|
Post by marcorossolini on Sept 9, 2018 1:27:57 GMT -6
So, as a result of 2 minutes of wikipedia chasing the "Maximum Battleships", I found myself looking at the wiki page for the monstrosity that is HMS Incomparable - being a battlecruiser with 20 inch guns. Given the silliness that has been going down already with "battle-monitors" and similar elsewhere in RTW, I would cautiously request the inclusion of even bigger guns than the 18 inchers currently in game so that we can experiment with ridiculous designs equivalent in HMS Incomparable. I cannot wait to have a flash fire on it in its first action.
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Sept 9, 2018 10:01:31 GMT -6
Modding them into OrdnanceTable.dat is already very easy, so I would imagine it to be the same in RTW2.
Edit: It's possible my picture is already modded (the values) since I am using some mods, so your default .dat file may be a bit different.
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Sept 10, 2018 0:56:40 GMT -6
Modding them into OrdnanceTable.dat is already very easy, so I would imagine it to be the same in RTW2.
Edit: It's possible my picture is already modded (the values) since I am using some mods, so your default .dat file may be a bit different.
I might be being a bit dense but why are there two rows under "Cost" and what is TF1, TF2, TF3 and why is TFC and SW blank? Nice response though very clear and concise!
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 10, 2018 1:53:34 GMT -6
Modding them into OrdnanceTable.dat is already very easy, so I would imagine it to be the same in RTW2.
Edit: It's possible my picture is already modded (the values) since I am using some mods, so your default .dat file may be a bit different.
I might be being a bit dense but why are there two rows under "Cost" and what is TF1, TF2, TF3 and why is TFC and SW blank? Nice response though very clear and concise! Look carefully each name has one column. TF1-3, TFC is probably used for damage, SW is probably shell weight.
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Sept 11, 2018 11:39:21 GMT -6
I might be being a bit dense but why are there two rows under "Cost" and what is TF1, TF2, TF3 and why is TFC and SW blank? Nice response though very clear and concise! Look carefully each name has one column. TF1-3, TFC is probably used for damage, SW is probably shell weight. Thanks! Somehow I doubt I have a burgeoning career in Naval Intelligence ahead of me... then again after the cock up in Iraq who knows?
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 11, 2018 13:19:50 GMT -6
That table is a carryover from SAI, and only a few fields in it are actually used in RTW. Don't spend too much time overnalysing it.
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Sept 11, 2018 15:34:33 GMT -6
That table is a carryover from SAI, and only a few fields in it are actually used in RTW. Don't spend too much time overnalysing it. Which numbers can be ignored / are not used, if one was to add higher caliber guns into the file?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 15, 2018 18:10:37 GMT -6
There's not much data for 20 inch guns for the developers to work with. To my knowledge only the Germans and Japanese actually built any 20+ inch barrels and I'm not sure if the Japanese ever fired theirs.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 15, 2018 18:59:53 GMT -6
There's not much data for 20 inch guns for the developers to work with. To my knowledge only the Germans and Japanese actually built any 20+ inch barrels and I'm not sure if the Japanese ever fired theirs. France built a couple 520mm (~20.5") railway guns for the First World War, though neither saw war service with France (one was destroyed by a shell detonating in the barrel during firing trials in July 1918 while the other didn't complete firing trials until after the war ended, was still being refurbished for service when France surrendered in the Second World War, and eventually saw service with the Nazis at Leningrad). Not sure what, if any, information is available on their ballistic characteristics, though.
Being a bit more inclusive with what we consider to be a "gun," there's a 36" mortar that the US built for testing aerial bombs in the Second World War, a British 36" mortar built for the Crimean War and a Belgian 610mm (~24") mortar built in the 1830s, and there are also some rather antiquated artillery pieces from the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries which have bore diameters in excess of 20", such as the Ottoman Empire's Great Turkish Bombard or Dardanelles Gun (635mm or 25") and Russia's Tsar Cannon (890mm or ~35"). None of that's exactly useful for establishing the ballistic characteristics of a 20th-century 20" naval gun, though.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Sept 15, 2018 21:49:26 GMT -6
There's plenty of data around for the developers to use 20 inch+ guns.
They might not be the most useful due to ROF, but logically they will pierce armour unlike any other gun.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 15, 2018 22:14:06 GMT -6
There's plenty of data around for the developers to use 20 inch+ guns. What's the source of this "plenty of data"?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 15, 2018 23:21:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Sept 16, 2018 0:07:05 GMT -6
There's plenty of data around for the developers to use 20 inch+ guns. They might not be the most useful due to ROF, but logically they will pierce armour unlike any other gun. To paraphrase, "picks or it didn't happen". Ie links please as I haven't been able to find much concrete info regarding performance of potential 20inch naval artillery in the relevant time period.
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Sept 16, 2018 2:56:08 GMT -6
There's plenty of data around for the developers to use 20 inch+ guns. What's the source of this "plenty of data"? Can't we just extrapolate? Plot all the values we know onto a graph and use some kind of clever depreciating returns algorithm to plot how much penetration and ROF it should have. Seeing as the Gustav gun was technically a conventional artillery, just a really big one, we can use that as an upper plot for 800mm (<35 inch I think), firing data suggests it got through 30ft of seabed and struck an underground magazine, there must be some calculation for a rough conversion of different materials to steel, that would give the "actual" penetration value and then as I say join the dots and you'll have a roughly accurate example of any gun between 18 and 35 inches. Not that this should be work for the devs, I understand why they wouldn't want to do this, I'm just saying for us made people that do home made edits that this is possible with just a few hours of Google Fu and some graph paper.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 16, 2018 6:00:03 GMT -6
Can't we just extrapolate? Plot all the values we know onto a graph and use some kind of clever depreciating returns algorithm to plot how much penetration and ROF it should have. Seeing as the Gustav gun was technically a conventional artillery, just a really big one, we can use that as an upper plot for 800mm (<35 inch I think), firing data suggests it got through 30ft of seabed and struck an underground magazine, there must be some calculation for a rough conversion of different materials to steel, that would give the "actual" penetration value and then as I say join the dots and you'll have a roughly accurate example of any gun between 18 and 35 inches. Not that this should be work for the devs, I understand why they wouldn't want to do this, I'm just saying for us made people that do home made edits that this is possible with just a few hours of Google Fu and some graph paper. 800mm is about 31.5".
As to extrapolation from existing data to generate an estimate of the performance of a naval gun of this caliber, I very much doubt that there is much of any useful information available on the gun's performance at much less than ten miles (~18,000 yards), which means that there'd be hardly any useful information at all for implementing such a gun within the game.
As to extrapolation from existing data to generate estimates of the performance of naval guns of between 18" and 31" in caliber, the data is so sparse that you may as well just use theoretical formulae. Very few guns 18" or larger were ever actually built and the majority of the period-appropriate guns of such a scale which were built were not meant to engage targets at ranges sufficiently short as to be reasonable for a naval engagement anyways, so even if detailed and reliable performance information is available somewhere (which isn't guaranteed, especially for the German and Japanese guns - both Germany and Japan destroyed quite a few records at the end of the Second World War, and I don't know that any of the guns captured intact, aside from one or two of the 18.1" guns for Shinano, were tested before being scrapped).
|
|