|
Post by polygon on May 24, 2020 12:55:08 GMT -6
Is there a good reason to build ships with 18" or 20" guns other than bragging rights? I'm going to ignore 17" and 19" guns because I don't like odd numbers.
Argument against:
By the time you have both the displacement and rangefinding equipment to actually make use of an 18" gun (and no, Lord Fischer, a 20,000 ton "light cruiser" is not an appropriate mounting for an 18" gun), you're almost certainly better off building a smaller battleship and spending the saved money on more carriers. 16" shells will give pretty much any ship afloat a bad day, and anything too large to sink with 16" shells is basically a free kill for your CVs.
Argument for:
Longer inherent range (even if you can't use it) should mean higher accuracy, right? And if you've got a broadside of 8 18" guns, you might one-shot the poor sap who got in range.
|
|
|
Post by itrefel on May 24, 2020 13:38:39 GMT -6
15" are fine to be honest. I haven't really noticed any difference in effectiveness at all between games where I stop at 15" and get better armour vs those where I install larger guns. The AI fleets only have what they have. 14" is a bit marginal.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 24, 2020 13:43:19 GMT -6
I've gotten to the point where I'll use 18"+ if the quality is good (whereas with smaller calibers I'll take a larger gun regardless of quality). I have a tendency to go for low gun counts, so that gives me spare tonnage.
What I will say, though, is that it becomes so expensive to end a war in the late game (i.e, the budget cuts after a war are so extreme), that it becomes very difficult to keep up a fleet of even 16" ships along with a decent carrier fleet, even if your peacetime budget after you recover generally would be enough to maintain a 20" fleet.
|
|
|
Post by epigon on May 24, 2020 15:43:20 GMT -6
From my (limited) experience, 14 and 16 inch are optimal guns. I often convert the triples 12/13/14 to twin 16 to make my early AB-X and AB-XY ships more lasting, with additional deck armour. 17 Q+1 is awesome, but very late and overshadowed by carriers.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 24, 2020 17:12:20 GMT -6
17" guns fire 3000 pound shells, nearly 50 percent larger than the 2048 pound 16" gun.
|
|
|
Post by xt6wagon on May 24, 2020 18:08:32 GMT -6
From looking at the files, 17" is kinda a sweetspot in the lineup. Bigger does no more theoretical damage per minute, while reducing actual DPM by way of much heavier guns that are slower to ladder the enemy.
That said if your choice is between 3 15" guns that still pen the enemy and 2 17" guns? I'd have to go with 15" till radar and accuracy techs lets you really tear into ships at long range.
However, its really funny to get pass through hit on an enemy battleship's main belt. Which 17" is more than willing to provide. Optimal? no, but still funny.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on May 24, 2020 20:36:22 GMT -6
On a gun - for - gun basis, 18" guns provide the greatest damage over time, but I haven't seen a study of whether they're the most cost or displacement efficient. Either way, another argument to be made for longer ranged weapons, even if you can't effectively make use of their maximum range, is that they are more accurate at any given range than shorter ranged weapons.
|
|
|
Post by kmsxkuse on May 24, 2020 22:29:05 GMT -6
I always build a 4x2 20" battle cruiser with no armor (1 inch everything) and at least 35 knots (30 knots is my carrier standard speed).
Is it useful? No. By the time I actually build that horrifying monstrosity, carriers dominate the seas and the ship itself is just torpedo bait.
There was the one time that it finally got into range of an enemy battleship and four hits was a passthrough + splinters off the main belt.
It's mainly a personal yacht for the High Admiral.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 25, 2020 0:43:35 GMT -6
I have found that 18" and 20" are useful, even more useful than 16", simply because they are "ammo saving", i.e. they provide at least as much damage potential over time as 16" for a longer time, especially on "super large" hulls. The "feeling" is that they are more economical in damage potential vs. ammunition weight. The way I direct my ships running out of ammo, even with ahistorically large magazines (120 rpg or more), is happening almost every battle until 18"+ guns become available.
|
|
geroj
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by geroj on May 25, 2020 1:23:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by holoween on May 25, 2020 1:31:21 GMT -6
Id argue larger calibers are entirely pointless. The only thing that really matters is how quickly and how often can you hit your oponents ships.
|
|
lucur
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by lucur on May 25, 2020 6:08:53 GMT -6
I'm not sure how accuracy is fully calculated, but having a longer range should increase accuracy sooner, if hit chance correlates with increments of max range. Economically i never felt a need for more than 16" guns, i often even stop at 14" for BCs. BUT there's always little Tommy in my head who wants his Yamato and his H-class...
|
|
|
Post by smrfisher on May 25, 2020 7:02:03 GMT -6
I don't see any reason why the maximum firing range should have any baring on a guns accuracy. In history, the biggest factors regarding accuracy were the proficiency of the fire control system, and the quality (including quality control/tolerances) of the guns, ammunition and mountings.
Most navies expected to fight at the 16000 to 20000 yard range (USN at little longer), much closer than 26000 yard longest hits (Scharnhorst & Warspite) or the 40000+ yard maximum range of things like the 40cm/45 type 94 or Mk7 16"/50.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 25, 2020 9:16:51 GMT -6
I don't see any reason why the maximum firing range should have any baring on a guns accuracy. In history, the biggest factors regarding accuracy were the proficiency of the fire control system, and the quality (including quality control/tolerances) of the guns, ammunition and mountings. Most navies expected to fight at the 16000 to 20000 yard range (USN at little longer), much closer than 26000 yard longest hits (Scharnhorst & Warspite) or the 40000+ yard maximum range of things like the 40cm/45 type 94 or Mk7 16"/50. Maximum firing range is dependent on muzzle velocity, so those larger ranges will need a higher shell speed. This allows the gun to fire at a lower elevation and reach the target quicker at a given range than a comparatively shorter ranged gun. While this will not make the gun more accurate or precise in an objective standpoint, versus say a static target, engaging a moving target means the enemy will move less in the time the shell is flying, making it easier to hit with a longer ranged gun at a given range.
|
|
|
Post by smrfisher on May 25, 2020 9:27:50 GMT -6
seawolf, whilst true regarding the advantages of muzzle velocity, this is a factor of the design of the gun itself rather than its calibre. However, unlike in tank armaments muzzle velocity isn't everything in naval artillery due to needed a greater relative mass of projectile to maintain velocity and carrying a bursting charge as a payload. The major advantage of being able to initially engage at a long distance is that you can walk your fire on to target sooner from spotting the enemy in absolute terms, but not in relative number of salvos required.
|
|