|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2019 10:28:42 GMT -6
Do you find them useful?
I have just invented them and looking to add them to my new 4800 tons small cruiser but it seems to me that they are too heavy to be useful.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jul 18, 2019 11:40:15 GMT -6
I keep meaning to check the ROF fire stat on the ship details but keep forgetting. Would really need to see the numbers of how they are affecting the ROF to make any reasonable judgment.
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jul 18, 2019 11:44:02 GMT -6
Yes. I took a 4x3 6" armed cruiser (autoloading) up against a 4x3 10" cruiser and watched it pummel the normally much better armed vessel. Something like 76 hits, reading the logs of the poor victim was a litany of radar, fire control and turrets being repaired repeatedly only to be straight away knocked out again by the hurricane of incoming shells.
|
|
|
Post by ulzgoroth on Jul 18, 2019 12:10:02 GMT -6
Documentation seems to say it's +10% RoF and goes up to +30% in rapid firing on a straddled target, for +25% weight. That doesn't seem like a great deal unless either (A) +25% gun weight makes for a lot less than +25% turret weight, maybe because the turrets have a bunch of armor or (B) something is limiting your ability to add more guns instead. I'm using it on a class of all-forward DP light cruisers, which only can fit 3x2 6" turrets, so I wanted to make the most of those six tubes. But I'm not using it on most of the 6" secondary batteries on my larger ships. Not sure how much autoloading increases heavy AA score contribution, which is an important consideration in many cases. Yes. I took a 4x3 6" armed cruiser (autoloading) up against a 4x3 10" cruiser and watched it pummel the normally much better armed vessel. Something like 76 hits, reading the logs of the poor victim was a litany of radar, fire control and turrets being repaired repeatedly only to be straight away knocked out again by the hurricane of incoming shells. Autoloading couldn't have hurt there, but even without it the 6" guns would be much faster firing than 10", and might have similar effects if you're fighting close enough that penetration isn't a problem.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 12:11:56 GMT -6
Do you find them useful?
I have just invented them and looking to add them to my new 4800 tons small cruiser but it seems to me that they are too heavy to be useful.
I consider the primary use cases for autoloaders to be on DP guns and on ships where adding more guns becomes undesirable or impossible before paying the costs for autoloaders does. If your 4,800t cruiser is primarily an escort for larger vessels and its main battery is a DP battery, then I'd consider using autoloaders on it - one of the main things that it's there to defend against is air attack, autoloaders seem to increase HAA factor by about 50% for 4" or 5" guns and by about 75% for 6" guns, and unless you have a very small main battery you'll probably see a larger increase in HAA factor from autoloaders than from a similar tonnage invested into more guns. If, on the other hand, your 4,800t cruiser is primarily for covering a colonial station or for trade protection, then I'd be more inclined to instead just add more guns or reduce the size of the ship.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2019 12:13:18 GMT -6
In manual is stated that their incresease ROF by 10 % and after enemy ship is straddled and going to rapid fire ROF is increased by 30 %. On top of that it has increased efficiency (not know how much) of AA guns.
But I will take example of my last 4800 tons cruiser.
I have triple 6" turrets ABY configuration with 1" face and 1" top armour. Variant A - adding Q triple turret - adds 189 tons - increase broadside by 33 %
Variant B - adding X triple turret - adds 206 tons - increase broadside by 33 % Variant C - adding V triple turret - adding 193 tons - increase broadside by 33 % Variant D - adding autoloader to ABY turret - adding 155 tons - increase broadside, forward and aft arcs by 10 % (30 % after straddling) Variant E (comparsion with about same weight) - replaced tripple turrets BY to double turrets and add autoloading (322 ABY) - adding 2 tons, changes: broadside: 7.7 ROF vs. 9 original before straddling, 9.1 vs. 9 original after straddling forward arc: 5.5 ROF vs. 6 original before straddling, 6.5 vs. 6 original after straddling aft arc: 2.2 ROF vs. 3 original before straddling, 2.6 vs. 3 original after straddling
So it gives only negligible advantage after straddling and about 8.5 % higher ROF after straddling for forward arc, otherwise is much worse.
So I would expect that adding another ABXY turret is better and it has some positive effect only if you have all turrets for larger cruisers as it increase forward firing power.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2019 12:18:10 GMT -6
Do you find them useful?
I have just invented them and looking to add them to my new 4800 tons small cruiser but it seems to me that they are too heavy to be useful.
I consider the primary use cases for autoloaders to be on DP guns and on ships where adding more guns becomes undesirable or impossible before paying the costs for autoloaders does. If your 4,800t cruiser is primarily an escort for larger vessels and its main battery is a DP battery, then I'd consider using autoloaders on it - one of the main things that it's there to defend against is air attack, autoloaders seem to increase HAA factor by about 50% for 4" or 5" guns and by about 75% for 6" guns, and unless you have a very small main battery you'll probably see a larger increase in HAA factor from autoloaders than from a similar tonnage invested into more guns. If, on the other hand, your 4,800t cruiser is primarily for covering a colonial station or for trade protection, then I'd be more inclined to instead just add more guns or reduce the size of the ship.
It was just example, for 4800 tons cruiser it seems it has no sence (see one post above). It seems it have only reason for larger cruisers with huge firepower and additional increase of firepower is desired. In this case it could be interesting options if you have already ABXY turret as it increase not only broadside (as addiotional turret) but firepower to forward and aft arcs too.
Note: this small cruiser was for colonial duty, finally configuration was 3x3x6" guns, 2x2 torpedo tubes with reload, 1 airplane with hangar, long range and 31 knots, armour and AA guns were sacrificed. It could be easily refitted to AA platform by demounting torpedo tubes and installing AA guns and addional directors.
|
|
|
Post by deeznuts on Jul 18, 2019 12:24:41 GMT -6
1 inch turret face and top is extremely low for a triple 6 inch gun(and asking for a flash fire to happen, hell even splinters will disable those guns), and you have to consider that adding turrets instead of using autoloading increases the potential for an enemy hit on magazines/turrets so using auto loafers also help you reduce the chance of flash fires indirectly
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2019 12:56:10 GMT -6
1 inch turret face and top is extremely low for a triple 6 inch gun(and asking for a flash fire to happen, hell even splinters will disable those guns), and you have to consider that adding turrets instead of using autoloading increases the potential for an enemy hit on magazines/turrets so using auto loafers also help you reduce the chance of flash fires indirectly To be in same displacement, you can replaced 3x3x6" guns with armor 1/1" with 3x2x6" guns with armour 2.5/2" or 3/1". In both cases armour is not thick enough against 6" shells. It does not work and as ship is intended to colonial duty, so being cheap as possible, it is best solution. And at 1944 chance of flashfire I think should be quite low.
Her main advantage is 31 knots using diesel engines which should give her advantage to choose battle conditions. At night or bad weather at close range the deficiency in armour is not so important. And she has firepower in 6" guns as my fleet 7200 tons cruisers, only lacking armour protection, AA guns including secondaries and more torpedo tubes.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 18, 2019 13:29:56 GMT -6
deeznuts - auto loafers? Yes, I know you meant autoloaders - but it made me smile.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 13:54:46 GMT -6
1 inch turret face and top is extremely low for a triple 6 inch gun(and asking for a flash fire to happen, hell even splinters will disable those guns), and you have to consider that adding turrets instead of using autoloading increases the potential for an enemy hit on magazines/turrets so using auto loafers also help you reduce the chance of flash fires indirectly Firepower over protection is a valid choice - or at the very least an entirely historically plausible one - for a small cruiser, especially considering that the computer seems somewhat fond of heavy cruisers armed with 8", 9", or 10" guns and armoring a small cruiser against such weapons probably isn't practical anyways.
Also, if you want to bring up the likelihood of a flashfire or magazine explosion occuring, remember that the likelihood of such events occurring to one of your ships is influenced by the number of hits you expect your ship to sustain in the engagement. All else being equal, increasing firepower reduces expected engagement duration, which in turn reduces the number of hits you expect your ship to receive during the engagement. Increasing number of guns per salvo probably increases the expected number of hits scored on the enemy per salvo, which in turn should increase the likelihood of scoring debilitating hits (disable/destroy a turret, knock out radar/fire control, wipe out the bridge crew, etc), thereby reducing the expected number of hits your ship will sustain in an engagement of a given duration. Therefore, adding more guns in more turrets can reduce the likelihood of a flashfire or magazine explosion despite the increased probability of a hit finding a magazine or turret when the magazines are larger and the turrets and magazines more numerous.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2019 14:27:38 GMT -6
.... especially considering that the computer seems somewhat fond of heavy cruisers armed with 8", 9", or 10" guns .. This is something which I do not understand. It seems to me that heavy cruiser is the least practical ship.
Battleships are kings. Battlecruisers (an early armoured cruisers) sacrifice armour/firepower for speed which makes them more universal and have still enough firepower and armour to fight battleships in large numbers. Than there are destroyers with their deadly torpedoes and speed, later adding reasonable firepower. Than there is protected cruiser later light cruiser, fast, some armour, good firepower, ideal scout, patrolling oceans and distant waters and colonies. At start of century destroyers costs about 1.5M to cruisers about 10-25M. In late 20s destroyers costs around 7-10M, light cruisers from 20 to 40M. With their reasonable firepower, torpedo tubes, airplanes, armour and speed usually only about 3 knots slower than destroyers made them most versatile ship and still with fraction of costs of large capital ships.
And than we have heavy cruisers with costs of 55 to 65M. But their reasons are same as ligh cruisers. Their only advantage is range of fire and heavier guns, better protection over light cruisers. But they cannot face capital ships either except point blank range but even at that range capital ship armour could be enough. For that both light cruisers and destroyers are better as they are more expendable. At day they have no chance against capital ships. Even battlecruisers build in 30s about 20000 tons with 6 heavy guns are only a little more expensive but can still fight all ships much better. So their only reason is to sink light cruisers but they have no speed advantage over them.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jul 18, 2019 16:20:36 GMT -6
guns 6" or under can't get flash fires so no need to armour them, but if you don't they can get knocked out pretty quick - although if you casemate them they are more survivable
i havn't armoured my 6" casemate guns in years and never had a single flash fire
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 18, 2019 17:09:06 GMT -6
guns 6" or under can't get flash fires so no need to armour them, but if you don't they can get knocked out pretty quick - although if you casemate them they are more survivable i havn't armoured my 6" casemate guns in years and never had a single flash fire They can get flash fires if they are main guns, which is case in light cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by ulzgoroth on Jul 18, 2019 18:20:16 GMT -6
.... especially considering that the computer seems somewhat fond of heavy cruisers armed with 8", 9", or 10" guns .. This is something which I do not understand. It seems to me that heavy cruiser is the least practical ship.
Battleships are kings. Battlecruisers (an early armoured cruisers) sacrifice armour/firepower for speed which makes them more universal and have still enough firepower and armour to fight battleships in large numbers. Than there are destroyers with their deadly torpedoes and speed, later adding reasonable firepower. Than there is protected cruiser later light cruiser, fast, some armour, good firepower, ideal scout, patrolling oceans and distant waters and colonies. At start of century destroyers costs about 1.5M to cruisers about 10-25M. In late 20s destroyers costs around 7-10M, light cruisers from 20 to 40M. With their reasonable firepower, torpedo tubes, airplanes, armour and speed usually only about 3 knots slower than destroyers made them most versatile ship and still with fraction of costs of large capital ships.
And than we have heavy cruisers with costs of 55 to 65M. But their reasons are same as ligh cruisers. Their only advantage is range of fire and heavier guns, better protection over light cruisers. But they cannot face capital ships either except point blank range but even at that range capital ship armour could be enough. For that both light cruisers and destroyers are better as they are more expendable. At day they have no chance against capital ships. Even battlecruisers build in 30s about 20000 tons with 6 heavy guns are only a little more expensive but can still fight all ships much better. So their only reason is to sink light cruisers but they have no speed advantage over them.
A small battlecruiser isn't necessarily going to be able to stand against a battle line any better than a heavy cruiser, at which point it's just a heavy cruiser that is better at fighting other heavy cruisers.
Battle generation may also give you engagements where you could use a CA but not a BC.
|
|