| akdavis |
06-07-08 05:06 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
Quote:
Originally Posted by akdavis
Here is just one example of a fleet boat surface action AAR:
Quote:
U.S.S. BATFISH
Gun Attack No. 1
[Patrol No. 3
Time: 1125-1300(I). Date: 1 July
Lat: 31°45', Long: 140°39'E
Target Data - Damage Inflicted
Sunk:
(1) One large trawler of about 500 tons. Japanese name and seal were painted on the side but not interpreted. He had a high bow, very high foremast, bridge amidships, diesel stack, raised living quarters aft and a high mainmast. Crates and drums stowed on deck - no apparent armament.
(2) One yacht type escort, mounting 3 machine guns and carrying 3 depth chargesShip(s) Sunk: Both targets were seen to sink
Details of Action
Four-inch gun. - Fired 59 rounds of high capacity and 24 rounds of common at an average range of about 1100 yards using radar ranges and radar spotting on the splashes. Local control at the gun. Estimate at least 40% hits. The HC was much more effective than the common as the latter passed right on through the target and unless it hit a vital spot did no immediate damage. Estimate 5 HC duds.
20 MM. - Fired 940 rounds of HEI and 469 rounds of HET. Expended two gun barrels, one trigger mechanism. The forward 20 MM jammed after the first burst and was out of action during most of the engagement. Ranges varied between 1500 and 100 yards. Incendiary ammunition is not very effective as such 50 caliber. Fired 505 rounds of TRA; 505 rounds AP; and 155 rounds of INC. Had considerable trouble with jams, due mostly to the poor construction of the metal links used for belting.
45 Caliber. - Fired 300 rounds of 45 caliber ball.
|
That's a lot of ammo expended just to sink 2 small vessels!
However, I do have to contend the statement that deck guns were only carried for defensive purposes. This was certainly not the case in either the US Navy or Kriegsmarine. In the case of the u-boats, the deck guns were removed as soon as the opportunities to use them offensively grew thin and the need for defense against attack increased.
Just the opposite happened on the fleet boats. As the opportunities to utilize deck guns increased and the need to act defensively decreased, the fleet boats increased their topside armament. The addition of a second 5" gun to many boats near the end of the war was certainly not a defensive decision.
|
Originally for defense and as you stated, later on for offense. It was found that saving torps for the big boys was prudent and using the deck gun for smaller vessels was the way to go. But, as much as anyone would like to post the accounts, there are too many variables that are not in the game concerning the cannons. Lets face it, stock cannon can sink a tanker with 10-15 shots. Where is the challenge? I do not suspect there will be anymore work done with the cannon in RFB because there is nothing else to change. This was the forgone conclusion with SH3 and it has carried over to SH4.
|
Well, when you speak of "originally for defense" are you referring to US Navy doctrine at some point before the war? Certainly this was not the case with the Kriegsmarine given their u-boat experience in WWI, where the deck gun was the primary offensive weapon and accounted for more ships sunk than torpedoes. Doesn't really matter, but I don't think history points to the dismissal of topside armament as unimportant.
Anyways, I do think there are two areas that would offer the potential for further improvements, but neither concerns the stats of the guns themselves as they stand (which I think are fine).
1. If the problems could be overcome, the work started with the New Real Deck Gun mod would do much to add realism and lessen the need to artificially limit ROF to simulate something that currently doesn't exist in the game.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...ight=Real+Deck
2. Any improvements to the realism of ship damage models has an indirect benefit on the realism of employing surface weapons. Unfortunately, I don't think the lack of fire damage can be overcome, which is probably one of the main causes of the widely different results that could occur during a surface engagement. Sinking a ship, even a small boat, by surface fire through flooding alone was extremely difficult, but if secondary fires could be touched off (as was common with the application of incendiary and HE munitions), a ship's destruction could be far more certain and rapid. |
