Max range of 406mm/50

[AndrewJ]

ORIGINAL: jdkbph
For example...

1 Classify target.
2a Generate solution for target range/range rate of change, and target bearing/bearing rate of change.
2b Factor wind, temp, humidity, etc. (are we factoring environmentals?).
2c or just fudge 2a and 2b and set a desired point of impact, then apply the proficiency factor.
3 Shoot.
4 Calculate actual point of impact.
5 Determine target's movement during projectile flight.
6 Apply CEP.
7 Calculate hits.

No?

No.

Instead of calculating independent ballistic impact points based on an aimpoint and an associated CEP, the impact point sticks to the targeted unit no matter where it happens to manuever, and the miss chance is applied around that.

See the following thread for more information HERE.

[jdkbph]

Ah. This must be what was referred to some time back when it was said the modelling would need work before it could be applied to a WWII or earlier game.

JD

[StellarRat]

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Ah. This must be what was referred to some time back when it was said the modelling would need work before it could be applied to a WWII or earlier game.

JD

Yes, it's very complicated. Your basically "guessing" where the target will be when the shells land IF they land accurately in the first place. IMHO, there is also some "luck" involved in long range "gun fights" too. If I remember right the average chance to hit was something less than 3% per round. That being said, those large naval guns are so powerful that it only took few hits to sink or disable almost any target.

[.Sirius]

The two turret version was a proposed conversion to an Iowa Class to be used as a fast Amphib fire support for Vietnam but didn't get off from the planning stage

[Belthorian]

I served as a gunners mate onboard the Iowa in Turret #1. We could hit targets ACCURATLY out to 23 miles. The Mk-8 was such a good fire control computer that when the Iowa's were modernized in the 80's a modern digital computer couldn't do the job any better. We did experiments using a 7th powder bag called an overcharge bag and we hit a school bus sized target on the first shot at 27 miles. As an illustration to how effective the MK-8 was during the battle of the Surigao Strait the West Virginia opened fire on the Yamashiro as 22,800 yards striking the Japanese ships with the FIRST salvo. On the Iowa in the 80's we also had drones to spot shell fall but the MK-8 was capable of picking up shell splash on radar and correcting. 23 miles is the max range and the effective range because of the fire control computer. You would put information like your speed and course, targets speed and course, temperature, wind speed, sea state into the computer, once the solution was achieved you could change course and speed and the computer would make corrections in real time. Same thing if your target changes course and speed the computer made those changes on the fly. It is why I said the Iowa would have mopped the floor with the Yamato, she would have stayed at long range and pounded her with highly accurate fire beyond the Yamato's ability to use optical ranging equipment.

[Belthorian]

The armor modeling needs some work, I was able to sink the New Jersey with SSN2B stix missiles. The worst the stix would do to a Iowa class is mess up the paint. None of the anti ship missiles were designed to penetrate armor belts they would be completely incapable of penetrating an Iowa class battleships main belt.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Belthorian

The armor modeling needs some work, I was able to sink the New Jersey with SSN2B stix missiles. The worst the stix would do to a Iowa class is mess up the paint. None of the anti ship missiles were designed to penetrate armor belts they would be completely incapable of penetrating an Iowa class battleships main belt.

Yeah it does however very few modern ships have armor like that so it becomes a one off in our model. It is definitely on our list and is a must if we decide to do anything with WWII.

Mike

[ComDev]

Yeah okay how about splitting the existing surface range into two figures: surface range and ground range. The surface range will be limited by the horizon (to simulate FC limitations), the ground range will be the max (practical) firing range.

Would that work for you?

In any case, a fix will have to wait until everyone on the dev team are back from their summer breaks.

Thanks! [8D]

[jdkbph]

Sounds like a good compromise Ragnar. Regarding the horizon though... I don't think the target would need to be completely hull up from the shooter's RADAR mast head in order to get good range and tracking data. If I'm right, that would make your max surface range "horizon +".

I'm not sure what the + should be though. But just as an example of how much difference that makes... the sighting range from the top of an Iowa's superstructure (where the FC Radar is) to a point at a target's water line is like 12 miles. But if you use a point nearer the top of the target (assume significant structure extending 100' above the waterline), the sighting distance is about double that.

JD

[ComDev]

Yeah we already use mast height, superstructure height etc in the models so should be ok [8D]

[Belthorian]

Actually the Arleigh Burks vital areas are protected by 2 layers of steel and 70 tons of Kevlar Armor, they were the first ships to incorporate armor since ww2, not to mention they re all steel construction.

[jdkbph]

Back in the day that would have been called "splinter" armor. [:D]

JD