akd
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by akd on Feb 14, 2022 10:18:52 GMT -6
Playing as Japan with Bs built and upgraded (to central firing) in Great Britain. They have the 12” quality -1 guns they were built with and I just developed 12” quality 0 guns. GB still has 12” -1 guns. When I open these for a rebuild, they default to GB yard. I don’t want that, though, because now I want to upgrade to the quality 0 12” guns I have and GB doesn’t. However, when I switch to local yard, the fire control selection box on the design goes blank (the existing Central Firing is no longer shown in the box and instead it is just empty). I can upgrade the guns, but if I try to save the rebuild design, I get an error about the fire control selection. If I make a selection (e.g. Central Rangefinder), I will be downgrading the existing fire control.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Feb 14, 2022 14:04:09 GMT -6
Suspect it is a bug, seems to be selectively enforced. A potential work around for gun quality is to set up the ship how you want it in your local yard and then and only then select the GB yard. It gets real fun, when you can't upgrade in your chosen yard due to TP differences. nws-online.proboards.com/thread/6199/russian-tp-issues |
|
akd
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by akd on Feb 14, 2022 18:29:05 GMT -6
Suspect it is a bug, seems to be selectively enforced. A potential work around for gun quality is to set up the ship how you want it in your local yard and then and only then select the GB yard. Yes, this does work, but I'd rather not have to place all my battle line in a foreign yard because of a bug. |
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Feb 18, 2022 11:01:52 GMT -6
Yes, this does work, but I'd rather not have to place all my battle line in a foreign yard because of a bug. Agreed! Would love to see the build and rebuild mechanics addressed / de-bugged / made consistent and explained. I get that the rebuild is effectively a deep maintenance (re-building of subsystems), so if you don't have diesel engine tech than you shouldn't be able to do the rebuild; or if you lack a weight saving engine / turret tech then during the rebuild it would weigh more. But some stuff like TP and the armor techs, I believe are passively integrated into the hull and really wouldn't require an understanding of the technology during a rebuild, unless the hull was being converted. Other techs like the FC systems, weapons (guns, K-Guns, torps and torp launchers, missile systems) would normally have some sort of technology transfer agreement including spare parts / ammo so that the ship doesn't have to go to a foreign yard for rearming and calibration of the systems / general maintenance. So I can't figure out the "head canon" for your FC situation... It's the same situation as I noted with the TP rebuild; or when I build DDs with mines or K-Guns in a foreign yard and then it takes me 10 years (with ASW research set to high) to develop the tech to build / retrofit them... I mean, we have 10+ of the DD's in the fleet and their must have spare parts / ammo / trained personnel in the fleet - so why can't we just slap a few on some other ships as an emergency procedure (let alone duplicate them down to the bolt)? |
|
|
|
Post by colprice on Feb 21, 2022 0:54:48 GMT -6
Hi,
In the historical settings, upgrading (or changing) guns would require the fire control equipment to be upgraded for the changed ballistics.
Major warship manufacturers could do this, but if your country hasn't the technology, you're reliant on a more advanced builder. Or, regress to your tech level.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Feb 21, 2022 13:36:32 GMT -6
Hi, In the historical settings, upgrading (or changing) guns would require the fire control equipment to be upgraded for the changed ballistics. Major warship manufacturers could do this, but if your country hasn't the technology, you're reliant on a more advanced builder. Or, regress to your tech level. That's true on the later FC systems, but I'm not sold on that being applicable to the Central and Director Firing pre-1920's FC systems. I think that is within the OP time frame, as Central Firing and 12" -1 upgrading to 12" 0 guns were noted. Also thank you for the feedback. I'm under the impression that until the mid 30's that a number of FC systems would simply utilize an updated or correction ballistic chart for the different shell weight / velocities. A lot of early FC systems didn't have refined or even inbuilt ballistics, such that they only generated the anticipated enemy ship position (like the early Dumaresq) and the guns were then manually laid to hit that position based on their ballistic table. So a simple chart change was all that was needed for a new shell / velocity and a nation would physically test the guns and ammo to develop the charts. In battle the atmospheric elements and range finding errors would be addressed by corrective action while they did the ranging salvos. This is a good part of why battleships though the 1930's had range clocks on the masts - www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwT0nMrcPGQ An example of the ballistic charts that could be easily amended is at: eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/USN-RANGE-TABLES-1935-TABLE-VII.htmland eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/USN-RANGE-TABLES-1935-M.htmlThe first link is a generic chart and has muzzle velcoities from 80 m.s. to 1000 m.s. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-013.php - notes the following: "Both the U.S. and German Navy had adopted AC electric power in their post-1930 warships (during WWII all U.S. warships were retrofitted from DC to AC, to my knowledge) and, as a result, could use direct, amplified, fully-automatic control of their weapons from the gun director via the ballistic computer, without any human-in-the-loop "follow-the-pointer" manual aiming needed (except as a casualty backup)."
Edit to add: I found what I was trying to write about earlier on the corrective tables.
www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/THE-STANDARDS.html - "17B2. Standard conditions for range tables In the computations upon which range tables are based, certain arbitrary conditions are assumed. These arbitrary conditions are generally spoken of as range-table standard conditions. In order to use the range table under conditions other than standard, it is necessary to provide in the range table, corrections for variations from these conditions."
That the range tables are correctable, implies either manual laying of the guns, or an over-ride feature. As such, new shells or velocities can be accommodated with a little physical testing and generally don't require a whole rebuild / updating of the FC system.
and how to setup the tables is detailed at:
|
|
|
|
Post by colprice on Feb 22, 2022 0:43:49 GMT -6
Hi,
Just a quick thought before breakfast!
The RN range clocks and the turret declination marks became widespread after Jutland - mistakes in fire direction (eg run to the south) where fire allocation had problems - leaving (iirc) Moltke to have a period not under fire. I'd also guess that it might have been used for blind barrage fire - eg when crossing an enemy fleet's T in poor visibility.
Colin
|
|
akd
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by akd on Feb 23, 2022 15:38:27 GMT -6
Hi, In the historical settings, upgrading (or changing) guns would require the fire control equipment to be upgraded for the changed ballistics. Major warship manufacturers could do this, but if your country hasn't the technology, you're reliant on a more advanced builder. Or, regress to your tech level. IIRC, there is no additional cost for upgrading the fire control when changing the gun quality, it just can’t be done at all unless the yard has the same level of fire control already in place. If an upgrade were required, then there should be an associated cost. |
|
