Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: steverodgers80

Don't discount the luck factor. One hit wiped out both of Bismark's forward batteries early in the fight. First hit could be crucial especially in a critical spot.

As witness HMS Hood....

Hi from across the big pond in the uk
I am x para airborne,
my visit to pearl harbour last year I went on the Big Mo, one great ship i cant find this ship in the game?
my farther was in Burma and I know he came across pow camps. The japs where very brutal to the prisoners so I think this game is a tribute
to them all that gave there every thing in that war god bless them all, please keep this game going for them as well as us gamers.

ORIGINAL: SUNRAY225DF

Hi from across the big pond in the uk
I am x para airborne,
my visit to pearl harbour last year I went on the Big Mo, one great ship i cant find this ship in the game?
my farther was in Burma and I know he came across pow camps. The japs where very brutal to the prisoners so I think this game is a tribute
to them all that gave there every thing in that war god bless them all, please keep this game going for them as well as us gamers.

Hi and welcome to the forum. The "Big Mo" is in the game and comes on as a reinforcement in 10/44 in most all scenarios. Glad you like the game. Stick around and play a few scenarios. [;)]

ORIGINAL: SUNRAY225DF
Hi from across the big pond in the uk
I am x para airborne,
my visit to pearl harbour last year I went on the Big Mo, one great ship i cant find this ship in the game?
my farther was in Burma and I know he came across pow camps. The japs where very brutal to the prisoners so I think this game is a tribute
to them all that gave there every thing in that war god bless them all, please keep this game going for them as well as us gamers.

Hi across the pond, SUNRAY225DF. Welcome. I am x US para arty, 319th AFAR. Nice to see another Brit maroon shield as an avatar. Quite a spread of people on these forums. Quite a few have 'been there and done that'. If you are interested in the game, you may well find a comfortable 'homes familias' within the universe. Ciao. JWE

why was 6in on yamato usless ?

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

This webpage is highly recommended for any BB vs BB analysis

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

Interesting note from that site:

"In addition, it needs to be noted that at ranges above 15,000 yards or so, one would not be able to fire at full speed given the need to watch the fall of shot of previous salvos, which might take as long as a minute to reach their destinations. Firing cycles, then, are somewhat misleading in significance for large-caliber weapons such as these."

All BBs went into "rapid fire" once the distance was determined. The Iowas had very good radar fire control and would enter "rapid fire" immediately. The Battle of Surigao Straight with three American BBs using Mark 8 fire control system is instructive.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-079.htm

ORIGINAL: czert2

why was 6in on yamato usless ?

They're for doing a CLs job. Dual Purpose 5"s would be better, with more barrels too, for the weight. That's my feeling anyway.

Just a note. I believe Bismark could pump out 2.5 rounds per minute.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: steverodgers80

Don't discount the luck factor. One hit wiped out both of Bismark's forward batteries early in the fight. First hit could be crucial especially in a critical spot.

As witness HMS Hood....

warspite1

....and HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Exeter [:(]

To elaborate...

The Battle of Jutland demonstrated that secondary armament was useless. Engagement was usually at a range best for the main armament. Secondary guns were just window dressing at that point.

Aircraft changed that, but the secondary armament needed to be primarily anti-aircraft. The Battle Off Samar did demonstrate that some sort of close in guns to deal with a DD that got close is useful, but dual purpose 5 inch guns serve that role perfectly. At Samar the Johnston got close enough to the Kongo that the Kongo could not depress her guns enough to hit the Johnston. The Johnston ran out of ammo and was peppering the Kongo with everything left in the magazine including training rounds.

Against a fully modernized US BB that would have probably been impossible because the 5 inch AA guns probably would have been able to deal with the DD.

6 inch guns up higher than the main guns as the Yamato had were useless for all purposes. They were incapable of depressing far enough to engage close targets and they didn't have the range to engage targets the main guns were shooting at. It's added weight with virtually no purpose.

The 6 inch guns that went on the Yamato and Musashi were, I believe, left over from the upgunning of the Mogami class just before the war. The Mogamis were built with 6 inch guns so they could be classified as CLs, but the Japanese upgunned them to 8 inch guns just before the war started. The turrets were surplus at that point.

Bill

ORIGINAL: wdolson

To elaborate...

The Battle of Jutland demonstrated that secondary armament was useless. Engagement was usually at a range best for the main armament. Secondary guns were just window dressing at that point.

Aircraft changed that, but the secondary armament needed to be primarily anti-aircraft. The Battle Off Samar did demonstrate that some sort of close in guns to deal with a DD that got close is useful, but dual purpose 5 inch guns serve that role perfectly. At Samar the Johnston got close enough to the Kongo that the Kongo could not depress her guns enough to hit the Johnston. The Johnston ran out of ammo and was peppering the Kongo with everything left in the magazine including training rounds.

Against a fully modernized US BB that would have probably been impossible because the 5 inch AA guns probably would have been able to deal with the DD.

6 inch guns up higher than the main guns as the Yamato had were useless for all purposes. They were incapable of depressing far enough to engage close targets and they didn't have the range to engage targets the main guns were shooting at. It's added weight with virtually no purpose.

The 6 inch guns that went on the Yamato and Musashi were, I believe, left over from the upgunning of the Mogami class just before the war. The Mogamis were built with 6 inch guns so they could be classified as CLs, but the Japanese upgunned them to 8 inch guns just before the war started. The turrets were surplus at that point.

Bill

I forget the details, but Washington (and maybe South Dakota) at Guadalcanal engaged IJN destroyers with her 5 inch batteries.

ORIGINAL: wdolson
6 inch guns up higher than the main guns as the Yamato had were useless for all purposes. They were incapable of depressing far enough to engage close targets and they didn't have the range to engage targets the main guns were shooting at. It's added weight with virtually no purpose.

The 6 inch guns that went on the Yamato and Musashi were, I believe, left over from the upgunning of the Mogami class just before the war. The Mogamis were built with 6 inch guns so they could be classified as CLs, but the Japanese upgunned them to 8 inch guns just before the war started. The turrets were surplus at that point.

Actually, the depression case is actually the one situation where they might be useful. These guns were capable of 7 degrees depression, which puts their 'minimum range' at only 400 feet or so (~125m or so) from the superfiring turret, less from the deck mounted ones. This is about half of that of the minimum range on the main battery, not to mention how much more practical 5-6 rounds per minute would be over 2 per minute.

As for maximum range - they could reach out to 30,000yards which is enough to cover any kind of practical engagement range.

Obviously, a dual purpose arrangement would still be better, both in terms of weight and utility.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
All BBs went into "rapid fire" once the distance was determined. The Iowas had very good radar fire control and would enter "rapid fire" immediately. The Battle of Surigao Straight with three American BBs using Mark 8 fire control system is instructive.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-079.htm

'Rapid fire' in the context of battleships typically means full salvos after waiting for the preceding one to land and be spotted/corrected, as opposed to the half or one-third salvos often fired for establishing range. Obviously at ranges where time of flight is shorter than loading cycle the loading cycle is the practical limit, but at longer ranges a gain of 10-25% in rate of fire is not worth the loss in accuracy (basically having your adjustments an additional firing cycle behind).

For CAs and particularly CLs, the situation is different, as for example at 20,000yards a Cleveland firing and spotting would be cutting fire volume to ~15% of maximum (compared to an Iowa essetially being unaffected at that range, and cutting it to ~70% at 30,000yards). This is why after initial ranging salvos, the CLs would just cut loose, and then check fire intermittently or when the target became too obscured by impacts.

Almost all countries have example of good and bad shooting and it is irrespective of weapon and fire control. There are times where 8" Japanese shoot well and times where it shoot badly. Same for Americans.
At big distance hits are mostly luck.

Ultimately it was radar tied to a primitive computer that solved the problem

What solved the problem is the missile or guided projectiles. It is impossible to predict the future position of a ship since it might change course.
5 British cruisers tried to catch 3 slower Italian destroyers and expended 5000 rounds of 6" to sunk 1 of destroyers that was just making a delaying action to let the others escape.