Matrix Games Forums

There are eight slots dedicated to DC in stock plus four to Hedgehog/Mousetrap - and two empty slots that seem to work for ASW weapons.

First observation: the data is essentially duplicated in several cases - so there may be some slots available - all we get from different slots is chrome of right sounding names - but no performance change.

Second observation: there were no effective smart DC in WWII. Magnetic DC were unreliable and not widely used. Acoustic DC were not perfected until after the war. A basic model for standard DC is valid.

Third observation - and a contridiction of what was posted by someone in a submarine durability thread - early DC were depth limited to 300 feet- later ones generally to 600 feet - and a couple of very late cases went to 900 feet or 1000 feet. [The USN used two settings when a German sub went deep - the deeper of those being 740 feet - a very interesting choice, late in the war]. I am not sure how to model depth changes - unless by modifying accuracy = chance of a hit.

Fourth observation: Patterns for RN started at 5, went to 10, then to 14 - and allegedly then to 26 - although I don't see how to do that? It may be two patterns of 13 set at different depths from the same launchers - which would work if you fired the deeper settign first. USN used somewhat similar patterns - ending with 13. IJN seems to have used values like 4 and 8 and 12. A USN DD would have 4 or 6 throwers - and 2 racks. A USN DE would have 8 throwers - and two racks. A rack had 12 DC - but a thrower typically only 4 ready rounds. Racks could - but rarely did - dump the whole load. [The range of the throwers means a pattern of 13 or 14 has uniform coverage for all points in the area covered]

Fifth observation: vs a 7/8 inch (22 mm) hull DC were believed to be effective at ranges of about 6 meters for small and 9 meters for large charges. These values are now thought to be overoptimistic. [USN Mark 6 6.4 meters; USN Mark 7 8.8 to 10.7 meters. Mark 3 was the same as Mark 6. Mark 4 was the same as Mark 7. RN D Type III or Mark VII 6.1 meters.]

Data for Hedgehog indicates WITP may be using the charge rather than weapon weight - 35 pounds was the charge.
It also implies a pattern of 24 bombs is rated as possibly having a single hit - which if so is the theory perfectly expressed.

That may imply we should be using the whole pattern for DC attacks to set the chance of a hit - and then only one DC is able to score. If you get one roll per pattern - we should not be getting a roll for every separate launcher - but one roll for all of them.

Thus - maybe we go over to

Pattern of 4 small DC
Pattern of 8 small DC
Pattern of 12 small DC
Pattern of 4 large DC
Pattern of 8 large DC
Pattern of 12 large DC

the other cases might be airborne DC - singles - large and small???
or maybe "deeper DC" (more accuracy) pattern of 12 - large and small????

We can combine mousetrap and hedgehog cases apparently - and maybe get two more cases

We seem to be able to add ASW mortars and ASW DC throwers in the blank slots
We might be able to add squid for RN - a three pattern thrower

A ship then gets (early war) only ONE roll per attack (but as many attacks shots fired)

and (late war) typically THREE rolls - two for ahead throwers (if there are two mounts) and one for DC - this latter being
a large pattern of 12 (or 13 or 14 if we want).

Final datum - privately Herwin writes a big pattern should have a 1 per cent chance of a good hit. Do we know what value to use for that?

Fourth observation: Patterns for RN started at 5, went to 10, then to 14 - and allegedly then to 26 - although I don't see how to do that?

Didn't the larger patterns work by basically just rolling more DCs of off the stern rails in addition to those fired from the throwers? Most ASW destroyers had 2 racks and anywhere up to 8 DC throwers, so a pattern of 26 is possible depending on the size of the rails (the biggest rails held 12 each, IIRC Flower Corvettes held 8 in each rail).

That would seem logical, and the best way to increase pattern size. The throwers would have a more or less fixed reload time, so you couldn't fire more of those.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That would seem logical, and the best way to increase pattern size. The throwers would have a more or less fixed reload time, so you couldn't fire more of those.

Yes, T's on the point, but the logic is in how the code works, however, isn't it? Each ‘pass’ invokes a Wpn, and each Wpn has a “Num” number of shots. IRL is fun to talk about, but it is not quite how the code works. Thought that was the idem in a Scenario Development sub-forum - how to model things in terms of how the game uses them? This is a Matrix "Games" forum, isn't it?

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Fourth observation: Patterns for RN started at 5, went to 10, then to 14 - and allegedly then to 26 - although I don't see how to do that?

Didn't the larger patterns work by basically just rolling more DCs of off the stern rails in addition to those fired from the throwers? Most ASW destroyers had 2 racks and anywhere up to 8 DC throwers, so a pattern of 26 is possible depending on the size of the rails (the biggest rails held 12 each, IIRC Flower Corvettes held 8 in each rail).

Actually some US many DD's/DE's had 5 round extensions with gave them 13 dc per rack...

Very true. Thing is that to do that you need a bunch of upgrade slots to accommodate all the added launchers. Lots of this is in AE (thanks to Terminus and TankerAce), but that’s just because we have about 8,000 more slots.

WiTP is a bit more limited, but there are a few things you can do with the ‘upgrade’ stats in the device database. Anyway, Ciao.

John

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Fourth observation: Patterns for RN started at 5, went to 10, then to 14 - and allegedly then to 26 - although I don't see how to do that?

Didn't the larger patterns work by basically just rolling more DCs of off the stern rails in addition to those fired from the throwers? Most ASW destroyers had 2 racks and anywhere up to 8 DC throwers, so a pattern of 26 is possible depending on the size of the rails (the biggest rails held 12 each, IIRC Flower Corvettes held 8 in each rail).

Yes - the problem isn't the number of DC - it is that if you roll too many - you don't get any effect from them. A pattern of 13 or 14 gives maximum coverage for the area the throwers can reach. By this I mean that if a submarine is anywhere in the pattern AND close to the depth the DC are set for it is going to be damaged. So why drop more? IF you set at 2 different depths - maybe that makes sense.

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Fourth observation: Patterns for RN started at 5, went to 10, then to 14 - and allegedly then to 26 - although I don't see how to do that?

Didn't the larger patterns work by basically just rolling more DCs of off the stern rails in addition to those fired from the throwers? Most ASW destroyers had 2 racks and anywhere up to 8 DC throwers, so a pattern of 26 is possible depending on the size of the rails (the biggest rails held 12 each, IIRC Flower Corvettes held 8 in each rail).

Actually some US many DD's/DE's had 5 round extensions with gave them 13 dc per rack...

Naval Weapons of WWII says 12 round racks were common - so the problem isn't the number you can drop. In a typical pattern (early) each rack drops only 2. Later - it is 3 - because the larger patterns were a bigger circle - and so you also dropped in the center (hence the pattern of 13 - and the 14 of RN is the same- just you drop 2 rounds in the center instead of 1). The racks don't reload - they are ready for the next attack. Similarly - a thrower (K gun) has a round on the mount and (early) a special device with a reload (later) a tiny rack with 4 reloads. But either way - K gun fires only 1 or 2 rounds per pattern.

ORIGINAL: JWE

Very true. Thing is that to do that you need a bunch of upgrade slots to accommodate all the added launchers. Lots of this is in AE (thanks to Terminus and TankerAce), but that’s just because we have about 8,000 more slots.

WiTP is a bit more limited, but there are a few things you can do with the ‘upgrade’ stats in the device database. Anyway, Ciao.

John

Instead of using slots for the launchers - I think we could use the slots for patterns. Essentially the accuracy goes up as the pattern goes up.

There seem to be three kinds of DC - small, large and what we might call mini or micro.

It appears they are always used in pairs even on a blimp or aircraft. Otherwise multiples of that.

The ratio in effect between small and large is 2 to 3. That implies a mini might be a 1. We want a data set below what is effective - so we can multiply it times a constant (K) upon calibration (measuring of outcomes compared to IRL). The problem is - a 13 DC pattern had a 1 in 100 shot of doing damage - so our accuracy may be too high even if the base is 1, 2 and 3: in that case we can adjust the effect to get there.

IF a pattern of two minis is 1, two smalls is 2, and two larges is 3, then

a pattern of 4 becomes 4 for smalls and 6 for large
a pattern of 8 becomes 8 for smalls and 12 for large
a pattern of 12 becomes 12 for smalls and 18 for large

and maybe we never have more than patterns of 2 minis - just more shots.

This may reduce the number of rolls - and reducing the total attacks should reduce hits. But what should effect be? First pass guess?

Since the Mark 10 and Mark 11 Hedgehog are identical in every sense we can put in data, we should probably only have one Hedgehog slot - and replace the other with a Squid slot. 70 RN ships got Squid - and it is more or less a DC - a pattern of 3. But you get these as an extra shot - or if two are mounted - as two extra shots per ship. RN only, late war. Squid is essentially a small DC (200 pounds charge vs 207 pounds) - so on the scale above - it would be a value of 3 for a pattern of 3.

For some reason Hedgehog does not work vs deep submarines - they knew that and would not even use it - and not using it means it never worked even if it really could have. How to adjust this for code that always uses it? Sub shallow is 100 feet. Normal operating is at least 300 feet - potential operating is perhaps 500 feet - divide by 5? Instead of 60 we would then have accuracy = 12 - and that also should reduce hit rates.

The problem of effect remains. But here we can give HH (and Mousetrap) and advantage: they HIT every time - no detonation for a miss - so give them full value for charge - but a DC - say - half value (representing an average of 6-9 meters range)???

ORIGINAL: el cid again

For some reason Hedgehog does not work vs deep submarines - they knew that and would not even use it - and not using it means it never worked even if it really could have.

You would have to lead the target due to the increased time of fall of the projectiles through the greater distance of water.

Sure you are right. And then increased time would mean more time for the sub to maneuver to a different position. This weapon uses a fairly small target area - not like DC throwing a pattern 250 yards in radius - and potentially dropping DC over 500 or even more yards in length - a DC pattern is a lot more area. [Impressive to witness too - you wonder "can anybody be alive down there?"] For all the time of flight and then sinking the sub can be moving to right or left - or reversing and headed toward you - or running away - and it does not take long to move 40 yards and be out of the pattern entirely.

BUT IF he is at periscope depth - and you know exactly where - this is deadly. You can shoot much sooner than you can sail over to his position and then drop DC - rockets fly forward fast- and these small charges sink pretty fast too - and he lacks the time to get out of the way - so because you are shooting a circle (or ellipse with Mark 11) - some part of the pattern should be over his deck - and when that hits - it is just enough to crack the hull - forcing him to surface and face your guns.

In spite of this - Naval Weapons of the Second World War says it did not usually produce a clear indication of a kill - even if it did hit. One wonders if sometimes charges might have hit something not too vital - an appendage - no chance to crack the hull?

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Since the Mark 10 and Mark 11 Hedgehog are identical in every sense we can put in data, we should probably only have one Hedgehog slot - and replace the other with a Squid slot. 70 RN ships got Squid - and it is more or less a DC - a pattern of 3. But you get these as an extra shot - or if two are mounted - as two extra shots per ship. RN only, late war. Squid is essentially a small DC (200 pounds charge vs 207 pounds) - so on the scale above - it would be a value of 3 for a pattern of 3.

Essentially what I did in my mod, ditto for the mousetrap, just differences in rack size 2x4 vs 2x8.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sure you are right. And then increased time would mean more time for the sub to maneuver to a different position. This weapon uses a fairly small target area - not like DC throwing a pattern 250 yards in radius - and potentially dropping DC over 500 or even more yards in length - a DC pattern is a lot more area. [Impressive to witness too - you wonder "can anybody be alive down there?"] For all the time of flight and then sinking the sub can be moving to right or left - or reversing and headed toward you - or running away - and it does not take long to move 40 yards and be out of the pattern entirely.

BUT IF he is at periscope depth - and you know exactly where - this is deadly. You can shoot much sooner than you can sail over to his position and then drop DC - rockets fly forward fast- and these small charges sink pretty fast too - and he lacks the time to get out of the way - so because you are shooting a circle (or ellipse with Mark 11) - some part of the pattern should be over his deck - and when that hits - it is just enough to crack the hull - forcing him to surface and face your guns.

In spite of this - Naval Weapons of the Second World War says it did not usually produce a clear indication of a kill - even if it did hit. One wonders if sometimes charges might have hit something not too vital - an appendage - no chance to crack the hull?

True if your are thinking a single ship attacking, but by the time hedgehog arrived there were sufficient escorts to allow several ships to prosecute.

If you use slots for patterns rather than individual launchers, does that affect the way damage is done to weapons. If you have damaged launchers you could not fire a complete pattern.

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sure you are right. And then increased time would mean more time for the sub to maneuver to a different position. This weapon uses a fairly small target area - not like DC throwing a pattern 250 yards in radius - and potentially dropping DC over 500 or even more yards in length - a DC pattern is a lot more area. [Impressive to witness too - you wonder "can anybody be alive down there?"] For all the time of flight and then sinking the sub can be moving to right or left - or reversing and headed toward you - or running away - and it does not take long to move 40 yards and be out of the pattern entirely.

BUT IF he is at periscope depth - and you know exactly where - this is deadly. You can shoot much sooner than you can sail over to his position and then drop DC - rockets fly forward fast- and these small charges sink pretty fast too - and he lacks the time to get out of the way - so because you are shooting a circle (or ellipse with Mark 11) - some part of the pattern should be over his deck - and when that hits - it is just enough to crack the hull - forcing him to surface and face your guns.

In spite of this - Naval Weapons of the Second World War says it did not usually produce a clear indication of a kill - even if it did hit. One wonders if sometimes charges might have hit something not too vital - an appendage - no chance to crack the hull?

True if your are thinking a single ship attacking, but by the time hedgehog arrived there were sufficient escorts to allow several ships to prosecute.

ONLY ONE ship engages per attack. And our code DOES have several ships prosecuting - looks to me like every AS armed ship may prosecute - or try to. But I think of them as sequential attacks.

In RHS I make ASW units by dedicated vessels - e.g. PCE or PC - two ship units - and if I had time I would to this to DEs as well. I give them the weapons of just ONE ship (ASW wise) - but TWICE the shots - because only one ship runs at one time. This isn't like a gun battle - everybody shoot at once. Ideally you have two ships - one stands off and listens during the run of the other - then they change places as soon as maneuvering and noise factors permit time wise.

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

If you use slots for patterns rather than individual launchers, does that affect the way damage is done to weapons. If you have damaged launchers you could not fire a complete pattern.

Very nice question. Yes - you are right. IF you have a hit on an ASW launcher it is damaged. IRL if you hit he DC - you probably lose the whole ship! For HH this is easier - it is so small you clearly lose the whole thing. But - for DC - they are more spread out IF more than one or two racks at the stern. It isn't ideal - and I suppose if no DC were left - you might just lose "the forward Y gun" - but in practice if these mountings got hit - you are going to lose a whole lot more than we do here - (if you don't blow up the entire ship in sympathetic detonation - you lose the shafts, all of them, the rudders and emergency steering, and likely the after gun mount and any nearby light AAA) - so losing just the entire DC mounting seems acceptable to me.