|
|
Post by Blothorn on Jul 10, 2019 16:06:09 GMT -6
If we're playing with modifications here, I'd almost prefer to see an option for pure AA guns that can't fire at surface targets. Something like these historical Japanese weapons, for example. Make them a lot lighter than DP guns, of course - it looks like the Japanese could do an unarmoured dual mount for 20 tons, whereas the American 5"/38 was 37.6 tons for a minimally-armoured (1/8") dual mount, despite the American guns themselves each being a ton lighter. I don't think not being intended for surface use plays a role in their low weight--the ASW rounds mean that they were perfectly capable of firing at surface targets, they were just not supplied with shells for those. The lack of integral shell hoists, however, suggests they are far less capable (particularly in the AA role) than the 5"/38. |
|
|
|
Post by DeMatt on Jul 10, 2019 21:31:38 GMT -6
If we're playing with modifications here, I'd almost prefer to see an option for pure AA guns that can't fire at surface targets. I wouldn't mind getting the ability to add HAA guns in the same fashion as we add LAA or MAA. However, I think if it doesn't have anti-surface capability, then it shouldn't have its ammunition tracked, nor should it occupy turret mount points or even be drawn on the ship. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 23, 2019 12:12:57 GMT -6
If we're playing with modifications here, I'd almost prefer to see an option for pure AA guns that can't fire at surface targets. Something like these historical Japanese weapons, for example. Make them a lot lighter than DP guns, of course - it looks like the Japanese could do an unarmoured dual mount for 20 tons, whereas the American 5"/38 was 37.6 tons for a minimally-armoured (1/8") dual mount, despite the American guns themselves each being a ton lighter. do keep in mind the japanese 5 incher was able to fire on surface targets with its -7 degrees of gun depression and its firecontrol was able to handle it (at shorter distances mostly below 10km) in the same way the american 76mm autocannon could also fire on surface targets while yes the weights of the turrets is vastly diffrent the gunhouse one is heavier because it includes alot more crew and the gun and targeting systems are a bit heavier and are in the turret (rangefinders) also to be noted the japanese made a 127mm encased mount with 25mm thick armor (1 inch) i dont know its weight but i imagine it being substantial the japanese 127mm also has a shielded mount which weighed more than the unshielded one |
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Jul 27, 2019 15:20:37 GMT -6
If I may be so bold as to enlighten you - Dual mounted 3,4,5,6in. guns can have Dual Purpose mountings already at higher techs, and if I'm not mistaken, there were no functional three-gun dual purpose mounts actually built and employed, but of course, I could be wrong there. I will second the desire for super-super firing configurations on smaller gun fittings, as my Dido-esque trade protection cruisers are a little sad given the current state of affairs. the Three Gun Turrets of the Des Monies class Heavy Cruisers could be linked to AA Fire Control and be used as AA Guns, granted they were 8" Autoloading Rifles... Kind of? Maximum elevation was only 41 degrees, but more importantly these guns were fed by conveyor-type hoists for projectiles. So if the ship had AP or contact-fuzed HE loaded, it would require unloading the hoists(which I'm not even certain is possible except by firing) in order to load shells with proximity or mechanical timed fuzes into the system. That would take at least a minute or two. The USN 6" DP gun worked in a similar way, but had multiple projectile hoists to get around this issue. |
|
corgi
New Member
Posts: 43 
|
Post by corgi on Jul 29, 2019 15:48:32 GMT -6
I don't think the historical guns being ineffective is a reason not to have them. I'd like to have the option for 8" DP guns that are only marginally effective (maybe with autoloader they could do something) and triple or quad mounts that are much worse per gun than the double mounts until a later technology.
Compared to RTW1 I think RTW2 doesn't give you as many opportunities to build silly things that wouldn't have worked in real life, don't really work in game, but would have been possible with the technology. I'd like more suboptimal options.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 30, 2019 4:42:34 GMT -6
I don't think the historical guns being ineffective is a reason not to have them. I'd like to have the option for 8" DP guns that are only marginally effective (maybe with autoloader they could do something) and triple or quad mounts that are much worse per gun than the double mounts until a later technology. Compared to RTW1 I think RTW2 doesn't give you as many opportunities to build silly things that wouldn't have worked in real life, don't really work in game, but would have been possible with the technology. I'd like more suboptimal options. yep it would be nice |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 30, 2019 4:48:17 GMT -6
the Three Gun Turrets of the Des Monies class Heavy Cruisers could be linked to AA Fire Control and be used as AA Guns, granted they were 8" Autoloading Rifles... Kind of? Maximum elevation was only 41 degrees, but more importantly these guns were fed by conveyor-type hoists for projectiles. So if the ship had AP or contact-fuzed HE loaded, it would require unloading the hoists(which I'm not even certain is possible except by firing) in order to load shells with proximity or mechanical timed fuzes into the system. That would take at least a minute or two. The USN 6" DP gun worked in a similar way, but had multiple projectile hoists to get around this issue. true although firing on airplanes while being in surface combat is not that common also because gun muzzle blasts were not nice for the aa crews most guns of 6 inchs + used conveyer hoists because they are just better for fast firerate with heavier shells the 8inch gun also had pretty quick and good conveyers (ayy 6 second reload) so it wouldnt be a problem getting shells to the guns fast also it had all angle loading which might actually be usefull for anti air duty granted the 41 elevation limitation was a problem |
|
