Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums
richardjohns

City Defenses and Bombardment

Recommended Posts

Reece    0

Freman,

 

I was on Diesel Electric Submarines. Yes I do have you confused with another player. You asked a question on the game and were given an answer but insist the answer is wrong. Hopefully you will research the answers I gave you. The height of eye measurement should be easy to check but you error is in applying it to only one vessel when two were involved. The effectiveness of naval gunnery in bombardments has numerous historical references. During WWII they didn't have city locations well mapped and certainly not the infrastructure within a city. Nautical charts show little to no infrastructure and were made for relative navigation vice absolute navigation like we use today. The only real way to get targeting information was from aerial recon flights over a city. Those pictures then allowed for locating a target relative to observable features from sea but the key word is observable. 900 rounds is a lot of ordinance to hit a city but it represents a very small footprint compared to the size of a city. I know its a game and accept that the combat systems in the game will not resemble historical examples. Since you have played before I am sure you can come up with numerous examples. CB missions are way more effective in Victory than they were during WWII so why would you want to argue that they should be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Fremen    0

I actually did do some research and that why I insisted your assumptions were incorrect. Take the following formula. The the square root of ( your height above the surface/.5736)= distance to the horizon

 

Now using this formula calculate the following. a man standing on the deck of the Bismark would be 30 to 40 feet above the surface of the ocean? so

30/.5736 = 7.2 miles. If the HMS Hood was 13.2 miles away when plunging gunfire from the Bismark penetrated the rather thin armor over a magazine of the Hood

the man on the deck would only see the massive cloud of smoke that erupted from the Hood maybe. Now if that same man was on the bridge say another 30 feet up

that would be square root of (60/.5736) that would be 10 miles. Now if he climbed up the crows nest and was about 10 stories up( 100 feet) we get

the square root of 100/.5736= 13.2 miles. He would have seen a nice view of the Hood going Kaboom!

 

And no I definitely dont want CB to be more effective in Victory. I wanted the CHAB to be more effective. They are 15" naval guns of a similar type used by the Bismark and yet they have 60% of the range. as it stands now the CHAB are just there to run the enemy ships out of ammo so that cant conduct their CB or hold out long enough to make the enemy break morale if somehow they get enough hits which could be a mission if the enemy stays at 24000 yards.

 

Diesel Electric Subs can be quite effective if they are the very modern types. exceptionally quiet and very difficult if not impossible to detect before they can get a firing solution on you. The nuke boats I served on were just as quiet though and very fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isemann2    0

I don't know what is about Bubbleheads and Victory. but it seems that there are a lot of us playing the game.

 

The Fremen, Your formula is partly correct, The Formula is Square Root of the HOE (Height of Eye) * 1.14 (nm) or 2.28 (yards).

 

Your example is off base though. You were thinking about 1 Horizon, Both ships have there own distance to Horizon which are then added together to determine range.

 

Using 30 foot main deck on both ships, both ships would have been able to see each others main deck for the most part (12.48nm).

 

The Fremen, by the way, how in hell's name can you call the USS John Marshall, Fast??????

 

I served on the Daniel Boone (629 B) and Henry L Stimson(655 B/Decom) (SSBN's) and your Sister ships replacement, USS Kamehameha (SSN Spec) along with SSN's San Juan (751) and Chicago (721) and Trident Pennsylvania (735 G) as a FT1/ss (FTG origanally)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Fremen    0

You are absolutely right! I should have stipulated that USS John Marshall was a boomer not a fast attack. I must be getting senile :)

It was a very long time ago :) but I remember that was the first and only boomer I served on. I preferred the fast boats by 1000% :)

 

And yes you are correct and I think that's what Rick was trying to get across ( sorry Rick :) ) but still assuming 30 foot deck and a 6 ft tall crewmen that would be right. The crewmen on the deck still couldn't see the other ship though as they were even further out. The officers on the bridge could no doubt. :). Does that mean you won't be visiting my port cities Rick? You will still be welcome should you stop on by. My CHAB's and other defenses will be sure to give your vessels a proper greeting. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reece    0

The crewman on the deck can't see the Hoods waterline but they can certainly see the ship provided visibility cooperates. Remember the ship extends far above the main deck. Think the bottom of the Hoods superstructure is over 50 feet above the waterline. These engagements used optical fire control and adjusted fire based on the observation of both the ship and the miss so visibility was adequate or else there would be no engagement.

 

To continue with a sub example check out the number of 6 inch hits the Darter took and yet the hull is still there. A 16inch shell leaves a much bigger impact however when compared to the size of a city it's very small. That's why they liked to close the range so they could deliver more accurate fire. Sitting off the coast just lobbing shells in the general direction of a city might be effective as a moral killer but shooting in the blind probably isn't going to destroy all the industry except in Victory. In the game a battleship or cruiser force can level all the industry in a city but can't do any harm to troops in a coastal province but once again the game isn't really designed to give results similar to historical events. Keep building the CHAB as I enjoy a challenge. I like playing with naval forces regardless of their minor role in Victory. In Game 96 I managed to take outlast both GB and his TA's Ireland/Iceland. Both dropped after about 20 turns of trying to drive me out of Britain but it was a fun campaign up until they dropped. If we ever have a rewrite of the code to adjust capabilities I would like to see the ability of ships to engage ground forces in coastal provinces, CB effectiveness would be reduced. Fuel costs would be cut as well and small caliber weapons would not have a cumulative damage effect on heavily armored warships above a certain limit would be some good starters. Have fun, RIck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Reece,

I was on the USS Kamehameha before it returned to the Hawaii. Thanks for the info on Coastal Bombardment. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reece    0

I see its gone now. I was always surprised at how long it took to replace the capabilities of Grayback. Have fun, RIck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×