General Questions

[jbickley00]

Except that the 26,000 yard hit was done by a ship without radar, or with early primitive radar. Firing, 14" guns.

In point of fact, we don't have a daylight example of ship to ship combat between an Iowa class ship, with Mark 8 RFC and another ship. Between the wars 26,000 yards was the long range training mark for 16" guns. It is there fore entirely credible that an Iowa class ship might hit out to 40,000 yards. Thus I would be opposed to, and not play under, any house rule that limited shots to 26,000 yards. We are dealing almost entirely with theoretical things here, with no adequate basis for comparison to actual events. In theory it is entirely possible to hit at 30,000 yds +; It was accomplished in training, and there is no comparable example from which to derive the notion that it cannot be done, so therfore it should be possible.

Most wargamers will adopt the Nelsonian attitude of the british fleet anyway, and drive straight at them. This is a fine doctrine, and ultimately worked well against the Bismark (well, sort of), but it was not the only way of thinking about Battleship combat.

 

[Soulmage]

Except that the 26,000 yard hit was done by a ship without radar, or with early primitive radar. Firing, 14" guns.

Thus I would be opposed to, and not play under, any house rule that limited shots to 26,000 yards.

I don't know if you were addressing the one I offered. . . but the house rule I offered only increased the extreme range modifier to +3.

That means "normal" hits can be made out to 30,000 yards, and indeed even beyond that if its a large target and broadside to you.

Shooting beyond 30,000 yards at smaller targets or targets that are end-on to you requires radar.

My own house rules also allow for hits above 6. . . but most people around here don't seem to like the idea that small, fast ships cannot be made "invulnerable" to fire.

 

[DM]

It is there fore entirely credible that an Iowa class ship might hit out to 40,000 yards.

It is, but even when presented with the opportunity to do so the USN preferred not to accept this capability since even with RFC the expected hit rate was in the order of 1%. The US gunnery doctrine handbooks of the day specifically discounted long range fire and accepted 30-32kyards as a maximum range at which to commence firing. I have copies of the 1944 and 45 handbooks kicking around in the office. If I get achnace next week I'll confirm what they say on the matter.

btw - longest hit was with a 15" (not 14") WW1 era gun (although the British 15" is credited by many technical naval historians as being one of the finest pieces of naval ordnance ever created!)

 

[ebar]

btw - longest hit was with a 15" WW1 era gun (although the British 15" is credited by many technical naval historians as being one of the finest pieces of naval ordnance ever created!)

Which I think is correct it was one of the best ever built and when first introduced probably the best in the world.

Oh and I belief there is a challenger to Warspite's claim of longest range hit. Scharnhorst & Gneisenau got in very long range hits on Glorious. There is no way to say for sure which was longest.

 

[DM]

Conventional wisom has it that fans of the S&G and Warspite agree to be ambiguous on that point for just the reason you mention

Just checked the gunnery doctrine for 1944 and confirmed "open fire" at 32,000 yards when RFC is available, 18,000 yards at night. 20,000 yards was considered maximum effective spotting range without "air spots" or radar.

 

[Wishbone]

just for you long range gunnery lovers out there, I wish to offer you a quick quote:
"[...]the right range for any ship of the [...] Fleet, from a battleship to a submarine, to engage an enemy ship with gunfire is POINT BLANK (nowadays 2,000 yards or less) AT WHICH RANGE EVEN A GUNNERY OFFICER CANNOT MISS."
-the then Commander-in-Chief Mediterranean, Admiral Sir Andrew Brown Cunningham, KCB, DSO


Just thought you might all enjoy that little nugget of wisdom

 

[jbickley00]

A good discussion of US Naval Gunnery can be found here:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm

Ultimately, the key point in all this is that the Battle lines were expected to engage at extreme ranges, and stay there. They thought his would be a running fight between battle lines moving parallel to one another (unless you managed to cross the enemies "T". This was a tactical advantage though, not critical to the engagement).

Its an odd sort of evolution. When the dreadnoughts were created, they were given massive side armour, because the designers envisioned dreadnoughts closing to 10,000 yards and hammering away, as pre dreadnoughts had. At 10,000 yards the flat trajectory meant shells would hit mostly face on. At Dogger Bank (the first action between battleships as we know them) The sides engaged at like 18,000 yards (extreme range in WWI) and stayed there. At this range, they discovered plunging fire-most shells hit the armoured decks.

As the US Navy evolved in the interwar period, this lesson was developed into the doctrine of loing range gunnery. This is especially singnificant given the fact that US standard Battleship Speed was 21 Kts. Slower than most of their opponents. The idea was that US ships would have critical minutes of fire while thier opponents closed range. Thus the US opened fire outside the "Immunity Zone" to ensure that the most effective fire occured with in it.

Although, if you read the article in the above link, the author suggests that US naval gunnery deteriorated in WWII, and so the US did not take full advantage of its long range gunfire capabilites. Its and interesting read.

I play a lot of Larry Bond's WWII game, and in playing that, I notice that Wargamers very often close the distance quickley and hammer away, to maximize the amount of damage they do to the enemy. This usually means, we end up victorious, but our own ships are battered into uselessness. I think this is beacuse we, as wargamers, worry more about winning than we do about getting our ships home.

One advantage to extreme range gunnery is that it gives you the best chance of breaking off if things go south! I'm not citicizing other's style of play here, just suggesting reasons why a combat model that rewards long range gunnery is both realistic and necessary.

 

[DM]

I play a lot of Larry Bond's WWII game, and in playing that, I notice that Wargamers very often close the distance quickley and hammer away, to maximize the amount of damage they do to the enemy.

Depends how well trained and disciplined they are. The really successful ones evaluate where their "immune zone" is and operate there. I've seen several crushing victories fought out that way, where oe player understood the nuances of naval gunnery and exploited them, and their opponent didn't. Conversely some virtual guaranteed victories lost because of a failure to grasp the inexorable advantage that one side actually had over another.

just suggesting reasons why a combat model that rewards long range gunnery is both realistic and necessary.

VAS attempts this by giving the +1 damage modifier to long range gunnery, simulating the effects of plunging fire.

 

[gazman]

Depends how well trained and disciplined they are.

Personally I have no wargaming training what so ever and I don't intend to start school anytime soon. I'm learning by experience and having fun all the way.

As for discipline, well, I did spend a couple of hours painting Flower class corvettes last night. And I promise not to buy any more lead untill I've painted what I've got. :wink:

Si

 

[Myrm]

Personally I have no wargaming training what so ever and I don't intend to
<snip>
And I promise not to buy any more lead untill I've painted what I've got.

Statement two proves statement one

*looks at his own mound of metal and realises that there's 4 systems involved and he's still just bought a vietnam 28mm ruleset.