PDA

View Full Version : Realistic AA fire from ships? or will they shoot spit balls?



Jason Bourne
08-12-2004, 05:45 PM
ok, just a simple question really. basically the basis is that late war (44-45) BBs had a huge amount of AA guns, Ive heard of american ships having up to 96 40mm guns. so will these all be firing? or will they be dumbed down to make it easeir for people to attack ships. or maybe make a sort of Ship AA meter, were in difficulty you can adjust how many AA guns ship have, ie, Real Amount, medium amount, and very low amounts. just an idea for realisms sake.

also, will BBs late war for americans be 'escorting' carriers, and serving in their proper roll as bomb magnets and AA ships?

Jason Bourne
08-12-2004, 05:45 PM
ok, just a simple question really. basically the basis is that late war (44-45) BBs had a huge amount of AA guns, Ive heard of american ships having up to 96 40mm guns. so will these all be firing? or will they be dumbed down to make it easeir for people to attack ships. or maybe make a sort of Ship AA meter, were in difficulty you can adjust how many AA guns ship have, ie, Real Amount, medium amount, and very low amounts. just an idea for realisms sake.

also, will BBs late war for americans be 'escorting' carriers, and serving in their proper roll as bomb magnets and AA ships?

Latico
08-12-2004, 11:41 PM
BB's weren't the usual escorts for Carriers. US Carriers were usually escorted by DD's, DE's and light or heavy Crusiers. Infact, BB's had their own escorts of the same classes, I believe mostly for their AAA capabilities and anti-sub defense.

Their were times when Carrier TF's and BB TF's would combine, though.

At least, in what I've researched, this appears to be so.

Buster82
08-13-2004, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
BB's weren't the usual escorts for Carriers. US Carriers were usually escorted by DD's, DE's and light or heavy Crusiers. Infact, BB's had their own escorts of the same classes, I believe mostly for their AAA capabilities and anti-sub defense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok could someone explain to me what these next terms mean?: BB, DD and DE. cose i have no idea what they mean.
thx people

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_euro_us_02.gif

McCallaway
08-13-2004, 05:19 AM
BB stands for Battleship.
DD for Destroyer.
And I think DE is for Escort Destroyer.

Buster82
08-13-2004, 05:22 AM
thx alot m8 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_euro_us_02.gif

McCallaway
08-13-2004, 05:59 AM
You're welcome http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Check this (from http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/shusn-no/usnsh-no.htm) :

"ACR" -- Armored Cruisers


BB -- Battleships

BM -- Monitors


"C" -- Protected Cruisers

CA -- Armored Cruisers

CA -- Heavy Cruisers

CB -- Large Cruisers

CBC -- Large Tactical Command Ship

CC -- Battle Cruisers

CC -- Command Ships

CG -- Guided Missile Cruisers, also including CAG and CLG.

CL -- Light Cruisers

CLAA -- Antiaircraft Light Cruisers

CLC -- Tactical Command Ship

CLK -- Cruiser-Hunter Killer Ship

CM -- Minelayers


CV -- Aircraft Carriers

CVA -- Attack Aircraft Carriers

CVB -- Large Aircraft Carriers

CVE -- Escort Aircraft Carriers

CVL -- Small Aircraft Carriers

CVS -- Antisubmarine Warfare Support Aircraft Carriers

CVT -- Training Aircraft Carriers


DD -- Destroyers

DDE -- Antisubmarine Destroyers

DDG -- Guided Missile Destroyers

DDR -- Radar Picket Destroyers


DE -- Escort Ships

DEG -- Guided Missile Escort Ships

DER -- Radar Picket Escort Ships


DL -- Frigates

DLG -- Guided Missile Frigates

DM -- Light Minelayers

DMS -- High-Speed Minesweepers


FF -- Frigates

FFG -- Guided Missile Frigates


MMD -- Minelayers, Fast

MSC -- Coastal Minesweepers (Nonmagnetic)

MSC(O) -- Coastal Minesweepers (Old)

MSF -- Minesweepers, Fleet (Steel Hull)

MSI -- Minesweepers, Inshore

MSO -- Minesweepers, Ocean (Nonmagnetic)

MSF -- Minesweepers, Fleet (Steel Hull)


PC -- Submarine Chasers

PCE -- Patrol Escorts

PE -- Eagle Boats

PF -- Patrol Frigates, or Frigates

PG -- Gunboats

PR -- River Gunboats

PT -- Motor Torpedo Boats

PY -- Patrol Vessels, Converted Yacht


SC -- Submarine Chasers

"SP" -- World War I Patrol Vessels

SS -- Submarines

SSBN -- Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines

SSG -- Guided Missile Submarines

SSK -- Antisubmarine Submarines

SSN -- Submarines (Nuclear Powered)

SSR -- Radar Picket Submarines


"TB" -- Torpedo Boats

Buster82
08-13-2004, 06:06 AM
thats some cool stuff on that site.
thx again m8 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_euro_us_02.gif

Jason Bourne
08-13-2004, 12:27 PM
ok, this if from a Jane'ws Information group book:

"At Santa Cruz the gap [b/w carrier and BB escort] was closed to just 1,000 yards, with both the carrier and the South Dakota fielding the new quadruple 40mm mountings for the first time. Although the carrier Enterprise, took two bomb hits, her 'minder' was credited with killing 26 of the attackers. the Carrrier Hornet, without such cover, was bombed and torpedoed to extinction...."

so basically they loaded up old BBs with lots of 40mm and 20mm guns, and had them cruise very close to a carrier, both to be a sort of magnet for enemy fire, and to use their own massive AA fire to protect the Carrier. if i had a scanner i would post some of the pics provided, showing BBs crusing just behind the Carriers.

oh, and SSK actually just means that the submarine is a deisel electirc boat, SSN means its a Nuke

Baco-ECV56
08-13-2004, 01:58 PM
I trully hope Naval AAA is not modeled in realistic numbers...

Why?

Well a fleet was attacked by arround 50 to 80 airplanes at the same time. In a PF mission you will probably have arround 24 maximun (or you´ll need a cray computer to run the mission)..
So 96 40mm guns against 8 to 12 attacking aircrafts sounds nuts to me....

I think Naval AAA should be balanced to resemble the numbre of planes attaking a task force.

Just try a mission in FB with 20 88/80mm and 20 20/25 mm guns and tray to overfly that position with a 12 plane flight...

And that is onlly 40 AAA guns....

Now if you want imprevious US ships then go ahead and ask for realistic AAA numbers...

Anti ship missions flying for the Japaneese would be imposible, no fun at all. And it would take away the challeng of trying to stop those planes either, since you know your boats are not threaten by 12 enemy planes.

Jason Bourne
08-13-2004, 02:14 PM
except if you knew anything about carrier opperations, you would know that there are plenty of times when 7 planes carrying torps do get in close and destroy ships, and besides, only late war ships had the 96 40mm guns, and by that time, it really wouldnt matter how 'fair' you try and make it, cuase the japanese would be losing.

Snow_Wolf_
08-13-2004, 02:26 PM
well if they do it realistic i don't even want to know how much lag you get

Try putting 10 whirlwinds in a roll and watch it go off at once

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jtsiekki/mono2.gif
"Master the art of Speed without ever getting a Ticket"

Jason Bourne
08-13-2004, 02:29 PM
i dont know why you guys keep *****ing about the lag that it would cause, especialy since you would only need 1 in 4 rounds to be seeable (tracers) you could make the projectile a sort or long rope. or for that matter, look at my first post and read my idea about modifiying the amount of AA ships have. and besides, i just got off a server loaded with AA, and there was basically no lag on my end.

oh, and even if you had less AA, considering the amount of ships in the american fleets, there will still be ALOT of AA fire coming your way.

Baco-ECV56
08-13-2004, 02:37 PM
True I know nothing about Carrier operations.. But I do know that in FB the AAA is far more acurate than in RL.

And I do know that to fly a mission againts imposible AAA is no fun at all, nor realistic. since you wont get a plane to escape the Virtual AAA fire if you have too much of it.

We had this problem with FB and they did tone it down in a patch. I hope they will not make that mistake aggain. Ask anybody that flyed attack missions with FB 1.0 and they will tell you how 1 ship with 4 AAA guns could tear apart a hole 8 planes flight. 1 ship, 4 guns... Realistic maybe, but it made no sense to fly anti-shipping missions.

The locgic behind thsi aberration was that as you very well ponted out ships had lots and lots of AAA guns, but becouse of an FPS and procesing power shortage, the AAA were reduced to 4 but with the power of 20. The problem was that there was no curtain of fire, it was 20mm snipers.

If we do have lots of AAA, I hope thier not snipers. I wiuld radder see less AAA guns but with a nice fragmentation pattern, and small caliber guns that would lead their shots and then correct instead of hitting you with the first round.

It is not personal Jason Bourne, I am traying to point out that we need a certain level of surviability to make anti-ships missions to be worthy of flying.

If we get invulnerable ships, no one will fly anti-ship missions, and what is a Pacific Sim without anti-ships missions?

A nice DF room with a Pacific falvour...

And its not about if the Japaneese win or lose, its about being able to fly as both sides with a decent chance (inside realistic margins) of being able to acomplish a mission.

You allready won the war, what are you so worried about?

If you get wonder planes and wonder ships, don´t ask yourself later why nobady wants to fly as opposition in an ON line server or war....

I would whine just the same if the request shuold be to make Japaneese AAA impasable...

I have no preference in sides, I just want to be able to fly BOTH sides and have fun with it.

I repeat this is not an anti-american, nor a pro-japannese bias, I want reasonablly (within historical manrgins) balanced sides.

Atomic_Marten
08-13-2004, 03:21 PM
Baco I agree on AA guns. Back in WW2 they were inaccurate big time, and in no way they have killing rate as ones we have in IL-2. I've read Jon Lake's "Battle Of Britain" and he claims in that book that AA guns in that period of war were no more than a tool to disrupt/drow attention of enemy A/C and allow friendly fighters to see enemy formation. So that way bombers could miss their target and such.

And that is clearly shown by low number of enemy A/C downed by flak in BoB... also there were some friendly casualties in BoB caused by flak (I also have experience of getting shot down by friendly flak in IL-2 -so in this occasion IL-2 is correctly modelled- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif).

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

Yellonet
08-13-2004, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
...make a sort of Ship AA meter, were in difficulty you can adjust how many AA guns ship have, ie, Real Amount, medium amount, and very low amounts. just an idea for realisms sake.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very good suggestion. I like it. This would please most people.

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

Baco-ECV56
08-13-2004, 04:53 PM
All I want are well balanced numbers between posible attaking planes and AAA present. So if in PF we cant have more than leets say 12 aircarft during an attak when the ral number would be around 40 to 60, then we should not have the real number of AAA but the right relation.

lets say that 12 planes is about 1/6th of a real life attacking force, tehn ships should have about 1/6th of the real guns it had.

If later ships had arround 94 guns, in PF it should have about 16 guns.

Now bear in mind that 16 guns on one ship onlly is still suicidal in FB and and an entire formation of B-25 doesn´t survive a bomb run with that amount of AAA.

Try it, place 10 20/25 mm guns and 6 88/80mm and put a flight of 12 B-25 to attack an object in the middle...

And naval AAA in FB is quite more acurate...

Try the same example with the Tripitz and see how many airplanes survive, choose whatever plane you like...

I know it was suicidal in RL, I know that Taskforces defenses should be hell to attack pilots, but remember that in Real life there were other 60 planes with you, and in PF you will have onlly 12 to 20. (including Fighter cover)

So how realistic would be to pit 20 planes aggainst 94 guns?

Jason Bourne
08-13-2004, 05:35 PM
man, you didnt read did you? there were times in major battles in the Pacific when you could only throw around 16 aircraft at the enemy fleet. and remember, the 96 40mm guns, those are total over teh entire ship.

Atomic_Marten
08-14-2004, 01:29 PM
http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/images/smiles/flamethrower.gif

It would be nice if we can choose skill level for AA guns... just a sugestion. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

Pentallion
08-16-2004, 02:33 AM
Jason YOU don't read do you? In IL2 a single gun is worth FOUR guns in real life, at least. So even if you dumbed down a ships guns by one fourth you'd still have the same firepower as the real thing. You'd just save a little on frame rates (probably for only the high end machines though and even for them it would probably be a lag fest).
Plus, those guns all fire with laser-guided precision, unlike the real thing.

So to make PF a PLAYABLE game, ship AAA would have to be:
1) dumbed down so it's not laser-guided effective.
2) reduced in numbers of guns so the game won't lock up.

This would more than be offset by the fact that there are less planes to attack with.

One other thing: Back up your claim that small groups of planes inflicted significant damage on heavily armed ships. Give us links to a LOT of battles where this happened.

http://www.simops.com/249th/sigs/Wildcard.jpg

McCallaway
08-16-2004, 02:47 AM
The cool thing, IMO, would be to have realistic naval AA fire (ie not laser guided) in realistic number. Since, as stated, we wont be able to put 100 planes in the air to attack a fleet protected with as many planes, why not just have less planes and less ships, instead of less planes and less guns-by-ship.

Then of course the possibility to choose the number of guns and skill of gunners would be a cool addition.

Flydutch
08-16-2004, 07:31 AM
What we realy need for realism is the element of suprise!
Often the one succsesfull Air Attack would happen if the Ship was caught by suprise with the aid of a low cloud or attacking from the blinding sun or at low light.

So AI gunners shouldn't be able to view what humans can't!
Right now the Clouds and the Sun are just eye candy for Ofline players, and a unrealistic edge for the AI!

Tater-SW-
08-16-2004, 08:00 AM
At the very least ships/ground AA needs a new property or two:

1. Alert state. This would be a timeout for shooting. Either a field with minutes like the other timeouts, or a few presets (peacetime = 5-10 minutes before AAA shoots, normal wartime = 2 minutes (time to get to GQ), GQ = ready to shoot).

2. Shooting timeout. This would set a time period, after which ships would be considered at GQ.

1 and 2 are diufferent. With just number 2, you could set your waypoints in the FMB so the ships don't fire until you clear some clouds (since in the FMB you know where the clouds are). The first timeout would be from the time the ships WOULD HAVE shot at you normally. If the value is 5 minutes, then the ships wouldn't shoot until 5 minutes after the first shot they would have normally fired. This would allow missions where you don't know when you find any given target.


tater