Naval Guns Dispersion Pattern

[RAHJAILARI]

Hi all, just a thought that came to mind and I did check to see if it was valid. It seems to me that the naval guns dispersion pattern (the oval target area with which guns hit or miss the target) is way off reality and actually results in rather ridiculous naval battle tactics, which in actuality would have resulted in disaster.

 

What I mean is, that as in the Battle of Denmark straight, when Bismark demolished Hood, the result was BECAUSE Hood was heading towards Bismarck head-on thus making it easier to hit (citadel hits), had Hood been sideways towards Bismarck, the hits would have been fewer and she might have survived the combat (though perhaps badly damaged).

 

In actuality, naval guns dispersion is narrower sideways and bigger rangewise (this is precisely why "finding the range" was such a big deal in naval battles). This makes sense, when you think of ships tossing and listing while on sea, the guns pointing sideways would not necessarily change much due to ship movement, but they would be severely affected by pitching and rolling, which would affect the range of shot mostly.

 

This is why I find it quite ridiculous seeing BB's in a battle trying to "angle" their ships nose first in order to get shot to deflect off armor and to lessen the number of hits (and succeeding), when exactly the opposite should actually be true. Therefore the Vertical and Horizontal dispersion patterns in the game should actually be adjusted 90 degrees for them to be anywhere near correct.

 

It also stands to reason, that since BB's width is usually somewhere in 30-50 meter range depending, their length of 160-250 should actually make for a much easier target. I included some links, which better illustrate the matter:

 

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.co.uk/2015_12_01_archive.html (scroll down a bit and you'll see the chart).

and

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

 

These are both excerpts from actual artillery studies and I just feel that doing it "the wrong way" feels awkward and absurd and somewhat deducts from the game-playing experience.

 

It also leads to the BB players not firing full broadsides, as was the accepted and recommended BB practice at the time, instead strangely "wiggling" around trying to get ships "angled" which just ain't right...

 

Any thoughts? Any hope of getting this "fixed"?

[havaduck]

 is way off reality and actually results in rather ridiculous naval battle tactics,

+

had Hood been sideways towards Bismarck, the hits would have been fewer and she might have survived the combat (though perhaps badly damaged).

 

 

Stoped reading right there, two things (maybe more but since, like I said, stoped reading there I leave it to the other): 

 

1. arcady as fu<k vehicle shooter - if you want a simulator better pick a game which actually tries to be a simulater.

 

2. there is no "sideways" against _!_plunging fire_!_. Thats the whole reason they steamed head on: To reduce the time the deckarmor would be subjected to steep plunging fire.

[Gunerstile]

 

 

Stoped reading right there, two things (maybe more but since, like I said, stoped reading there I leave it to the other): 

 

1. arcady as fu<k vehicle shooter - if you want a simulator better pick a game which actually tries to be a simulater.

 

2. there is no "sideways" against _!_plunging fire_!_. Thats the whole reason they steamed head on: To reduce the time the deckarmor would be subjected to steep plunging fire.

 

 HAHAHAHAHH!!!!! 

[ollonborre]

You are barking up the Arcade tree with realism, so no this will not be "fixed" within this decade at the very least.

[Tr1umph]

 

 

2. there is no "sideways" against _!_plunging fire_!_. Thats the whole reason they steamed head on: To reduce the time the deckarmor would be subjected to steep plunging fire.

 

I think u lack the intellect to understand what he really meant.

 

A ship that goes full broadside is less likely to take any critical hit or be subject to plunging fire than a ship that exposes its full length to plunging fire by heading bow on to the target.

 

Full broadside is the way the ships were designed to fight, therefore their best armor profile is broadside, not angled and not bow on,

also the area a plunging fire shell would have to hit and do damage is very small, since the armor profile is huge and the impact angle of the shell is so steep.

 

By going bow towards ur enemy u basically expose the full ships length and width to plunging fire (that is a big area!) without any armor profile protecting you except for the turrets, just full yolo mode basically.

[RAHJAILARI]

Thanks for explaining... This very fact is why the famous naval tactic of "crossing the T" was so lethal, not only would you get your best armour against the enemy, but also be able to maximize the use of guns... And also be able to score more hits while at it.

 

See Battle of Tsushima for reference, if you like.

 

In any case I do not necessarily expect them to change the game for this, but never-the-less it would be a nice and interesting amendment.

[Vincinzerei]

This is World of Warships. Expect no real Simulation like behaviour.

This was never ment to be a simulator Kind of Game.
will not even start to Count the Problems with Simulator vs Arcade.. but just as like World of Tanks..

Ships will get "Balanced" due to theyr Success in game. Not how they was in Real Life.

There Would be some Unplayable or even non existing Ships there.. 
 

[RAHJAILARI]

Well, I do understand ship balancing and it does not bother me at all, one does not need to be a fanatic in historical accuracy after all. Some of that will be necessary just to keep the game going. However, perhaps also some basic existential realism might spice up the game nicely methinks. Anyways it should not be a enormous feat of programming to "rotate" the dispersion ellipse a bit...

 

Just a thought, after all the current dispersion pattern is likely based on tanks in which it was implemented to simulate realism in the way that frontal armor was usually the strongest and I do not see why a similar(ish) principle could not be applied here (yeah, I know tanks die more easier straight from the back also, hehe)...

 

 

[peoplescavalry]

I understand your query but it is just a game, if it was in any way lifelike we would be hitting targets with 2-3 shots out of a hundred! On a side note it is not just the pitch and toss of the ship but other variables such as movements of target  in relation to yourself, weather, barrel wear and droop and many many other imponderables which if they try to factor in would just take all the fun out of a great game.

[RAHJAILARI]

I agree completely with you. Let's not get all carried away - Of course. But this small bit seemed like essential difference to me, as it affects the very fundamentals of ship handling and how the game plays overall. Besides, I would just LoooOVE to see a row of BB's blasting it away with full, manly broadsides as God (or possibly their builders) intended instead of whimpily sniping away, while creeping backwards...

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

Hi all, just a thought that came to mind and I did check to see if it was valid. It seems to me that the naval guns dispersion patter (the oval target are with which guns hit or miss the target) is way off reality and actually results in rather ridiculous naval battle tactics, which in actuality would have resulted in disaster.

 

What I mean is, that as in the Battle of Denmark straight, when Bismark demolished Hood, the result was BECAUSE Hood was heading towards Bismarck head-on thus making it easier to hit (citadel hits), had Hood been sideways towards Bismarck, the hits would have been fewer and she might have survived the combat (though perhaps badly damaged).

 

In actuality, naval guns dispersion is narrower sideways and bigger rangewise (this is precisely why "finding the range" was such a big deal in naval battles). This makes sense, when you this of ships tossing and listing while on sea, the guns pointing sideways would not necessarily change much due to ship movement, but they would be severely affected by pitching and rolling, which would affect the range of shot mostly.

 

This is why I find it quite ridiculous seeing BB's in a battle trying to "angle" their ships nose first in order to get shot to deflect off armor and to lessen the number of hits (and succeeding), when exactly the opposite should actually be true. Therefore the Vertical and Horizontal dispersion patterns in the game should actually be adjustted 90 degrees for them to be anywhere near correct.

 

It also stands to reason, that since BB's width is usually somewhere 30-50 meter range depending, their length of 160-250 should actually make much easier target. I included some links, which better i8llustrate the matter:

 

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.co.uk/2015_12_01_archive.html (scroll down a bit and you'll see the chart).

and

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

 

These are both excerpts from actually artillery studies and I just feel that doing it "the wrong way" feels awkward and absurd and somewhat deducts from th game-playing experience.

 

It also leads to the BB players not firing full broadsides, as was the accepted and recommended BB practice at the time, instead strangely "wiggling" around trying to get ships "angled" which just ain't right...

 

Any thoughts? Any hope of getting this "fixed"?

 

I completely agree with you. The game grossly misrepresents naval warfare from the 1st half of the 20th century by having the 'go bow in, sail forward and backward waiting for the enemy to show his weak broadside' tactic as the primary game meta which as you correctly state is contrary to the warship design philosophies and tactics of naval warfare of the era.

In short the game is tactically, technically and historically highly incorrect to the point of being ridiculously stupid and an outright lie in its represention of naval warfare of the early 20th century. 

[EsaTuunanen]

Full broadside is the way the ships were designed to fight, therefore their best armor profile is broadside, not angled and not bow on,

Full broadside toward enemy that "best" armor would have been easily penetrated except at ranges where trajectory isn't anymore flat!

For battleship's belt armor to be able to stop ship's own gun shell fire it would have still needed some degree of angling closer than that immunity zone.

It was just all about maximizing number of "outgoing" shells while being smaller target in harder to get right direction.

 

Iowa class actually didn't have any unangled immunity zone against own weaponry.

Also battlecruisers (like Hood) probably lacked such immunity zone.

[RAHJAILARI]

True.. No-one can truly be "immune" to 16" shell anyways. But of course, in case of Hood the problem was that Hood was still largely a ww1 vintage ship (including the armor scheme, just look at British BC's exploding at Jutland), while Bismarck was a newer ww2 design with improved guns (sadly her armor scheme, while stronger was also ww1 vintage by and large). Hood had been due for a refit, including armor improvements, just before the war but once it started was pressed into service without much needed modernization, which directly led to her loss.

[RamirezKurita]

For battleship's belt armor to be able to stop ship's own gun shell fire it would have still needed some degree of angling closer than that immunity zone.

 

And there's another little quirk of the game, how WG have made the immunity zones pointless except for rendering long range fire useless. They have warped space and time in numerous different ways to achieve the arcadey feel, which has unfortunately resulted in long range combat being literally impossible and point-blank range combat being commonplace which has thrown ship armour out of whack.

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

 guns (sadly her armor scheme, while stronger was also ww1 vintage by and large).

 and did exaclty what it was designed to do... work perfectly in the shorter ranges of the Atlantic ocean... the armor scheme was ment to keep the ship afloat... the All-or-nothin design with stronger deck armour was far more useful in the Pacific... but in the atlantic the Bismarcks armour design with the turtledeck behind the strong belt was really nasty VS enemy guns... i doubt that the brits would've had suhc an "easy" time getting her to scuttly itself if the rudder wouldn't have been damaged

dont underestimate that armour scheme just because it's "WW 1 vintage" or not the murrican all or nothin

[t0ffik1]

TBH the ships after WW2 never yachted in straight line but actually zigzaged to avoind shots and ofc werent parked frontally but moved closer and further depending on the need while being half way angled - angling still worked but only on citadel lvl of armor and not on the nose ect - so basicly to put it in game situation it was an HP trade like in tier 7's.

So the OP is partly right...

 

And in case of HOOD... He never had a chance from long range or close - Tbh having the info that GB had at that time about Bismarck going closer would seem to be the only way to actually try to at least do meaningfull dmg as Hood couldnt escape also.

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

 but actually zigzaged to

 but not nearly as much as ingame... would throw aim off thewhole time

[t0ffik1]

Btw forgot to write... Citadels on ships didnt counted in the space near barbettes ect - so getting hit in the belt (even if penned) and the shell stopping on barbette meant dmg to not rly crucial systems - and in game somehow areas outside of barbettes are citadels (what only encourages the stupid park game and also forces BB's to have absurd RNG on shells).

 

And yes they didnt zigzag as much as the % if hit rate was much smaller - specially if you had US BB's who had significantly lower effective range then all other nations.

[Admiral_noodle]

To be honest the "historically accurate" bit is rather moot. At the ranges wows is played at the armour model is right in actual fact. If we actually want to stand off at 20km for the whole game then plunging fire citadels are more likely. I think you can citadel enemy battleships at max range with plunging fire through the deck anyway.

 

I don't think close up BB Vs BB actions were tested all that much. Bismarck is probably a good example. She wouldn't sink because Rodney kept over penning her with too flat trajectory

 

So anyway, arcade game. I would like a full simulation of this done by scientists tho to settle the debate over whether angling actually would work. Although ships don't generally have HP bars...

[RamirezKurita]

To be honest the "historically accurate" bit is rather moot. At the ranges wows is played at the armour model is right in actual fact. If we actually want to stand off at 20km for the whole game then plunging fire citadels are more likely. I think you can citadel enemy battleships at max range with plunging fire through the deck anyway.

 

Part of the problem, as I implied in my previous post in this thread, is that 20km is too short range to really do plunging fire. In fact, about 20km range is exactly the ranges that WWII era battleships were designed to fight at, it is right in the middle of their immune zones.

[txtspeak]

 

 HAHAHAHAHH!!!!! 

 

dudes  not wrong. despite claims and reports, hoods armour was still significant. The book I read even referred to hood as having a "zone of invulnerability" within I think it was 8km because of the lack of plunging fire at that range

 

EDIT: also, the reason why naval hit rates are 1/200 or whatever is not because of dispersion, its because of rangefinding and speedfinding. in world of warships we are given the enemies range AND we are given an aiming reticle and LUDICROUS amounts of aim assist. In the world wars this was far more difficult and involved the use of incredibly large rangefinding equipment, then you had to know the speed of your enemy. only then could you (and you would) be able to fire accurate penetrating hits on the enemy. "straddling" usually occurs in WoWS because of bad dispersion, in the real world it was because multiple salvos were fired deliberately at different ranges like ranging shots. subtract the difference between the salvos and you had your distance to the target

[fnord_disc]

The reason why naval tactics are screwed up in this game isn't because of the wrong dispersion pattern.

 

But I've had this discussion too often by now and I'm not gonna take the bait again.

[Admiral_noodle]

 

Part of the problem, as I implied in my previous post in this thread, is that 20km is too short range to really do plunging fire. In fact, about 20km range is exactly the ranges that WWII era battleships were designed to fight at, it is right in the middle of their immune zones.

 

Yeah. I'm not sure we want even longer ranges for BBs to camp at

[RamirezKurita]

 

Yeah. I'm not sure we want even longer ranges for BBs to camp at

 

Yeah, longer ranges would screw with the balance quite a bit and would basically involve having to rebuild the game. That's why I normally suggest that they should instead do their usual time-space warping thing and simply make shells follow the ballistics and penetration as if the ranges were 50% larger. That way, we get to keep the close-range arcade action, but also get to make the most of the elevation on our guns. For example, the Iowa class battleships had an immune zone against the USN 16/45s on the North Carolinas of about 19-24km, which basically makes them almost immune to long range fire under current mechanics; if the ranges were increased by 50% for the purposes of ballistics, that immune zone would shift to an in-game 13-16km and suddenly they would be feeling very vulnerable at long ranges but much safer at medium ranges.

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

 

Yeah, longer ranges would screw with the balance quite a bit and would basically involve having to rebuild the game. That's why I normally suggest that they should instead do their usual time-space warping thing and simply make shells follow the ballistics and penetration as if the ranges were 50% larger. That way, we get to keep the close-range arcade action, but also get to make the most of the elevation on our guns. For example, the Iowa class battleships had an immune zone against the USN 16/45s on the North Carolinas of about 19-24km, which basically makes them almost immune to long range fire under current mechanics; if the ranges were increased by 50% for the purposes of ballistics, that immune zone would shift to an in-game 13-16km and suddenly they would be feeling very vulnerable at long ranges but much safer at medium ranges.

 

how would this affect other BBs, like the Tirpitz or Nagato for example?