5" guns that require some skill to use

[matt72078]

How about a historically accurate gun sight for the 5" guns.  Maybe if we went away from the guy sticking his head out of the top of the turret gun sight we have now.  To whatever they really used, it would be a little bit harder to track targets, and would give dive bombers and torpedo planes a fighting chance.  Just saying, killing planes in the 5" is way too easy.  If it was that easy during the war the navy would never have lost a ship.

[bustr]

If we used the real 5 inch anti aircraft director systems from NAVY ships, no one could get within 12000yds of a CV.

Here is the final AA action of ww2 using the 5 inch guns and VT fuzing modeled in our game. Our manned 5 inch AA are considerably dumbed down by virtue of not having radar ranging to aid the director(computer).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES FLEET HEADQUARTERS OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF NAVY DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.

8 OCTOBER 1945

CONFIDENTIAL

Antiaircraft Action Summary October 1945 is issued for the information of the Naval service.

This bulletin is a confidential, nonregistered publication and shall be safeguarded as required by U. S. Navy Regulations, Article 76. It shall not be carried for use in aircraft.

When destruction is ordered, or becomes desirable, it shall be destroyed by burning. No report of destruction is required.

C. M. Cooke, Jr., Chief of Staff.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final AA. Action

The final antiaircraft action of World War II occurred at 1316 on 15 August, when a DD picket station attached to Task Group 38.3 was attacked by a lone Judy. Four destroyers were on Tomcat duty, 100 miles southeast of Honshu.

The sky was completely overcast, but the target was picked up at 17 miles. At eight miles it emerged from the clouds, ducked into the clouds again, and about a minute later started its attack run in a 20-degree glide, speed 200 knots, from an altitude of 8,500 feet. The destroyer group, on circle 0.8, increased speed to 25 knots.

First to open fire was the Heermann (DD 532) at a range of 8,000 yards. A VT burst was seen to knock off part of the plane's wing or tail, and the Judy went into a slow spin. The Black (DD 666) and Bullard (DD 660) also claimed hits. The target swerved to the right, and splashed about 200 yards from the Bullard.

The commanding officer of the Heermann, commenting on the action, reported: "In accordance with verbal instructions from Commander Third Fleet, the Judy was splashed 'in a friendly manner.'"

[TheCrazyOrange]

So model it for an earlier method (not radar-controlled) one not so destructive to game play.

[bustr]

CV's would be useless then as game play objects, always sitting on the bottom opposed to getting at least 15 minutes out of one today before sitting on the bottom. Orange you are obviously a new forum account for a veteran player. You know these things from experience.

[jeffdn]

CV's would be useless then as game play objects, always sitting on the bottom opposed to getting at least 15 minutes out of one today before sitting on the bottom. Orange you are obviously a new forum account for a veteran player. You know these things from experience.

It's Tank-Ace.

[Saxman]

So model it for an earlier method (not radar-controlled) one not so destructive to game play.

The only way I'd +1 this is if it was modeled based on the arena. Late War remains as is, with Mid and Early-War adjusted accordingly.

[Tinkles]

How about a historically accurate gun sight for the 5" guns.  Maybe if we went away from the guy sticking his head out of the top of the turret gun sight we have now.  To whatever they really used, it would be a little bit harder to track targets, and would give dive bombers and torpedo planes a fighting chance.  Just saying, killing planes in the 5" is way too easy.  If it was that easy during the war the navy would never have lost a ship.

I agree, it is very easy. I am very adept in killing with the 88mm, and find the 5in too easy because you don't need to estimate where the target will be when the round explodes, taking all the difficulty out of it. Basically, all you have to do is aim ahead of the target and click.  While I would adore to see an 88 style firing mechanism in the 5in, I understand that it wasn't used. So sadly, I don't see this wish happening.   I also understand your example of dive bombers, however, it makes it that much more rewarding when you are able to not only hit the target, but fly away (and maybe even land)!  I would rather get a successful hit/kill in a hard-to-kill-in plane than have to use a handicap to do the same as everyone else. 


So +1 for a different mechanism that would require something other than pointing and clicking, even if it was 500 yard 'sighting in' at a time instead of 100 yards (like the 88). However, since it most likely isn't accurate for what HTC (and all our historians here), I doubt anything will be edited/changed for the 5' and it's mechanics.

[Karnak]

Blame Canada.

Seriously.  The proximity fuse was a Canadian invention.

[TheCrazyOrange]

Damn Canucks  . Happy Karnak?


How about we put their view inside of the turret? Primarily it would serve to limit their field of view, making target acquisition more difficult, rather than aiming.

I mean let's be honest, SA in the guns is comically easy with the 3rd person view.

This way you would have to rely more on radar to direct your guns. Maybe even need someone in a 40mm serving as fire coordinator.

Of course I assume I am correct in thinking that the US late war AAA used a radar directed gun system, similar to the German's FlaK defense network, rather than radar-controlled system, in which the guns are slaved to the radar? That would require the system to select individual targets for the guns, identify when the target is disabled, and select a new target, which seems a bit advanced for analog computing.

[matt72078]

By putting the sight inside of the turret your field of view is limited.  This will make acquiring/tracking your target more difficult. Since these guns were radar controlled I would put a little radar scope at the bottom of the screen like you see on games like Battlefield. That way you know which direction to point the turret.  When radar goes down on the CV you lose your radar scope.  This might give the torpedo planes, and dive bombers a fighting chance.  Don't know about you guys but I would like to see more variety in how we sink ships.  Level bombing them over and over gets boring. 

[Zimme83]

Auto acks are more of a problem for torpedo bombers imo, u are often not even near dropping distance when the auto acks pick u down. I would say that the auto acks are a bigger problem. it should be hard to attack a fully alerted cv group but u should be able to sneak in a torpedo bomber at low level w/o getting detected. i Know Its hard to make it working in AH. Both level and dive bombing of cv:s have a acceptable chance of success. Have tried the SBD from 14k and havent been shot down and same for level bombing at +7k. So i think its nessesary to make it harder w the 5 inchers, they are rarley manned anyway. The torpedo bombers should get a fair chance dough.

[darkzking]

i've sunk a lot of ships with torpedoes and auto ack isnt even close to a problem the 5inch is proper bobbing and weaving can get you close enough to get torps out (even in the b5n2 and betty)

[Someguy63]

It is rather annoying having to deal with the auto ack, using torpedoes bombers aren't even any fun and are often a waste of time because even without 5" you must get past the ack, and it loves to cut you down before you even drop. And if you do make it it gets you on the way out, let players defend their own cv without having to use all those 5"chers.

[Tinkles]

Damn Canucks  . Happy Karnak?


How about we put their view inside of the turret? Primarily it would serve to limit their field of view, making target acquisition more difficult, rather than aiming.

I mean let's be honest, SA in the guns is comically easy with the 3rd person view.

This way you would have to rely more on radar to direct your guns. Maybe even need someone in a 40mm serving as fire coordinator.

Of course I assume I am correct in thinking that the US late war AAA used a radar directed gun system, similar to the German's FlaK defense network, rather than radar-controlled system, in which the guns are slaved to the radar? That would require the system to select individual targets for the guns, identify when the target is disabled, and select a new target, which seems a bit advanced for analog computing.

How about a 'wield head to gun' effect like the 17 lber?

5' are rarely not manned.

And, the 5in are very very hard to dodge especially if the 5in is a competent shooter.  If they are a marksman, well, hope you swim well.