Optics for Naval Artillary -1 reply

Please wait...

Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#11 16 years ago
'[11PzGmatyast']I disagree. If you know ships and feel their ranges, than you have a good chance of hitting enemy ships. Also maybe you guys didn't think of the fog effects. I often cannot see the enemy ships until they are close. So at that range it is easy to aim. Using a ship needs more skill than using a tank. I would suggest you practice a bit with them, then try to fight again. You don't need sights

Why would you deny a captain that would normally have teams of men aiming for him a simple crosshair? "Well if you're good like me, you can do without. Everyone should be able to fire by the seat of their pants with 20 hours practice" Well fine Mr. Fancypants, so you're a god in a battleship, but there's no reason to deny other players a simple and much needed gun sight. And why are you talking about fog for? We're not talking zoomed scoped optics here to snipe stuff at range, we're talking about a same-zoom level "tanksight" so your shots go where you want. Fog and range do not factor into it. On the topic of fire control. Why do you guess we know little about big gun fire control? None of us ever said ANYTHING on the topic. The topic is gunsights... the things you describe are not gunsights. Yes, we know big guns took computers and such to aim. Is this what this suggestion is for? No. Are fire control centers going to be used in FH? Most likely not. Is your post contributing to the thread? No. Thank you for insulting us and going off point.




Equis Legionis

Nothing Clever to Say

50 XP

7th August 2004

0 Uploads

302 Posts

0 Threads

#12 16 years ago

Frederf, what he was getting at is that there were no sights on a naval gun. The crew were given deflection and elevation to align the gun with then fired. I think what Deep Battle Theory is trying to say is that putting sights on a naval gun wouldn't really be all that accurate... I think it would be cool though...




DeepBattleTheory

Ich bin ein Computerspieler!

50 XP

7th April 2004

0 Uploads

137 Posts

0 Threads

#13 16 years ago
Equis LegionisFrederf, what he was getting at is that there were no sights on a naval gun. The crew were given deflection and elevation to align the gun with then fired. I think what Deep Battle Theory is trying to say is that putting sights on a naval gun wouldn't really be all that accurate... I think it would be cool though...

That is exactly what I was getting at. And I didn't say nobody on these boards knows how guns were aimed... On the contrary, I think a lot of people have a very good idea. The only person who doesn't know how they were aimed is you, Frederf. Thank you, now can YOU please buzz off? :smokin:




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#14 16 years ago

I hate naval guns having no crosshair......really isn't a reason for that aswell.

Real battleships had conning towers giving position of sighted targets through to the fire control room. In these rooms they had mechanical computers ( yes that is right ) that could calculate the right flightpath of the battleship grenades as both ships were moving, and wind direction/wind velocity and distance ( grenade travel time ) had to be included in the calculations.

The result of the calculations were given to ( instruments in ) the turrets, where the guns would be aimed at a point in thin air/empty sea where the enemy battleship had yet to arrive to collide with the shot grenade. A battleship grenade could be underway from the barrel of the cannon to it's target for over a minute and could reach kilometers of altitude. You just can't aim like that on sight.

All this was very advanced, and became even more advanced when rangefinding radar was used, like on the Bismarck.

In other words battleships had state of the art aiming equipment that put land-sided artillery in the shade. And we are not even allowed to have a crude crosshair so we know where the barrels of the cannons are pointed at ?

Don't get me wrong, i can hit targets with battleship grenades very well, but i feel it is wrong this has to be done as a result of guessing.

btw i remember it is DICE who removed the battleship crosshair in a patch, think it was 1.2 or 1.3




DeepBattleTheory

Ich bin ein Computerspieler!

50 XP

7th April 2004

0 Uploads

137 Posts

0 Threads

#15 16 years ago
Beast of WarI hate naval guns having no crosshair......really isn't a reason for that aswell. Real battleships had conning towers giving position of sighted targets through to the fire control room. In these rooms they had mechanical computers ( yes that is right ) that could calculate the right flightpath of the battleship grenades as both ships were moving, and wind direction/wind velocity and distance ( grenade travel time ) had to be included in the calculations. The result of the calculations were given to ( instruments in ) the turrets, where the guns would be aimed at a point in thin air/empty sea where the enemy battleship had yet to arrive to collide with the shot grenade. A battleship grenade could be underway from the barrel of the cannon to it's target for over a minute and could reach kilometers of altitude. You just can't aim like that on sight. All this was very advanced, and became even more advanced when rangefinding radar was used, like on the Bismarck. In other words battleships had state of the art aiming equipment that put land-sided artillery in the shade. And we are not even allowed to have a crude crosshair so we know where the barrels of the cannons are pointed at ? Don't get me wrong, i can hit targets with battleship grenades very well, but i feel it is wrong this has to be done as a result of guessing. btw i remember it is DICE who removed the battleship crosshair in a patch, think it was 1.2 or 1.3

If it's only crosshairs that you want, then I think that's okay. The original poster however didn't say he wanted crosshairs, he said he wanted optics. That's what I got so worked up about.




Mike 51

Bush/Cheney 2004 apparently

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

526 Posts

0 Threads

#16 16 years ago

I think it'd be good; maybe you could have different levels of optics for different ships, to represent how technologically advanced they were in real life? By the way, if you implemented optics on ship AA guns that wouldn't be such a bad thing either; maybe they wouldn't be so indiscriminate with it. ;)

Oh, plus, definately sort out the lower gun death trap thing if you get the chance. It's not just for the navy guys - I tend to take down spawning infantry with the angle on the lower deck, and anyone else in positions in the ship if I have the honor of being the one to finish us off. Bowing out with a -8 score and a respawn time of ten minutes ain't worth it, for the sake of a simple crosshair from the lower gun's POV.




scion

I post to get attention

50 XP

29th September 2003

0 Uploads

67 Posts

0 Threads

#17 16 years ago

Or just fix the guns so that maximum depression does not damage the ship at all?

Am in support of crosshairs though, not optics however.




AraGoth

Addicted to GF

50 XP

15th June 2004

0 Uploads

274 Posts

0 Threads

#18 16 years ago

On the subject of the Naval units what about the PoW (Prince of Wales) that things a floating lag fest and it also annihilates the planes on board at a certain firing angle :uhoh:




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#19 16 years ago

Contradictory: "I'm guessing you have a very small idea of how complex real ship gunsights are..." "And I didn't say nobody on these boards knows how guns were aimed..."

False: "The only person who doesn't know how they were aimed is you, Frederf."

Rudeness: "Thank you, now can YOU please buzz off?"

Contradictory: "Frederf, what he was getting at is that there were no sights on a naval gun." "That is exactly what I was getting at." "If it's only crosshairs that you want, then I think that's okay."

First off my frustration comes from the arrogance of matyast in the post that suggested we go without. I specifically stated I was for sights, not optics (although, it 's very possible he was using optics and sights interchangably. A lot of people say the Tiger in FH has optics when it doesn't, it's just a fancy crosshair) and you have such an issue my suggestion and then agree with someone who says the same thing >.




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#20 16 years ago

Frederf

Contradictory: "Frederf, what he was getting at is that there were no sights on a naval gun." "That is exactly what I was getting at."

Actually, although they were directed by the fire control room deep inside the ships hull, secondary turrets had sights of their own wich they could use with better accuracy at close targets. That was because secondary turrets were meant to fight closer range targets and some even could be used against air targets.

Main turrets are always aimed by fire control deep inside the ship's hull, but most main turrets actually had periscope-like emergency sights.

Because a battleship cannot have too heavy armour above the waterline - else it would roll upside down in the water or the ship would roll too much in bad weather making it inmpossible to aim and fire it's guns - the superstructure ( structure above the main deck ) of battleships was not resistant to other battleships main guns.....only the hull of the ship was *

As a result of this it was very likely that if the ship was hit the conning tower and bridge would be taken out relatively easy, not being able anymore to send target data down to the fire control room deep insdie the ship. This would paralize the main turrets.

To be able to continue to fight although the upper part of the ship was completely gone the thick armoured turrets did have a periscope-like emergency sight so they could fire on targets within normal visual range individually.

Therefor it is not unrealistic or strange to have at least normal crosshairs to aim battlship guns.

* Only the Yamato superstructure could resist up to 380 mm battleship grenades. ( the armoured belt even 406 mm ) For that to be possible she was an extremely wide ship, preventing it to roll in the water despite a high point of gravity above the waterline.

British ships could not match this, they needed to be able to pass canals like Suez and Panama and were restricted in width. They therefore could never carry that large size cannons and extremely thick armour as the truely large Yamato class did.