Turret accuracy malice

[Danelin Aruna]

Why do three gun turrets get a accuracy penalty? ive seen this but for the life of me i have no idea why this? I know the reason why the germans used two gun turrets on there modern battleships in WW2, it had to do with loading mechanisms which made there turrets bigger then other nations such as the US. But ive seen the malice pop up in 1920 games when i added three guns to cruisers and battleships and it makes no sense to me so could someone explain it to me?

[madham82]

I know interference from the tightly grouped barrels (think like USS Arizona) was a thing. I believe most countries solved this by delayed firing of 3 or more barrels. ATM the game doesn't really simulate solutions to this. The idea behind it may be more gameplay balance related.

On a related note, I know the weights were not right on triple/quad turrets at one time. Not sure if that was ever fixed. 

[Danelin Aruna]

1 minute ago, madham82 said:

I know interference from the tightly grouped barrels (think like USS Arizona) was a thing. I believe most countries solved this by delayed firing of 3 or more barrels. ATM the game doesn't really simulate solutions to this. The idea behind it may be more gameplay balance related.

On a related note, I know the weights were not right on triple/quad turrets at one time. Not sure if that was ever fixed. 

thanks didn't know that about interference, and every time I've seen pictures or vids of Battleships firing its always been staggered, so that makes sense. But i still dont think there should be a massive drop to accuracy in the game for it. and i have noticed a massive difference in turret weight between 2 and 3 guns. But i think its still to high, adding an extra gun to three turrets, for 9 guns weighs more then having 4 turrets with 2 guns. I think having 4 guns with two turrets would weigh more then 3 turrets with 3 guns, as you don't need the extra barbette and magazine. But again i may be wrong on that.

[Hardlec]

I have rather scant information on why triple turrets have to suffer a penalty.  There was no mention of triple turrets having problems in WWI or later.

KGV, Dunkirk and Richelieu seemed to have had teething problems, but little or nothing after that.  

Even so, there seems to be a penalty assessed if you stray from the 2-gun turret, two turrets fore and two turrets aft configuration.

 

[madham82]

12 hours ago, Hardlec said:

I have rather scant information on why triple turrets have to suffer a penalty.  There was no mention of triple turrets having problems in WWI or later.

KGV, Dunkirk and Richelieu seemed to have had teething problems, but little or nothing after that.  

Even so, there seems to be a penalty assessed if you stray from the 2-gun turret, two turrets fore and two turrets aft configuration.

 

There weren't many triple setups in WW1. Most came about later. The US Navy was the one I remember primarily with the issue. Also the quads all seemed to have issues with reliability vs. accuracy. My guess is you would have to dig but find most navies solved the interference issues with similar techniques. Here's some good reading from Navweaps:

Salvos could be fired as full salvos, where all guns were discharged more or less simultaneously, as partial salvos, where half the main battery (usually either the forward after group) fired together, or as split salvos, where one gun of each turret fired together. Each system had its own advantages and disadvantages. Full salvos looked spectacular, but resulted in relatively large patterns which were difficult to spot and which arrived at relatively long intervals, thus making corrections difficult. Partial salvos reduced the pattern size, made spotting easier, and meant that corrections could be made (on the average) twice as often. Split salvos, due to the extreme separation of the guns, lead to the greatest accuracy and, theoretically, to the highest rate of fire as the director could fire as soon as any arbitrarily selected number of guns was ready to shoot.13

The Navy started experimenting with delay coils - simple mechanisms which prevented adjacent guns from discharging absolutely simultaneously - about 1935. Prior to the installation of delay coils, shells fired in salvo could travel in such a tight formation that they could actually collide, or "kiss" in flight, a phenomena which could be occasionally observed through binoculars. The velocity difference between projectiles traveling in salvo was so small - often less than ten feet per second - that shells fired very slightly late, and perhaps traveling very slightly faster than their counterparts, could spend a considerable amount of time in the confused air stirred up by the leading shells in the group. This increased their drag and made them fall short. An associated problem was that shells were often disturbed by the muzzle blast of an adjacent gun, especially if the muzzles were close together. The resultant wobble also increased the drag. The net result was a considerable number of "wild-shorts," i.e., shells which fell far enough short to be completely out of the pattern.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery.php#notesnote14.1back

Edited December 8, 2021 by madham82

[TBRSIM]

And anyways, the interference effect would be on precision (pattern size), not accuracy (aimpoint distance to actual target position at time of impact). But the game does not (yet?) model precision and accuracy separately, which is a shame. Sometimes too much precision is even a bad thing since it can reduce hit probability per salvo if accuracy is low.

[Intrepid_Arty]

18 hours ago, madham82 said:

There weren't many triple setups in WW1. Most came about later. The US Navy was the one I remember primarily with the issue. Also the quads all seemed to have issues with reliability vs. accuracy. My guess is you would have to dig but find most navies solved the interference issues with similar techniques. Here's some good reading from Navweaps:

Salvos could be fired as full salvos, where all guns were discharged more or less simultaneously, as partial salvos, where half the main battery (usually either the forward after group) fired together, or as split salvos, where one gun of each turret fired together. Each system had its own advantages and disadvantages. Full salvos looked spectacular, but resulted in relatively large patterns which were difficult to spot and which arrived at relatively long intervals, thus making corrections difficult. Partial salvos reduced the pattern size, made spotting easier, and meant that corrections could be made (on the average) twice as often. Split salvos, due to the extreme separation of the guns, lead to the greatest accuracy and, theoretically, to the highest rate of fire as the director could fire as soon as any arbitrarily selected number of guns was ready to shoot.13

The Navy started experimenting with delay coils - simple mechanisms which prevented adjacent guns from discharging absolutely simultaneously - about 1935. Prior to the installation of delay coils, shells fired in salvo could travel in such a tight formation that they could actually collide, or "kiss" in flight, a phenomena which could be occasionally observed through binoculars. The velocity difference between projectiles traveling in salvo was so small - often less than ten feet per second - that shells fired very slightly late, and perhaps traveling very slightly faster than their counterparts, could spend a considerable amount of time in the confused air stirred up by the leading shells in the group. This increased their drag and made them fall short. An associated problem was that shells were often disturbed by the muzzle blast of an adjacent gun, especially if the muzzles were close together. The resultant wobble also increased the drag. The net result was a considerable number of "wild-shorts," i.e., shells which fell far enough short to be completely out of the pattern.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery.php#notesnote14.1back

While this didn't have anything to do with accuracy, I do think it's also worth pointing out that the Austro-hungarians had issues with their triple turret design as well, specifically poor ventilation leading to gun crew passing out, which isn't exactly an ideal situation.

[DougToss]

31 minutes ago, TBRSIM said:

And anyways, the interference effect would be on precision (pattern size), not accuracy (aimpoint distance to actual target position at time of impact). But the game does not (yet?) model precision and accuracy separately, which is a shame. Sometimes too much precision is even a bad thing since it can reduce hit probability per salvo if accuracy is low.

This is one of many reasons I think the gunnery model is in need of a very serious overhaul.