|
Post by thomasmacmoragh on Feb 25, 2021 13:18:18 GMT -6
For what it's worth, later BB-size guns really *can* be said to be autoloaders. That's why they can (theoretically) fire ~1-2 shots per minute, instead of ~1 shot every 3 minutes. So much of the work of shell handling & loading for those large guns was done with machinery (and human labor, but lots of machinery) that I would argue they're effectively semi-autoloaders already. would that not be sim-Auto loading?
|
|
ap817
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by ap817 on Mar 7, 2021 16:22:14 GMT -6
For what it's worth, later BB-size guns really *can* be said to be autoloaders. That's why they can (theoretically) fire ~1-2 shots per minute, instead of ~1 shot every 3 minutes. So much of the work of shell handling & loading for those large guns was done with machinery (and human labor, but lots of machinery) that I would argue they're effectively semi-autoloaders already.
Agreed. I'm not sure how much mechanizing the entire magazine would actually help vs. the cost in volume, weight, cost and complexity it would entail. Not like the guys themselves weigh much of anything compared to the ammunition itself and you need their quarters and facilities for boyancy anyway possibly?
Then there is the question of heat and wear of the guns. In a small caliber gun the heat is distributed from the core of the barrel to the outer surface much more quickly than in a huge naval gun. If you double the rate of fire, I wonder if you would end up spewing molten steel out the muzzle before long. And if the guns have a service life of only maybe 200 rounds - and you double the ROF and halve the battery to save weight - you would destroy your guns in a single engagement if you ever spent the entire magazine. Not a big deal for a modern ship where the main gun is your emergency pocket pistol, but a pretty big problem for the main weapons of your most precious frontline assets. Weeks in drydock for your whole battle line after every engagement?
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 7, 2021 22:31:42 GMT -6
The emphasis in naval gunnery moved, in the 1920s, from increasing rate of fire to increasing the percentage of rounds on target. We've seen from the few WW1 and 2 era gunfights that ships had sufficient firepower - a few hits in the right place could disable even a battleship (or the ship could take incredible damage and keep going if critical systems were not hit). You could, possibly, reduce a triple turret to a two-gun mount and use the weight-savings for more and faster machinery... but really you can only move ton-size loads so fast; it's not the speeds but the starting and stopping that wrack the machinery. A far better idea is to develop better fire control, and when you get to the limits of that you need precision, guidable munitions. In other words, the key isn't to spray ton-size projectiles around the ocean but to hit with the ones you do fire. Increasing rate of fire is just an attempt to get more hits through the same percentage of a larger number... but no battleship was designed to carry the 500 or more rounds per gun you'd need for a full-on 16" machine-gun. And as ap817 said, you can't swap out the barrels on the big guns while at sea. None of that was developed as fast as it could be because aircraft made long-range gunnery somewhat quaint.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Mar 9, 2021 4:19:55 GMT -6
RTW rate of fire is quite low reaching light cruiser levels of rate of fire (6-10 rounds per minute) is already impossible currently the rate of fire in game is capped at around 4
at 4 rof though you notice your ships emptying their ammo much faster and ships dying in 20-30 minutes instead of a 4 hour slugfest (in game time)
playing with high ROF is super fun but also super hard because a decision to engage means that if you loose you dont have time to disengage with a damaged ship as it gets sunk too fast (like in real life)
also night battles (1v1) end in less than 10 (IN GAME) minutes of firing which surprisingly is super realistic
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Mar 9, 2021 7:23:28 GMT -6
Next question is probably will this be improved in the expansion, given it runs until 1970: 1948 - 8"/55RF (20.3 cm) Mark 16 - 10 rounds per minute 1948 - 6"/47DP (15.2 cm) Mark 16 - 12 rounds per minute 1954 - 5"/54 (12.7 cm) Mark 42 - 28 rounds per minute
|
|