|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 7, 2019 7:18:21 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. Oh, my apologies, I wasn't aware I was speaking with the all-knowing all-sapient holder-of-the-universal-ultimate-truth of naval definitions here. Guess I should have all my books thrown to the fire, then, given that seems they all give very similar impressions of what "minimum range" means (which is, pretty much, point blank range), and none of them agree with your undisputable absolute and complete cognoscence of the matter  . while we're at it maybe you could even provide some of the sources you use to base your excellent knowledge of the matter on, and to quote here their precise definition of the term "minimum range"?. I'm eager to get educated here, you see . |
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Jun 7, 2019 7:54:44 GMT -6
Oh, my apologies, I wasn't aware I was speaking with the all-knowing all-sapient holder-of-the-universal-ultimate-truth of naval definitions here. Guess I should have all my books thrown to the fire, then, given that seems they all give very similar impressions of what "minimum range" means (which is, pretty much, point blank range), and none of them agree with your undisputable absolute and complete cognoscence of the matter . while we're at it maybe you could even provide some of the sources you use to base your excellent knowledge of the matter on, and to quote here their precise definition of the term "minimum range"?. I'm eager to get educated here, you see . It's not even a naval definition. Past a certain range those guns can fire over the turret in front of them. The shortest range (smallest, lowest, least) at which they can do that is the minimum range at which they can do so. There's no need for sarcastic insults here. You're obviously fairly fluent in English, or at least have an excellent translator program. As such you should be able to realize that bcoopactual's statement was grammatically and by definition correct. But instead we've now derailed the thread with a discussion of the definition of "minimum." |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 7, 2019 8:16:48 GMT -6
"sarcastic insults". oh my. Sarcastic sure. "insults", where?. I merely replied to a post where someone was making a remark that could easily lead to confusion, and I quote: "but the ships were designed such that beyond a minimum range all three turrets could still fire over the bow"In my post I was detailing how that "minimum" range wasn't so minimum, as not even at ranges that were considered "short" that kind of engagement was viable (and let's not forget, I haven't even gone into consideration of muzzle blast and concussion effects, which was quite real for ships with guns in that configuration). The later interchange (where I stated that "minimum range" is a term that will be interpreted as "point range", thus leading to probable confusion to people who're not too much into the subject) only produced a highly unpleasant answer about what is and what's not his problem. My last answer was, as a result, sarcastic indeed. I don't know you but when one comes back with such an unpleasant tone to a simple answer to one of his points, I find that a little bit...well uncalled for, so some sarcastic answer was perfectly valid, if I might say so myself. In fact I'll just speak openly, what the heck. He came back as if had bitten off a piece of flesh off his a$$ in a totally uncalled for tone, and I answered him with a post full of irony, when to be honest, his completely out of place answer might have deserved worse. If you have a problem with it ,be my guest, but he earned the answer I gave him. Yet I beg to differ with you in something in particular: I see no insults in my post. Mostly because I didn't insult him. Given that you think otherwise, maybe you'll be nice enough to point exactly the place where I did so?. Anyway, there's no derailing here for actually the point is pretty important to understand all-forward weaponry. Limited angles of fire was a pretty important consideration for those ships, and there were several japanese heavy cruisers with all-forward weapons in very similar deployement as Worcester or Juneau had (the rebuilt Mogami, for one), and which were also very limited in their arcs of fire on end-on fire targets:  Pretty awful definition in that image, but it can easily be seen how A and B turrets were deployed on the same level above the deck, in an "all forward" arrangement. Consequence of conversion rather than original design, but that ship as converted was an "all forward arrangement" ship nonetheless. Mogami couldn't fire those guns directly ahead at anything but pretty long ranges (and even then it was highly discouraged because of muzzle blast considerations, not to mention of what exactly the guys within turret B would think about the closest relatives of those manning turret C, if those 8'' guns were to fire their muzzle blast just avobe their enclosed, armored, gunhouse), the same neither Juneau or Worcester could. Next in line would be Tone, another "all forward" arrangement ship:  Where C turret obviously was out of the question of forward firing, but D turret was not (at high enough angle it could fire over B). Wasn't exactly practical, though, and the scorch marks on the aft side of B turret would probably have been quite nasty to clean. Now could that turret do end-on firing?. Sure. At long enough range it was possible. They'd have some muzzle blast issues to fix afterwards, that's for sure. Not to speak about the concussion of the guys in the turret (something that would also affect the MOgamis, or the Worcester/Juneaus for that matter, having something dropping a muzzle flash just avobe or directly behind your armored, yet closed, gunhouse, wasn't exactly a wonderful experience for the guys inside). But possible?. Yes it was possible. But to mention the term "minimum" in the context of the ranges where that kind of fire was possible (even if unadvisable) does induce to confusion. And now I beg you to tell me where exactly I have derailed the thread by discussing the definition of "Minimum" in the context of this thread, which is of double importance given that several different battleship design proposals that used that kind of gun emplacement had similar dispositions as Mogami (and worcester in her front turrets) had, and would've shared their limitations. Bottom point: I didn't insult him, and I didn't derail the discussion. So, your exact problem with my answer was...? |
|
|
|
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 ramjb on Jun 7, 2019 9:36:33 GMT -6
Such a nice post, but then you had to go on and ruin it...you had to, didn't you?. The urge must've been so strong...
anyway:
... this thread being hijacked.
Hijacked how?. Look avobe - there's plenty of reasons to adress your post as I did. Two of the proposed configurations for Nelson had C being the superfiring turret, for instance. At least one of the early sketches for the Yamato design (when all forward weapons were considered) also had A and B being deck-level, in a very similar configuration to the front guns of Juneau or Worcester. What I posted is very much relevant to the topic, far more than bringing Worcesters to the discussion to begin with (those ships weren't all forward battery ships), which is something I didn't do.
At any rate having people thinking that "at a minimum range they could shoot this or that" without clarification, is not what I'd think conductive to a forum where people get to learn a lot of things. Must be the "pedantic" part of me, who knows but I don't like when things can be interpreted wrongly.
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)
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.
I'm sure Your Highness the All Knowing Lord doesn't want to "waste more time" answering me. Nor ,quite frankly, do I have the will to keep an interchange with someone with your attitude...which I think is plain for everyone to see.
So I propose we stop this nonsense here and now, that we proceed to not even name each other ever again and ignore each other, and keep everyone happy. Deal?. Because the only stupid thing that is hijacking this thread is your unexplainable and uncontainable insistance on searching a personal quarrel with me for no reason whatsoever, and if you don't stop it here and now, I'll look for someone who suggests you do so in some more convincing terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by warlock on Jun 7, 2019 13:33:51 GMT -6
A nice side effect of all forward main armament is that it’s grest for chasing, especially if you use AB with two quad turrets since you can bring all guns to bear forward, which means easy chasing and you present a smaller profile while closing. Late game I like using 8 17 inch guns for my Battleships since the 17 inch guns have a significantly higher range, penetration and damage than 16 inch guns while not being as stupidly heavy as 18 inch or above. Yeah I tend to favor all forward mains because it seems like the AI tends to act very defensively in most engagements. I find myself continually pushing into the enemy formations which consequentially means I tend to control the engagement, not the other way around. Often this tactic this lets me cut the wounded and vulnerable enemy BB/BCs out of the pack when the opportunity presents itself and finish them off. The all forward mains just make these tactics more powerful simply because I can get all my weapons to bear on the target very easily which tends to give me a firepower advantage even if the enemy has a numerical advantage. Conversely if I do find myself having to perform a tactical withdraw, I just withdraw at a slight angle which negates the disadvantage of the all forward firing mains. Honest, the only time it becomes a disadvantage is if I find myself having to perform a full speed withdrawal but this is a very rare occurrence for me since I tend cut my losses early if I don't feel the engagement is going to go my way, which almost always allows for a controlled, tactical withdrawal moving at an angle to the enemy forces to keep my guns firing. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 7, 2019 14:13:48 GMT -6
A nice side effect of all forward main armament is that it’s grest for chasing, especially if you use AB with two quad turrets since you can bring all guns to bear forward, which means easy chasing and you present a smaller profile while closing. Late game I like using 8 17 inch guns for my Battleships since the 17 inch guns have a significantly higher range, penetration and damage than 16 inch guns while not being as stupidly heavy as 18 inch or above. Yeah I tend to favor all forward mains because it seems like the AI tends to act very defensively in most engagements. I find myself continually pushing into the enemy formations which consequentially means I tend to control the engagement, not the other way around. Often this tactic this lets me cut the wounded and vulnerable enemy BB/BCs out of the pack when the opportunity presents itself and finish them off. The all forward mains just make these tactics more powerful simply because I can get all my weapons to bear on the target very easily which tends to give me a firepower advantage even if the enemy has a numerical advantage. Conversely if I do find myself having to perform a tactical withdraw, I just withdraw at a slight angle which negates the disadvantage of the all forward firing mains. Honest, the only time it becomes a disadvantage is if I find myself having to perform a full speed withdrawal but this is a very rare occurrence for me since I tend cut my losses early if I don't feel the engagement is going to go my way, which almost always allows for a controlled, tactical withdrawal moving at an angle to the enemy forces to keep my guns firing. It depends more on situation.
One of my fights as UK was again USA outnumbered by numbers. I pushed quite a lot using local superiority and wounded several USN battleships. However my battleships get hurt in return and I needed disengage. This was quite difficult with my modern battleship with 2x4 AB main gun arrangement. I needed to sacrifice 2 older battleships and still lost another 2 modern. It almost costs me victory. With standard layout 3x3 I would have much higher chance to save more ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by victormagnus on Jun 7, 2019 15:23:17 GMT -6
I'll chime in on two topics:
1) For the sake of hopefully defusing the argument about "minimum" range, both parties appear to be talking about different actual concepts. "...a minimum range..." just denotes any arbitrary distance below which the weapons system cannot engage. "Minimum range" without the "a" before it does refer to near point-blank distances, unrelated to the arbitrary distance previously mentioned. So the 10,000m for a Juneau/Worchester B-turret to fire over the A-turret is "a minimum range" but not a "minimum range." English is !!fun!!
2) In-game, I generally switch to all-forwards designs for all of my capital gunships (BB and BC). I play on full-Admiral mode with XL fleet sizes, so I generally control 2-4 capital ships (not counting CVs) on my side in engagements of up to ~12-14 capital ships. Considering that the AI which controls most of my BBs and BCs tends to vary between 'suicidal confidence' and 'completely lost', it's typically unimportant how much rear-facing firepower that those capital ships have, since the AI will keep them exchanging broadsides with the enemy until their turrets go underwater anyways. In that sort of battle, ABQ or ABL is perfectly fine.
Mind you, if I were to play the game on a different mode, so that I actually control all my capital ships at once, I'd definitely go for the usual ABXY or ABY so that I would be able to disengage while still keeping some guns on-target.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 7, 2019 16:00:14 GMT -6
1) For the sake of hopefully defusing the argument about "minimum" range, both parties appear to be talking about different actual concepts. "...a minimum range..." just denotes any arbitrary distance below which the weapons system cannot engage. "Minimum range" without the "a" before it does refer to near point-blank distances, unrelated to the arbitrary distance previously mentioned. So the 10,000m for a Juneau/Worchester B-turret to fire over the A-turret is "a minimum range" but not a "minimum range." English is !!fun!! Both "a minimum range" and "minimum range" refer to a shortest range at which a weapon can be used, and neither has any more than incidental relation to point blank range, which is the range band over which a weapon will fire a projectile on a flat enough trajectory to hit a target when aimed directly at it. All weapons have a minimum range (though that minimum range might approximate 0); some weapons, such as a trench mortar in normal use, do not have a point blank range.
Also, not that it matters, but under USN convention, the second 6" turret from the bow on Worcester would be the six-two turret, or simply the number two turret, not the B turret.
|
|
|
|
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 ramjb on Jun 7, 2019 19:28:06 GMT -6
USS Florida (the 2nd class of US battleship built after the initial monitor tests)  USS Juneau:  USS Worcester:  Ships with superfiring turrets arranged for end-on firing were carefully designed so the blast of the avobe turret happened past the roof of the turret next to them, to avoid the concussion shockwave to hit said roof directly, as the effect of the impact of such a shockwave on an enclosed armored gunhouse would be similar to that of a bell hit with a hammer; the consequence for anyone inside is left to be supposed by the reader: it was anything but pleasant. This was well known by the time the first superfiring turrets were included in designs of the time. Superfiring turrets were arranged in a way such that the muzzle blast created by the turret's guns would happen past the inferior's turret roof, to avoid the worst of the effects impacting it. As a result we see, without exception, superfiring turrets which guns go over the preceding turret's roof, and which muzzles end roughly at the same point where the preceding turret's roof ends - that way when those guns fire the muzzle blast is produced almost entirely beyond the inferior turret's roof, avoiding "hammering the bell". Such arrangement isn't there in either Juneau or Worcester. Both ships turrets are clearly arranged so the muzzle of the involved turrets are CLEARLY behind the roof of the next turret - end of firing at low angle will place that blast directly avobe the next turret's roof, with the shockwave hitting straight on said roof. Even with properly spaced turrets the Royal Navy just didn't like the idea at all: HMS Neptune, the first RN battleship with superfiring arrangement, had phisical stops that prevented X turret to fire over Y turret. So did most of the RN capital ships of the era, though at this time the concern mostly involved the open sighting ports used in the turrets of the time, that might allow part of the blast inside of the turret itself. British battleships in general avoided end-on firing from superfiring turrets, at least until HMS Hood, and even later it wasn't really liked: If memory serves me right, Oscar Parkes' work "British battleships" mentions (amongst many things about the blast properties of those guns in that ship) that in the Nelson class, firing from the superfiring turret directly over A was frowned upon because it would make the life of those in the latter turret quite unpleasant. And Nelson's B turret guns' blast would happen well past the roof of A turret, not directly avobe it. Let's hear an Iowa's crewman's thoughts about it when Turrets One and Two were fired 15º off the side of the ship's bow at low angle in 1989: "At this angle, one of Turret Two's guns was firing over Turret One... The concussion from Turret Two's guns shredded Turret One's gun bloomers (the canvas covers at the base of the main gun barrels) and damaged Turret One's electrical system. Dan Meyer said of the shoot that it was "the most frightening experience I have ever had in my life. The shock wave blew out the turret officer's switchboard and the leads. We had no power, no lights for a time. Men were screaming. There was panic."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosionAgain, Iowa's turrets were properly spaced for end-on firing, but shooting 15º off the bow at very low angle, one of the guns actually had part of it's blast happening over Turret One's gunhouse's roof. Feel free to debate the thoughts of someone who was inside that turret about how pleasant getting partially hit by one (out of three) gun blasts from the turret behind was. More instances: During the fight in the Falklands against Von Spee's squadron, Invincible tried crossfiring with some non-surprising results: In spite of the design, which limited cross deck fire from the amidships turret on the unengaged side, the 12-inch guns of P turret did fire across the ship at von Spee’s cruisers. Of course every time P turret fired, the marine crew of Q turret were dazed by the concussion
That quote comes from "Grand Fleet Battlecruisers" from Steve Backer. If you look at the deck plans of Invincible you'll see that in the angle for crossfire where P was to fire avobe Q, you'll note there's quite the distance. That blast wasn't hitting neither directly nor perpendicularly against Q turret's roof, yet the crew felt like they were hit with a sledgehammer on the head each time a projectile flew avobe them. ![]()  I mean, I'ts actually quite common sense, and no quotes, mentions, etc, that directly point out at how awful having a muzzle blast just avobe your turret actually was should be needed - and again, these quotes and examples come from ships which either had guns designed to produce blast PAST the roof of the next lower turret...or weren't superfiring at all and the muzzleblast wasn't hitting the affected gunhouse's roof directly. Yet Juneaus and Worcesters had their muzzles just behind the previous turret. Their blast on end on low-angle fire (low enough to just shoot past them) would've been put just above the next gunhouse. Yes, those were 5'' and 6'' guns obviously with quite weaker blast effects. But no, if you think that means the experience for the guys below would be pleasant, think again - the blast itself might have been smaller, but it'd have happened just avobe the gunhouse roof, and the blast concussion would've fully impacted those roofs, which being closed rigid structures, would've ringed like a bell. Not the most exciting thing to experience if you're a guy inside the "ringing bell". |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 8, 2019 5:10:48 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.
|
|
|
|
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 ramjb on Jun 8, 2019 6:40:08 GMT -6
That's kinda the problem, isn't it?  . IF your battleship is running, it's because what's coming from behind is big, scary, and numerous enough that 6'' secondaries won't do much...nor in fact anything smaller than the main caliber of your ship's guns. Which are pointed the other way XD. I think all forward is OK if you're limited by something like dock size or your nation REALLY struggles for money. Otherwise...the tactical implications of having no turrets to your rear are too much of a concern for me to go with them. But there are players who swear by them, so that's just a personal opinion . |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 8, 2019 7:00:35 GMT -6
That's kinda the problem, isn't it? . IF your battleship is running, it's because what's coming from behind is big, scary, and numerous enough that 6'' secondaries won't do much...nor in fact anything smaller than the main caliber of your ship's guns. Which are pointed the other way XD. I think all forward is OK if you're limited by something like dock size or your nation REALLY struggles for money. Otherwise...the tactical implications of having no turrets to your rear are too much of a concern for me to go with them. But there are players who swear by them, so that's just a personal opinion . I'd advocate them... But only with 4 heavy secondaries (2" lower than main calibre). That way you can have your cake and eat it. The main battery doesn't weigh as much and you will always have a heavy gun firing, even when retreating. |
|
.
. For me anything that's well beyond point-blank (point-blank being the range at which guns trajectory remains almost flat) is not minimum range anymore.
