|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 14, 2019 8:46:48 GMT -6
This is not an historical sim. Period. Where do you get that? This game is a making history sandbox game. It's a historical sim because it's designed to emulate historical technological capabilities in the time frame covered by the game, assigns territory at game start on a historical basis, and provides each of the powers with an initial budget which is intended to place that power about where it was historically relative to the other powers represented within the game. That the game does not force the player to follow a historically-inspired script or attempt to closely match historical fleets merely shifts it farther out into the what-if end of quasi-historical simulation games rather than being in the more prescriptive end where you're essentially trying to be a better admiral/general than whoever it was who was commanding your chosen side at the Battle of X in the year Y.
Rate of fire is far from the only problem that needs to be resolved to produce a practical three-/triple-gun HAA/DP mount - training and elevation rates and mechanical reliability are at least as important as rate of fire, and adding in the equipment necessary for the autoloaders might actually hurt those by making the turret heavier and more mechanically complex. It's arguably the least important problem to resolve, because the number of shells your gun can theoretically put into the air hardly matters if your gun cannot be brought to bear on the target rapidly enough to engage it in a timely fashion or track the target effectively.
Thank you for your supportive comments. I agree with you completely. There is far more than rate of fire, although that is important. Training and elevation of the guns is also very important. Much of this depends on whether this is a heavy AA gun like 4 in or 5 in, 40 mm or 20mm. I am going to review my books on this issue, I find it interesting. Thanks again
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 14, 2019 9:18:23 GMT -6
The rate of fire of these guns were nearly double that the twin dp guns. Elevation I read was somewhere between 70° and 85°. $38,800,000 were spent on a lot of these guns that then at the V-J day, had no vessels to go on. Triple DP 6 inch guns need to be implemented into the tech of the game. They are a thing.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 14, 2019 10:57:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 14, 2019 11:10:37 GMT -6
oldpop2000 One thing that might help, since the mount is really hard to find is that these 'systems' and I'm referring to the gun and mount here, are usually identified by the vessel that they are equipped on. You'll find this is the type of categorization used in ww2 for U.S. guns with mounts. While a lot of 'systems' use the 6" 47 Cal Mark 16 gun in DP, the mounts are often notated as being different and are not included in the description of the gun, rather, the gun is a type of categorization that leaves out the mount. This is one reason I'm finding it so hard to find anything about a gun that was never mounted on a ship even though it existed. Grrrrr! It's maddening. I looked at the resource you posted and the mount description has a 'Mod' column I'm not familiar with. So it didn't help.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 14, 2019 11:17:46 GMT -6
oldpop2000 One thing that might help, since the mount is really hard to find is that these 'systems' and I'm referring to the gun and mount here, are usually identified by the vessel that they are equipped on. You'll find this is the type of categorization used in ww2 for U.S. guns with mounts. While a lot of 'systems' use the 6" 47 Cal Mark 16 gun in DP, the mounts are often notated as being different and are not included in the description of the gun, rather, the gun is a type of categorization that leaves out the mount. This is one reason I'm finding it so hard to find anything about a gun that was never mounted on a ship even though it existed. Grrrrr! It's maddening. I looked at the resource you posted and the mount description has a 'Mod' column I'm not familiar with. So it didn't help. Excellent idea and I will use that to search today. Here is another source: maritime.org/doc/guncat/index.htmwww.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_4-45_mk16.php
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 14, 2019 11:57:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 14, 2019 12:18:56 GMT -6
Ok. I am done, on to the next subject. Bye
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 14, 2019 12:43:56 GMT -6
DP triples that do exist(or guns that at least are "intended" to be DP triples like those on Richeliu) may not be very good or capable weapons in practice, and the doctrine of larger and heavier DP mounts may not necessarily be the most effective in AA role, there is no technical reason why they couldn't exist with some diminished capacity. Nor is it necessarily the case that their reliability, training rate, and fire rate cannot be improved within the time frame of the game.
They don't need to out perform DP duals, they dont have to be available until fairly late into the game, and they can get some penalty that may or may not be fully resolved with tech. I do believe the possibility of these guns at least warrant their inclusion. In game terms, suppose you want to maintain a good anti-DD capability while being weight efficient, but don't want to give up DP capability completely, DP triple can be an attractive option. If we include super-heavy AA shell with their extremely questionable usefulness, I don't see how triple DP will perform much worse than 18" AA.
All that being said tho, "If it exists/is planned, so it should be included" doesn't really work well with prioritization. Compared to things like working missile, squashing bugs etc, I can sit without triple DP for awhile, or just pretend my triple 6" are horribly ineffective DPs.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Nov 14, 2019 15:13:32 GMT -6
If we tried to incorporate every oddball tech ever thought of in the game, this would result in a morass of coding special conditions and modifiers for how effective these weapons actually turned out to be, if effective at all. Some cases are provided for, like super heavy AA shells, but in many cases a designer has to draw the line and exclude things to keep the coding manageable.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 14, 2019 15:26:29 GMT -6
If we tried to incorporate every oddball tech ever thought of in the game, this would result in a morass of coding special conditions and modifiers for how effective these weapons actually turned out to be, if effective at all. Some cases are provided for, like super heavy AA shells, but in many cases a designer has to draw the line and exclude things to keep the coding manageable. In this particular case, my research shows these guns existed, were nearly ready to install on 8 ships that had been cancelled by V-J day and were all boxed up and given to the Maintenance Division for storage as spares and for possible future modernization use, which never happened as the whole program was itself finally cancelled after the war. It's important to note that these guns above are NOT the 6 inch Mark 16 guns that were mounted in triple turrets on USA CL's. Those guns were limited to 60° elevation and they SUCKED at AA. So let's get that straight. Apples and Oranges. What this means is that the tech progression for DP guns in RTW2 should include a triple DP 6 inch autoloading possibility that is researchable. At some point in the late 40's or early 50's the research on this gun shows that it would have REPLACED Twin and Triple 6 inch DP guns on existing ships and been mounted to new cruisers had the war not ended and the fire rate was expected to be greater. So there's no marginal HAA ability here. They were true successors to the Twin 6 DP guns. So if the tech was added to RTW2, it would simply be a matter of time before 6 inch triple guns would be able to have that little checkmark box in ship design clicked making them DP, just like how 6 inch dual mounts are researched allowing the same. I really don't understand the resistance to this idea.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 14, 2019 16:06:43 GMT -6
The gun in your quote above is not the triple 6 inch DP that I've referenced. I'm talking about that last paragraph. I've already quoted it.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 14, 2019 18:29:43 GMT -6
Just some interesting facts about ship defense during WW2. This is from an official document, BTW.
During 45 months of war, approximately 7600-7800 enemy aircraft came within shipboard AA range. Of that number, 2773, or 36 percent were shot down by naval and merchant ships. Also, the enemy expended 314 planes and pilots in suicide crashes. I have created PDF from the document. If anyone wants it, I will post it. By rounds, it was found that in 1944-1945 over 659 aircraft were shot down by the 40 mm. Bofors gun, the next highest was the 20 mm Oerlikon gun. After these two guns, was the 5 inch with a VT fuse. 33% of all aircraft shot down during the 45 months was accomplished by the 40 mm with the 20 mm. following.
Anyway, just some interesting information, at least I believe it is. I am not trying to make a particular point. I am simply presenting data and the conclusions are up to you. I have created PDF from the document. If anyone wants it, I will post it
|
|