|
Post by pashahlis on Jun 6, 2019 15:13:42 GMT -6
Is it just about saving weight? So if I got 9x 16 inch guns all facing forward, they weigh less than having 6x 16 inch guns facing forward and 3x 16 inch guns facing backwards?
|
|
|
Post by mmmfriedrice on Jun 6, 2019 15:42:49 GMT -6
Only if you research the "all forward armament" research. Otherwise no.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 6, 2019 15:44:22 GMT -6
Is it just about saving weight? So if I got 9x 16 inch guns all facing forward, they weigh less than having 6x 16 inch guns facing forward and 3x 16 inch guns facing backwards? There is weight saving but not because of turrets weight less. It is because citadale is shorter as needed to protect from forward guns to machinery. On opposite with ABY you need to protect aft till Y turret so citadel is longer thus weights more.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 6, 2019 16:10:58 GMT -6
Were there any ships historically having forward armament that allowed super-firing for all three forward turrets?
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jun 6, 2019 16:28:19 GMT -6
Were there any ships historically having forward armament that allowed super-firing for all three forward turrets? I think there were some sketch designs, but iirc nothing larger than the Atlanta or Dido CLs were actually built. The stability issues for a heavily armoured turret high up would have been considerable.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 6, 2019 16:28:28 GMT -6
Were there any ships historically having forward armament that allowed super-firing for all three forward turrets? Dido class
Atlanta class - originally designed as destroyer flotilla leader
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 6, 2019 17:29:35 GMT -6
Were there any ships historically having forward armament that allowed super-firing for all three forward turrets? If you mean having *all* forward armament, I'm not aware of any. The Atlantas and Didos had three-turret superfiring, but they had at turrets as well. The Nelsons were all-forward, three turret ships, but the 3rd turret didn't superfire. The Richelieu and Dunkerque battleships could fire all main guns over the bow, but had only two turrets.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 6, 2019 17:40:31 GMT -6
Is it just about saving weight? So if I got 9x 16 inch guns all facing forward, they weigh less than having 6x 16 inch guns facing forward and 3x 16 inch guns facing backwards? The specific effect of the All Forwards Main Battery tech is that it reduces the weight of the belt (B) and deck (D) armor by about 5% for ships using only the AB pair or the ABL/ABQ triad for their main battery. The weight of the extension armor - both BE and DE - is not affected, nor, as far as I can tell, are any of the other weights in the design screen. As far as I am aware, only the AB (Dunkerque/Richelieu), ABL (Nelson), and ABQ (G3/N3) configurations are valid for obtaining this weight savings.
Example: Nearly-identical ABY and ABQ designs with All Forwards Main Armament researched. The ABY design has 669 fewer tons free than the ABQ design; armor weights are 8290 vs 7875 B (415 tons difference, or about 5% of the weight of the heavier belt), 320 vs 320 BE, 5084 vs 4830 D (254 tons, or about 5% of the weight of the heavier deck), 355 vs 355 DE, and 79 vs 79 CT. The 415 tons saved on the belt and the 254 tons saved on the deck adds up to 669 tons saved, which is exactly the same as the difference in free tonnage on the ABY and ABQ designs.
The relative weight savings remains the same regardless of what armor scheme you use.
|
|
|
Post by deeznuts on Jun 6, 2019 17:52:44 GMT -6
A nice side effect of all forward main armament is that it’s grest for chasing, especially if you use AB with two quad turrets since you can bring all guns to bear forward, which means easy chasing and you present a smaller profile while closing.
Late game I like using 8 17 inch guns for my Battleships since the 17 inch guns have a significantly higher range, penetration and damage than 16 inch guns while not being as stupidly heavy as 18 inch or above.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 6, 2019 17:53:08 GMT -6
The Worcester-class and Juneau-class light cruisers had three forward turrets (and aft as well so they weren't all forward). Only the the Number 3 turret was physically in a superfiring position (forward, No. 4 aft as well) but the ships were designed such that beyond a minimum range all three turrets could still fire over the bow. Not, I think, something modeled in-game though.
|
|
|
Post by pashahlis on Jun 6, 2019 19:15:25 GMT -6
Is it just about saving weight? So if I got 9x 16 inch guns all facing forward, they weigh less than having 6x 16 inch guns facing forward and 3x 16 inch guns facing backwards? The specific effect of the All Forwards Main Battery tech is that it reduces the weight of the belt (B) and deck (D) armor by about 5% for ships using only the AB pair or the ABL/ABQ triad for their main battery. The weight of the extension armor - both BE and DE - is not affected, nor, as far as I can tell, are any of the other weights in the design screen. As far as I am aware, only the AB (Dunkerque/Richelieu), ABL (Nelson), and ABQ (G3/N3) configurations are valid for obtaining this weight savings.
Example:
Nearly-identical ABY and ABQ designs with All Forwards Main Armament researched. The ABY design has 669 fewer tons free than the ABQ design; armor weights are 8290 vs 7875 B (415 tons difference, or about 5% of the weight of the heavier belt), 320 vs 320 BE, 5084 vs 4830 D (254 tons, or about 5% of the weight of the heavier deck), 355 vs 355 DE, and 79 vs 79 CT. The 415 tons saved on the belt and the 254 tons saved on the deck adds up to 669 tons saved, which is exactly the same as the difference in free tonnage on the ABY and ABQ designs.
The relative weight savings remains the same regardless of what armor scheme you use. Damn, that is quite the extensive answer! Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 7, 2019 5:32:50 GMT -6
Well, it does several things: 1- it forces you to build an ungodly ugly ship (guess matter of tastes here but...) 2- it forces you to build ships with huge tactical extremes (having none of your main battery guns firing back can be, and usually ends up being, more than a nuisance). 3- IRL it forced a really extreme set of compromises that usually seriously hampered the secondary battery usefulness (not sure how it translates into the game, if at all). In exchange you get more "bang for the buck" - you need less total armor to protect the citadel as the citadel ends up being smaller. Personally I've rarely done anything with all forward weapons but on paper it doesn't seem like a bad idea. Problem is that on paper usually doesn't translate to "in practice" as well as optimists might think XD. Were there any ships historically having forward armament that allowed super-firing for all three forward turrets?No. All the forward-battery ships (Built and design only) involved either two turrets (the French approach) or three turrets with the third one either amidships (N3s, G3s), or just behind A and B with restricted firing arcs (Nelsons, japanese "all forward" yamato early studies). There was never anything built with super-super firing turrets with guns of that caliber, and for very good reasons. A main battery turret with huge caliber size guns on a "super-super firing" emplacement was completely impractical. On one side of things you needed a lot of extra structural support for something that big and heavy that high, and a much taller armored barbette that ran down to the magazines - all means a lot of extra weight; which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the exercise of "saving weight" of the arrangement. On the other hand the very drastic topweight imposed by such an arrangement, specially on ships with big freeboard (And you wanted your capital ships to have high freeboard) with already quite worrysome topweight concerns (all the extra radars, AA mounts on the superstructure, etc, that those ships were given during their service life) would cause very real stability issues. Those who have brought up the instances of Dido or Atlanta class cruisers: Not all didos had the C super-superfiring turret and for good reasons. Guns weren't as good in the DP role as expected for one, and were in limited supply for another. But also the emplacement was found to be quite impractical due to topweight concerns on an already light class with a lot of topweight issues going on. A good number of didos were completed with 4 turrets only as a result. Atlantas all had the double super-superfiring turrets, but again they were very insatisfactory and concerning stability wise for ships so small crammed with so much stuff, and so much of it so high. That the "final" version of the Atlanta class cruiser (The Juneaus) had 4 turrets at main deck level and 2 of them at superfiring positions should be enough of a giveaway: if the designers gave up on the original configuration it wasn't for creative reasons when they were drawing those plans: that final configuration came from the experience the americans had operating those ships, and because that configuration was found to have very serious drawbacks. Speaking of which: The Worcester-class and Juneau-class light cruisers had three forward turrets (and aft as well so they weren't all forward). Only the the Number 3 turret was physically in a superfiring position (forward, No. 4 aft as well) but the ships were designed such that beyond a minimum range all three turrets could still fire over the bow. Not, I think, something modeled in-game thoughThere's no way a Worcester or a Juneau could fire B turret at anything that was "beyond a minimum" range. Unless you think 10km or so is minimum range...then OK: That's juneau. And that's Worcester. It's plain to see that the second, and second-to-last turrets in those ships weren't any good to fire at anything dead-on. Which was an OK compromise as those ships were built mostly for the AAA role, and at 60º elevation their positioning is irrelevant...but when aiming at something on the water, it's a completely different ballgame.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 5:56:03 GMT -6
ramjb , the maximum range for the 6 in/47DP guns using AP shells on Worcester was almost 23,800 meters. Almost 2.4 times the 10km number you pulled out of wherever. So yeah, beyond a MINIMUM range ALL three turrets could fire over the bow. The 5 in/38 had a max range of almost 16,000 meters. Again almost 60% more than your theoretical 10km.
Hell, the aft 5 in/38 twin mount on the Sumner-class destroyer could fire over the mast at forward targets at certain ranges.
How likely any of that would be to happen wasn't relevant to the discussion, just that they were capable.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 7, 2019 5:57:25 GMT -6
We seem to have very different standards of what "minimum range" means here . For me anything that's well beyond point-blank (point-blank being the range at which guns trajectory remains almost flat) is not minimum range anymore.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 6:02:57 GMT -6
Your failure to understand the various contexts that could be used for the term minimum range is not my fault or my problem.
|
|