|
Post by aeson on Nov 5, 2018 15:42:03 GMT -6
Ok, I am stupid old man but I've got ask this question. Based on my readings of Naval Architecture, how can you put 11 inch in turrets on barbettes, that close together. I mean the blast effect has to be unimaginable for turret crews and possibly the bridge area. Each turret has to have its own ammunition room and I don't see how you can do that. Instruct me, gents. How is it worse than for example Scharnhorst's 2x3x11" superfiring pair?
- Put it in a mounting which cannot be depressed far enough to engage surface targets within its effective range*
- Provide it with fire control for air targets but not surface targets - Give it power training and elevation systems whose slowest training/elevation rate is too fast to effectively track surface targets at reasonable engagement ranges** - Use a gun which is too light to be effective against most surface targets - Provide the gun with shells suitable for engaging aircraft but not with shells suitable for engaging surface targets
Basically, more or less the same way you make an SP gun for engaging surface targets, but opposite.
* Yes, you could try to use it for plunging fire instead. Good luck with that, especially if you don't have a fire control system for it. Also, yes, I know that you can use low-angle guns for AA work if you're engaging low-altitude targets or can engage high-altitude targets at long range, but, again, good luck if you don't have a fire control system for it.
** Probably not a great idea even if the gun's only meant for AA work.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2018 16:37:01 GMT -6
Ok, I am stupid old man but I've got ask this question. Based on my readings of Naval Architecture, how can you put 11 inch in turrets on barbettes, that close together. I mean the blast effect has to be unimaginable for turret crews and possibly the bridge area. Each turret has to have its own ammunition room and I don't see how you can do that. Instruct me, gents. How is it worse than for example Scharnhorst's 2x3x11" superfiring pair?
... Ahh, simple. They were on centerline and were superfiring but they still had the problem of blast effects so there were restrictions on how close to the bow those guns could fire. The ship presented in this thread has the guns very close on the sides which puts any ammunition storage right on the side armor. Anyway, it is of no consequence, just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 5, 2018 17:51:18 GMT -6
How is it worse than for example Scharnhorst's 2x3x11" superfiring pair?
... Ahh, simple. They were on centerline and were superfiring but they still had the problem of blast effects so there were restrictions on how close to the bow those guns could fire. The ship presented in this thread has the guns very close on the sides which puts any ammunition storage right on the side armor. Anyway, it is of no consequence, just some thoughts. While the turrets in picture maybe a tad to close to the edge I was under the understanding that even wing turrets closer to center have problem with protection which is part of the reason for their disappearance?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 5, 2018 17:51:18 GMT -6
Ahh, simple. They were on centerline and were superfiring but they still had the problem of blast effects so there were restrictions on how close to the bow those guns could fire. The ship presented in this thread has the guns very close on the sides which puts any ammunition storage right on the side armor. Anyway, it is of no consequence, just some thoughts. I'd image that each pair of wing turrets would share a centerline magazine and shell room, or, if each turret has a dedicated magazine and shell room, that the magazine and shell room for each wing turret would be inboard of the center of the barbette supporting the associated turret. Might make the internal arrangements a bit complicated (especially if each wing turret has a dedicated magazine) and the two close pairs of wing turrets forward might require long-and-narrow magazines if each has a dedicated magazine, but it should be doable, and it'd give you about as much distance between the edge of the hull and the magazines and shell rooms as on centerline turrets.
Also, I'm not particularly inclined to think that blast effect for four 11" guns in wing turrets would be particularly worse for the ship than blast effect for the same guns in centerline turrets; the muzzles should be quite a bit further out over the water - and thus farther from the hull - when the guns are mounted in wing turrets than when mounted in centerline turrets, assuming that the wing and centerline turrets would be trained to the same bearing. Oldpop seems to be implying that the guns in the DEFG wing turrets might set off their own magazines, or at least flood them, if fired together. I find that doubtful, myself.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 17:59:35 GMT -6
sittingduck "I visualize the Development Team sorta like this... Fredrik behind the curtains, pulling levers, stomping pedals, twisting knobs and thundering mightily... William occasionaly sticking his head out of the door and shouting "No one can see the Wizard!!"... and poor Chisholm is the Contented Citizen, happily polishing this, trimming that, cleaning up whatever... I'm kinda envious actually."
I think you have painted my role a bit more grandiosely than one might wont. :]
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 18:07:18 GMT -6
Ahh, simple. They were on centerline and were superfiring but they still had the problem of blast effects so there were restrictions on how close to the bow those guns could fire. The ship presented in this thread has the guns very close on the sides which puts any ammunition storage right on the side armor. Anyway, it is of no consequence, just some thoughts. I'd image that each pair of wing turrets would share a centerline magazine and shell room, or, if each turret has a dedicated magazine and shell room, that the magazine and shell room for each wing turret would be inboard of the center of the barbette supporting the associated turret.
Might make the internal arrangements a bit complicated (especially if each wing turret has a dedicated magazine) and the two close pairs of wing turrets forward might require long-and-narrow magazines if each has a dedicated magazine, but it should be doable, and it'd give you about as much distance between the edge of the hull and the magazines and shell rooms as on centerline turrets.
Also, I'm not particularly inclined to think that blast effect for four 11" guns in wing turrets would be particularly worse for the ship than blast effect for the same guns in centerline turrets; the muzzles should be quite a bit further out over the water - and thus farther from the hull - when the guns are mounted in wing turrets than when mounted in centerline turrets, assuming that the wing and centerline turrets would be trained to the same bearing. Oldpop seems to be implying that the guns in the DEFG wing turrets might set off their own magazines, or at least flood them, if fired together. I find that doubtful, myself.
Well I think your insightful side-by-side has pointed out that perhaps the coordinates for FG need to be at least considered before release, but I think we can safely say that the 'experimental' placement served a purpose, irregardless of whether or not anyone would actually design a ship with that kind of magazine density on the forward deck. :]
I'll have to check my books, but I think there is an Austrian 'B' that set a record for closest wing turrets, or at least so it hangs in my mind...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2018 19:09:14 GMT -6
I'd image that each pair of wing turrets would share a centerline magazine and shell room, or, if each turret has a dedicated magazine and shell room, that the magazine and shell room for each wing turret would be inboard of the center of the barbette supporting the associated turret.
Might make the internal arrangements a bit complicated (especially if each wing turret has a dedicated magazine) and the two close pairs of wing turrets forward might require long-and-narrow magazines if each has a dedicated magazine, but it should be doable, and it'd give you about as much distance between the edge of the hull and the magazines and shell rooms as on centerline turrets.
Also, I'm not particularly inclined to think that blast effect for four 11" guns in wing turrets would be particularly worse for the ship than blast effect for the same guns in centerline turrets; the muzzles should be quite a bit further out over the water - and thus farther from the hull - when the guns are mounted in wing turrets than when mounted in centerline turrets, assuming that the wing and centerline turrets would be trained to the same bearing. Oldpop seems to be implying that the guns in the DEFG wing turrets might set off their own magazines, or at least flood them, if fired together. I find that doubtful, myself.
Well I think your insightful side-by-side has pointed out that perhaps the coordinates for FG need to be at least considered before release, but I think we can safely say that the 'experimental' placement served a purpose, irregardless of whether or not anyone would actually design a ship with that kind of magazine density on the forward deck. :]
I'll have to check my books, but I think there is an Austrian 'B' that set a record for closest wing turrets, or at least so it hangs in my mind...
Two reasons for the Admiralty to increase the distance between the turrets was: the weakening of the hull structure with two large holes reaching all the way to the keel; One shell taking out all the turrets on the one side. With coal, a bunker could be placed outboard of the turrets, but with oil that went away. The only thing that works is the increase the whole beam of the ship to provide more outboard hull structural strength and possibly more armor. I did some research in Warrior to Dreadnought by D.k. Brown. The Majestic and Duncan class ships had 12 in. guns as did the King Edward. The barbettes in the Duncan's were 36.5 feet in diameter. This would mean that the holes would be a little larger possibly. Now the King Edwards reduced this diameter to 34 feet. The Lord Nelson's and HMS Dreadnought reduced this to 27 feet in diameter. Now, all you have to do is take the final figure of 27 feet and place them in your drawing and see what you get. That is about 54 feet of holes. Now what is the beam? I don't know. You see the issue. Just some interesting things to think about. www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/barbette-diameter-question-t4202.html
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 5, 2018 21:17:34 GMT -6
I did some research in Warrior to Dreadnought by D.k. Brown. The Majestic and Duncan class ships had 12 in. guns as did the King Edward. The barbettes in the Duncan's were 36.5 feet in diameter. This would mean that the holes would be a little larger possibly. Now the King Edwards reduced this diameter to 34 feet. The Lord Nelson's and HMS Dreadnought reduced this to 27 feet in diameter. Now, all you have to do is take the final figure of 27 feet and place them in your drawing and see what you get. That is about 54 feet of holes. Now what is the beam? I don't know. You see the issue. Just some interesting things to think about. Given that the beams of Dreadnought, Helgoland, Nassau, and Kawachi are between about 80 and 95 feet, I'd expect that as a ballpark figure the hypothetical 23,000t 8x2x11" battleships that garrisonchisolm posted would have a beam somewhere around 90 feet.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2018 21:36:32 GMT -6
I did some research in Warrior to Dreadnought by D.k. Brown. The Majestic and Duncan class ships had 12 in. guns as did the King Edward. The barbettes in the Duncan's were 36.5 feet in diameter. This would mean that the holes would be a little larger possibly. Now the King Edwards reduced this diameter to 34 feet. The Lord Nelson's and HMS Dreadnought reduced this to 27 feet in diameter. Now, all you have to do is take the final figure of 27 feet and place them in your drawing and see what you get. That is about 54 feet of holes. Now what is the beam? I don't know. You see the issue. Just some interesting things to think about. Given that the beams of Dreadnought, Helgoland, Nassau, and Kawachi are between about 80 and 95 feet, I'd expect that as a ballpark figure the hypothetical 23,000t 8x2x11" battleships that garrisonchisolm posted would have a beam somewhere around 90 feet. Ok, that sounds like a good figure to me. So, if we have two turret barbettes equaling 54 feet, essentially big holes in a 90 foot beam, that leaves us with 18 feet of distance between the armor and the turret hole. This is really SWAG. Is this really enough for structural strength and protection against a torpedo or large shell. I am not a structural engineer, so I don't know the answer. I will have to examine some actual drawings.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 22:03:07 GMT -6
What does Springsharp say, out of curiosity?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2018 22:14:01 GMT -6
What does Springsharp say, out of curiosity? I used my design of the QE and added 8 more guns with 8 of the guns in four mounts on the sides fore and aft and it states "Too many mounts in specific locations- Main battery". If I reduce group 2 to two mounts with four guns in the same configuration, it allows it. I cannot put more than two turrets on the sides both fore and aft. That would be what I expected, but I am not a genius at this, trust me.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Nov 5, 2018 22:14:08 GMT -6
Given that the beams of Dreadnought, Helgoland, Nassau, and Kawachi are between about 80 and 95 feet, I'd expect that as a ballpark figure the hypothetical 23,000t 8x2x11" battleships that garrisonchisolm posted would have a beam somewhere around 90 feet. Ok, that sounds like a good figure to me. So, if we have two turret barbettes equaling 54 feet, essentially big holes in a 90 foot beam, that leaves us with 18 feet of distance between the armor and the turret hole. This is really SWAG. Is this really enough for structural strength and protection against a torpedo or large shell. I am not a structural engineer, so I don't know the answer. I will have to examine some actual drawings. In practice the forward wing turret in the original post will have even less room to work with since the beam of 90 will be the maximum width and the width tapers towards either end of the ship. (Ships like Nassau have wing turret much closer to the center). Edit for confused sleepy post orz
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2018 22:18:04 GMT -6
Ok, that sounds like a good figure to me. So, if we have two turret barbettes equaling 54 feet, essentially big holes in a 90 foot beam, that leaves us with 18 feet of distance between the armor and the turret hole. This is really SWAG. Is this really enough for structural strength and protection against a torpedo or large shell. I am not a structural engineer, so I don't know the answer. I will have to examine some actual drawings. In practice the forward wing turret in the original post will have even less room to work with since 90 will be the maximum beam and the beam tapers towards either end of the ship. (Ships like Nassau have wing turret much closer to the center). The beam of a ship is its width at the widest point as measured at the waterline. www.fxsolver.com/browse/formulas/Beam+%28nautical%29 So, while the beam might be 90 feet, it will not be that wide at the bow. If it is two-thirds, that is about 60 feet. Doesn't leave much in the way of structural strength at the bow which is one of the most heavily stressed areas on the ship.
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Dec 19, 2018 22:42:52 GMT -6
Will it, or at least can people think about, be possible to have heavy echelon turrets on legacy vessels? This would allow the recreation of the historical designs with the lozenge arrangement.
It would also be nice flavor to have a "-2" gun to reflect those really heavy and short ranged black powder rifles that were used in 1880-1890s designs. This would allow the US to have a 13in gunned battleship as historical, and Italy and the UK could have those massive 16in guns as well. They would have really low ROF and make the -1 guns look long range. This would be another way to add that historical flavor.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 20, 2018 2:37:39 GMT -6
Will it, or at least can people think about, be possible to have heavy echelon turrets on legacy vessels? This would allow the recreation of the historical designs with the lozenge arrangement.
It would also be nice flavor to have a "-2" gun to reflect those really heavy and short ranged black powder rifles that were used in 1880-1890s designs. This would allow the US to have a 13in gunned battleship as historical, and Italy and the UK could have those massive 16in guns as well. They would have really low ROF and make the -1 guns look long range. This would be another way to add that historical flavor.
There are already -2 turrets in RTW (early British 13" gun) and, yes, the range is shocking. A -1 12" is actually far better. On the heavier black powder gun point, by 1899, most of the ships with these were on foreign service or mothballed so there wouldn't be much point including them. Otherwise one might get instances of small CLs beating battleships consistently against low rates of fire and weak armour. The quality of the heavy black powder guns would have to be nearer -4 than -2, so what's the point?
|
|