third option is add AA-only guns alongside each surface-only gun that should be DP.

I am not recommending this option, just throwing it out there for thought. I am uncertain of all its ramifications.

[Ron Saueracker]

Right now the 5 inch 38 is rated as a SP gun! It does not shoot at planes at all - being rated as a naval gun and having a zero altitude rating.

You are kidding, right?[&:][X(] Sure you are not talking about the Mk 22 (SP twin mount on Porters and Somers) and not Mk 12?

[Ron Saueracker]

Guess I'm correct...this thread kinda died.[;)]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Right now the 5 inch 38 is rated as a SP gun! It does not shoot at planes at all - being rated as a naval gun and having a zero altitude rating.

You are kidding, right?[&:][X(] Sure you are not talking about the Mk 22 (SP twin mount on Porters and Somers) and not Mk 12?

Device 23 is the SP version carried in those older DD classes. The modern DD's that use the DP version is device 55

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Right now the 5 inch 38 is rated as a SP gun! It does not shoot at planes at all - being rated as a naval gun and having a zero altitude rating.

You are kidding, right?[&:][X(] Sure you are not talking about the Mk 22 (SP twin mount on Porters and Somers) and not Mk 12?

Device 23 is the SP version carried in those older DD classes. The modern DD's that use the DP version is device 55

So Cid justmissed the fact that there ismore than 1 type of Mk 38 in the DB. I think that's where he boobooed.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Right now the 5 inch 38 is rated as a SP gun! It does not shoot at planes at all - being rated as a naval gun and having a zero altitude rating.

You are kidding, right?[&:][X(] Sure you are not talking about the Mk 22 (SP twin mount on Porters and Somers) and not Mk 12?

Device 23 is the SP version carried in those older DD classes. The modern DD's that use the DP version is device 55

There is also the Mk12 Mount 21 (device 040) - an older and less capable AA mount used on earlier ships (Yorktowns, Farraguts, etc).

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



You are kidding, right?[&:][X(] Sure you are not talking about the Mk 22 (SP twin mount on Porters and Somers) and not Mk 12?

Device 23 is the SP version carried in those older DD classes. The modern DD's that use the DP version is device 55

There is also the Mk12 Mount 21 (device 040) - an older and less capable AA mount used on earlier ships (Yorktowns, Farraguts, etc).

Yep, that why I'm saying Cid must have went off half cocked assuming the Mk 22 SP was the only Mk 38 in the database.

[el cid again]

The third option is add AA-only guns alongside each surface-only gun that should be DP.

One would think so from the names. But Joe keeps pointing out that things are not always what they seem. If the complaint that every gun shoots at invading ships and landing craft is true, or if the counting of AA guns as part of land combat is true, and both seem to be, then doubling the guns will only increase surface firepower for ship and land combat. I am not sure what AA gun means compared to DP gun? If only we had a real technical manual or someone who would answer questions? [Without a real manual, even answers to questions often are wrong - you get an opinion - but not always a correct opinion. Too bad documentation is not regarded as important for a project this complex.]

[el cid again]

So Cid justmissed the fact that there ismore than 1 type of Mk 38 in the DB. I think that's where he boobooed.

Device 23 claims to be a Mark 22 mounting - not in the listings as a 5 inch 38 Mark - and it claims to be SP. It is indeed listed for Porter and Somers, which had a "LA ring mounting" as built. But IF this is INTENDED as a 5 inch 38 SP mounting - why is it NOT listed for escort carriers which also had that "LA ring mounting"? And, with a couple of exceptions, the destroyers were rearmed with "HA ring mountings" - so it is more wrong than right to list these classes with them. Over on the IJN side, the 5 inch/50 exists in both HA and LA forms - and also in what might be called an intermediate form. No attempt is made to distinguish, say, the Fubuki variation from the later ones. Many ships are simplified into standard classes - and I assume this should apply to US DDs - even though - if you get technical - each ship has different outfits - with rare exceptions.

[Don Bowen]

I've heard that a picture is worht 1000 words. Ok - this post and the next two should be worth about 3000.

5in/38 Mk 22. This is the low-angle mounting (max 35 degrees elevation) as used in the large leaders. It is coded as a Naval Gun.

[Don Bowen]

5in/38 Mk 12 Mount 21. This is the early high-angle mounting as used on early modern CVs and DDs (the first two Yorktowns actually had Mount 16, which were similar). It was a pedastal mount that was manually trained and pointed (electic power motors were later added). These early mounts were notably slower to come on target.

[Don Bowen]

5in/38 Mk 12. This is the later high-angle mounting as used on most U.S. ships. There were several mount variations, both pedestal and base ring, all with power elevate and train. It is coded as a DP gun. Note difference in accuracy from the Mk 12 Mount 21.

[Ron Saueracker]

You heard correctly![8D]

[el cid again]

I have relabeled the 5 inch 38 Mark 22 as 5 inch 38 SP Gun - to make it clear - and assigned it to the CVEs which mounted a LA version of the 5 inch 38 - except for the classes that used the 5 inch 51. It is in UNMODIFIED older Porter and Somers - but they upgrade to a HA version.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have relabeled the 5 inch 38 Mark 22 as 5 inch 38 SP Gun - to make it clear - and assigned it to the CVEs which mounted a LA version of the 5 inch 38 - except for the classes that used the 5 inch 51. It is in UNMODIFIED older Porter and Somers - but they upgrade to a HA version.

All this bring the point of why bother with "guns" and design devices with "mounts" instead. One example would be the need for at least four seperate 40mm devices in US service: 1 Single barrel 40mm air cooled for the Navy and Army, a twin and quad barrel water cooled for the Navy. In examining the 5"/38 the correct nomenclature for the gun itself should be the 5in Mark 12/0, 12/1, or 12/2, depending on the physical construction method/material for each sub-mark.

However, what appears being discussed here is not the gun, but the gun mounts, in which there were ten with 133 modifications in service by 1945. Twin HA mountings were (4) Mks 28, 29, 32, and 38. Twin LA was the Mark 22. All of the twins were powered base ring mounts with central axial ammunition hoist. Mark 21, 24, 25, 30, and 37 were single HA mounts, an exception being the hand worked Mark 30/80 in some escort carriers. The single mounts can be divided into P mounts and base ring mounts. Diffence primarily is in the location of ammuntion supply, on the P mounts it is off mount where the base ring it is located axially on mount. Other difference were that P mounts were never fully enclosed, but base rings mounts could be fuklly enclosed.

So in review of the discussion on 5"/38 guns as represented in the data base the Mk 12 listing should instead be 5"/38 Mark 21 (slow, hand worked, P open mount found primrily on the Enterprise and Yorktown). The 5"/38 Mark 22 is okay as is. However, now we have the other 8 major marks represented by a single entry...

How can this be best represented as devices..?? This is a question I will leave up to others since however it is done, it must also be done for just about every other gun/mount combo for the Allies and Japanese. I know how I would do it, but it would take way to many device slots to impliment.

How can this be represented in the game? For HA twin mounts this can be dicey since the twin mounts had a slower rate of fire per gun than two singles. The primary difference in the twin mounts was the thickness of the enclosures. Thus all of the HA twins should have the same stats, these being equal to 1.5 times a powered single base ring. For the singles there would be three different mounts: Single P open hand worked, Single P powered, and all the base rings. Any armor that may be present would be ship dependent. Fully enclosed base ring mounts such as those mounted in the Fletchers should be the "Gold" standard. In reality the open base ring mounts should have some some degredation due to environmental factors. The P mounts have a slower rate of fire due to the more manpower entensive ammo handling and on mount fuse settings.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It appears that in general, the AAA values of weapons should be in the following ranges:

40 mm Bofors: Range 4,000 yards, ceiling 12,000 feet.
20 mm Orlikon: Range 2,000 yards, ceiling 6,000 feet.
.50 cals (all): Range 1,000 yards, ceiling 4,000 feet.
.30 cals (all): Range 1,000 yards, ceiling 2,000 feet.
25 mm (estimate): Range 3,000 yards, ceiling 8,000 feet.
French 75s (all): Range 7,000 yards, cieling 22,000 feet.

In general, heavy AA guns range should be the ceiling divided by 3,000
(round fractions off). This is very optimistic for the AA guns - it means they can reach targets all the way to maximum altitude out to effective range.

DP guns are a problem. Ideally they should be treated the same as AA guns for AAA purposes. However, if they are, they lose their maximum range for anti-surface combat. This is not very bad - guns near their maximum range rarely hit - but the alternative is to overstate the AA value of the DP guns relative to both reality and to other AA guns. One must compromise, and I am inclinded to lose a few thousand yards of range. A 5 inch 38 would have an effective range of something like 12 instead of 18 in that case, which is right for AA but too short for surface battle. Right now the 5 inch 38 is rated as a SP gun! It does not shoot at planes at all - being rated as a naval gun and having a zero altitude rating. I much prefer DP guns that do both jobs. But I am not happy about giving DP guns the last third of their range against airplanes. At such ranges the shells are approaching the surface again, and the target could not even be observed, not engaged at any significant altitude. On the other hand, it is not nice to lose 1/3 of your range in surface action - even if you rarely hit in that sector. But we must choose - keep the 5/38 SP? Rate it as DP with correct range for AA? Or pretend it is a super AA gun and rate it as DP with SP range? I prefer the center option.

All this begs the question of DP guns. Being used inthis context are they Land Weapons or Naval Weapons??

In fact all AA guns could and were used against both air and gound/surface targets, the primary differences being direct or indirect fire. The German 88mm and US 90mm are but two examples of an AA gun used for direct and indirect fire missions. Indeed the 88 was doctrinally used as an AA gun, direct and indirect fire field artillery, and excelled at all three. As an indirect fire gun it could and did fire out to its max horizontal range. Any gun can be a direct fire against ground targets, however, only those guns that were capable of being used indirectly should be used to their max effective horizontal range. So in your listing above it might behoove you to figure what gun (device) was also used for indirect fire and give it a max range as listed in its stats. All others should be considered direct fire and limited to a max of maybe 5000 feet? Indeed maybe even less than this...

[el cid again]

In fact all AA guns could and were used against both air and gound/surface targets, the primary differences being direct or indirect fire. The German 88mm and US 90mm are but two examples of an AA gun used for direct and indirect fire missions. Indeed the 88 was doctrinally used as an AA gun, direct and indirect fire field artillery, and excelled at all three. As an indirect fire gun it could and did fire out to its max horizontal range. Any gun can be a direct fire against ground targets, however, only those guns that were capable of being used indirectly should be used to their max effective horizontal range. So in your listing above it might behoove you to figure what gun (device) was also used for indirect fire and give it a max range as listed in its stats. All others should be considered direct fire and limited to a max of maybe 5000 feet? Indeed maybe even less than this...

This set of comments - and the previous one about representing mountings - begins to get at the complexity of the decisions a modder must make. But the SYSTEM in use is NOT to consider mountings at all - that is - you specify the gun and then how many are in a mounting on each line of the ship (or land unit) record. We COULD use different guns - 5 inch for single - 5 inch for twin - etc - but there are nowhere near enough slots to play this game. This game was worked on by committee in effect - and there are lots of problems in the data set - starting with different standards (definitions) used by different people. There are also duplicate weapons - apparently - and sometimes this is a waste of a slot but other times it is for a reason. Thus, a CD gun is by definition in the device record a "naval gun" - but it is NOT a ship gun - and sometimes it has less elevation = less range than the same weapon afloat. So you get a pretty title for the device "CD gun" but it also is meaningful sometimes - since the range is not the same. Just how to sort out all the tradeoffs in the end is something of an art form - since you cannot put in every device you need - for more than one reaon. There is not only a limit in total devices - there are limits in devices for ships - for aircraft - etc - and some devices are hard coded too. If this is not bad enough, not everything (being kind - not most) of the system is documented - and you do not know what works or not until after you test to find out. [This is good procedure anyway - but not a popular one at Matrix or among modders for this game - so the amount of testing is far less than a product of this complexity would normally have. That means there are lots of things in the data that are wrong - but no one ever figured it out.

DP guns can be used by ships and ashore. And AAA guns are de facto DP guns - witness complaints when they shot up an invasion force ships!
In fact, we do not know the difference between an AAA gun and a DP gun in hard code! They might be identical - both have ceiling for example. They probably are not identical. And AAA guns can be found on ships, along with DP guns, and naval guns. In the database you will find cases where this has been done - every combination. So what is right? Absent a clear set of manuals, and absent total confidence in what is in the limited manual we have, you cannot know - except by testing - which does not always produce clear results. Modding is very hard work. IF I have any advantages, they are these:

1) Lots of time (and energy and interest);
2) Lots of raw data sources;
3) Lots of experience in setting up tests to measure things so I can understand (a) how they work now and (b) how my changes work.

Nevertheless, it is very hard to get it all right. And limits in the code and the structure severely limit what can be done. We must compromise. And no matter if we had 4 times the slots and the ability to write code, we would STILL have to compromise. Facts of life.