Single Mount vs. Twin Turret

[tbr]

At the moment, for smaller calibres and weight challenged ships, twin turrets are no useful alternative to single mounts. At 5 inch the unarmored single (non superfiring) mount weighs 8 tons, the unarmored twin turret mount weighs 28 tons, that is 3.5 times the weight of the single mount. This might be based on the "mount" vs. "turret" weight and dimensions. But this would be a fallacy. The "mount" looks at first to be "lighter" per gun tube than a turret but that is in major part because those aspects (munitions elevators/hoist/transport, magazine, ready munitions locker) of the ship dedicated to the mount, i.e. its infrastructure, are usually not included in the statistics fod "mount" weight. The  weight of "Turrets" in official statistics however usually includes much, sometimes all, of that infrastructure. In effect this means that the late game technology "double mounts for DD" is almost worthless because, while double mounts free centreline space, using the 1, 2, 3 and 4 positions for single mounts frees even more centreline space and saves a lot of weight for a minimal penalty in broadside weight.

Historical example shows 6 inch twin mounts/turrets installed, even as a refit, saving space (and, implied from the text, weight) over two individual mounts:

In the early 1930s Enterprise was fitted with a prototype twin 6-inch (150 mm) turret in place of her two forward single mounts; and with trials of the turret proving successful it was retained on Enterprise for the rest of her career.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald-class_cruiser

In any case primary gun "mounts" that are not "turrets" (without their own hoists/munition elevators and magazine wells) and casemates should actually share a common magazine with all other such guns of the same calibre on the ship, like is done for simplicity with secondary guns. I know this is probably not implementable in the current engine but the related "infrastructure" weight of mounts and casemates should be figured in ,making them somewhat heavier, with perhaps some weight reduction for smaller calibre primary twin (antd triple) turrets to ensure their relative balance.

[tmp]

Dec 26, 2015 18:10:29 GMT -6 tbr said:

using the 1, 2, 3 and 4 positions for single mounts frees even more centreline space and saves a lot of weight for a minimal penalty in broadside weight.

That sounds rather dubious; can the left side mounts in these positions fire at the target on the right side, and vice-versa?

[tbr]

No, as I posted, you sacrifice some broadside capability while you have the same ahead/abaft firepower. But as is one twin turret weighs in at almost 1.65 times than two single mounts with the exact same firing arc (e.g. forward and forward superfiring). The negatives (more weight, turret ROF penalty at lower tech level and loss in redundancy) of the twin turret in this case do massively outweigh the benefit, more "space" on the centerline. And as I posted I think this is based in a misinterpretation of available historic stats.

[Fredrik W]

Single mounts with 2 inches or less for guns 6 in and below are assumed to be shielded mounts. Such a mount is lighter than a single turret would be, but gives less protection against splinters. That is why they are disproportionally light. And this is intentional. In the period of RTW, twin turrets for light cruisers were not used very much, because shielded mounts were lighter and cheaper.

[tbr]

But they had their own attendant infrastructure, a magazine, hoists/elevators (several mounts sharing in one or more), ready ammunition lockers, extra crew for lateral transfer of ammunition to the guns on main deck level etc. Those "cost" weight as well and are not included in the statistics for "mount weight" available at navweaps etc. But for the turrets most of the "infrastructure weight" is usually included. So your "shielded mounts" are probably too light. In respect to the light turrets and their weight I was writing of unarmored turrets. The "weight penalty" for turrets should be more tied to their armor and not come as an initial "lump malus" on the unarmored turret.

In any case I do not see much loss of "shielded" gun mounts in the battles unless the unit in question comes under really heavy fire. The kind of happenstance as with HMS Chester, where the ship itself was practically undamaged but the crews of the gun mounts on deck were practically all killed by shrapnel, should come to pass far more often. Unlike in Distant Guns RTW does not semm to track crew as a "damage statistic", it seems to be abstracted under "structure". Should not then any hits at all (HE, non-penetrating AP, near miss etc.) generate extra structural damage on ships with many "shielded" gun mounts?

Better yet (for RTW2), introduce crew casualties as a tracked statistic for battle damage...

[Fredrik W]

There is a damage result from superstructure hits or near misses that can include crews cut down of unarmored or shielded guns. It will be reported as "Gun crews cut down by splinters". One can debate whether it should be more frequent, but the effect is there.

[tbr]

OK, haven't seen this in anywhere near the frequency I would expect though.

[tortugapower]

My crews have been cutdown by splinters before, so it can definitely happen! Gameplay-wise, does this amount to a reduction in crew quality, or is the crew on a ship maintained in a separate statistic?

[Fredrik W]

For main guns, the mount is disabled. It may come online again, but it will take some time to whisk up replacements for the gun crew. For secondaries and tertiaries, the mount is knocked out (they don't have a disabled status).

[zulu354]

While speaking about crews...a general crew counter would be great. Think about the after battle report, when it sais, you lost 460 sailors during this battle...