|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 9, 2016 20:56:17 GMT -6
i only ever mount a single turret on the rear of my BCs
is there any advantage if i place that single turret in the superimposed position?
|
|
|
Post by rockmedic109 on Nov 9, 2016 21:30:36 GMT -6
I am not aware of any advantage. The only disadvantage I am aware of is increased weight.
|
|
|
Post by fightingflattops on Nov 10, 2016 8:33:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 10, 2016 9:31:58 GMT -6
i only ever mount a single turret on the rear of my BCs is there any advantage if i place that single turret in the superimposed position? Well, superimposed turrets provide the same weight of fire against a single opponent as four broadside turrets but with less chance of being engaged by the opponent. It also provides better stability for the hull since all heavy weights are now on centerline. Weight of armor protection is less with superimposed turrets and this configuration allows for easier and more accurate fire control. All the guns can now be sighted from one sighting position. There are some disadvantages but those were accounted for easily.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Nov 10, 2016 11:08:00 GMT -6
Oldpop, that's all quite interesting, but in the game unfortunately, none of it applies. In RTW the negative for wing turrets that you mention (making torpedo protection more difficult) is not implemented. Balance is not affected by wing turrets versus centerline turrets. There is a weight cost for adding wing turrets because you need twice as many to provide the same arc of fire as a single centerline turret, but there is no impact on sighting or fire control in RTW. Maybe some of that will be implemented in RTW2 but it's not there in RTW.
But this misses the question that JagdFlanker asked. Is there is any advantage to a superimposed aft turret over just an aft turret? The answer (in RTW) is no. There is a slight disadvantage - the extra weight that a superimposed requires.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Nov 10, 2016 12:15:26 GMT -6
Wing turrets did not compromise the torpedo protection system, at least not in German ships with wing turrets. The turret wells are well inboard of the TPS.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 10, 2016 13:12:53 GMT -6
good stuff! what about an insignificant increase in shell range due to extra elevation?
great article, flattops
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 10, 2016 16:06:04 GMT -6
Wing turrets did not compromise the torpedo protection system, at least not in German ships with wing turrets. The turret wells are well inboard of the TPS. Wing turrets almost had to touch the sides, which made them very bad ideas. They made the ship vulnerable to mines and torpedoes. However, torpedoes were not that much of a threat when, say Dreadnought was being designed and built. Research into the effects of torpedoes hitting magazines had not been explored. As to German ships, they did have a wider beam, so wing turrets did not affect them much. British dockyards were limited to 90 feet for a beam in the earlier part of the century which limits the beam of the ship. It's interesting because superfiring turrets were already possible when Dreadnought was designed. I did remove the statement in question, but it was not false.
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 10, 2016 17:16:24 GMT -6
My objection to wing turrets is that they are wasteful and inefficient - I get an 8-gun broadside from 12 guns. Superimposed turrets of course resolve that as all guns are able to fire on the broadside.
Oldpop, I tend to agree with you - wing turrets may not actually be less protected than centerline ones but they LOOK that way and I can't get over my prejudice. Given another option I will not pick wing turrets - in fact, I've delayed building dreadnoughts until I can research more than 3 turrets, or triple turrets, or both.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 10, 2016 17:32:33 GMT -6
My objection to wing turrets is that they are wasteful and inefficient - I get an 8-gun broadside from 12 guns. Superimposed turrets of course resolve that as all guns are able to fire on the broadside. Oldpop, I tend to agree with you - wing turrets may not actually be less protected than centerline ones but they LOOK that way and I can't get over my prejudice. Given another option I will not pick wing turrets - in fact, I've delayed building dreadnoughts until I can research more than 3 turrets, or triple turrets, or both. I agree that they were wasteful and inefficient. They also caused stability problems especially for hits below the main belt and flooding. It would be nice to explore the hits on wing turrets during Jutland and other WW1 naval engagements and results. The problem is we have many other deficiencies like cordite and poor handling procedures that complicate the issue. This issue and its answer makes perfect sense, when you examine a cross section of a ship. The TPS is below the armor belt on the side. Any structure including internal torpedo tubes will disrupt the continuity and strength of that protection system. This includes the turret barbette. Here is a link to an image page of turret cross sections. Examine some of these and image a turret sitting on the edge of the hull. www.google.com/search?q=cross+section+of+a+turret+in+a+battleship&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMx_-Dxp_QAhXjh1QKHYenCNcQ_AUICCgB&biw=1920&bih=947#imgrc=NezkDifQC2_8XM%3A
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Nov 11, 2016 10:58:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 11, 2016 13:04:34 GMT -6
Excellent, those are the drawings I had forgotten about. But they illustrate my point. As I said, the British had a limitation with their shipyards at 90 feet. The German's did not have that limitation. One point to make, the wider the beam, the lower the length to beam which has a great effect on the speed of the ship. So, by increasing the beam, they would have paid a price. I will have to research length to beam comparisons to prove my point. It only makes sense, that you cannot put turrets of this size on the side without affecting the protection offered by the side of the ship unless you can increase the beam. HMS Bellerophon BW 82 Feet 6 Inches LtoB 6.4 Fredrich Der Grosse BW 95 feet 2 inches LtoB 5.9 to 1 As you can see, the German ship built about the same time, was over 13 feet wider. This means about 6.5 feet on either side to work with. LtoB was different, however the German ship had a more powerful engine and was faster but only but one knot. Thanks again. Just for reference, by 1935 an empirical formula was available that could predict the maximum speed by using the Length to speed ratio. For large battle cruiser hulls the ratio was 1.19 square root of the length at the waterline. For destroyers the ratio is 1.79 square root of waterline length.
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 11, 2016 21:21:46 GMT -6
Part of the equation for the German ship's speed would be their reliance on triple props. Even German engineers complained that the center prop was mostly ineffective due to poor waterflow and interference from the outboard props. It was really only useful if one of the outside shafts was put out of service. Germany would have been far better off to go with twin or quad props, but they retained the triple arrangement (at least on some ships) through WW2.
I think you mean length to beam ratio, not length to speed? And another factor there is absolute length, independent of beam, which reduces a friction co-efficient. The 'transom stern' (I think I remember) created a hollow in the water aft of the ship and acted as though the ship was actually longer... it worked best at high speeds.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 11, 2016 23:04:48 GMT -6
Part of the equation for the German ship's speed would be their reliance on triple props. Even German engineers complained that the center prop was mostly ineffective due to poor waterflow and interference from the outboard props. It was really only useful if one of the outside shafts was put out of service. Germany would have been far better off to go with twin or quad props, but they retained the triple arrangement (at least on some ships) through WW2. I think you mean length to beam ratio, not length to speed? And another factor there is absolute length, independent of beam, which reduces a friction co-efficient. The 'transom stern' (I think I remember) created a hollow in the water aft of the ship and acted as though the ship was actually longer... it worked best at high speeds. Actually, it is length to speed simply meaning that the speed of a vessel is proportional the square root of its length, hence length to speed. The original formula was developed for 12 meter competitive yachts. The David Taylor Ship Basin had to use model hulls greater than 20 feet long to generate a quantity called the Reynold's Coefficients. This value is concerned with the boundary between laminar or parallel layers and turbulent flow so that the drag generated by the hull can be measured. This same concept is used in aircraft wing designs. It was found that beamier ships were slower, so a proper LtoB had to be maintained to attain a certain speed. The Lexington's had a LtoB of about 8.85:1 and their design is what prompted the testing at the David Taylor Model Basin specifically for the Iowa Class battleships. Their LtoB was about 7.42:1 if I remember. The USS Saratoga on her transit from San Diego to Oahu after Pearl Harbor attained the speed of 35.6 knots, a record held until the USS Nimitz broke it many years later. My father told me that the tin cans accompanying the ship used to ask the Sara to slow down in bad weather. The navies found that if they added a torpedo bulge, it reduced the Length to Beam ratio and the speed dropped. The QE class ships had this problem. Very interesting stuff, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 12, 2016 8:35:54 GMT -6
I think what I'm referring to is the Froude number. Length-to-beam is important, which is why destroyers and battlecruisers tend to be slimmer than battleships and merchant types. But there is also a maximum natural speed for a hull that is entirely dependent on length, not beam. Sounds crazy, but if you have two ships that are exactly identical in beam and propulsion power but different in length, the one with the longer hull will use less power for a given speed, and be able to make a higher speed when it is at maximum power. Anything that extends the hull improves the top speed it can make for the same power.
Both factors - length to beam, and pure length, are in play, along with many other factors.
|
|