Battleships and hitting th other dude

[Der Teddy Bar]

A question about pre-WWI battleships regarding who should have a better chance of hitting the other.

Both ships effectively have the same bore guns, with a 786 to 890 metres per second.

Ship 1 is stationay
Ship 2 is at 12 knots

Each ship taking a turn at being stationay while the othe ship approached and sailed past.

In each instance the ship travelling came off worse by far.

[bradclark1]

??

[August]

Originally Posted by Der Teddy Bar

A question about pre-WWI battleships regarding who should have a better chance of hitting the other.

Both ships effectively have the same bore guns, with a 786 to 890 metres per second.

Ship 1 is stationay
Ship 2 is at 12 knots

Each ship taking a turn at being stationay while the othe ship approached and sailed past.

In each instance the ship travelling came off worse by far.

My guess would be that it's harder to hit something stationary when you're moving than something moving when you're stationary.

When and how was this test done? The moving ship should have the advantage as the target's speed is an unknown with naval gunnery, that is you can't really tell how fast he's moving; whereas you should know that a stationary target is, well, stationary.

On the other hand, in WWI all calculations were done by guess and by golly, or at least by hand, and taking any movement at all into account was a real pain.

[Hellcat]

I would think it would be somewhat balanced engagement... However if speed is constant the stationary ship will only have to lead it's target which would give it the advantage as I would think that the moving ship would have to restart it's solution each time.

Assuming...

1) The moving ship maintains course and speed the entire time....
2) Both ships use similar meathods of fire control

[Der Teddy Bar]

The sea state was 2 and <1 for the waves. So I would presume that for a ship on the move with a displacement of 13675 tons there would be no decernable effect.

I would have thought that a ship on the move would be able to calculate the lead a lot more effectively than the stationary ship, in that as Steve pointed out, the stationary ship should not have pinpoint accuracy on the moving ships speed and therefore should have a less accurate estimate on the constantly changing distance.

Also, it would appear that the velocity does not come into play, or is so little as to be of no consideration.

Regarding optics and range finders, not a feature of the game, it must be assumed that all are equally good.

Hellcat, both ships require to recalculate distance, so the statioanary still has to do the same calculations as the moving ship, buat as mentioned above, it should be less accurate.

Appreciate the replies!

[CCIP]

You're testing "The Distant Guns", aren't you?

[Marhkimov]

Originally Posted by CCIP

You're testing "The Distant Guns", aren't you?

Yes, aren't you?

LOL, leave it to the modders to understand their fellow modder comrads. :rotfl:

[CB..]

if this was an in game event my guess would be something to do with the damage effects---the stationary vessel was in effect "straffing" the moving one as it came past---or it may just be that a stationary vessel gets a targetting "hit bonus" no matter what the other conditions are--

[Mustang]

I'm not all that good at math but wouldn't the ship that was moving receive more damage then a ship standing still? A ship sitting stills weight is distributed evenly but a ship moving the weight is shifted slightly to the back.

So I would think, if a stationary weapon fired at a moving target, leading it shots and guessing properly on the target's course that the ship that was moving would receive more damage then if it was sitting still, since it would basically be speeding to meet the shell that was fired at it?

Kinetics, think of a car if you were driving at 30 to 40 mph and an egg fell about 50 feet in the air, it would make a big sound maybe even crack your wind shield a little and splat the egg. If you dropped an egg from the same height and were traveling 120 mph your windshield would shatter the eggs shell would become shrapnel, thus making the egg far more dangerous?

Or did I sleep too much in class?

[Marhkimov]

It's more about hit%, rather than hit damage.

[Type XXIII]

Well, if we disregard all effects of the sea, they should be equal. After all, all motion is relative and the stationary ship is moving relative to the moving one. (Yes, it does sound self-contradictory, but it's still true.)

So, basically, it all comes down to which is more stable in the seas, a moving or a stationary ship. Quite frankly, I'm not sure.

[TLAM Strike]

A moving ship is more stable than a ship sitting still, or at least thats my experince while driving the FFG7 in DW. In heavy seas while not making knots the FFG flys out of the water so bad its TA snaps off and helo ops are deadly, but if its moving its a lot more stable.

For a good example of real-life effects in that era, I recommend John Campbell's Jutland: An Analysis Of The Fighting. It contains a minute-by-minute exploration of that battle-who moved where and when, how many shots fired versus how many hits obtained, what damage was done to each ship. He shows where one shot against 13.8" armor would penetrate easily while another shot from the same shell would make a mess of the armor plate but not get in. He even describes one plunging shot to the deck of a British ship that went in and wrecked 5 different compartments, none of them vital or necessary to the running of the ship.

A great place to start if you want to read about real-world ship's gunnery and it's effects.

[Abraham]

Wouldn't the effect of Der Teddy Bär's thesis be that in order to maximalise the effects of their guns battleships would fight gun duel from stationairy positions. What is the benefit of moving them? Fear of attack by other (smaller) units? Fear of losing the tactical initiative?