Log Creation
#21
Posted 07 June 2009 - 12:59 PM
#22
Posted 07 June 2009 - 05:07 PM
#23
Posted 17 June 2009 - 09:48 AM
#24
Posted 17 June 2009 - 02:16 PM
#25
Posted 23 June 2009 - 02:48 AM
#26
Posted 24 June 2009 - 02:03 AM
#27
Posted 24 June 2009 - 08:43 AM
#28
Posted 25 June 2009 - 01:26 AM
#29
Posted 30 July 2009 - 01:27 AM
#30
Posted 04 August 2009 - 12:46 PM
#31
Posted 08 May 2011 - 12:30 PM
Cheers
#32
Posted 12 May 2011 - 03:09 AM
When looking navweaps at gun data I take it I need to look at range and armour penetration. But, I'm not sure what to do next so I can use it for extending some gunnery charts. I may well be being thick, this happens from time to time, but any help would be cool.
Cheers
Sorry about the late reply (bad case of work overlaod!).
Actually, you're not being thick at all. Creating ship logs is relatively easy (when the data is available), creating Gunnery CRTs is another matter altogether. While Navweaps is a very good site, it doesn't necessarily have enough detail to adequately create a CRT for a particular gun. To create the penetration values requires extensive penetration data (deck and belt) over range. You'll also need to know the type of shell in use (new, better designed shells, such as the RN's 'Green Boys' gave better performance). For the 'to hit' numbers, you need to know the fire control system in use as well as the raw ballistics of the gun in question. So, as you can see, it's can be pretty daunting to come up with a gunnery chart for a new gun.
Now, all that being said, you can generate a 'good enough' chart for a new gun if that gun has performance similar to an already existing gun. The best method is to check data for the gun you wish to add against similar guns already on the charts (interestingly enough, many guns of the same caliber and length have similar performance). The penetration data of a similar gun can be used. For the 'to hit' numbers, I'd use the same numbers for similar guns of the navy for the new gun (ie, for a large caliber gun, use the large gun values already in place for that navy since they already model the fire control system and doctrine).
BTW, which gun are looking to add? I might be able to lend a hand.
#33
Posted 13 May 2011 - 10:28 AM
Firstly the 406 mm/50 Pattern 1937 and the 305 mm/55 B-50 Pattern 1940 for the USSR
and also the 18"/45 Mark II for the royal navy.
Cheers for the help as well. The USSR pack inspired to tinka with some what ifs
#34
Posted 15 May 2011 - 06:16 PM
I was looking at a couple
Firstly the 406 mm/50 Pattern 1937 and the 305 mm/55 B-50 Pattern 1940 for the USSR
and also the 18"/45 Mark II for the royal navy.
Cheers for the help as well. The USSR pack inspired to tinka with some what ifs
Ouch! Those are not an easy trio. First, only one of these three were actually built (the Russian 406mm/50 B-37) and none were ever ship mounted. So the data, at best, is theoretical and, therefore, very limited. In almost all cases with gun performance, actually in use performance never lived up to proving ground performance (much less, proposed performance). Additionally, much of the Russian data (what little there is) can only be considered highly suspect. For example, when developing the CRT for the Russian supplement, many sources had to consulted, and in some cases, it still came down to a 'best guess' situation based on the information at hand (and that was with in service weapons). So for the two Russian guns, I'd have to say that we just don't have enough good information to make a reasonable CRT.
For the RN 18"/45 Mark II the situation is not much better. First, there is no firm data on the adopted AP round. The proposed 2916 lbs. light weight round was based on what would turn out to be a flawed theory (which was also used for the 16"/45 Mark I to it's detriment) and would've resulted in considerably less penetration performance. Since no penetration data exists for this shell (even theoretical, and given the flawed design, suspect), determining penetration values would be impossible. Second, in the immediate post WWI period, the RN thoroughly revamped their fire control systems and doctrine, based on the lessons learned in combat. While the 'to hit' numbers can be reasonably determined, it would require considerable research (at this point, all that can be said is that they'd fall somewhere between the WWI numbers and the WWII numbers, exactly where is the question).
Determing CRT values can be a difficult job, even with well known weapons with large volumes of data. When you move into the realm of the 'proposed but never builts' where the data is scant or non-existent, it becomes nigh impossible.
#35
Posted 16 May 2011 - 03:32 PM
I might just have to settle for a best fit situation which isn't great but as Navwar are making these fine ships and I want to use them for my 'what if the Washington treaty sunk' campaign/project, it might have to be the case. Thanks coastal though for your help!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users