@Immelman

Your concept is 100% right.

The only thing wrong was the terminology.
To cross the T, means to present YOUR (emphasis) broadside to your opponents bow.

The old sailing ships carried their guns along both sides, with very little, or more likely, no cannons in the bow.

Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T

It actualy goes back further than wikipedia states, with it's origins in The Royal Navy. but the examples they show will suffice.

(And again, your tactic for attack is perfect.)

I just recently met a pair of T2s moving at 12 knots. Normally I'd not use my deck gun on something so large, but T2s are a pain to sink with torpedoes, and it was winter so I knew the weather was going to go sour on me very shrotly and then no DG. So I got in front of them so the one behind can't see me past the front one and started pounding. Used a lot of rounds but sank both, and a gale blew up the next day which has been blowing ever since so on the whole I think it was a good call using up those rounds while I could, and baging 15000 tons of tanker for no torpedoes.

There is currently no solution or fix Steve other than to compensate a degree or so either side of the target I'm afraid.

Or... turn your deck gun into a big shotgun. :D

I did it just for fun, though. The framerates take a serious nosedive whenever I fired. And... ten rounds is ten rounds no matter where they land.

Thanks, Jim, I was waiting for the expert opinion on the matter.

Steve

Well hang about, you might get one yet :DL

No offense is intended to anyone here, but what you are describing is not a bug.

In stock SH3, player deck gun fire was LASER GUIDED / INERTIALLY STABILIZED / NUCLEAR POWERED and rarely missed even at extreme/rediculous ranges. Relating to artillery, certainly none of these things existed on U-boats in WWII.

Using information discovered and provided by Cdre Gibbs, I 'loosened' the elevation and traverse tolerances for player deck guns to intentionally remove the unreasonable 'laser guided gunfire.'

The same was done to player AA guns.

Furthermore, the same treatment was given to virtually ALL surface vessel artillery... but to a lesser degree as large surface vessels are a much more stable firing platform in respect to naval gunnery.

ALL weapon damage-causing attributes were also re-balanced in-line with player and AI unit damage model changes introduced by GWX.

Player deck gun target damage potential in GWX was also dramatically reduced.

(Stock SH3 depth charges were also 'laser guided' and we corrected that issue using a different proceedure.)

Not only will your shells fall too far left or right... but they will fall short or long too. (Within an acceptable radius.) Though visually, shells falling short or long will be more difficult to gauge through the scopes. In developmental testing I would observe from the enemy target's POV just as often as from the firing player's POV.

At closer ranges... it won't matter... and that was the intent. You must get closer to your target to hit it more frequently with the deck gun.

Your U-boat would naturally roll much more than a typical surface vessel at any rate. Given you are on a relatively small vessel... pitch and roll should tax even the best submarine deck gun crews.

Think of your deck gun as being a shotgun... a shotgun that fires pellets that scatter as you would expect... but only one at a time instead. Just because your scopes are on target... doesn't mean your shells will all hit the target.

Always remember... in RL the deck gun is/was a SECONDARY WEAPON. Though many here see it otherwise. :arrgh!:

For those that have a more relaxed gameplay style... no problem. You can change whatever you like... and there are buckets of mods out there for every imaginable elemental change. Just remember that the focus of the GWX mod was to push EVERYTHING we could lay our hands on... as close to realism as we were able to given our knowledge base at the time we built it.

All that being said, I was an artilleryman in RL for seven years... I like hearing the BOOM too. (The deck-gun soundfile in GWX was taken from an actual 105mm howitzer firing a big "bullet.") :D:D:D

So the deck gun accuracy was intentionally degraded in GWX. I thought I remembered it being more accurate.

I'm not big fan of the change, I'm afraid.

If my sub and gun is sitting stationary, and I fire the gun, the shell ought to drop in line with the vertical reticule. If not, something is wrong with my sight optics!

What I'm seeing is just what you describe: Neither the gun nor the sub have any angular motion yet the shell flies randomly away from center, sometimes as far as 5 tick-marks away.

It seems to me that whenever the gun goes underwater (semi- rough seas) that this offset is randomly reset to another value, and then you have to re-adjust your aim to compensate.

I find it very annoying. The deck gun should fire where the sites say it is pointed. I don't mind compensating for a pitching sub, but the gun should be mechanically sound, and it isn't.

When you were firing real artillery at ranges under 5000m, how consistent was the weapon relative to what the site was pointed at?

How can I mod it back to stock?

Steve

No problem concerning your opinion mate. We can agree to disagree.;)

A quick addenda though, in my personal experience with perfectly zeroed and computer-assisted light, medium, and heavy land-based field artillery fires... it is an infrequent thing to hit the exact point of aim repeatedly. (Even when the firing unit is stationary in "direct-fire" mode/configuration... and the target is also stationary... in perfect environmental conditions.)

In SH3 you must remember that both you and your target are always moving in three dimensions. (Even when it appears that conditions are flat and calm... your U-boat is moving) From the U-boat gunner's point of view... it really SHOULD be annoying! :damn:

Remember, your point of aim is just that... a 'point of aim.' Adjustment of your fire should typically be necessary... be it azimuth or deflection... or reducing your range to the target.

In GWX, the sea state does increase/magnify/further degrade deck gun inaccuracy as it should. The rougher it is, the more inaccurate gunfire is. This isn't random. It is logical and linear.

Just leave your mind open to change. Clay Blair's works may shed a great deal of light on the subject for you.

Besides, if it was easy... why would U-boats (or any other submersible) need torpedoes?

Sink'em all! :arrgh!:

[EDIT: If you are a player manning the deck gun yourself, the deck gun sights remain 'inertially stabilized' and this is a stock SH3 bug. Deck gun sights do not pitch and roll with the U-boat and deck gun itself as they should. The 'inertial stability' of the deck gun sight is a separate issue from the accuracy of deck gun fire point of impact variance. At any rate the deck gun sights simply show your point of aim. In GWX, for those that are interested in playing with a more historical approach, it is recommended to let your crew do the shooting. U-boat captains had additional responsibilities during use of the deck gun as it was, and this method allows you to avoid the gunsight bug altogether.]

So what sort of "grouping" would you get at, say, 5000m direct fire?

Because what I'm seeing in-game, when manning the gun myself, is a variance of about +/-400m in the horizontal axis at about 3400m range. That's about a +/- 8 degree variance in the horizontal axis. Pitch and roll of the u-boat should certainly have a large effect on the accuracy in the vertical axis, but unless the u-boat is yawing or the gun is traversing the accuracy in the horizontal axis should be pretty consistent, I would think.

But it should be consistent, and it currently feels random. With one shot it fires to 200m to the left of center, with another it's 50m to the right of center.

I always man the gun myself, because I can shoot far more accurately than the AI can. For one thing, the AI does not wait for the pitch and roll to come into a good firing condition. It seems that as soon as a round is loaded, the AI fires the gun as best it can, rather than timing the waves for a good shot. Makes me wonder what I invested in the gunnery training for, other than faster reloading times.

Accuracy was detirmined by many factors that I've already discussed in a general sense. At 5000 meters without electronic/computer assistance... (roughly three miles using iron sights and bubble-leveled scopes and collimeter) direct fire and observed indirect fire would likely have about the same level of accuracy.

Regardless, land-based field artillery... using iron sights and unaided by modern devices... is far more accurate than that of un-aided ship-borne gunfire in similar conditions. Field artillery doesn't have to worry about sea state.

Re-read my analogy to the shotgun in my post above. It is correct regarding any weapon that fires a projectile... be it a .22 rifle or a battleship cannon. This effect is exacerbated with range, environmental conditions, and motion of the firing unit and the target. The same is true in SH3 with GWX.

If it feels random... then that is a good thing IMHO. However the code entries that determine the variable percentage of accuracy are linear in nature... and are affected by the elements I've already listed. The code modified and subsequent development testing during the construction of GWX... showed results that overall, were indeed consistent.

The AI does indeed wait for an acceptable firing solution and you are incorrect about this matter. If it cannot achieve a solution that provides an opportunity to hit the target... it does not fire. Reloading time is constant in SH3 because only one value can be entered for each weapon. However, the rate of fire does slow markedly in relation to worsening sea state as the AI will not fire given an impossible solution... It will instead wait until the solution is acceptable.

ALL projectile fire is inherently inaccurate. It is simply a question of how inaccurate given many factors.

The surface-bourne weaponry in GWX was as consistent as we could make it in three dimensions. I don't disbelieve you that you've experienced a greater impact variance to the left or right of the target... but I will say that it is your experience and is not consistent with GWX developmental testing and many other annecdotal findings following release.

If your gunfire is unacceptably inaccurate for your liking in GWX, my suggestion is to simply get closer to your target. If your target is still firing at you... then you are engaging with the wrong weapon.

At any rate, debates surrounding the deck guns in SH3 (and likely SH4) have gone on here ad-nauseum. We have implemented our interpretation of things to the best of our ability in GWX... and that's why things are the way they are in GWX.

Cheers

So what sort of accuracy would you say you got at 5000m, roughly speaking?

I read it, but a cannon is not a shotgun. Like I said, A submarine floating on the water should experience considerable variations in elevation control, due to the boat pitching fore and aft and rolling side-to-side in the water.

But unless the boat is yawing left-to-right, I would think it should be pretty consistent in the horizontal axis, relative to the vertical reticule of the gunsight.

I would think that yaw would be the most stable axis of movement of a floating ship.

I believe you, but why, then am I a much better shot than the AI? It must be, then that the AI does not take into account the inaccuracy of the gun when it shoots 5 ticks to the right, and instead continues to fire as if the gun were shooting straight.

So is there a mod that puts the gun back to stock condition?

Steve

This article puts a modern 155 M109A6 howitzer with an accuracy of +/- 900 feet at 30km.

http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/...artillery.html

This works out, if I did my math right, to an accuracy of about +/- 3 degrees, or about +/- 23m at 5000m

Of course, this is totally apples to oranges with the subject at hand, but it's interesting, nonetheless.

Steve

Tough to say. Each scenario was dynamic. We estimated and adjusted to correct as necessary. Usually our first round was darn close even if we didn't destroy the target with the first round. Additionally, it would be a bad idea to walk out onto an impact range to obtain exact measurements.

Naval gunnery is far more dynamic as I've explained... and as you already know.

Obviously a cannon is not a shotgun... but you've also missed the whole point of my analogy: Projectiles fired from even the steadiest of barrels will have a point of impact variance in three dimensions. It is only a question of how much variance. Using a shotgun as a reference was an intentionally extreme example meant simply to illustrate my point.

"Think of your deck gun as being a shotgun... a shotgun that fires pellets that scatter as you would expect... but only one at a time instead. Just because your scopes are on target... doesn't mean your shells will all hit the target."


Not that I am aware of, but you can use S3D to compare/copy/paste stock SH3 elevation and traverse tolerances to your own GUNS_SUB.sim file.

Doing so should help facilitate the total destruction of further convoys as you seem to enjoy.:)

I've seen a photograph of a Fletcher class destroyer firing at a sampan from a range of less than 500 yards. Both were sitting still, and the sea was dead calm. With dedicated stabilized fire control running the guns, three of the five shells hit the target. The fact is that naval gunnery is notoriously innacurate. In his book Guns At Sea Peter Padfield likened it to sitting in a rocking chair shooting a pistol at a golf ball rolling across a mantle while someone else rocked you randomly.

And on the NavWeaps forums many years ago a naval historian said that as near as anyone could count the average of hits per shells fired for World War Two was about seven percent, with about two percent outside of 10,000 yards and twelve percent inside that range.

I was having this discussion a few years back on another forum, and after some argument people started coming up with actual documentation from battles concerning shells fired and known hits. A former artilleryman got a laugh from us all when he suddenly posted "Well, the navy may not be too accurate, but our army guns hit the ground at least 98% of the time!"