Why are 12" guns so much more accurate than any other guns?

[neph]

Seriously, just compare the stats. Regardless of mark, year, or # of barrels, the 12" is insanely accurate comparatively.

 

Comparison: penetration:

vs accuracy:

The coloring's slightly off; 13" are mark Vs.

You'll note that 9", 12", and 15" are all quite exceptional. 12" in particular is more accurate than any other weapon out to 10,000 m. After that, the 15" is better.

You'll also note that it's a relatively continuous increase in mass with caliber, but there's a serious leap at 18" and a huge one at 20". There's pretty much no reason to ever use 18", however--19" is almost the same mass, cost (not shown), accuracy, but much better punching power. Never noticed that before.

This is for a plausible 1940s build: TNT IV, Triple Base, Stereoscopic V+Gen II radar (so you'll note that this is with a buff to very long range), semi-auto, standard loading. All guns compared are twin turrets.

Thanks for taking a look.

Edited February 25, 2022 by neph

[Candle_86]

Not sure, but I still prefer 16's because they do more damage

[AurumCorvus]

Iirc, 12" are a breakpoint. Like how 15s and 16s (or to a lesser extent 16s and 17s) are vastly different, with one being far more accurate, but the other being much more powerful.

My belief is that part of the reason for the 12in gun in particular, is that it was used a lot in the real world, and IRL designers got really good at designing it (especially since 12in guns had their final heyday during the Anglo-German naval race.) Unlike the bigger calibers past 12, 12in was somewhat used in the pre-dread era as well.

Tl;Dr 12in guns were built a lot, RL designers got really good, stats are biased. I disclaim liability for inaccuracies.

[neph]

10 hours ago, AurumCorvus said:

Iirc, 12" are a breakpoint. Like how 15s and 16s (or to a lesser extent 16s and 17s) are vastly different, with one being far more accurate, but the other being much more powerful.

My belief is that part of the reason for the 12in gun in particular, is that it was used a lot in the real world, and IRL designers got really good at designing it (especially since 12in guns had their final heyday during the Anglo-German naval race.) Unlike the bigger calibers past 12, 12in was somewhat used in the pre-dread era as well.

Tl;Dr 12in guns were built a lot, RL designers got really good, stats are biased. I disclaim liability for inaccuracies.

That was my interpretation as well--although it seems like something that ought to be handled by the gun quality/mark system?

[midge]

To be fair 12" Guns are only more accurate at close ranges (within ~15000m) once you get beyond that, most of the Larger caliber guns will begin to outperform the 12" guns. It's just that in 99% of situations accuracy at that range is so low, that it's barely worth opening fire.

I would agree with @AurumCorvus, that the 12" guns accuracy also comes from the fact, that they are a very matured design, being used right through from the pre-dread Era all the way to the end of the game and beyond, seeing constant improvement in that timeframe.

[Candle_86]

27 minutes ago, midge said:

To be fair 12" Guns are only more accurate at close ranges (within ~15000m) once you get beyond that, most of the Larger caliber guns will begin to outperform the 12" guns. It's just that in 99% of situations accuracy at that range is so low, that it's barely worth opening fire.

I would agree with @AurumCorvus, that the 12" guns accuracy also comes from the fact, that they are a very matured design, being used right through from the pre-dread Era all the way to the end of the game and beyond, seeing constant improvement in that timeframe.

Maybe but historically the most accurate Naval Rifles where the American 16/50 Mk7 and the Brittish BL15 Mk1 

[midge]

12 minutes ago, Candle_86 said:

Maybe but historically the most accurate Naval Rifles where the American 16/50 Mk7 and the Brittish BL15 Mk1 

Yes, but we currently don't have specific stat profiles for Weapons from different nations. If you average out across all nations I think 12" guns are probably the ones, that are the most consistently good. In fact, it is arguably Britains relative lack of success in further developing the 12" gun (Resulting in the rather poor BL 12 Mark XI and XII), compared to other nations, that ultimately led them to developing the BL 15 Mk. 1

It does Bring up an Interesting point, that the current research system, both in custom Battles and in Campaign, doesn't really allow you to prioritize specific calibers for development, or implement any sort of variability in the quality of any specific gun design.

[Littorio]

2 hours ago, Candle_86 said:

Maybe but historically the most accurate Naval Rifles where the American 16/50 Mk7 and the Brittish BL15 Mk1 

 

1 hour ago, midge said:

Yes, but we currently don't have specific stat profiles for Weapons from different nations. If you average out across all nations I think 12" guns are probably the ones, that are the most consistently good. In fact, it is arguably Britains relative lack of success in further developing the 12" gun (Resulting in the rather poor BL 12 Mark XI and XII), compared to other nations, that ultimately led them to developing the BL 15 Mk. 1

It does Bring up an Interesting point, that the current research system, both in custom Battles and in Campaign, doesn't really allow you to prioritize specific calibers for development, or implement any sort of variability in the quality of any specific gun design.

 

I can't wait to see national profiles for weapons, but that will take time for specific naval rifles. Accuracy aside, it would be interesting to see what ranges would be.

Contrary to popular belief, the longest range naval rifles ever fielded were not the guns on the Yamato class, but the Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 on Littorio and her sisters. These guns could reach almost 43km at maximum elevation, despite being significantly smaller than the weapons on Yamato and Musashi.

For further comparison, the Iowa's guns made it to just over 38km, Nelson's 36 and change, Bismarck's 35 and change, and KGV's 14in weapons slightly less than Bismarck's. Of course, high barrel wear on Littorio's guns was the downside...an interesting thing to think about if this game ever gets that far. Will gun's have to be serviced and maintained in order to keep range/accuracy?

At this point we have no logistics whatsoever but it's an intriguing thought exercise.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Littorio

[Candle_86]

9 minutes ago, Littorio said:

 

 

I can't wait to see national profiles for weapons, but that will take time for specific naval rifles. Accuracy aside, it would be interesting to see what ranges would be.

Contrary to popular belief, the longest range naval rifles ever fielded were not the guns on the Yamato class, but the Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 on Littorio and her sisters. These guns could reach almost 43km at maximum elevation, despite being significantly smaller than the weapons on Yamato and Musashi.

For further comparison, the Iowa's guns made it to just over 38km, Nelson's 36 and change, Bismarck's 35 and change, and KGV's 14in weapons slightly less than Bismarck's. Of course, high barrel wear on Littorio's guns was the downside...an interesting thing to think about if this game ever gets that far. Will gun's have to be serviced and maintained in order to keep range/accuracy?

At this point we have no logistics whatsoever but it's an intriguing thought exercise.

long range yes, but not as accurate as the 16/50 or the BL15

[Littorio]

21 minutes ago, Candle_86 said:

long range yes, but not as accurate as the 16/50 or the BL15

...? I know. I did not state otherwise. I was making a comment on range, which is why I literally said: "Accuracy aside, it would be interesting to see what ranges would be"...

[AurumCorvus]

4 hours ago, Candle_86 said:

Maybe but historically the most accurate Naval Rifles where the American 16/50 Mk7 and the Brittish BL15 Mk1 

I would be a bit careful with the 16"/50 Mk7 claim. Technically, yes, the American 16"/50 Mk7 is historically, across all naval guns, the most accurate.

However, the NavWeaps article (linked) that started/spread that claim has some important caveats. The claim is based out of a test firing in 1987, with the main guns having radar-aided fire control, a modern digital fire control system, and better propellant consistency.

But, that's not to say that the Mk7 was a widely inaccurate gun that relied on modern systems to become useful. The barrels and the gun were built very well, and it was definitely a match for the top-end of battleship guns (especially since it was a 16" gun that probably handily defeat the other guns in damage potential). It's just the claim of "historically most accurate" requires proper disclaimers. That test firing used improvements from a bit more than 40 years after the end of WWII, which pushes it over the top of every other gun.

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

8 hours ago, Littorio said:

 

 

I can't wait to see national profiles for weapons, but that will take time for specific naval rifles. Accuracy aside, it would be interesting to see what ranges would be.

Contrary to popular belief, the longest range naval rifles ever fielded were not the guns on the Yamato class, but the Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 on Littorio and her sisters. These guns could reach almost 43km at maximum elevation, despite being significantly smaller than the weapons on Yamato and Musashi.

For further comparison, the Iowa's guns made it to just over 38km, Nelson's 36 and change, Bismarck's 35 and change, and KGV's 14in weapons slightly less than Bismarck's. Of course, high barrel wear on Littorio's guns was the downside...an interesting thing to think about if this game ever gets that far. Will gun's have to be serviced and maintained in order to keep range/accuracy?

At this point we have no logistics whatsoever but it's an intriguing thought exercise.

Italian guns were also very, _very_ accurate - their ammo production sucked, however.

Drachinifel explained this in one of his videos which I can't, for the life of me, find right now (essentially, the tolerances in how much propellant would be put in were way too large, making the shells land all over the place).

 

[Littorio]

44 minutes ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

Italian guns were also very, _very_ accurate - their ammo production sucked, however.

Drachinifel explained this in one of his videos which I can't, for the life of me, find right now (essentially, the tolerances in how much propellant would be put in were way too large, making the shells land all over the place).

 

Yes...my poor Littorio sadly was never used to it's full potential...kinda like all Axis ships lol. I'll have to watch that Drachinfel video though. Shells gimped what would have otherwise been a fine weapons system.

[neph]

Please check the original post again. I've updated it with hard numbers.

[Candle_86]

2 hours ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

Italian guns were also very, _very_ accurate - their ammo production sucked, however.

Drachinifel explained this in one of his videos which I can't, for the life of me, find right now (essentially, the tolerances in how much propellant would be put in were way too large, making the shells land all over the place).

 

Battleship Guns of WW2 - A series of tubes - YouTube

[AurumCorvus]

9 hours ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

Italian guns were also very, _very_ accurate - their ammo production sucked, however.

Drachinifel explained this in one of his videos which I can't, for the life of me, find right now (essentially, the tolerances in how much propellant would be put in were way too large, making the shells land all over the place).

 

Apart from @Candle_86's video (in which he does explore it quite a bit), he obliquely references it in a lot of drydock answers. It's one of his standard examples of why gun accuracy doesn't just rely on barrel and fire control. Well, that and the Japanese Type-96 AA guns' mounting.

But more specifically, in Drydock Episode 23 at the 11:21 mark, he points out that the Italians were often straddling the target, but failed to actually hit British cruisers.

He also talks about very specific weights and tolerances in Drydock Episode 78 at the 32:51 mark as well as more generally in Drydock Episode 37 at the 23:28 mark, where he explains that even a 1% tolerance can be huge. In Episode 37, though he defers on the exact weights, he does mention some of the more extreme spreads, where he mentions you can fit a ship underneath some Italian spreads.

[SpardaSon21]

On 2/24/2022 at 12:23 PM, Littorio said:

 

 

I can't wait to see national profiles for weapons, but that will take time for specific naval rifles. Accuracy aside, it would be interesting to see what ranges would be.

Contrary to popular belief, the longest range naval rifles ever fielded were not the guns on the Yamato class, but the Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 on Littorio and her sisters. These guns could reach almost 43km at maximum elevation, despite being significantly smaller than the weapons on Yamato and Musashi.

For further comparison, the Iowa's guns made it to just over 38km, Nelson's 36 and change, Bismarck's 35 and change, and KGV's 14in weapons slightly less than Bismarck's. Of course, high barrel wear on Littorio's guns was the downside...an interesting thing to think about if this game ever gets that far. Will gun's have to be serviced and maintained in order to keep range/accuracy?

At this point we have no logistics whatsoever but it's an intriguing thought exercise.

Barrel wear is represented by a reduced accuracy stat.  Of course, that's no big deal in-game since with a range bracket like that a reduced base accuracy is entirely irrelevant.

 

23 hours ago, AurumCorvus said:

I would be a bit careful with the 16"/50 Mk7 claim. Technically, yes, the American 16"/50 Mk7 is historically, across all naval guns, the most accurate.

However, the NavWeaps article (linked) that started/spread that claim has some important caveats. The claim is based out of a test firing in 1987, with the main guns having radar-aided fire control, a modern digital fire control system, and better propellant consistency.

But, that's not to say that the Mk7 was a widely inaccurate gun that relied on modern systems to become useful. The barrels and the gun were built very well, and it was definitely a match for the top-end of battleship guns (especially since it was a 16" gun that probably handily defeat the other guns in damage potential). It's just the claim of "historically most accurate" requires proper disclaimers. That test firing used improvements from a bit more than 40 years after the end of WWII, which pushes it over the top of every other gun.

Even in WW2 though propellant consistency was extremely good.  Keep in mind that the USA had been using bitch-basic single-base nitrocellulose for decades by the time the Iowas entered service, so we were very good at making large batches to high quality, and had no end of effort taken to ensure stable storage.  It wasn't until the very end of the war we switched to a more modern propellant with the triple-base SPCG.

That's right people.  The 16"/50, perhaps the finest battleship gun ever built, was using modernized Ballistite to achieve that performance.

Edited February 25, 2022 by SpardaSon21

[Candle_86]

23 hours ago, AurumCorvus said:

I would be a bit careful with the 16"/50 Mk7 claim. Technically, yes, the American 16"/50 Mk7 is historically, across all naval guns, the most accurate.

However, the NavWeaps article (linked) that started/spread that claim has some important caveats. The claim is based out of a test firing in 1987, with the main guns having radar-aided fire control, a modern digital fire control system, and better propellant consistency.

But, that's not to say that the Mk7 was a widely inaccurate gun that relied on modern systems to become useful. The barrels and the gun were built very well, and it was definitely a match for the top-end of battleship guns (especially since it was a 16" gun that probably handily defeat the other guns in damage potential). It's just the claim of "historically most accurate" requires proper disclaimers. That test firing used improvements from a bit more than 40 years after the end of WWII, which pushes it over the top of every other gun.

 

To add the 16/50 refit in the 80's upgraded the radar but they used the same fire control equipment from WW2, and in WW2 it was also radar controlled. If you look closely at the 80's refit they didn't see any reason to replace the mechanical fire control system as it was already so accurate it was pointless to replace it. 

[AurumCorvus]

42 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Even in WW2 though propellant consistency was extremely good.

Absolutely not contesting this. Like I tried to emphasize in my post, The 16"/50 is a very, very good gun, and the US Navy did a very fine job with it in nearly everything. All I'm urging is proper disclaimers to the very specific superlative of "historically best ever."

12 minutes ago, Candle_86 said:

To add the 16/50 refit in the 80's upgraded the radar but they used the same fire control equipment from WW2, and in WW2 it was also radar controlled. If you look closely at the 80's refit they didn't see any reason to replace the mechanical fire control system as it was already so accurate it was pointless to replace it. 

Not entirely. Iowa had a very odd mix of some parts being upgraded and some not. If you go back to the article I linked for the post, you'll note the mention of a Mark 160 FCS. That's a much more modern system, often used with the Mark 34s on Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas.

At the moment, I am lacking specific written sources. I will however direct you to Drachinifel's interview with Captain Larry Seaquist at the 22:35 mark, where he mentions comparing both modern and original fire control equipment. Also, please note that Captain Seaquist was the captain of the Iowa during the 1987 Crete firing test that gives the 16/50" its moniker of the the "historically best ever". Captain Seaquist himself states that the original system was more accurate, of course. I am, of course, inclined to believe him (he was the guy on the scene), but I will note that the Iowa had both systems.

[SpardaSon21]

57 minutes ago, AurumCorvus said:

Absolutely not contesting this. Like I tried to emphasize in my post, The 16"/50 is a very, very good gun, and the US Navy did a very fine job with it in nearly everything. All I'm urging is proper disclaimers to the very specific superlative of "historically best e

Quite fair, although when you take its extremely light weight and compact size into account (several tons less than the British 16"/45 under development when you add in the necessary counterweights for that gun), even if its accuracy is a bit below people say it is, having a 16"/50 that's about ten tons lighter than a 16"/45 that can shove a projectile a few hundred pounds heavier at 50 more feet per second at the muzzle is hard to beat.

Not that that's out of the ordinary.  The final versions of the US 8"/55 were a ton or so less than the Japanese 8"/50 Takao and Myoko got.  Granted, the earlier version was pretty terrible  in regards to weight, but even the US will have its turds.

[Candle_86]

16 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Quite fair, although when you take its extremely light weight and compact size into account (several tons less than the British 16"/45 under development when you add in the necessary counterweights for that gun), even if its accuracy is a bit below people say it is, having a 16"/50 that's about ten tons lighter than a 16"/45 that can shove a projectile a few hundred pounds heavier at 50 more feet per second at the muzzle is hard to beat.

Not that that's out of the ordinary.  The final versions of the US 8"/55 were a ton or so less than the Japanese 8"/50 Takao and Myoko got.  Granted, the earlier version was pretty terrible  in regards to weight, but even the US will have its turds.

The irony is it was never supposed to have the Mark7 gun, the orginal plan was to use the 16/50 Mark2's built for the South Dakota and Lexington Class ships, but CnR and Bourd messed up and the turrents wern't built strong enough or large enough to fit triple 16/50 Mk2's so they had to design the Mk7 quickly, turned into a rather smart and great gun.