Real World versus The Arcade

[Snargfargle]

The "shell" hits above show real world dispersion for an actual "naval salvo" fired at the equivalent of about 16 km. And they look reasonably-sized in relation to the ship model too for, let's say a 16-inch (406 mm) shell fired from something like an Iowa, don't they?

Or do they? Those are .22 caliber (5.56 mm) bullet holes fired from 25 yards. Let's see what size of shell they would be on an actual Koenig and what distance they would have been fired at.

The Koenig was 175.4 m or 175400 mm long. That scale model is 10 inches or 254 mm long. 5.56 mm / 175400 mm :: x / 254, solve for x = 3840 mm! That would be a 151-inch or 12-foot shell!

That can't be right?! Well, yes it can. Here is a 15-inch shell hole in the French battleship Dunkerque. It looks pretty big compared to that sailor.

Until you zoom out and realize that you can barely see the sailors on the Dunkerque.

.22 caliber bullet holes look like they would be a reasonable size for 16-inch shell holes on a ten-inch model of a ship, right? Nope, those portholes are.

A real 16-inch (406 mm) shell hole on a 10-inch model of the Koenig would be a tiny 1/32-inch dot. This shows how size-inflated the arcade world is, which it has to be or we'd never see our shells flying through the air or hitting the enemy ships in WOWS.

Koenig length 175,400 mm / length on paper 254 mm :: x  / Shooting distance 22,860 mm; x = Equivalent salvo distance 15,786,000 mm (15.8 km).

@Ensign Cthulhu did an analysis of my .22 salvo's dispersion on the target Koenig and what damage a real-world dispersion of nine 16-inch shells from an Iowa broadside salvo fired at a distance of 15.8 km might cause.

1. Probably bounces off the belt. If it goes through at the angle the picture suggests, it will probably wreck ammo hoists for the forward 5.9 inch casemates. There may be an ammunition fire, which Teutonic efficiency will most likely control. It will probably not have enough residual energy to go through the barbette trunk for B turret.

2. Smashes up some non-critical stuff before impacting the barbette. At 15.8km it may not have the energy to go through. If it does, it will explode in the ammunition hoists. The Germans ran a tight ship (pun intended) with respect to ammunition safety and magazine interlocks, so you will probably lose the turret at worst (as multiple German battlecruisers did at Jutland).

3. May penetrate the forward belt. A bunch of non-critical stuff will get wrecked. If the shell passes through, it will probably cause flooding on the exit side.

4. May penetrate the forward belt. There will be flooding and a bunch of non-critical stuff will get further wrecked after hit #3.

5. Clean miss, passing into the water beneath the hull.

6. Underwater trajectory entering forward of the torpedo belt. Controllable flooding.

7, 8, 9. Clear miss.

 

Edited February 27 by Snargfargle

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Shell parameters in game are not representative of real life ballistic behavior.

Assuming the dispersion of individually fired 0.22 round ammunition is close enough to salvo fired 16inch ammunition, from different types of firing mechanisms with different fire control systems in different mountings...is somewhat laughable.

So, what is the point of this thread? Trying to figure out how serious to take it.

😉

[Snargfargle]

25 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Shell parameters in game are not representative of real life ballistic behavior. Assuming the dispersion of individually fired 0.22 round ammunition is close enough to salvo fired 16inch ammunition, from different types of firing mechanisms with different fire control systems in different mountings...is somewhat laughable.

I was in the 21st Field Artillery Regiment.

 

Our 8-inch shell splashes at 16 km were pretty close to the dispersion I get from from firing my .22 at 25 yards. I can attested to this personally as I've observed them up close from forward-observer positions.

What I'm getting at here is that the "RNG" shell dispersion in WOWS isn't all that much different from the real-world dispersion of actual artillery shells. People in the game complain that the "RNG" causes them to miss or not hit vital parts of the target ship sufficiently but this also occurs in real life too.

Edited February 27 by Snargfargle

[Admiral_Karasu]

For me the dispersion itself hasn't been the problem so much as the wonky targeting mechanism. I suppose that's one of the drawbacks of having an arcade approach, though I have to wonder if any other solution wouldn't have been equally fair as whatever the mechanism was, it would be the same for everyone.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

I was in the 21st Field Artillery Regiment.

 

Our 8-inch shell splashes at 16 km were pretty close to the dispersion I get from from firing my .22 at 25 yards. I can attested to this personally as I've observed them up close from forward-observer positions.

What I'm getting at here is that the "RNG" shell dispersion in WOWS isn't all that much different from the real-world dispersion of actual artillery shells. People in the game complain that the "RNG" causes them to miss or not hit vital parts of the target ship sufficiently but this also occurs in real life too.

The main frustration for me is how over accurate a lot of ships are...this really makes the game meta more boring, in actual practice.

[Snargfargle]

6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The main frustration for me is how over accurate a lot of ships are...this really makes the game meta more boring, in actual practice.

During the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, the USS Washington fired "a total of seventy five main caliber rounds and 107 5-inch AA common rounds" at the Kirishima at a range of 8400 yards (7.7 km), hitting it 20 times with the main battery, which would give it a 27% hit accuracy at that distance. 

 

 

http://navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

13 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

During the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, the USS Washington fired "a total of seventy five main caliber rounds and 107 5-inch AA common rounds" at the Kirishima at a range of 8400 yards (7.7 km), hitting it 20 times with the main battery, which would give it a 27% hit accuracy at that distance. 

 

 

http://navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf

 

 

That is 2-3 shells per salvo of nine hitting at close range.

In game we would expect to see six or more of our nine shells hitting at that range for these ships (tier 8).

Higher tiers is even better accuracy.

This is too much, IMO.

People hide behind islands more than they should for precisely this reason. High tier ships are just too lethal.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

17 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

People hide behind islands more than they should for precisely this reason.

People hide behind islands because they're gutless cowards who don't want to fight. 

[Admiral_Karasu]

3 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

People hide behind islands because they're gutless cowards who don't want to fight. 

If my theory about the islands being magnetic is true that is an uncalled for accusation.

[Snargfargle]

35 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

People hide behind islands more than they should for precisely this reason. High tier ships are just too lethal.

That's almost exactly what a captain told me in Basic Training.

"Take cover behind that berm, sniper bullets through the heart are lethal."

My drill sergeant was a bit more blunt.

"Damn it, private, that stump you're hiding behind wouldn't stop a BB gun."

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

6 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

That's almost exactly what a captain told me in Basic Training.

"Take cover behind that berm, sniper bullets through the heart are lethal."

My drill sergeant was a bit more blunt.

"Damn it, private, that stump you're hiding behind wouldn't stop a BB gun."

 

I assume this is a pellet firing BB gun rather than a 16" one?

[Snargfargle]

51 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I assume this is a pellet firing BB gun rather than a 16" one?

I didn't cross my mind until you posted this that my using both the term "a BB's guns" and "BB guns" in the same thread might be confusing to someone who didn't grow up shooting low-power spring-air guns that fired BBs.

BB is a specific size of round shot, though technically air rifles use a tiny bit smaller BB so that they can fire both BBs and pellets too. We used to play Army, Cops and Robbers, and Cowboys and Indians with our BB guns when we were growing up. That stopped when when we got actual pellet guns for Christmas, as they could actually do some damage. Then, we hunted sparrows and fed them to the cats. I don't recall that we ever fed our pets actual pet food when I was a kid. Mom and Dad could barely afford to feed us kids, never-mind all the varmints that we brought home as pets. Our bird dog ate table scraps and the cats fended for themselves. 

Edited February 27 by Snargfargle

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

Then, we hunted sparrows and fed them to the cats. I don't recall that we ever fed our pets actual pet food when I was a kid. Mom and Dad could barely afford to feed us kids,

Ammo was dirt cheap in those days.

The last time I tried to buy a box of .303 British, it drove me back to the reloading bench. 

[clammboy]

5 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

I was in the 21st Field Artillery Regiment.

 

Our 8-inch shell splashes at 16 km were pretty close to the dispersion I get from from firing my .22 at 25 yards. I can attested to this personally as I've observed them up close from forward-observer positions.

What I'm getting at here is that the "RNG" shell dispersion in WOWS isn't all that much different from the real-world dispersion of actual artillery shells. People in the game complain that the "RNG" causes them to miss or not hit vital parts of the target ship sufficiently but this also occurs in real life too.

I am going to make a movie about your incredible life. After seeing this picture I am going to get Matt Damon to play you and Mel Gibson to direct. I will call it "The amazing Adventures of Young Snargfargle'.  

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

During the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, the USS Washington fired "a total of seventy five main caliber rounds and 107 5-inch AA common rounds" at the Kirishima at a range of 8400 yards (7.7 km), hitting it 20 times with the main battery, which would give it a 27% hit accuracy at that distance. 

 

 

http://navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf

 

 

And that is with Admiral "Ching" Lee in command, arguably the best guy to wring-out the best gunnery performance from US Navy Sailors.

Later on, with the proliferation of radar compatible fire-control systems, and perhaps the proliferation of Admiral Lee's teachings, USN gunnery delivered some pleasant surprises. 
But early war or pre-war performances weren't awe inspiring and the percentage of hits on a battleship sized target was in the neighborhood of 5 %, if my memory serves me.

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

People hide behind islands more than they should for precisely this reason. High tier ships are just too lethal.

Wiggle - Vintage 1920s Broadway Jason Derulo Cover feat. Robyn Adele Anderson

 
 

[Lord_Slayer]

12in shell damage to HMS Warspite. Shell passed through captains captain and burst in the captain's day cabin.




SMS Seydlitz


SMS Seydlitz 13.5in shell damage from HMS Queen Mary

 

 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

"Jutland: An analysis of the fighting" by John Campbell is a literal shell-by-shell reconstruction (as best can be managed) of who hit whom with what. Worth a read if you can find a copy. 

[Snargfargle]

2 hours ago, clammboy said:

I am going to make a movie about your incredible life. After seeing this picture I am going to get Matt Damon to play you and Mel Gibson to direct. I will call it "The amazing Adventures of Young Snargfargle'.  

I do suppose I've done a lot. I once had to submit a resume for a writing course and the instructor said it read like a novel, but it's mostly because I've got a personality foible in that as soon as I become proficient at something I then become bored and want to do something else. However, just look around at what you have here in the forums. There are Marines, soldiers, sailors, doctors, nurses, pilots, computer programmers, graphic artists, business executives, mechanics, editors, writers, musicians, and a plethora of other interesting people, which makes this an interesting place to hang out. If it were not for the forums I'd have stopped playing WOWS long ago.