You Sank My Battleship howdeydodat?

[HomerJay]

Someone asked the question elsewhere and got stuff back that was far to techie to be helpful.

But back in the day before electronic control systems, say WW1 or WW2, if you had to sink a battleship, both ships pitching up and down in choppy seas, rolling as well, what is the chance of actually being able to hit any fucking thing at all?

Some tests results say 4-5% strike rate but that would be calm seas, I saw somewhere that, for example, US ships outperformed the Bismarck by back calculating hits?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Someone asked the question elsewhere and got stuff back that was far to techie to be helpful.

But back in the day before electronic control systems, say WW1 or WW2, if you had to sink a battleship, both ships pitching up and down in choppy seas, rolling as well, what is the chance of actually being able to hit any fucking thing at all?

Some tests results say 4-5% strike rate but that would be calm seas, I saw somewhere that, for example, US ships outperformed the Bismarck by back calculating hits?

Depends entirely on the situation. The list of variables is endless, but the advent of the analog computer reduced the amount of work it took to calculate the proper setting for a salvo.

This dashing chap helped in the development of naval gunfire, raising US BB hits from 5% to over 20%, on averge. (This was during gunnery exercises, of course.)

[HomerJay]

He wrote Sim City?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He wrote Sim City?

He did the original Sims, yes.

[klr]

Someone asked the question elsewhere and got stuff back that was far to techie to be helpful.

But back in the day before electronic control systems, say WW1 or WW2, if you had to sink a battleship, both ships pitching up and down in choppy seas, rolling as well, what is the chance of actually being able to hit any fucking thing at all?

Some tests results say 4-5% strike rate but that would be calm seas, I saw somewhere that, for example, US ships outperformed the Bismarck by back calculating hits?

As Zilla says, there are a lot of variables to take into account. Apart from sea state, there's basic gun and shell characteristics, fire control (including radar), crew proficiency and so on.

More later, after some meetings ...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Add relative motion of the two points, the first big problem that had to be solved in naval gunnery for large caliber shells. A ship can move a good distance while the shells are in the air.

[Ian]

"Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."

[Rum]

Someone asked the question elsewhere and got stuff back that was far to techie to be helpful.

But back in the day before electronic control systems, say WW1 or WW2, if you had to sink a battleship, both ships pitching up and down in choppy seas, rolling as well, what is the chance of actually being able to hit any fucking thing at all?

Some tests results say 4-5% strike rate but that would be calm seas, I saw somewhere that, for example, US ships outperformed the Bismarck by back calculating hits?

As Zilla says, there are a lot of variables to take into account. Apart from sea state, there's basic gun and shell characteristics, fire control (including radar), crew proficiency and so on.

More later, after some meetings ...

I like how seriously you take the forum sometimes.

My meetings were pretty well all work related..

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Rum, it's actually an important part of naval history, so of course we take it seriously when we get the chance to babble on endlessly about it.

[HomerJay]

Add relative motion of the two points, the first big problem that had to be solved in naval gunnery for large caliber shells. A ship can move a good distance while the shells are in the air.

I hadn't thought of movement after firing, that's interesting.

If you do some complex calculation, does this rely on the ship being in the same position when it fires? So you could use some sort of level to tell when it is at peak position? Guns damped or counter balanced to ofset the effects of movement?

Pre radar though please, not interested in some geek tech wizardy.

The tests I saw were over 30,000 yards on average, interwar stuff, I think.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Off base right now. More s
When I get home if Kev doesn't beat me to it.

[klr]

Someone asked the question elsewhere and got stuff back that was far to techie to be helpful.

But back in the day before electronic control systems, say WW1 or WW2, if you had to sink a battleship, both ships pitching up and down in choppy seas, rolling as well, what is the chance of actually being able to hit any fucking thing at all?

Some tests results say 4-5% strike rate but that would be calm seas, I saw somewhere that, for example, US ships outperformed the Bismarck by back calculating hits?

As Zilla says, there are a lot of variables to take into account. Apart from sea state, there's basic gun and shell characteristics, fire control (including radar), crew proficiency and so on.

More later, after some meetings ...

I like how seriously you take the forum sometimes.

My meetings were pretty well all work related..

I wish all of mine were

Anyway, in the history of big gun engagements during the Dreadnought era, there were quite a few inconclusive engagements, where the opposing ships suffered few hits, or none at all. Only the battles where something got sunk or seriously damaged - and/or had a lot of people killed - tend to get remembered.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The naval long-range artillery began by borrowing from the land-based coastal artillery's experience. There you had a fix firing unit (FU) and a moving target unit (TU). Judging bearing and range was relatively simple, especially if range buoys were situated. (In one rather obscure case the buoys were marked with a deliberately short range on the seaward side. Rather unsporting.) The most important thing was to lead the ships, fire where they would be when the shells hit the water.

However, at sea there were additional variables, the pitch and yaw of the FU, that ship's bearing, etc., that had to be calculated. Additionally, there was the issue of spotting rounds. Was that your shells that just landed abaft the enemy, or another ship in the line? As ranges grew greater there was increasing importance in calculating the influence of the wind, barometric pressure, even the temperature of the air. It got rather complicated.

BTW, it's a myth that big shells stop at the top of their trajectory. That would only happen if you fired straight up, "A situation we try to avoid."

[klr]

Despite dozens of dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts at Jutland, not one was sunk - or even critically damaged IIRC. 3 British battle cruisers were sunk, all due to fatal armour weaknesses, the same thing that would do for the Hood 25 years later. 1 German battle cruiser and 1 pre-dreadnought era battleship were lost.

There are very few cases of one battleship sinking another in either world war, and those usually involved some major tactical, equipment or numerical advantage to one side.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Despite dozens of dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts at Jutland, not one was sunk - or even critically damaged IIRC. 3 British battle cruisers were sunk, all due to fatal armour weaknesses, the same thing that would do for the Hood 25 years later. 1 German battle cruiser and 1 pre-dreadnought era battleship were lost.

There are very few cases of one battleship sinking another in either world war, and those usually involved some major tactical, equipment or numerical advantage to one side.

Surigao Strait, being a right pounding by big guns.