|
Post by Airy W on Jan 12, 2018 13:26:00 GMT -6
Disparage it all you want, I wasn't. I do not consider rate of fire as important, especially for large distances. May be I am not right. Do you have some experience? It seems to me that higher ROF = more hits. How does your assessment differ?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 12, 2018 14:30:34 GMT -6
It seems to me that higher ROF = more hits. How does your assessment differ? I agree, though I'd add the caveat that more guns per salvo and more salvoes per time period do not in general reduce mean time to hit/kill in the same way or necessarily to the same extent even if they produce the same overall increase in rate of fire.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 13, 2018 3:00:48 GMT -6
I do not consider rate of fire as important, especially for large distances. May be I am not right. Do you have some experience? It seems to me that higher ROF = more hits. How does your assessment differ? Well, for my part I'd say that heavier guns (with the attendant lower ROF) give significantly more payoff per hit than lighter guns. A 6" hit on a destroyer is usually crippling and often deadly. That said, talk of 8" guns on 2100 ton ships is, in general, silly. 2100 ton CLs are also, in general, silly. I designed a 2100 ton CL with 7" primaries and 4" secondaries for aeson's China AAR, and he ended up building it, but he was operating under severe cost constraints, and the nation my shipyard was in had Q1 guns in 7" and 4", so it ended up being a very weird design, and its combat performance is telling: only one of the eight ships in that class survived its first decade in service.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jan 14, 2018 12:27:07 GMT -6
It seems to me that higher ROF = more hits. How does your assessment differ? Well, for my part I'd say that heavier guns (with the attendant lower ROF) give significantly more payoff per hit than lighter guns. A 6" hit on a destroyer is usually crippling and often deadly. But the comparison was to 3 inch guns.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 16, 2018 3:19:46 GMT -6
So... 12VQ34 = not going to hit anything in a reasonable amount of time 48 RPM forward fire 76 RPM side fire 67 RPM rear fire 12CFGJKW34 = optimized anti-DD ship 48 RPM forward fire 119 RPM side fire 48 RPM rear fire Disparage it all you want, but a 50-100% increase in broadside volume of fire is very significant, especially since you can usually make use of your broadside while screening big ships against destroyer attacks. Also, the main reason why I didn't use V turret on the examples I posted is that V turret wasn't available in the save I used to create them. There's also a secondary reason in that you can't use cross-deck fire with V turret, although as I didn't have cross deck fire in that save game I didn't design the cruisers to use it, and anyways the choice between V turret and cross-deck fire on is dependent upon whether you want to maximize rear-arc or broadside fire. While it's not particularly relevant, you have some math errors in your RPM figures - RPM for 2x1x5" should be 38 and RPM for 6x1x5" should be 114. For the sake of completion, the 5" 12CFGHIJKY with a twin Y turret offers 38/(117.8, 125.4, 129.2, 133)*/(22.8, 30.4, 34.2, 38)* RPM, the 5" ADEFGJKSTY with twin turrets in the A and Y positions offers (22.8, 30.4, 34.2, 38)*/(121.6, 136.8, 148.2, 152)*/(22.8, 30.4, 34.2, 38)* RPM, 4" 12FGHIJKW34 offers 40/120/40 RPM, the 4" 12DEFGJKSTY with a twin Y turret offers 40/(124, 132, 136, 140)*/(24, 32, 36, 40)* RPM, and the 4" ADEFGJKSTY with twin turrets in A and Y offers (24, 32, 36, 40)*/(128, 144, 156, 160)*/(24, 32, 36, 40)* RPM on the forward/broadside/rear arcs. *Tech dependent. Before developing medium wing turrets, light twin turrets suffer from a 40% rate of fire penalty, which is reduced to a 20% rate of fire penalty after the development of Medium Wing Turrets c.1901, further reduced to a 10% rate of fire penalty with the development of Reliable Power Training and Elevation Gear c.1914, and eliminated after the development of Improved Power Training and Elevation Gear c.1920. Anyway, how do you calculate dmg per shell if you compare different caliber of guns? Do you use approximation of: caliber^3 or weight shell or anything different?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 16, 2018 12:40:55 GMT -6
Anyway, how do you calculate dmg per shell if you compare different caliber of guns? Do you use approximation of: caliber^3 or weight shell or anything different? Usually, I estimate the damage of a gun of one caliber relative to the damage of a gun of another caliber as the ratio of the cubes of the calibers. However, my experience is that the differences in damage per hit between 4", 5", and 6" guns hardly matter against early DDs - even one hit from any of them has reasonably good odds of mission-killing a small DD, and it's not until ~1000t DDs come out c.1910 that 4" guns start to come up short.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 16, 2018 13:09:16 GMT -6
Anyway, how do you calculate dmg per shell if you compare different caliber of guns? Do you use approximation of: caliber^3 or weight shell or anything different? Usually, I estimate the damage of a gun of one caliber relative to the damage of a gun of another caliber as the ratio of the cubes of the calibers. However, my experience is that the differences in damage per hit between 4", 5", and 6" guns hardly matter against early DDs - even one hit from any of them has reasonably good odds of mission-killing a small DD, and it's not until ~1000t DDs come out c.1910 that 4" guns start to come up short. Thanks for the answer. I have similar conclusion that number of hits si more important than caliber of guns (4-6") as slowing the destroyer matters most.
|
|