|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 8, 2019 6:39:20 GMT -6
I think an all forward battery would be great in a fleet battle, but it would be much better to have heavy secondaries. That way, if you have to run, some guns capable of engaging a battleship can still fire. This may defeat the point of all forward, but I'd hesitate to build anything that couldn't fire effectively at pursuing vessels of similar armament. It might depend on rather you believe you are going to have the numbers advantage or not. The British accepted the tactical limitations for the G3/N3. Part of it was they didn't have much choice but to go with the all-forward design if they wanted to get the performance they wanted on a small enough sized hull to fit their infrastructure limits. But they were also pretty confident that their battleline would outnumber any potential enemy even if a number of them were older. They already had thirteen ships armed with 15 inch guns (counting Hood) before the G3/N3 were laid down. If you have the numbers advantage usually that means you can be the aggressor.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 18:29:45 GMT -6
yeah, I'm sure if when you were in an enclosed armored space just below those guns being fired, you'd notice nothing and felt super fine and dandy too. Oh, I'm sorry, being sarcastic again. I'll try to stay neutral lest I have someone tell me "I shouldn't insult you" and seems that by the mere fact of being sarcastic I'm being insulting...so, I'll go back to neutral.: Having muzzle blasts and shell shockwaves happening literally on top top of an enclosed armored space would lead to pretty serious concussion effects to those within the named enclosed armored space. There's a good reason why superfiring weapons were carefully spaced so gun blasts would happen past the next mount, not avobe it, MUCH LESS directly behind it. But hey, they're just 5'' guns and 6'' guns. I'm sure nothing serious will happen to those just below the blast...it's not as if bell like shock induced vibrations have done any harm to anyone within a confined space ever before, right?. Damn. I went sarcastic again. Woe me. At any rate, make whatever you want out of it or keep on insulting others when they are only guilty of trying to explain things properly so nobody is induced to confussion. As for being "pedantic"... well your last post is self explanatory. Nothing would happen. It was tested by the USN using monitor USS Florida with 12 inch guns prior to building the South Carolina-class. A note from Navweaps that references Dr. Friedman's U.S. Battleships: "9d. Each gun in these turrets elevated separately, but there was a single sightsetter in each turret who was responsible for setting the correct range for both hydroscopes. A third sight was provided for the gun mount trainer and this projected up through the turret roof. It has been suggested that these characteristic turret-side sights on US warships were adopted in order to allow superfiring guns to shoot directly over the lower turrets, but this does not seem to be the case. The lead designer, Chief Constructionist Washington Capps "appears neither to have feared trouble from the blast nor to have considered end-on fire important" - Norman Friedman in "U.S. Battleships." Experiments to verify the new superfiring battleship design were conducted using the monitor USS Florida (M-9) modified with one of her 12" (30.5 cm) guns re-located in the superstructure so that it fired over her turret. The turret itself was modified to represent those planned for USS South Carolina with the exception that the gunsights were mounted further aft so as to be closer to the muzzle of the superfiring gun. Tests conducted on 6 - 15 March 1907 with full charges and with the sights directly below the superfiring gun were completely successful with the official report stating that "the shock felt was trifling, and the officer at the sight felt no jar, nor was his vision of the horizon interrupted otherwise than by the smoke of the discharge." The only design change made to the turret designs on subsequent ships as a result of these tests was a slight thickening of the turret roofs." The navy test fired the gun on Florida with first animals and then crew inside the lower turret. Full charge, directly above the lower turret with the lower turrets sights moved closer to the muzzle of the upper gun than on the actual planned design. No significant issues.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 9:13:49 GMT -6
The problem is your answer showed a lack of comprehension with the concept of minimum range. Minimum is not the same as point blank. Lots of weapon systems have a minimum range inside of which they won't work. mortars and pre-WW1 howitzers can only be depressed so far (or placed so close to vertical for mortars) so they have a minimum distance downrange the shell must travel. Missiles and torpedoes may have a minimum distance they need to fly or run before they will arm to minimize the chance of fratricide. Bombs need to fall a certain distance so the fuze has time to arm so they have to be released from a certain minimum height.
The centerline armament of warships frequently has a minimum range based on how high above the waterline it is and what the maximum depression the gun mount can go to. At Jutland, SMS Nassau and HMS Spitfire collided. Nassau couldn't hit the smaller destroyer directly because it couldn't depress itis guns down far enough but the muzzle blast tore off the upper works of the destroyer anyway. If I recall, one of the American tin cans at Samar, perhaps Samuel B. Roberts got within the minimum range of the main guns of one of the Japanese cruisers and couldn't be targeted directly by them because they couldn't depress enough.
This is a factually inaccurate statement. Those gun mounts are quite capable of elevating above the turret forward or aft of them so whatever the minimum elevation they determined would minimize blast effects (and they are relatively small 5 and 6 inch guns) would determine the No. 2 and No. 5 turrets' minimum range over the bow and stern. Anything between that minimum and the maximum range of the guns is quite vulnerable to those turrets.
No, you don't understand the concept. But because you thought you could score score points for whatever contest it is that you think you are playing on this forum you decided to try to be pedantic about what the word minimum means and I have had to waste an unacceptable amount of time dealing with it as well as this thread being hijacked.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 8:38:32 GMT -6
Yes, the developers have confirmed that for the protected cruiser scheme the "Belt" and "Belt Extended" fields are for the sloping portions of the deck and the "Deck" and "Deck Extended" represent only the flat portion of the deck. Armored cruisers were obsoleted by a combination of battlecruisers arriving and armor weight for a given thickness lowering to the point that it became feasible add belts on smaller cruiser leading to the light armored cruiser later known as light cruisers. Thanks! Yes... I know that basically the battle cruiser mainly took over the role of the armoured cruiser from around 1905-1910 or so... They did continue to build protected cruisers for some time though but mostly now smaller ones for scouting and patrol duties until the "light cruiser" became available and more common. I have sort of noticed this in my games as well... as soon as I can build battle cruisers I don't really build armoured cruisers anymore either and rather build smaller more economically viable protected/light cruisers and heavier and better armed and armoured battle cruisers. The armoured cruiser age seem to be rather short in most of my games but the AI love to build them for some reasons even when battle cruisers are far more viable platform. In RTW1 I didn't always shift to light armored cruisers right away because the armor was still too heavy to be able to afford a decent armored belt. I would wait for one or two tech levels of armor (and hull and propulsion machinery since they all have roughly the same due dates) to be researched so that I could afford the weight of the belt. It also delayed my switch from coal fired to oil fired in my CL for the same reason. Having an oiled fired protected cruiser is not a good idea since you have nothing protecting the sides. RTW2 is different since armor weight doesn't change with tech level. I might still wait a couple of techs so that my armor is more effective before I give up the benefits of thicker sloped deck and the coal bunkers.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 6:16:49 GMT -6
I was sort of wondering about how the protected cruiser armour worked...so basically the "belt armour" represent the sloped portion of the armour so you can't just have a thick deck armour and no belt armour on them. I also know that many nations built rather large protected cruisers... Up to about 14-15000t or so. I have not actually tried this yet but in real life they obviously did this and it worked. As I understand the armour on armoured cruisers was really heavy. Armoured cruisers was more or less discontinued at about 1905 and most served in until about the 1920. So it is confirmed that the belt armour is the sloping part of the deck? I will also do some test with larger protected cruisers and see what different results I get. Yes, the developers have confirmed that for the protected cruiser scheme the "Belt" and "Belt Extended" fields are for the sloping portions of the deck and the "Deck" and "Deck Extended" represent only the flat portion of the deck. Armored cruisers were obsoleted by a combination of battlecruisers arriving and armor weight for a given thickness lowering to the point that it became feasible add belts on smaller cruiser leading to the light armored cruiser later known as light cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 6:02:57 GMT -6
Your failure to understand the various contexts that could be used for the term minimum range is not my fault or my problem.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 5:56:03 GMT -6
ramjb , the maximum range for the 6 in/47DP guns using AP shells on Worcester was almost 23,800 meters. Almost 2.4 times the 10km number you pulled out of wherever. So yeah, beyond a MINIMUM range ALL three turrets could fire over the bow. The 5 in/38 had a max range of almost 16,000 meters. Again almost 60% more than your theoretical 10km.
Hell, the aft 5 in/38 twin mount on the Sumner-class destroyer could fire over the mast at forward targets at certain ranges.
How likely any of that would be to happen wasn't relevant to the discussion, just that they were capable.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 4:01:09 GMT -6
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. All CL in the early game (1899 to roughly 1906) have to use the protected cruiser armor configuration (No vertical belt, only a sloped, armored deck) until you have researched the Light armored cruiser tech. If you are asking about a 1920 start then no, I wouldn't recommend it. One of the reasons why early protected cruisers were accepted by navies was that they were designed so that the coal bunkers provided some vertical protection. The coal bunker could absorb the explosion of a shell that struck the hull and you see that report frequently in the ship's log during a battle scenario. You no longer have that protection once you switch to oil fuel and oil fuel has a lot of advantages over coal. The French actually had an interwar cruiser design that switched to oil fuel only but left the coal bunkers of the previous design since it carried so little armor*. That kind of thing is not modeled in-game. [Edit - one thought just occurred to me. In the protected cruiser configuration, the "Belt" armor value in the design screen actually represents the sloping portion of the armored deck and the "Deck" armor value represents the flat part. So, I wouldn't recommend having a 0 value in the "belt" for a protected cruiser even if it was legal which I doubt. You might get away with 0 for the "Belt Extended" value but you become vulnerable to progressive flooding. For the 1920's era, I would use "Flat Deck on top of Belt" with the magazine box armor option to save weight. * It actually occurred within one class. The Suffren-class. Suffren and Colbert had auxiliary coal-fired boilers with associated coal bunkers that were placed outboard for protection. Foch had the auxiliary boilers removed and the space used for fuel bunkerage but the coal bunkers were retained. The fourth unit, Dupleix was equipped with additional armor. I don't know if the coal bunkers were retained. Source - Leo Marriott, Treaty Cruisers: The World's First International Warship Building Competition
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 6, 2019 19:56:46 GMT -6
The French are the ones responsible for the tumble home predreads. Their entire navy just collectively decided to not use their brains for several decades To be fair, I think it was the constant political instability following their defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war. No one party could keep in control and so you constantly had political leaders come to the naval service and undo what their predecessor had done to implement their own strategy. No consistency in strategic direction, ship design or leadership.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 6, 2019 17:53:08 GMT -6
The Worcester-class and Juneau-class light cruisers had three forward turrets (and aft as well so they weren't all forward). Only the the Number 3 turret was physically in a superfiring position (forward, No. 4 aft as well) but the ships were designed such that beyond a minimum range all three turrets could still fire over the bow. Not, I think, something modeled in-game though.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 6, 2019 17:38:51 GMT -6
Heavy AA are DP guns/super-heavy AA shells? I believe so. Gun quality and autoloader seem to affect how much HAA you get for a given size of DP gun. AA fire control probably does to. As mentioned already HAA combines from all ships in the area from DD to BB and CV. Mounted by option on the central guns tab. MAA is the local ship and processes before weapon release. Generally referenced in tech tree as 40mm. Mounted under the additional weapons tab to the right after hitting the <> button at least once. LAA seems to trigger after weapon release. Generally referenced in tech tree as 20mm or AA MG. Mounted under the additional weapons tab to the right after hitting the <> button at least once. The manual states that LAA fire can occur before or after weapon release depending on a random roll that is modified by the attacking plane's speed. The faster the plane the more likely it will get it's weapons released prior to. The disruption effect of LAA always happens before weapon release though so they are still affecting the accuracy of the attack even if they don't hit until after weapon release. One of the many reasons the dive bombers were so devastating at Midway. The Japanese relied too much on the Type 96 25-mm for anti-aircraft protection. Credit: Jon Parshall, Shattered Sword
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 6, 2019 11:25:20 GMT -6
Hello, tried again with the version 1.03 of the game. Now i can design a CA with 11 inch guns, but i cant build it, i get the following message: "That Ship design does not comply with current treaty limitations on main gun calibre". I've seen that message in a 1.03 game as well for Germany if the Washington Treaty is in effect.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 6, 2019 11:04:53 GMT -6
The "Deutschland"-class was ordered in 1928 and built in the earlie 3oies. I do not understand the remark concering 1920?! If you are referring to me, I just created a test game with a 1920 start to see if the six 11 inch gunned, 10,000 ton ship would be designated a CA or a B in 1920. The initial designs for the Deutschland-class were begun in 1926 and were ready in 1927-28. It was politics that delayed the approval of the first unit to late 1928 and the keel laying to 1929. It wouldn't be unrealistic then for a player to want to build then a few years earlier than was the case historically. However the current treaty mechanism doesn't seem to allow Germany specifically to violate the Washington Treaty limits even though it didn't historically apply to them. [Edit - Fredrik is trying to fix this based on a bug report from May 30. It was supposed to be fixed in 1.03 but apparently is still there and that feedback has already been added to that thread.]
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 6, 2019 10:46:29 GMT -6
6" DP Autoloading as Mainbattery. The above served as late game AA escort. I'm a little incredulous that that design is possible on a 10,000 ton hull. Where would you put the engines? Or the crew? That thing is all magazines.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 6, 2019 10:02:40 GMT -6
The main treaty mechanism in-game (which the Washington Treaty start option seems to use) applies to all nations in the game so unless the developers tried to exempt Germany from the treaty system if the Versaille treaty was in effect, and it's still happening anyway then no, it's not a bug. Historically, Germany wasn't limited by the Washington treaty since Versaille was considered much more restrictive and they weren't invited. But since the ships weren't approved for construction until late 1928, the Washington treaty was about to expire around the time they were completed anyway so that might be why it wasn't looked at during development. As well, keep in mind I had to cheat with the funds to be able to build them that early. Still, I guess it's something that Fredrik could look at if he gets a chance to see if the code can be modified to allow Versaille to exempt Washington so they can built at least a few years prior to the historical record if the player wants to invest that early.
|
|