How #&^%$* are you against an Iowa/NC/SoDak class battleship with radar/computer guided guns.

[Bronto70937 1,592]

Thing is, I don't think that War thunder will have proper radar aiming for ships.  I say this because such national advantages don't appear in-game currently

    -All bombers bombsights are the same and just as accurate, even though the Allied Nordan Bombsight was far superior to anything the axis had. 

    -In Korea, the F-86 had a computerized gunsight while the Mig-15 had a gyroscopic gunsight.  I do not believe this is currently represented in War Thunder.

 

Between these and a few others, I think we can say that ship aiming will all be the same, and eiher nothing or everything will be radar assisted. 

[Mhtsos 725]

The Iowa(and the supporting BB fleet)would make nice reef starters the honourabre jap fleet and their Yamatos.

Ofcourse the WT wouldn't like to have the Iowa dominate(not just win)the game,so I expect somewhat nerf in its radar Fire control.

[Madwolf 10,218]

In HB and FRB they wouldn't be nerfed.

Also, fire control is a major part of ship combat and it would be very unlikely either method wouldn't be modeled.

[Mhtsos 725]

In HB and FRB they wouldn't be nerfed.

Also, fire control is a major part of ship combat and it would be very unlikely either method wouldn't be modeled.

Their colossal difference with anything that axis made makes them instant OPs.I can't see how they'll make enjoyable battles with Iowas(espessialy many in one team).

[Madwolf 10,218]

Their colossal difference with anything that axis made makes them instant OPs.I can't see how they'll make enjoyable battles with Iowas(espessialy many in one team).

 

It wasn't just a massive difference. It was there, but it wasn't like the Japanese were incapable. The Germans had radar guided FCS as well, but it only tracked range I believe. Don't remember exactly.

[Mhtsos 725]

It wasn't just a massive difference. It was there, but it wasn't like the Japanese were incapable. The Germans had radar guided FCS as well, but it only tracked range I believe. Don't remember exactly.

In very good conditions the diffirences were average to small.

In night fighting and bad weather the mm radar of the american FCS was to reign supreme.

The german FCS was subpar due to metric radar(far lower resolution/range)and to their less than advanced analog computers.

Either way only in very good conditions the japs had a shot in winning the match.

[Madwolf 10,218]

But if you don't have radar FCS in the game you swing the whole game towards the Japanese with the Yamato, and their excellent torpedo and torpedo ships.

 

You can't aim for historical accuracy and then try to equalize things by being non-historical. 

 

The Japanese ships are capable of holding their own even against American and British radar controlled FCS.

 

Removing the radar would be like giving the Germans the 262, but making it as slow as a Spitfire for balance reasons.

[Eruantien697 1,098]

I'm just going to offer my tuppence.

 

You can't copy-paste "after action reports" without having an actual source. Given that the USS White Plain action report on the first page has been selectively copied and pasted from another forum, where again it has no source and the only thing to support it's veracity is the poster claiming it is the official report, it can only be regarded as a story. Oh, and it doesn't report any hits, only near misses.

 

Actually, more than that, you can't give "evidence" supporting your claim if you have nothing showing it's accuracy/official nature. Linking to another site that also has no support for the claim does not count.

 

Frankly, I don't care whether or not Yamato, or Kongo, or Scharnholst made the longest range hit with guns; but I will directly quote a friend of mine who studied naval warfare of the first half of the 20th century as part of his degree (I'll edit it for profanity, they don't say "swears like a sailor" for nothing. I think something of the course may have rubbed off on him).

 

 

Until someone links, or provides you (everyone) with an official report, all they're dealing with is speculation, old memories and weapons-grade, propaganda-grade balderdash. And potentially complete fan-fic that some obsessive cretin, who makes the average MLP fan seem sane, wrote up to prove that his opinion is the "bestest" and "truest". Most likely born several decades after the event.

 

A solution to this problem.

1) Is this part of a battle? (A named battle, one of those events that official historians write about) Or is it just a random skirmish?

2) When and where did it happen?

3) Who was there? Which ships - from both sides - are supposed to have been involved?

4) Do both combatants recognise that this event (be it major named battle, or minor skirmish) actually happened?

Obviously, we know what battle is being "discussed", where and when it was, so now we just need to go and find some credible sources.

 

 

If you've only posted supportable evidence then this isn't aimed at you; if however, you are trying to pass off possible fan-fiction as truth, you need to rethink how you go about things.

[General_Sultan 1,228]

But if you don't have radar FCS in the game you swing the whole game towards the Japanese with the Yamato, and their excellent torpedo and torpedo ships.

 

You can't aim for historical accuracy and then try to equalize things by being non-historical. 

 

The Japanese ships are capable of holding their own even against American and British radar controlled FCS.

 

Removing the radar would be like giving the Germans the 262, but making it as slow as a Spitfire for balance reasons.

 

nailed it, but this is a MMO, its a multiplayer game. the moment you know a game is a multiplayer-based game realize it can't be simulator or historical, for that, search for simulators. multiplayer games tend to equalize and balance things to please the crowd/player base. not to please the hardcore history fans. my 2 cents

[Katsukai 6,157]

But if you don't have radar FCS in the game you swing the whole game towards the Japanese with the Yamato, and their excellent torpedo and torpedo ships.

 

You can't aim for historical accuracy and then try to equalize things by being non-historical. 

 

The Japanese ships are capable of holding their own even against American and British radar controlled FCS.

 

Removing the radar would be like giving the Germans the 262, but making it as slow as a Spitfire for balance reasons.

 

Well Sabers don't have their electronic computer sight either that could automaticly calculate the distance of the target by rader and change the convergeance which was an huge advantage over the MiGs in the korean war and all planes basicly fly with Gyro sights in game so I kinda doubt that they will model all ships aiming system differently just cause some happen to have rader and some do not..

 

I wouldn't mind really if radar controlled aiming helpers would get added just the problem is they will be kinda hard to implement.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Katsukai

[RAMJB 3,948]

I'm sorry for replying to such an old post, but this entire thread has made me want to bash my head against a wall. I read/skimmed through the rest of the thread to see if anyone replied to you, and didn't find anything. Anyway, on to my point:

Take a piece of paper. Draw a vertical line. Now, halfway down that line, draw a perpendicular line (lets say 2cm long, for this example). At the far end of the vertical one, draw another perpendicular line that is twice the size of the first. If you take a ruler or something similar, you will be able to place the edge on the nearest end of the vertical line, as well as the ends of both of the perpendicular lines. Now, unless I screwed something up somewhere, I believe that would mean that the Katori, being around half the length and beam of the Bismarck, would essentially be the same size target at half the range.

Edit: My 3am brain figured out the simple explanation (Yay logic); At half the range, both the length and beam of the smaller ship would appear double. Therefore, equal in relation to the Bismarck.

 

 

speaking about old posts...well.

what you're infering is that a ship twice the length that other is going to be twice as large. That's true as long as the width remains static. a 2x1 rectangle is 1m2, a 4x1 rectangle is 4m2. One area is double than the other.

So far yes, you're right.

however Bismarck was not just twice the size as the japanese light cruiser. It also was double the width. And suddenly it turns out that the size goes up exponentially, not linearly. A 2x1 rectangle is 2m2. a 4x2 rectangle (twice the dimensions) is 8m2. The larger rectangle is four times the area when you double the dimensions. It's not twice as large. It's actually four times larger.

Gunnery in WW2 was based on putting a certain ammount of shots within an area of sea where you predicted the enemy would be at. The larger the area you are targetting, the larger the chance to hit. It was actually that simple, naval gunnery was for the most part a statistical thing. "If I put all my shots in an area of this size I'll have X% chances to hit a ship of Ym2 area".

Naturally the larger Y turns to be, the larger your chances to hit will be. If Y is 4 times as big in one instance than in another, your chances to hit increase fourfold.

 

Hence if you have a 270m x 36m square (I know the plantforms of ships are not squares, but I'll be damned if I have to calculate the area of an ellipse here :P) you get 9720m2.

 

You get a  a 135m long ship with a width of 18m widtht (exactly half the lenght and width dimensions) you get an area of 2430 m2. Far from being just half the size, it's actually exactly four times less. And will be four times less likely to be hit by the same area spread than the previous ship.

Of course being ellipse-sized objects and not rectangles, it won't be exactly a 4:1 ratio in the case of ships, but is pretty close. A ship double the size of another in both lenght and width is roughly four times as bigger in terms of area.

Edited February 7, 2014 by RAMJB

[RAMJB 3,948]

nailed it, but this is a MMO, its a multiplayer game. the moment you know a game is a multiplayer-based game realize it can't be simulator or historical, for that, search for simulators. multiplayer games tend to equalize and balance things to please the crowd/player base. not to please the hardcore history fans. my 2 cents

 

Air Combat 3, Aces High 1 and 2, WWIIOL and quite many other instances of simulator MMOs that never traded historical accuracy in the altar of "balance" say you're wrong, and have been saying so for the last 20 years.

 

So yes, you're wrong. Also you're wrong in the assumption that War Thunder "Can't be a simulator". It actually has run in several prize awards as a simulator and has won several awards as a simulator. So, by definition War Thunder -IS- a simulator. And simulators don't do "balance" crap in their historical setups, so if WT starts doing so, their awards should be called back and voided.

Edited February 7, 2014 by RAMJB

[OutlawSundown 86]

There was a circuit breaker issue with some of the earlier US Battleships in the war, however it was only a case of simply flicking a switch to get it working again. Unlike say the German that would cause structural damage to their radar... Bismark hem

 

 The USS South Dakota in the second naval battle off of Guadalcanal. Looks like the chief engineer screwed up with one of the breakers and knocked out more than just the radar.

Edited February 7, 2014 by OutlawSundown

[Madwolf 10,218]

It wasn't the chief engineer, I'll get the title when I can get to my book, but whoever it was taped the fuse in, and when it couldn't pop out it caused a power failure across the whole boat.

[Trainfan10 54]

lets just agree that the Allies won the war, and nobody is speaking German (except the Germans) right now, and lets all be friends, OK?

Edited May 17, 2014 by Trainfan10

[Eagle9 278]

I wonder how they'll approach fires as well as I hope they don't do what they did with Ground Forces allowing us to instantly put out two fires with ease. That was an important issue in ship combat and something the U.S. really put a lot of time into. Maybe it could be a training skill instead just with certain ships having an easier time containing the fires?

 

Naval combat has always been the area I'm most skeptical about in War Thunder since there's so many different things to take into account and is a completely different type of combat due to the ranges. I would like for them to be as realistic as possible, but I have doubts that they'll keep those battles asymmetrical.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Eagle9

[Eruantien697 1,098]

lets just agree that the Allies won the war, and nobody is speaking German (except the Germans) right now, and lets all be friends, OK?

Yeah, no one is speaking German except the Dutch, the Danes, the French, the British, the Italians, the Swiss (well, it's a bit different there), the Belgians.... Of course, not all of us speak German, and those who do do it for a completely different reason.

[D0ubl3_Tap 418]

And I love USN fanboys raving off about american superiority and japanese inferiority, it won't be far until they start going off about how Yamato's deck armor layout is made of Rice and the guns fired bamboo sticks and riceballs at the enemy.

after all your incorrect statements about The Yamato vs Iowa class...  you still show your face around here... Not very honorable.

[IrishSpectre 9]

Just want to point out something about the potential fight between the Yamato-class and the Iowa-class: The US captured Shinano's unmounted gun turrets and set them up to test the ability of the 16"/50 guns mounted on Iowa to penetrate the turret armor, which was the thickest on the Yamato-class. Well... I do believe the image speaks for itself as for the effectiveness of the Iowa's  shells against the armor of the Yamato-class. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Crag_r 8,620]

Just want to point out something about the potential fight between the Yamato-class and the Iowa-class: The US captured Shinano's unmounted gun turrets and set them up to test the ability of the 16"/50 guns mounted on Iowa to penetrate the turret armor, which was the thickest on the Yamato-class. Well... I do believe the image speaks for itself as for the effectiveness of the Iowa's  shells against the armor of the Yamato-class. 

 

What was the range and parameters of the test?

[Ishtarin 1,235]

Just want to point out something about the potential fight between the Yamato-class and the Iowa-class: The US captured Shinano's unmounted gun turrets and set them up to test the ability of the 16"/50 guns mounted on Iowa to penetrate the turret armor, which was the thickest on the Yamato-class. Well... I do believe the image speaks for itself as for the effectiveness of the Iowa's  shells against the armor of the Yamato-class. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That point blank test that doesn't account for armor angling doesn't stand up to real life conditions. After a shell has been fired it slows down due to air resistance and therefore hits with less penetrative power. Not to mention the turret face is also angled back about 45 degrees, making a low angle direct hit have to go through even more armor

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm

[IrishSpectre 9]

I see your point, Reimu, and concede that I did not do the research into the tests that I should have. Right now it sure looks like the test was done for the sake of the public relations campaign! My mistake in not being thorough in researching the tests; with a brief search done, it seemed like something worth bringing up at the time. 

 

Cheers, gentlemen!

[Fifty_Calories 619]

King George IV class.

[Guntank_Type98 9]

What if there was April fools with the modernized Iowa Class? I will be seeing missiles blowing up Bismarck's and planes getting shot down by a Phalanx CIWS. If this happens I WILL LOVE IT!!!!!

[Bronto70937 1,592]

What if there was April fools with the modernized Iowa Class? I will be seeing missiles blowing up Bismarck's and planes getting shot down by a Phalanx CIWS. If this happens I WILL LOVE IT!!!!!

For April fools I'd rather have this. 

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

I don't know who/why edited images of the Kalinin K-7 to be so epic, but this was the original plane

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]