Matrix Games Forums

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-052.htm




http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/Gun_Data.htm




The arrival of a single powder pack from a "secure" area to a turret on a USN battlewagon.

Do naval and air crews still get trained in "old-fashioned" manual techniques, like using dumb bombs and semaphore and such?

Reason I ask is, I seen to recall that in that in some wargame exercise held back around 2002, some marine corp officer who was in charge of red force managed to maul the blue force by imposing strict radio silence and using motorcycle couriers and semaphore signalling to coordinate his surprise attacks, which were in large part "Iranian" style PT attacks.

Possibly OT and my apologies if so, but your post made me think of that . . .

Also many may not know that US & UK warships (DD's to BB's) used computerized controlled Fire Control Systems (integrated with Radar) back in 1941, while the Axis never achieved a system advanced as this, and always relied on human input from tables and optical rangefinder observations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_gun_f ... rol_system

ORIGINAL: Big B

Also many may not know that US & UK warships (DD's to BB's) used computerized controlled Fire Control Systems (integrated with Radar) back in 1941

Was it that early? I thought this did not come into place until mid '43?

The computerized gun director system was in place in 1941 or earlier, the radar integration came as ships had radar sets installed mostly in 1942.

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Big B

Also many may not know that US & UK warships (DD's to BB's) used computerized controlled Fire Control Systems (integrated with Radar) back in 1941

Was it that early? I thought this did not come into place until mid '43?

ORIGINAL: Big B

The computerized gun director system was in place in 1941 or earlier, the radar integration came as ships had radar sets installed mostly in 1942.

Gotcha [;)]

Do naval and air crews still get trained in "old-fashioned" manual techniques, like using dumb bombs and semaphore and such?

I was supposed to have learned semaphore as part of ESWS quals, so yes, that's still used.

Radar, in-game, is totally abstracted. There is no gun-direction device. Instead, there is a "time" hack, after which certain Allied devices will work better, in certain ways.

Radar, in-game, is nothing more than a device which allows modification of a DL for Air/Surface combat. Like it or not, that's it, and there ain't no more, and there ain't gonna be.

Some CVs and BBs got CXAM pre-war. It sucked, but think of the gobs trying to make sense of it. And then there was the ubiquitous early war SC. Maybe one in twenty operators had a clue as to what they were seeing, and even then their Officers were skeptical. None of this can be modelled in-game, so you get what you get, when you get it, and you must deal with the internal abstractions.

Life is really hard to model. Sometimes, one must use the assets one gets, to the best of their ability. That's kinda what it's all about, yeah? Ciao. JWE

John, FWIW, I think you guys did an awesome job in modeling the abstract. Every time I have a gripe (with one bug exception) it turned out I was an idiot in my thinking. Not joining the cheering section, just stating fact for those who think otherwise.

ORIGINAL: Symon

Radar, in-game, is totally abstracted. There is no gun-direction device. Instead, there is a "time" hack, after which certain Allied devices will work better, in certain ways.

Radar, in-game, is nothing more than a device which allows modification of a DL for Air/Surface combat. Like it or not, that's it, and there ain't no more, and there ain't gonna be.

So there is no gunnery accuracy bonus for late war Allied radar??? Just detection.....

interesting...

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

ORIGINAL: Symon

Radar, in-game, is totally abstracted. There is no gun-direction device. Instead, there is a "time" hack, after which certain Allied devices will work better, in certain ways.

Radar, in-game, is nothing more than a device which allows modification of a DL for Air/Surface combat. Like it or not, that's it, and there ain't no more, and there ain't gonna be.

So there is no gunnery accuracy bonus for late war Allied radar??? Just detection.....

interesting...

A good book is 'Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era' by Norman Friedman
http://www.amazon.com/Naval-Firepower-B ... n+friedman

and also 'Naval Ordnance and Gunnery'
http://www.amazon.com/Naval-Ordnance-Gu ... S07FAN3H5V

I think that I read somewhere that most Allied commanders didn't trust radar anyway. It was to new and if they couldn't see the target, the target didn't exist.

ORIGINAL: Symon

Radar, in-game, is totally abstracted. There is no gun-direction device. Instead, there is a "time" hack, after which certain Allied devices will work better, in certain ways.

Radar, in-game, is nothing more than a device which allows modification of a DL for Air/Surface combat. Like it or not, that's it, and there ain't no more, and there ain't gonna be.

Some CVs and BBs got CXAM pre-war. It sucked, but think of the gobs trying to make sense of it. And then there was the ubiquitous early war SC. Maybe one in twenty operators had a clue as to what they were seeing, and even then their Officers were skeptical. None of this can be modelled in-game, so you get what you get, when you get it, and you must deal with the internal abstractions.

Life is really hard to model. Sometimes, one must use the assets one gets, to the best of their ability. That's kinda what it's all about, yeah? Ciao. JWE

Further to what Symon posted above, the following thread, in particular my post #25 and the hyperlink provided therein, contains more detail on what radar does in this game.

tm.asp?m=3538438&mpage=1&key=radar&#3539048

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

John, FWIW, I think you guys did an awesome job in modeling the abstract. Every time I have a gripe (with one bug exception) it turned out I was an idiot in my thinking. Not joining the cheering section, just stating fact for those who think otherwise.

+1

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
So there is no gunnery accuracy bonus for late war Allied radar??? Just detection.....

interesting...

Looks like my explanation is causing some confusion. Alfred has done some good linking to some of the original development discussions, but perhaps a more complete and unified answer would be appropriate here. Everything has been said before, in one form or another, so there's no 'opening the overcoat' issues.

There is a gunnery accuracy bonus for late war Allied ships : AAA more so than Nav. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any "Radar" Devices. It is hard coded in terms of "time" and is used to "simulate" the effects of gun directors, VT fuses, and the like. It is a "high order" abstraction. In other words, a Bofors on a barge will get the AAA bonus whether it has a "Radar" device or not. I know it's not "accurate" or "historical" but it is what it is, and has always been so. Harsh, but what the hey.

Radar "Devices" inform the results of the DL query for air and naval combat. They can allow initiation of such combat earlier than normally expected, and increase the DL values used in the first stages of the combat results algorithm. In other words, on a moonless night, one side can get some shots off before the other side can even see a target. In air combat, a radar "Device" informs the response time for CAP and 'spotted' planes, in response to incoming raids. It does nothing for AAA fire, except modify the DL value for the first, hi altitude, firing phase.

For them programmers among you, think of a set of Venn spaces, with small, specific, overlaps. None of the algorithms will ever be disclosed, so one must dance around the margins. I hope this works for them of you that understand.

Ciao. JWE

[ed] Thanks Lecivious and m10bob. We try .. we really try.

ORIGINAL: Michael Vail

I think that I read somewhere that most Allied commanders didn't trust radar anyway. It was to new and if they couldn't see the target, the target didn't exist.

Well, this really isn't quite accurate, though many writers have picked up on the idea and expanded it into something of an urban legend.

It is true that in October 1942, early in the Solomons campaign (a two year sustained campaign of multiple night surface actions), an American TASK FORCE Commander (Rear Admiral Norman Scott) did not fully trust radar sets enough to give a clear picture of what was developing before and during a battle.

Therefore he placed his flag of Commander Task Force 64 on the traditional place of largest warship - the USS San Francisco (since ALL of his ships had Radar anyway), before the upcoming Battle of Cape Esperance (surface action #2 in the above series of actions).

The Helena had the advantage of a newer more capable radar set than the San Franciso, but was subsequently placed further back in the battle line - but more importantly - was not the flagship where Scott could have more easily availed himself to the information pouring out from Helena's radar set.

The result, was an American cruiser battle line chomping at the bit to open fire on Japanese ships (identified and tracked from 27,000 yards range by multiple US Cruisers) while Scott would not permit opening fire for fear that they just may be tracking a portion of his own van destroyers.... eventually the ships opened fire anyway and the battle commenced with the usual confusion.

The above is fact... But there is NO evidence of a US Task Force Commander (or ship captain) ever ignoring radar.

More importantly to this topic of fire control - there is Virtually NO evidence of a US Navy ship Captain or Fire Control Officer - EVER forbidding the use of radar for fire control in a surface action.

That explains why in every surface action after Savo Island - the largest Japanse warship nearest the American gun-line had a life expectancy of a minute or two at best....because she became the initial target for every American ship out there, and radar directed opening salvos usually hit on the first round. This was the normal pattern in every surface action after Savo Island.

B

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

ORIGINAL: Symon

Radar, in-game, is totally abstracted. There is no gun-direction device. Instead, there is a "time" hack, after which certain Allied devices will work better, in certain ways.

Radar, in-game, is nothing more than a device which allows modification of a DL for Air/Surface combat. Like it or not, that's it, and there ain't no more, and there ain't gonna be.

So there is no gunnery accuracy bonus for late war Allied radar??? Just detection.....

interesting...

Well the Allies get a number of things that help as the war progresses. Some newer gun devices have higher rates of fire. crew experience jumps significantly in 43 and then gets very good after 1/44. Torpedoes work better as time passes. And newer Allies ships get better armor (Fletchers) and in the case of BBs speed. All of these combined make for more success in combat-including frequency of hits so gunnery does gets better. All I know from experience that Allied surface ships suck in 42, can hold their own in 43 and pretty much dominate in 44. That is the way it should be and it feels about right to me. How they managed to do it does not matter so much to me but it seems that they have managed pretty well.

But as JWE explained there are certain things that are not in the game such as fire control or radar directed gunnery. Some aspects just have to be worked out in other ways.

Also many may not know that US & UK warships (DD's to BB's) used computerized controlled Fire Control Systems (integrated with Radar) back in 1941.

In 1941 no.

The computers weren't really related to the digital computers we use today, they were analog computers which is pretty much a lost art now. My degree is in Electronic Engineering and they only told us they once existed. I actually studied tubes a bit, but analog computers were too prehistoric to bother telling us more than "this once existed..."

Bill

ORIGINAL: Dili

Also many may not know that US & UK warships (DD's to BB's) used computerized controlled Fire Control Systems (integrated with Radar) back in 1941.

In 1941 no.

Browse this for quick easy access...Link

Precision Ranging Panel

The Precision Ranging Panel (PRP) was an electromechanical transmission and calculating system. The PRP allowed for accurate range determination, range rate determination using radar, and accurate transmission of radar ranges and range rates to fire control computers. The PRP used an electronic timing signal and pip matching to provide very accurate ranges.[8] It also used a power follow up to continuously transmit the correct range rate as long as the target maintained a steady course and speed.[8] The PRP was adapted from the British Army GL, Gun Laying, radar system, and first went to sea in 1939 aboard several C-class cruisers, using the Type 280 radar. By 1941 the PRP was a common feature on the Type 280, 279 and 281 radars, and by late 1941 began to appear on the type 282P, 284P and 285P radar systems.[6]

As for the US Navy in 1941 Link

P-Band fire-control

After the BTL developed the FA, the first fire-control radar for the U.S. Navy, it improved this with the FC (for use against surface targets) and FD (for directing anti-aircraft weapons). A few of these 60 cm (750 MHz) sets began service in the fall of 1941. They were later designated Mark 3 and Mark 4, respectively. About 125 Mark 3 and 375 Mark 4 sets were produced.