|
Post by titanuranus on Feb 6, 2019 15:28:15 GMT -6
Will we see quintuple and (theoretically) larger mounts in RtW 2? RtW 1 had sextuple mounts, so probably.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 6, 2019 16:17:29 GMT -6
Will we see quintuple and (theoretically) larger mounts in RtW 2? RtW 1 had sextuple mounts, so probably. Unless perhaps you have a mod that changes things, you cannot put more than four tubes into a single torpedo mount in Rule the Waves.
|
|
|
Post by desdinova on Feb 6, 2019 17:13:58 GMT -6
One thing I would like to see is the transition from open gun mounts on destroyers to gun shields to enclosed, splinter proof mounts. As it stands in rtw1, you can't put any armor on destroyer turrets since they can't have belt armor.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 6, 2019 18:32:15 GMT -6
One thing I would like to see is the transition from open gun mounts on destroyers to gun shields to enclosed, splinter proof mounts. As it stands in rtw1, you can't put any armor on destroyer turrets since they can't have belt armor. Based on jwsmith26 's logbook entry there doesn't seem to be any armoring of the gun mounts yet for destroyers. I looked up the mounts for the Fletcher-class' 5 in/38 on the Navweaps website. It states that the shield for the Mark 30 mount for destroyers was only 1/8 inch thick (3.2 mm). That's well below the threshold that the RTW series uses for armor protection. It's note 14e towards the bottom of the page. Comparatively, the 5 in/38 twin mounts on battleships had 2.5 inch (63.5 mm) thick shields. That's just for the US Navy though. I don't know if other navies armored their destroyers' gun mounts significantly.
|
|
|
Post by titanuranus on Feb 7, 2019 14:05:10 GMT -6
RtW 1 had sextuple mounts, so probably. Unless perhaps you have a mod that changes things, you cannot put more than four tubes into a single torpedo mount in Rule the Waves. Huh.
You're right, the +18 inch armor mod adds centerline sextuple mounts for DDs.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Feb 7, 2019 14:35:55 GMT -6
Not sure if there is a point to have very large torpedo mounts with a lot of tubes, consider the space it’s gonna take up on the narrow beams if most destroyers. On larger ships they would have to be mounted away from centreline as well, so a very large sized mount could cause issues. I think the largest mounts historically used are quintuple and no more.
There is also risks of putting all your eggs in one basket, and greater risks of detonation if many torpedos are mounted together(especially with volatile oxygen torpedo, to the point where late war japanese will eject their torpedos if under airstrike).
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 7, 2019 23:19:14 GMT -6
Not sure if there is a point to have very large torpedo mounts with a lot of tubes, consider the space it’s gonna take up on the narrow beams if most destroyers. On larger ships they would have to be mounted away from centreline as well, so a very large sized mount could cause issues. I think the largest mounts historically used are quintuple and no more. There is also risks of putting all your eggs in one basket, and greater risks of detonation if many torpedos are mounted together(especially with volatile oxygen torpedo, to the point where late war japanese will eject their torpedos if under airstrike). I'd imagine that having, for instance, one quad launcher instead of two twins would be lighter, in the same way as for turrets. Don't quote me, though, it's just a guess. Seems logical, though.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Feb 8, 2019 12:37:12 GMT -6
Not sure if there is a point to have very large torpedo mounts with a lot of tubes, consider the space it’s gonna take up on the narrow beams if most destroyers. On larger ships they would have to be mounted away from centreline as well, so a very large sized mount could cause issues. I think the largest mounts historically used are quintuple and no more. There is also risks of putting all your eggs in one basket, and greater risks of detonation if many torpedos are mounted together(especially with volatile oxygen torpedo, to the point where late war japanese will eject their torpedos if under airstrike). I'd imagine that having, for instance, one quad launcher instead of two twins would be lighter, in the same way as for turrets. Don't quote me, though, it's just a guess. Seems logical, though. Yes, it would be lighter by not massively. Only the deck mounting is done away with. I think it is more to do with the fact that torpedo tubes were very slow to load, especially early on. More tubes meant that one team could fire a spread or at multiple targets without having to reload slowly or keep torpedoes in risky places on deck.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 8, 2019 17:02:10 GMT -6
I'd imagine that having, for instance, one quad launcher instead of two twins would be lighter, in the same way as for turrets. Don't quote me, though, it's just a guess. Seems logical, though. Yes, it would be lighter by not massively. Only the deck mounting is done away with. I think it is more to do with the fact that torpedo tubes were very slow to load, especially early on. More tubes meant that one team could fire a spread or at multiple targets without having to reload slowly or keep torpedoes in risky places on deck. In that case, having one large launcher may be more viable in RTW2 than RTW1 since you can now choose to have reloads for above-water tubes.
Incidentally, giving destroyers the ability to choose between firing torpedoes from the same launcher one at a time or, like RTW1, in a spread might also be something to think about?
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Feb 8, 2019 19:44:48 GMT -6
Yes, it would be lighter by not massively. Only the deck mounting is done away with. I think it is more to do with the fact that torpedo tubes were very slow to load, especially early on. More tubes meant that one team could fire a spread or at multiple targets without having to reload slowly or keep torpedoes in risky places on deck. In that case, having one large launcher may be more viable in RTW2 than RTW1 since you can now choose to have reloads for above-water tubes.
Incidentally, giving destroyers the ability to choose between firing torpedoes from the same launcher one at a time or, like RTW1, in a spread might also be something to think about?
I am more concerned with sheer size and not weight of launchers with a lot of tubes(by a lot I am really referring to 6+), which will clutter up the usually narrow and cramped decks of most destroyer more than it already does. Especially when AA becomes a factor to consider later on. (Early chinese torpedo boats in the 1890s are so narrow that both end of the tube will stick far out of the ship itself. the crew have to rotate the single tube back to initial position just to reset torpedo gyro). Though if the destroyer is wide enough to fit the very large mounts it may actually become more efficient. Also, not sure large multi tube mount really assist in reloading as these are usually done with a crane and finished up by hand. Having more probably won’t make reloading any faster if the torpedos still have to be loaded with the assistance of a crane(and multiple mounts means multiple team can work to reload different mounts at once)z
|
|