Beam ? Is Mongoose using the wrong word?

[JollyJackTar]

Just re-reading the rule books before investing in the new VaS models.

Mongoose seem to use the word "beam" to mean the length of the ship - surely it is the width.
Consequently the firing rules on page 7 are very confusing. Suely you get +1 if firing at the ship's broadside not her beam (which would make her a smaller target)?

Likewise for torpedoes on page 18 !!

 

[McKinstry]

I'n not positive but the goal is to fire down the length of the ship. Crossing the T isn't just good because of the full guns bearing versus front only but also since shells are more likely to miss long/short instead of left/right, firing down the length of a ship is more likely to produce hits than firing at the targets broadside.

 

[JollyJackTar]

That makes sense then for guns firing - but not for torpedoes as they will obviously have a greater chance of hitting if fired at the side of a ship instead of the beam !!

Indeed on page 18 para 9 it says "The counter should be placed along the target's beam (against the side of the ship) only if the vessel making the torpedo attack would normally be making beam attacks against it." Whatever that means? But is does imply the "beam" in the rules is the side/broadside of the ship!

Still confused !!

 

[rcbecker1]

In the rules the term beam means the side, long side of the ship. crossing the Tee only penalizes the ship firing the front arc guns and not the rear guns but there is no advantage given to the ship crossing the others Tee. What he speaks of with the length of the ship is right as far as chances to hit with guns but are not used in VAS
Note:
Beam (nautical), the most extreme width (or breadth) of a nautical vessel, or a point alongside the ship at the midpoint of its length

 

[JollyJackTar]

"In the rules the term beam means the side, long side of the ship."
"Beam (nautical), the most extreme width (or breadth) of a nautical vessel, or a point alongside the ship at the midpoint of its length"

So "beam" in the rules is used wrongly as I thought. The beam is the width of the ship at its widest point.
The long side of the ship is its "length".

 

[TheRowan]

The beam of a ship is indeed its width, however the word is also used to mean "at right angles to the side of the ship"... for example, ships steaming next to one another are in "line abeam", and a ship directly to the side of one's own ship is said to be on the port/starboard beam (as opposed to the bow or quarter). So although it may not be as well explained as it could be, they are using the term correctly!

 

[DM]

Mongoose is using the term in its correct application when discussing incoming fire.

And "firing down the length of a ship is more likely to produce hits than firing at the targets broadside" is demonstrably incorrect. Firing on the ship as it presents its broadside results in a significantly bigger effective target area.

 

[GamerDude]

Mongoose is using the term in its correct application when discussing incoming fire.

And "firing down the length of a ship is more likely to produce hits than firing at the targets broadside" is demonstrably incorrect. Firing on the ship as it presents its broadside results in a significantly bigger effective target area.

Ahh but if I may interject... *WHY* is this so?

Sorry I see too many "this is how it is" without any "and this is why" (20 years in the USAF, seen it used to support dumb decisions and kill opposition more times than I care to count)

 

[rcbecker1]

As DM said the ship firing is presented with a larger target. Gun barrels are set horizontaly causing the shells to spread out horizontaly not verticaly. so a wider target is better than a deeper target in this situation. Better chance of more shells hitting the target. At least it seems that way to me never firing ship guns. One thing I run into is the change of tactics from WWI to WWII which alot of people are unaware of which changes dramaticly between the wars.
Ray

 

[GamerDude]

The reason that I ask is it does makes sense to fire down the centerline of a ship providing a greater chance of hitting if the shot is long/short from where you aimed it.

Now yes guns lined up left to right a target that is wide gives a better chance of hitting when you are off on your aim in side-to-side fashion, but what about being short/long?

And my knowledge of firing ships guns is... well I've never done it.

 

[rcbecker1]

Well heres the issue if you give +1 to both then there is no difference and the shots return to a normal attack with no difference. But there are arguments for both sides.

 

[DM]

And my knowledge of firing ships guns is... well I've never done it.

I have

If you do the sums, assuming similar degrees of accuracy in terms of overshoot, undershoot and azimuth, and considering a typical height profile for a battleship the "danger area" (the area of water into a which you would have to fire a shell to have it hit part of that ship along the way) is up to 3 times greater for a shot coming in from the beam as it is for a shot coming in from the bow or stern. Of course that is a very simple measure of relative effectiveness but its borne out by USN and RN gunnery trials conducted in the 20s, 30s and 40s that showed a significant increase in the rate of hits when shooting at beam-on targets over head on.

Where a lot of people get confused is in the concept of "crossing the T" - this was, after all what battleship commanders aimed to do wherever possible. But it's sometimes erroneously assumed that its because this gave a higher chance to hit, whereas the primary effect was to allow the "crosser" t bring maximum firepower to bear whilst the "crossee" would be limited to their forward guns only (and possibly only the forward guns of the leading ship in a column)

 

[Myrm]

Is there also not a ballistics thing here as well - I mean with crossing the T a lot of people are familiar with from Age of Sail and there you had cannon firing relatively flat so you see ruleset with raking fire bonuses for firing (presumably flattish) down the length of the ship and so I think thats where gamers get the idea that firing end on is great for hurting ships - but by the time you hit pre-dreadnought/WWI/WWII gunnery is longer range and arcing shells....

 

[McKinstry]

Is there also not a ballistics thing here as well - I mean with crossing the T a lot of people are familiar with from Age of Sail and there you had cannon firing relatively flat so you see ruleset with raking fire bonuses for firing (presumably flattish) down the length of the ship and so I think thats where gamers get the idea that firing end on is great for hurting ships - but by the time you hit pre-dreadnought/WWI/WWII gunnery is longer range and arcing shells....

I would have thought a ballistic arching shell is more likely to miss short or long than left or right assuming the range finder/targeting solution on speed and bearing is correct. That said, the target is essentially a moving rectangle say 50 x 600 and dropping a shell into that rectangle which is still very difficult and as far as I know, even the best radar fire control in WW2 was lucky to get a hit rate near 10%.

 

[rcbecker1]

You also have to factor the time of a turn. This time allows you to get off several shots and rounds so by the time you rolled you have sighted in shooting and rolling dice thats the best way to figure. Im mean how many shells are shot in a couple of minutes in real time compared to game time, you are rolling once but it cover smany shells being fired.

 

[nats]

Yeah the way I see it firing down the length of a ship was preferred during Napoleonic naval warfare because the guns fired flat and parallel and at low range so they would inevitably hit their target. Firing downt he length of the target would allow the cannon ball to do the maximum amount of damage over its travel through the wooden enemy ship where there was little to impede its travel. Whereas when firing at the broadside of the target many cannonballs would no doubt pass through the ship and out the other side without damaging anything much.

In WW2 naval warfare the shells didnt travel as far into the ship because of armour plating, plus most areas of preference were inboard of the stern and bow - engine room, ammo storage etc - all are best hit from the side. Firing into the stern or bow of an enemy was pointless in WW2.

Whereas its easier to range a long target than a side-on one its a lot less likely to actually hit it at the distant ranges of WW2. Once you had the targets range the hits would come faster and be more meaningful when directed into the side of a enemy ship.

Torpedoes were always fired at a targets side because it was easier for the sub commander to accurately assess a targets course, speed and distance from side on rather than at an angle, and then obviously easier to hit it with the torpedo because of the larger target. You would never get an experience sub commander firing a torpedo at a ships stern (easier for the enemy to turn away from the torpedos path) or bow (if you are looking at a ships bow you should be diving to avoid a collision!).

So it sounds like Mongoose have got a bit confused with Napoleonic naval warfare to me when naval tactics were very different from those employed during WW2.

 

[MongooseMatt]

In WW2 naval warfare the shells didnt travel as far into the ship because of armour plating, plus most areas of preference were inboard of the stern and bow - engine room, ammo storage etc - all are best hit from the side. Firing into the stern or bow of an enemy was pointless in WW2.

Umm, no it wasn't. Remember, you are not just hitting the hull itself, and if shots come in from the front and into the superstructure, what may they hit?

So it sounds like Mongoose have got a bit confused with Napoleonic naval warfare

Umm, pretty sure DM explained that we didn't (he gets to play around with the full-size hardware).

 

[DM]

So it sounds like Mongoose have got a bit confused with Napoleonic naval warfare to me when naval tactics were very different from those employed during WW2.

Why do you think that? The rules accurately portray the demonstrable higher hit probability when shooting against the target's beam aspect.