|
Post by dizzy on Nov 13, 2019 15:38:21 GMT -6
Cuz they were.
|
|
|
Post by colprice on Nov 13, 2019 15:53:27 GMT -6
IIRC, the only triple DP guns were on the Repulse (and Renown, but she replaced them with 4.5 X 2 through deck mountings), and the French Dunkiek/Strasbourg. They seem to have been not very useful as a gun mount, and replaced as soon as possible.
Colin
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 13, 2019 16:14:13 GMT -6
There are more.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 13, 2019 17:15:28 GMT -6
Just some talking points about this issue. Firing at an aircraft moving over 150 to 200 MPH is quite a bit different than firing at a warship sailing at 30 knots. The gun has to fire much faster and consequently, it almost has to be have fixed ammunition. This means the projectile and the shell casing are one piece and there is no base fuze. There is an AAC or antiaircraft common which is dual purpose and the type of fuze depends on its use. Up until after WW2, this fixed ammunition had to be loaded manually which means it could not be very heavy. All this then tells you that you could not have too many guns in a turret for the weapon to be effective. That is just my take.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 13, 2019 17:22:25 GMT -6
IIRC, the only triple DP guns were on the Repulse (and Renown, but she replaced them with 4.5 X 2 through deck mountings) The triple 4" mounts on Repluse at the time of her sinking were not really dual-purpose mounts, to my understanding - they were part of the ship's original secondary battery, intended to protect the ship against torpedo boats and destroyers rather than to engage aircraft.
As to other triple DP mounts, there's the 6" guns carried on the Yamatos and Mogamis (as built).
I don't know of any three-/triple-gun DP mount in a caliber that would be relevant to the game which was actually effective in the anti-aircraft role. This feels far more like something that should come under the Heavy AA Shells doctrine option, which allows you to provide AA shells to weapons which really aren't suitable for the purpose. It's also important to have a reasonably high rate of elevation and training (as well as a high angular acceleration so that you can get the mount training and elevating rapidly and then stop it quickly) so that you can bring the gun to bear rapidly and then track the target effectively, which means that you want to keep the system's rotational moments of inertia relatively low. The more guns of a given type that you put into a mount, the larger and more massive that mount has to be and thus the higher its rotational moments of inertia will be.
A further issue is that many guns and mountings are not capable of any-angle loading, which isn't usually that much of an issue when engaging surface targets but becomes much more problematic when engaging aircraft since the need to change the gun's elevation from the (maximum) loading angle to the firing angle and back could significantly limit the maximum effective rate of fire at high gun elevations.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 13, 2019 17:39:15 GMT -6
I don't know of any three-/triple-gun DP mount in a caliber that would be relevant to the game which was actually effective in the anti-aircraft role. This feels far more like something that should come under the Heavy AA Shells doctrine option, which allows you to provide AA shells to weapons which really aren't suitable for the purpose. This isn't an historical sim! I never said anything about the effectiveness of them. I said there were 6 in DP guns in triple mounts and there were many of them. In this game there should be tech that enables you to add 6 Inch DP guns in triple mounts! The war ended in 1945, but we get to play it to what, 1955, 1960? We need 6 Inch DP guns in triple mounts yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 14, 2019 0:09:54 GMT -6
This is not an historical sim. Period. Where do you get that? This game is a making history sandbox game.
Auto loading mechanical tech should enable efficient 6 inch anti-air. Considering an unfinished Iowa class was going to have its main turrets redone with 8 inch autoloaders and they were going to develop an anti-air round just goes to show you how the tech in RTW2 truncates the logical continuation of technological research. Try approaching this with a little more peripheral vision than how you’re fixated on the competitive tech that swirled around as a consequence of our nation’s world wars that may never happen in rtw2.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 14, 2019 1:09:24 GMT -6
This is not an historical sim. Period. Where do you get that? This game is a making history sandbox game. It's a historical sim because it's designed to emulate historical technological capabilities in the time frame covered by the game, assigns territory at game start on a historical basis, and provides each of the powers with an initial budget which is intended to place that power about where it was historically relative to the other powers represented within the game. That the game does not force the player to follow a historically-inspired script or attempt to closely match historical fleets merely shifts it farther out into the what-if end of quasi-historical simulation games rather than being in the more prescriptive end where you're essentially trying to be a better admiral/general than whoever it was who was commanding your chosen side at the Battle of X in the year Y.
Rate of fire is far from the only problem that needs to be resolved to produce a practical three-/triple-gun HAA/DP mount - training and elevation rates and mechanical reliability are at least as important as rate of fire, and adding in the equipment necessary for the autoloaders might actually hurt those by making the turret heavier and more mechanically complex. It's arguably the least important problem to resolve, because the number of shells your gun can theoretically put into the air hardly matters if your gun cannot be brought to bear on the target rapidly enough to engage it in a timely fashion or track the target effectively.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 14, 2019 2:29:01 GMT -6
This is not an historical sim. Period. Where do you get that? This game is a making history sandbox game. That the game does not force the player to follow a historically-inspired script or attempt to closely match historical fleets merely shifts it farther out into the what-if end of quasi-historical simulation games. You're kind of making my point here. That the USA can build a Yamato class battleship proves it is not an historical sim. The Japanese can build a South Dakota. WW2 never happens. The Washington Naval Treaty is never signed and carriers never overtake the battleship. I can go on. That it should be resolved is my argument. There's nothing that would preclude the development of this type of weapon and in fact, it is the logical conclusion of the progression of this technology. Historically, the USA cancelled an upgraded 6 inch triple DP mount after World War II ended. The fact this was actually proposed by the US Navy should be all the argument needed to add this tech progression. I really don't understand this Negative Nancy attitude.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Nov 14, 2019 4:59:46 GMT -6
Historically, the USA cancelled an upgraded 6 inch triple DP mount after World War II ended. The fact this was actually proposed by the US Navy should be all the argument needed to add this tech progression. I really don't understand this Negative Nancy attitude. It matters *why* it was cancelled. If it was cancelled because design studies projected an AA performance that wasn't competitive with lighter twin turrets, that would indicate that maybe triple DP turrets shouldn't be a thing in game. For my part, I think DP triples were probably doable and should be included, but the fact that no really successful triple DP mounts really saw service casts that into enough doubt that I don't see any reason to demand that the devs implement DP triples "yesterday" (and basic politeness is another reason not to demand features yesterday).
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 14, 2019 5:07:52 GMT -6
The reason the US Navy cancelled it was because the war ended and they no longer had the funds to spend on the project. In this sandbox game, that type reasoning is no excuse to eighty-six the triple six DP.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Nov 14, 2019 5:35:05 GMT -6
The reason the US Navy cancelled it was because the war ended and they no longer had the funds to spend on the project. In this sandbox game, that type reasoning is no excuse to eighty-six the triple six DP. During the war, they had funding to try things and see if they worked. After the war, they probably had funding for one DP mount project, and so they probably would have gone with the one that was the safest bet. Yes, if wartime funding had continued, I think the odds are fairly good that the triple six would have been at least a decent DP weapon. But the navy was not confident enough of that to pick the triple six over the alternatives (such as the 5"/54), so I maintain that even though I disagree with triple DP being entirely excluded, the devs *do* have an excuse not to include it.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 14, 2019 6:31:44 GMT -6
www.navygeneralboard.com/forum/warship-discussion-historic-ships/what-was-the-best-light-cruiser-ever-produced/#post-797This is where I saw it. Then I looked at the 6" Mark 16 DP guns and there's a reference to the triple 6 DP there too. I'm not sure exactly why the 'project' was cancelled, so I'ma gonna walk back what I said about it being cancelled because of funding. It's entirely possible that 6" triple DP cannot exist in this universe. But it's more likely it can since the 8" gun was the template for the design. I fully would expect it to have been developed had the navy funded this project and I'm sure they would have, but the end of the war put a crimp in that plan. And there's ZERO reason why it shouldn't be included in the game, except, clearly, only because the gun may have winked out human existence along with the rest of all sentient creatures in the universe, is the only viable argument for why not to have it, obviously. I'm going to find more info on this gun because I want it in the game. If I have to tear this universe another black hole, I'm going to find it. I've got to, mister!
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 14, 2019 6:58:09 GMT -6
Found it.
Apparently, the guns were mostly complete, lacked a ship to be installed on and are now sitting in a box in that warehouse along with the Ark of the Covenant.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Nov 14, 2019 7:20:32 GMT -6
The triple 6'' on the Town and Crown colony class were DP. Although the RN ceased to use them in that role by mid war as their fire rate was too slow for the ever faster aircraft they were facing.
|
|