|
|
Post by brygun on Apr 29, 2024 21:48:31 GMT -6
 Well this is a wtf moment. Its got bow seaplanes... and I dont know how it fits four (4) of them. Its main guns are only aft. Is this one of those paired ships where one ship has bow weapons and the the other aft? Or is it a clever seaplane carrier meant to run away if in contact? Current battle it is chasing my few DDs in South East Asia... so it can't use its aft only main guns. Wut. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 30, 2024 8:55:48 GMT -6
Yes, a 7700 ton CL can carry 4 seaplanes with some sacrifice...like only being one-ended. The seaplane drawings appear out of scale, so the actual aircraft sizes would be smaller than that shown on the topview.
As for the ship design itself, I'll fwd this to see if the template for that design is valid or intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 30, 2024 10:17:32 GMT -6
I've examined every CL template from the CL9 (1990) through the CL7 (1950s) sets several times, and I saw no design that was even close to the design shown in this image. In particular, I paid attention to the shape of the hull and other drawn features because these are not altered by the game when it translates a template into a ship design. There is no template that is close the reported ship design. I thought that perhaps the design was from an older version of the game, so I loaded the original release version 1.00.00. The design was not in that version either. I also checked CA templates because sometimes the game will reassign the ship class after translating the template to a design, but there were none that were similar. I then checked the AVs because sometimes these are reassigned as cruisers, but it was not there. This design appears to be based on one of my drawings but there are elements that I would never have added, such as the crane projecting forward from the bridge. The randomly rotated aircraft indicates that a person was involved - the AI is incapable of making this adjustment. I strongly suspect this ship was drawn by a person and not assembled by the AI. Or the AI/game has embarked on some truly dramatic redrawing that I have never seen before. brygun , have you perhaps imported designs created by another player using the recently added new feature "Load ship design"? |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Apr 30, 2024 12:01:29 GMT -6
oh yeah... I am running a ship mod. Installed months ago.
Didn't mean this as a bug report.
It just blew my mind that a ship would be assembled like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 30, 2024 15:53:11 GMT -6
oh yeah... I am running a ship mod. Installed months ago. Didn't mean this as a bug report. It just blew my mind that a ship would be assembled like this. That explains it. I enjoyed the investigation. It's hilarious to imagine that ship in hot pursuit. |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Apr 30, 2024 17:37:49 GMT -6
Honestly...
If I was to mix max a raider I might do it that way but at micro ~3,000 tons. You'll never win a gun fight against a proper CL let alone CA. You CAN be fast enough to run away perhaps into the night or out of contact if they gain on you slowly.
A fleeing raider would benefit from aft main guns for the added slim chance of slowing the pursuit by a few knots making the difference.
That would leave a forward launch for the floatplanes.
Normally I use conventional main gun forward on the premise it would be using that to shoot merchants it is chasing. Those aren't run in our tactical battles so as far as the RTW3 game engine would care the aft guns would be fine.
>>>
BTW, my fleeing DD did escape the no forward gun chase.
|
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Apr 30, 2024 21:33:27 GMT -6
Whilst the catapult isn't forward and the guns are midships, the Richelieu 5 and 5bis layouts are certainly unusual in a similar fashion: Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Apr 30, 2024 22:48:48 GMT -6
Whilst the catapult isn't forward and the guns are midships, the Richelieu 5 and 5bis layouts are certainly unusual in a similar fashion: Which side is the bow in that pic? to the right? Yeah that is kinda weird. The width for the large turret rings with likely a deep TPS is likely an influence there. In the RTW3 over views, like in the original post, the bow is to the left. |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 4, 2024 23:41:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by director on May 5, 2024 2:59:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on May 5, 2024 8:13:38 GMT -6
The bow catapult was a configuration tried by the Italians on some of their heavy cruisers and even on some of their condottiero scout cruisers. This is the light cruiser Alberto di Giussano showing the very awkward positioning of the floatplane, pressed up against the A turret so closely that they had to raise the barrels to clear the plane.  A plane in this position not only blocked forward fire but was also subject to serious damage from waves breaking over the bow. Here is a shot of the Gorizia, a Zara class heavy cruiser, operating in heavy weather.  |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 5, 2024 10:00:53 GMT -6
Interesting option.
Given the marginal airplanes the ship does maximize the benefit of the ship's speed. Rear launched catapults firing sideways even if angled to the forward quarters will miss a slight amount of assisting speed.
Certainly something someone could experiment with then being happy when airplane engines allowed losing that small gain for so many other benefits, like an indoor hanger!
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on May 5, 2024 12:01:25 GMT -6
Most of these ships actually did have a hangar, built into the base of the bridge tower. However, you can find many more pictures of these ships without a floatplane in this position, so they are often in the air or in the hangar or missing altogether. The attached floatplanes were probably the best source of reconnaissance for the Italian fleet. All of the land-based air was controlled by the army, and as usual with this arrangement, communication and cooperation was dismal.
|
|
