PDA

View Full Version : A suggestion for handling naval AAA fire



Blutarski2004
08-13-2004, 09:21 AM
If Oleg tries to duplicate carrier task force AA fire on a gun by gun basis, with each trajectory separately calculated, the hit on frame rate will be huge - far too many ships and far too many guns by 1944. It will be necessary to break down the AA fire into logical segments. I'm going from memory here, as my books are stilled boxed up from a recent move. So anyone feel free to correct me on details.

Apart from 20mm, which were manually aimed and operated, the number of targets which a ship could effectively engage did not depend upon the number of weapons, but upon the number of AA fire directors. A typical WW2 US cruiser, for example, usually had four AA directors - one each forward, aft, and each beam. This means that no more than 3 a/c could be engaged by directed fire on one beam at one time.

Heavy AA (5-inch) opened fire at about 8,000 yds with time fuzed and later VT-fuzed HE/fragmentation ammunition, but had a hard time against rapidly crossing targets at very close ranges due to an insufficiently fast rate of traverse. 40mm opened at about 4,000 yds with contact fuzed HE. 20mm opened fire at around 1500 yds.

What this all means is that, the program can be configured to model AA fire based the number of gun directors instead of the huge number of actual guns. A firepower rate for each gun director could be assigned, based upon the number of guns assigned to it on any particular bearing of fire. In other words, the program would "see" a target, decide it was in the sighting arc of a particular gun director, calculate which guns could bear, assign their aggregate firepower value to the gun director, and take the target a/c under fire. An algorithm could be written to determine how the guns were to be shared among the various gun directors when more than one target was to be simultaneously engaged within an area where gun director arcs overlapped.

5-inch fire would only be counted against targets between 1500 and 8000 yds. Trajectory calculations would be ignored. Only time of flight and aiming and fuze timing error would be factored in. Fire effect would therefore be represented by random detonations in the immediate vicinity ofthe target a/c. When one such random burst occurred within a lethal distance of an a/c, that a/c would test for damage.

40mm fire would only be counted at ranges within 4000 yds. Trajectory would have to be tracked, but from the gun director as a single source point with an artificially large dispersion. A single gun director might, for example, control three quad 40mm mounts upon a single target a/c. Less processing power would be required by assuming a single twelve gun mount firing fron a single source point.

20mm fire would not open fire until 1500 yds. It would be handled in the same manner as bomber defensive fire is currently done.

This approach might, I think, very greatly reduce the processing load on players' systems.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
08-13-2004, 09:21 AM
If Oleg tries to duplicate carrier task force AA fire on a gun by gun basis, with each trajectory separately calculated, the hit on frame rate will be huge - far too many ships and far too many guns by 1944. It will be necessary to break down the AA fire into logical segments. I'm going from memory here, as my books are stilled boxed up from a recent move. So anyone feel free to correct me on details.

Apart from 20mm, which were manually aimed and operated, the number of targets which a ship could effectively engage did not depend upon the number of weapons, but upon the number of AA fire directors. A typical WW2 US cruiser, for example, usually had four AA directors - one each forward, aft, and each beam. This means that no more than 3 a/c could be engaged by directed fire on one beam at one time.

Heavy AA (5-inch) opened fire at about 8,000 yds with time fuzed and later VT-fuzed HE/fragmentation ammunition, but had a hard time against rapidly crossing targets at very close ranges due to an insufficiently fast rate of traverse. 40mm opened at about 4,000 yds with contact fuzed HE. 20mm opened fire at around 1500 yds.

What this all means is that, the program can be configured to model AA fire based the number of gun directors instead of the huge number of actual guns. A firepower rate for each gun director could be assigned, based upon the number of guns assigned to it on any particular bearing of fire. In other words, the program would "see" a target, decide it was in the sighting arc of a particular gun director, calculate which guns could bear, assign their aggregate firepower value to the gun director, and take the target a/c under fire. An algorithm could be written to determine how the guns were to be shared among the various gun directors when more than one target was to be simultaneously engaged within an area where gun director arcs overlapped.

5-inch fire would only be counted against targets between 1500 and 8000 yds. Trajectory calculations would be ignored. Only time of flight and aiming and fuze timing error would be factored in. Fire effect would therefore be represented by random detonations in the immediate vicinity ofthe target a/c. When one such random burst occurred within a lethal distance of an a/c, that a/c would test for damage.

40mm fire would only be counted at ranges within 4000 yds. Trajectory would have to be tracked, but from the gun director as a single source point with an artificially large dispersion. A single gun director might, for example, control three quad 40mm mounts upon a single target a/c. Less processing power would be required by assuming a single twelve gun mount firing fron a single source point.

20mm fire would not open fire until 1500 yds. It would be handled in the same manner as bomber defensive fire is currently done.

This approach might, I think, very greatly reduce the processing load on players' systems.

BLUTARSKI

Yellonet
08-13-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
What this all means is that, the program can be configured to model AA fire based the number of gun directors instead of the huge number of actual guns. A firepower rate for each gun director could be assigned, based upon the number of guns assigned to it on any particular bearing of fire. In other words, the program would "see" a target, decide it was in the sighting arc of a particular gun director, calculate which guns could bear, assign their aggregate firepower value to the gun director, and take the target a/c under fire. An algorithm could be written to determine how the guns were to be shared among the various gun directors when more than one target was to be simultaneously engaged within an area where gun director arcs overlapped.

5-inch fire would only be counted against targets between 1500 and 8000 yds. Trajectory calculations would be ignored. Only time of flight and aiming and fuze timing error would be factored in. Fire effect would therefore be represented by random detonations in the immediate vicinity ofthe target a/c. When one such random burst occurred within a lethal distance of an a/c, that a/c would test for damage.

40mm fire would only be counted at ranges within 4000 yds. Trajectory would have to be tracked, but from the gun director as a single source point with an artificially large dispersion. A single gun director might, for example, control three quad 40mm mounts upon a single target a/c. Less processing power would be required by assuming a single twelve gun mount firing fron a single source point.

20mm fire would not open fire until 1500 yds. It would be handled in the same manner as bomber defensive fire is currently done.

This approach might, I think, very greatly reduce the processing load on players' systems.

BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Introducing strategy game elements into this fine simulation would severely lessen the experience.

If chance would be a part of the game it would take away any advantage a good pilot may have. You would never be able to avoid beeing hit, it's just a matter of time.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/yellonet/Yellonet_sig.jpg

Tater-SW-
08-13-2004, 11:13 AM
That's realistic. Outcome is all that matters. A discussion very similar to this happened on the WW2OL forums regarding modelling artillery statistically vs a "simulation" that created and tracked every fragment from each burst shell (thousands per shell). I think something like this is a great idea.

A number of sim-gamers were up in arms that anyone would suggest such a model, but the guy expounding on it does it for a living for a US military contractor (and used to for the Army). It's the way real simulations deal with artillery. Large caliber weapons in praticular, but even in general we are dealing with huge numbers of rounds to track, and the goal for longer range fire is really what in land warfare would be called a "beaten zone" by arty.

The other factor the "track every round" crowd needs to consider is the data a real gun crew would have vs the way AI choses to aim. They aren't even comparable, the AI has no LOS restrictions, coming out of the sun has no effect, etc. A simulation functions at a certain scale of detail and is only as good as the most course scale used in the sim. Tracking every round is in scale as long as the rest of the shooting process (initial sighting of target, realistic tracking of target with weather/clouds, etc making a difference, etc) is at that fidelity, it isn't.

tater

Baco-ECV56
08-13-2004, 03:10 PM
This methood would work if there was an error induceer of simoe kind, to make them less acurte, Since 1 or 2 AAA guns with de power of 20, will hit everithing they aim at.

We need to feel a realistic dificultie when attacking a ship but niot get hit everry single time you atemp such an attack.


FB had a simmilar logic, in that in a given battle, there would be arround 20 to 30 AAA guns defending a position. Since they couldn‚¬īt manage that amounto of AAA firing and tracking every round, they did improuve the cnhances of a AAA hitting an enemy plane. The result was that AAA was deadlly acurate and it was imposible to attack a position covered with 10 AAA guns. Even now, more than 6 AAA guns in a very small radious will prouve to be a nightmare and quite imposble to fly by.

So now AAA in FB is a bit slower when tracking. Now, if you fly strait and give the AAA time to track you are toasted in no time.

I think that the better solution is to have a good number of AAA guns But not realistioc numbers, say 50% of those that the ship had, and make them track more slowlly that their reral counterpart would.

I like the logic behind your propositi√¬≥n, but i am afraid it will prouve quite deadlly thus attacking a ship an imposible task.

Don‚¬īt get me wrong I do not want Easy AAA, i want survivable AAA http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Blutarski2004
08-13-2004, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baco-ECV56:
This methood would work if there was an error induceer of simoe kind, to make them less acurte, Since 1 or 2 AAA guns with de power of 20, will hit everithing they aim at.

..... The trick will be with the 40mm. I agree that a certain amount of randomness must be introduced. For optically (not radar) guided gun systems, accuracy should vary according to the degree that the rates of change of range and deflection themselves vary. It is a bit complicated to grasp, but think in terms of acceleration/deceleration as opposed to simple velocity.

We need to feel a realistic dificultie when attacking a ship but niot get hit everry single time you atemp such an attack.

..... I understand you point from an enjoyment of gaming point of view, but, in reality, by 1944/1945 US shipborne AAA defence was very deadly. In the 1945 kamikaze attack campaign against the US picket destroyers off Okinawa, a single destroyer attacked by three a/c would usually shoot down two. Trying to fly in against a carrier surrounded by a dozen supporting DDs, CA, and the odd BB would be much more difficult than that.


FB had a simmilar logic, in that in a given battle, there would be arround 20 to 30 AAA guns defending a position. Since they couldn‚¬īt manage that amounto of AAA firing and tracking every round, they did improuve the cnhances of a AAA hitting an enemy plane. The result was that AAA was deadlly acurate and it was imposible to attack a position covered with 10 AAA guns. Even now, more than 6 AAA guns in a very small radious will prouve to be a nightmare and quite imposble to fly by.

..... From what onereads of attacks upon airfields, a lot of effort was put into making a surprise approach. German AA fire was not truly effective unless/until the gun crews had been alerted and were manning all guns at full strength. They did not stand at their guns all day long waiting for an attack. That's why the "one pass and away" rule was so popular. Making additional gunnery passes against now alerted AA crews was asking to be shot down. I'm not sure ifthis is modelled now in FB or, if not, how it might be modelled. But it would be a nice and realistic feature. Of course air search radar would reduce the chance of surprise against ships, and using cloud cover to sneak in is no good against FB AI's X-Ray vision as currently programmed.


So now AAA in FB is a bit slower when tracking. Now, if you fly strait and give the AAA time to track you are toasted in no time.

..... That's reasonable to me.


I think that the better solution is to have a good number of AAA guns But not realistioc numbers, say 50% of those that the ship had, and make them track more slowlly that their reral counterpart would.

..... Interestingly enough, only about half the AA weapons on a ship could bear upon the foreward and aft quadrants of arc, and maybe two thirds on each beam. And if the ship was being attacked by more than one a/c, or from different directions at once, these guns would have to be split up.


I like the logic behind your propositi√¬≥n, but i am afraid it will prouve quite deadlly thus attacking a ship an imposible task.

Don‚¬īt get me wrong I do not want Easy AAA, i want survivable AAA http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

..... Maybe we will need to put AA fire effectiveness on a slider ... ;-)


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BLUTARSKI

Baco-ECV56
08-13-2004, 04:26 PM
Yes You are right, reducing the efectivness of 44/45 ships would be very unrealistic, and this is a combat Simulator, NOT a game. I agree fully with that.

My worry is that given that we can have onlly 8 to 12 attacking planes, the relation between number of guns and attacking planes is wrong if they model every gun in those ships. Becouse there is no way we can mount a realistic air attack with realistic numbers.

I mean onlly a mad tactician would send between 8 to 12 planes to atack a Task Force, right?

My ponit is that AAA defenses should be towned dow Mantainig relation with the number of posible attacking planes. So if a typical force to attack a fleet would be, lets say 60 planes, and the typical number of AAA guns on a fleet would be arroun lets say 120 to make the math easier:

RL=60 planes PF= 12 that gives us about 1/6th of the real attack force.

then AAA number should be a little above 1/6th of the real numbers... So a fleet that had 120 guns available should have about 24 available for its defense.

24 AAA in FB is still suicidal, but its not uotright imposible as 120.. AAA guns

See my point? I don‚¬īt want easy, I want balanced in a relation to numbers of maximun posible attacking planes and defending AAA guns.

So a fleet would still be formidable regarding its AAA defense (since it would hold relation to the real number of AAA each type of ship had) but not ridiculouslly imposible.

[This message was edited by Baco-ECV56 on Fri August 13 2004 at 03:36 PM.]