Were deck guns really this powerful? - Page 3

RoaldLarsen · 02-22-09, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deamon

Do they mean a starshell fired by the gun at all or rather a hand fired start shell like thous that you shoot from the star shell pistol or tube ?

I doubt that the effects in the description could be achieved by something fired from a handheld launcher. But I don't really know how effective pistol fired illumination rounds were.

Oneshot/Onekill · 02-23-09, 03:17 AM

@RoaldLarsen, I would agree with most of what you said. I woyld have to say that your not completely correct with your take on wind. When it comes to ballisitc charataristics wind, any and all wind, humidity, barametric pressure, all of these elements MUST be taken into effect when talking about round accuracy!

I was a former sniper, so im speaking from first hand experience.

Sailor Steve · 02-23-09, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

I have doubts about how loading faster would affect the accuracy, Common sense tells me that the loader will load the gun at what ever angle the aim guy has it at, It isnt like the loading of the gun is going to change where the fire controll team is aiming it!

It's not how fast the gun is loaded, it's the waiting for the aim point to come back around. The gun isn't sitting still - it's part of the pitching, rolling u-boat, and even if it's loaded instantly the gun captain has to wait until the gun is pointed at the part of the target he wants to hit. In even a 1-meter sea there is a chance he will miss entirely if he doesn't shoot 'on the roll'.

@ RoaldLarsen: Great summary. I wish the game did take all these things into account.

@ Oneshot/Onekill: True, especially in long range naval gunnery, which is never accurate even on a good day. However, a u-boat isn't designed for long-range exchanges, and usually waits until they are at fairly close range, which of course for these guns is about 2000-3000 meters.

RoaldLarsen · 02-23-09, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oneshot/Onekill

@RoaldLarsen, I would agree with most of what you said. I woyld have to say that your not completely correct with your take on wind. When it comes to ballisitc charataristics wind, any and all wind, humidity, barametric pressure, all of these elements MUST be taken into effect when talking about round accuracy!

I was a former sniper, so im speaking from first hand experience.

Hi O/O,

I agree with you. Perhaps I did not express myself with sufficient clarity. The wind, (and the other factors you list, plus barrel wear) will affect where the shot goes. And even an expert will never be able to be quite as precise in a steady wind as in no wind at all. However, the expert knows how to take into account the effect of the wind. You know from your sniper training that you can adjust for the effects of a steady wind when you set up your shot. The inexperienced shooter will not be as successful in correcting for wind.

So, yes a shot fired in windy conditions will not be as accurate as a shot fired in calm air. However, the degree of inaccuracy introduced will be partly mitigated by the corrections the crew make. An experienced crew will be more able to make the right corrections, so their inacuracy will be reduced relative to an inexperienced crew.

There are a few differences between snipers' shooting and u-boat crews' shooting. A sniper rarely gets to take several repeated shots at an exposed, relatively immobile target. This means that all the corrections to a shot need to be made before the first shot is taken. U-boat crews usually have the luxury of being able to make corrections for subsequent shots based on the fall of earlier shots. While a good u-boat gun crew will make adjustments for windage before their first shot, it is their adjustments from observation of the fall of shot that will make a greater difference.

A second contrast is in the degree of precision required. A sniper shooting for centre of mass has an allowable error radius of about 25cm. A u-boat crew, shooting at a similar range, has an allowable error radius a few times larger.

So what I am saying is that an experienced crew will be able to compensate for a steady wind to a degree that the wind will not have a significant impact on whether a shot eventually hits the target. It might not be the first shot, but an experienced crew will be able to hit with regularity despite a steady wind.

Otto Heinzmeir · 02-23-09, 06:26 PM

I have noticed that the subs pitch and roll much more in GWX3 than in stock. When I man the deck gun myself it seems to work best to fire when the gun reaches its lowest point as the sub pitches down from close range. Since I cant man the gun and steer the sub at the same time, the first shot doesn't help locate a second shot if the target is zig zagging. If I fire as the sub pitches up the shot usually sails over the target. So timing the shot is critical unless the sea is like glass. The actual gunner was tied in so he didn't get swept overboard. I imagine there were a few wild shots if a wave pitched the sub just as the gunner fired.

Oneshot/Onekill · 02-24-09, 03:54 AM

@RoaldLarsen. Excellent synopsis, and clarafication. Your pretty spot on in the differences of sniping, and naval gunnery! I do also understand that there is a significant difference between small and large calliber ballistics, especially when your firing from an unstable platform without the aid of radar, or any type of electronic range finding, such as a U-boat.

Oneshot/Onekill · 02-24-09, 04:06 AM

There is one more element that i almost forgot to add from my earlier post, in listening to some of these quote's from actual patrol's, the missing element i think that most of you are forgetting is delection angle. Whether a ship is armored or not doesnt have as much impact as to WERE the armor is located, and at what deflection the round is impacting. The bottom line is there is no set formula as to how many rounds on average it would take to cause catastrophic damage to a MERCHANT ship. There are just way too many variables involved, The ship that was some 8000tons might of only taken 6-12 rounds to sink because it may have had a extremely long service life which has weakened it superstructure. No one will ever truly know for sure.

Sailor Steve · 02-24-09, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oneshot/Onekill

Whether a ship is armored or not doesnt have as much impact as to WERE the armor is located, and at what deflection the round is impacting.

Here is one thing I do know: there was no such thing as an armored merchant. Even an Armed Merchant Cruiser only had armor plating on the guns themselves, and it was pretty light - splinter protection only. Also you won't find any record of a destroyer having any armor anywhere, including the magazines (excepting, again, the turret face). This is because single-piece ammunition is hard to detonate, so armor was considered unnecessary.

Quote:

The bottom line is there is no set formula as to how many rounds on average it would take to cause catastrophic damage to a MERCHANT ship. There are just way too many variables involved, The ship that was some 8000tons might of only taken 6-12 rounds to sink because it may have had a extremely long service life which has weakened it superstructure. No one will ever truly know for sure.

No, there is no average, but a game can't afford to be too random. What's needed is to read all the reports - every last one. I've been hoping to do this for some time, but I've been tied up with other research, and will be for the next year or more. If you've read an actual report of an 8000 ton merchant being sunk with 12 rounds I'd love to see it. The only thing I know for sure is that more study is needed.

Hanomag · 02-24-09, 04:25 PM

"Were deck guns really this powerful?"

In one word ... YES!

Look at the new shell thrower Jimbuna's installing on my IXD2...

MUHUHUHAHAHA....

Otto Heinzmeir · 02-24-09, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanomag

"Were deck guns really this powerful?"

In one word ... YES!

Look at the new shell thrower Jimbuna's installing on my IXD2...

MUHUHUHAHAHA....

:rotfl:Good luck trying to surface with that baby mounted!

Then again maybe you won't need to dive.

Jimbuna · 02-24-09, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanomag

"Were deck guns really this powerful?"

In one word ... YES!

Look at the new shell thrower Jimbuna's installing on my IXD2...

MUHUHUHAHAHA....

ROFLMAO :rotfl:

Oneshot/Onekill · 02-25-09, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oneshot/Onekill

Whether a ship is armored or not doesnt have as much impact as to WERE the armor is located, and at what deflection the round is impacting.

Here is one thing I do know: there was no such thing as an armored merchant. Even an Armed Merchant Cruiser only had armor plating on the guns themselves, and it was pretty light - splinter protection only. Also you won't find any record of a destroyer having any armor anywhere, including the magazines (excepting, again, the turret face). This is because single-piece ammunition is hard to detonate, so armor was considered unnecessary.

Quote:

The bottom line is there is no set formula as to how many rounds on average it would take to cause catastrophic damage to a MERCHANT ship. There are just way too many variables involved, The ship that was some 8000tons might of only taken 6-12 rounds to sink because it may have had a extremely long service life which has weakened it superstructure. No one will ever truly know for sure.

No, there is no average, but a game can't afford to be too random. What's needed is to read all the reports - every last one. I've been hoping to do this for some time, but I've been tied up with other research, and will be for the next year or more. If you've read an actual report of an 8000 ton merchant being sunk with 12 rounds I'd love to see it. The only thing I know for sure is that more study is needed.

Sorry if i wasnt clear on my earlier quote Sailor. In my limited naval knowledge i do know there were no armoured merchant ships, i was just generalizing.

As far as my comments on the 8000 ton ship, i believe i read an earlier post above that referenced that. I do wholeheartily agree with you, and i do appreciate your comment about destroyers not having an armoured belt of anykind, other than their main guns. Learned something new there. I was under the mistaken ignorance that all warships had some armor to different varying thicknesses depending on class of warship.

Sailor Steve · 02-25-09, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oneshot/Onekill

...i do appreciate your comment about destroyers not having an armoured belt of anykind, other than their main guns. Learned something new there. I was under the mistaken ignorance that all warships had some armor to different varying thicknesses depending on class of warship.

I served on a WW2-era destroyer for the better part of a year, and I still didn't know that either!

It wasn't until I read Whitley's German Destroyers of World War Two and a couple of book on the Sumner/Gearing classes (mine was a Gearing) that I found that out! I always assumed the magazines at least would be armored; but no, they just didn't think it was that important. Or maybe they didn't think they could carry enough armor to make it worthwhile.

Steeltrap · 02-25-09, 10:14 PM

I've posted a number of times about the deck gun. It's clearly one reason why people are able to achieve what I consider to be stupidly high tonnage levels in single patrols.

I don't use the DG unless I have hit a target with a torp OR the target is so small it's not worth a torp. Once I'm out of torps I go home. Usually I have tons of DG ammo, as I tend not to use it much. If I encounter an unescorted and unarmed merchant while heading home I'll use DG on it, but I don't hang around on patrol acting as some kind of submersible gun platform, which I believe plenty of people do (based on their tonnages).

Dick O'Kane referred to the DG in both Wahoo and Clear the Bridge.

he stated the view that a DG was, under normal circumstances, a pretty pointless wepon for a sub. The Jap merchants were often armed, and he (rightly) had healthy respect for their gunnery skills.
a single shell from a merchant could destroy/cripple/render unable to dive a sub. Surface gunnery just wasn't worth it unless target was unarmed.
O'Kane mentions they achieved a r.o.f. of around 6-7rpm.
2 ships were sunk exclusively by gunfire...I'm pretty sure they took around 70-90 rounds fired to sink them (from a 3.5" DG, and an 88mm is 3.46" technically).

The DG in SHIV was even more absurd, like you were firing a 16". A few shots could take down a liner.

I use 10 seconds in SHIII Cmdr (although NYGM defaults to this, I think).

The point about transverse bulkheads is critical. You sink ships through flooding, and that requires holing sufficient compartments. If a ship has only 2-3 compartments, that's not so hard. Putting repeated hits into a single compartment won't do nearly as much as spreading the damage. GWX and NYGM seem to model this; get 5-6 hits below waterline aft, midships and in the bow and you're on the way to causing grief.

In short, I think DGs are too powerful and it is too easy to 'abuse' this weapon. S has been stated, however, this is just a game so people are free to do as they wish. For me, I try to act in a way I think is roughly consistent with general tactics adopted bu u-boats, but that's just my preference.

cheers

Otto Heinzmeir · 02-25-09, 11:04 PM

You make some good points SteelTrap. I have been trying to find my personal balance with the deck gun in game. I now have the reload minimum time set to 10 seconds. In GWX 3 it took me 52 rounds to destroy a 9 ton freighter (not sure of ID until I finish the mission and review log) There are several reasons why I prefer it to take much longer to destroy a ship with a DG than in the stock game (which seems kinda cheesy). For one firing 52 rounds with 10 second reloads took almost 9 minutes. Which means there is a risk of taking too long and having escorts arrive before your done or just after. This had to be a real concern in using a DG. I did have an escort arrive just as I was leaving on one occasion.

Even with it taking more rounds to sink a ship, the tonnage acruid is still higher than historically. It probably just wasn't used during the day in real life because the target would have time to radio for help and planes could show up at any moment. So during the day I limit my use to targets of 2 tons or less. Submarines often did not do torpedo attacks during the day if the conditions were unfavorable, so it doubtless wasn't the norm to rely on DG attacks during the day.

When the merchants start carrying guns in GWX I will only use the DG to finish a ship crippled by torpedoes.

In real life its true a steamer that had seen a lot of service could be sunk with less rounds. Its just hard to model the DG into the game allowing it to sink a ship with 4 to 6 rounds because if it starts happening too often then its not a simulation anymore.

02-24-09, 04:25 PM	#39
Hanomag Grey Wolf Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: LI NY Posts: 964 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	*"Were deck guns really this powerful?"* In one word ... YES! Look at the new shell thrower Jimbuna's installing on my IXD2... *MUHUHUHAHAHA....* __________________ "Only if I can save first..."

02-25-09, 10:14 PM	#44
Steeltrap Grey Wolf Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 818 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	I've posted a number of times about the deck gun. It's clearly one reason why people are able to achieve what I consider to be stupidly high tonnage levels in single patrols. I don't use the DG unless I have hit a target with a torp OR the target is so small it's not worth a torp. Once I'm out of torps I go home. Usually I have tons of DG ammo, as I tend not to use it much. If I encounter an unescorted and unarmed merchant while heading home I'll use DG on it, but I don't hang around on patrol acting as some kind of submersible gun platform, which I believe plenty of people do (based on their tonnages). Dick O'Kane referred to the DG in both Wahoo and Clear the Bridge. he stated the view that a DG was, under normal circumstances, a pretty pointless wepon for a sub. The Jap merchants were often armed, and he (rightly) had healthy respect for their gunnery skills. a single shell from a merchant could destroy/cripple/render unable to dive a sub. Surface gunnery just wasn't worth it unless target was unarmed. O'Kane mentions they achieved a r.o.f. of around 6-7rpm. 2 ships were sunk exclusively by gunfire...I'm pretty sure they took around 70-90 rounds fired to sink them (from a 3.5" DG, and an 88mm is 3.46" technically). The DG in SHIV was even more absurd, like you were firing a 16". A few shots could take down a liner. I use 10 seconds in SHIII Cmdr (although NYGM defaults to this, I think). The point about transverse bulkheads is critical. You sink ships through flooding, and that requires holing sufficient compartments. If a ship has only 2-3 compartments, that's not so hard. Putting repeated hits into a single compartment won't do nearly as much as spreading the damage. GWX and NYGM seem to model this; get 5-6 hits below waterline aft, midships and in the bow and you're on the way to causing grief. In short, I think DGs are too powerful and it is too easy to 'abuse' this weapon. S has been stated, however, this is just a game so people are free to do as they wish. For me, I try to act in a way I think is roughly consistent with general tactics adopted bu u-boats, but that's just my preference. cheers

02-23-09, 03:17 AM	#32
Oneshot/Onekill Captain Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Drinking a cold one in Davey Jone's locker. Posts: 487 Downloads: 26 Uploads: 0	@RoaldLarsen, I would agree with most of what you said. I woyld have to say that your not completely correct with your take on wind. When it comes to ballisitc charataristics wind, any and all wind, humidity, barametric pressure, all of these elements MUST be taken into effect when talking about round accuracy! I was a former sniper, so im speaking from first hand experience.

02-23-09, 06:26 PM	#35
Otto Heinzmeir Weps Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Wilhelmshaven Local Pub Posts: 361 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I have noticed that the subs pitch and roll much more in GWX3 than in stock. When I man the deck gun myself it seems to work best to fire when the gun reaches its lowest point as the sub pitches down from close range. Since I cant man the gun and steer the sub at the same time, the first shot doesn't help locate a second shot if the target is zig zagging. If I fire as the sub pitches up the shot usually sails over the target. So timing the shot is critical unless the sea is like glass. The actual gunner was tied in so he didn't get swept overboard. I imagine there were a few wild shots if a wave pitched the sub just as the gunner fired.

02-24-09, 03:54 AM	#36
Oneshot/Onekill Captain Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Drinking a cold one in Davey Jone's locker. Posts: 487 Downloads: 26 Uploads: 0	@RoaldLarsen. Excellent synopsis, and clarafication. Your pretty spot on in the differences of sniping, and naval gunnery! I do also understand that there is a significant difference between small and large calliber ballistics, especially when your firing from an unstable platform without the aid of radar, or any type of electronic range finding, such as a U-boat.

02-24-09, 04:06 AM	#37
Oneshot/Onekill Captain Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Drinking a cold one in Davey Jone's locker. Posts: 487 Downloads: 26 Uploads: 0	There is one more element that i almost forgot to add from my earlier post, in listening to some of these quote's from actual patrol's, the missing element i think that most of you are forgetting is delection angle. Whether a ship is armored or not doesnt have as much impact as to WERE the armor is located, and at what deflection the round is impacting. The bottom line is there is no set formula as to how many rounds on average it would take to cause catastrophic damage to a MERCHANT ship. There are just way too many variables involved, The ship that was some 8000tons might of only taken 6-12 rounds to sink because it may have had a extremely long service life which has weakened it superstructure. No one will ever truly know for sure.

02-25-09, 11:04 PM	#45
Otto Heinzmeir Weps Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Wilhelmshaven Local Pub Posts: 361 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	You make some good points SteelTrap. I have been trying to find my personal balance with the deck gun in game. I now have the reload minimum time set to 10 seconds. In GWX 3 it took me 52 rounds to destroy a 9 ton freighter (not sure of ID until I finish the mission and review log) There are several reasons why I prefer it to take much longer to destroy a ship with a DG than in the stock game (which seems kinda cheesy). For one firing 52 rounds with 10 second reloads took almost 9 minutes. Which means there is a risk of taking too long and having escorts arrive before your done or just after. This had to be a real concern in using a DG. I did have an escort arrive just as I was leaving on one occasion. Even with it taking more rounds to sink a ship, the tonnage acruid is still higher than historically. It probably just wasn't used during the day in real life because the target would have time to radio for help and planes could show up at any moment. So during the day I limit my use to targets of 2 tons or less. Submarines often did not do torpedo attacks during the day if the conditions were unfavorable, so it doubtless wasn't the norm to rely on DG attacks during the day. When the merchants start carrying guns in GWX I will only use the DG to finish a ship crippled by torpedoes. In real life its true a steamer that had seen a lot of service could be sunk with less rounds. Its just hard to model the DG into the game allowing it to sink a ship with 4 to 6 rounds because if it starts happening too often then its not a simulation anymore.