|
Post by redmabuse on Jul 7, 2021 5:27:47 GMT -6
The builder does not let you place SAM missile launchers in starboard or broadside positions. However, when the Design is checked, ships with non-centreline SAMs are allowed to pass. This is important, since the "Auto Design ship" button constructs ships with non-centreline SAMs, and these *can* be build then. (I have yet to encounter an enemy Ship equipped with SAM, so I cannot say whether the AI really takes advantage of it, or if it is just a quirk in the builder)
|
|
|
Post by navalperson on Nov 13, 2021 0:02:04 GMT -6
The builder does not let you place SAM missile launchers in starboard or broadside positions. However, when the Design is checked, ships with non-centreline SAMs are allowed to pass. This is important, since the "Auto Design ship" button constructs ships with non-centreline SAMs, and these *can* be build then. (I have yet to encounter an enemy Ship equipped with SAM, so I cannot say whether the AI really takes advantage of it, or if it is just a quirk in the builder) View Attachment I’ve wondered about this too. In why can only the designer put starboard and broadside Sam’s but not you.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 13, 2021 3:00:42 GMT -6
AI ships don't have centerline SAMs in my experience, it's just the designer.
|
|
|
Post by flamedraken on Nov 13, 2021 21:38:30 GMT -6
Light SAMs can be placed in non-centerline positions, Medium and Heavy produce the error message.
The AI will build ships with SAMs in the side positions. The issue is that I don't recall if they are the light or medium SAMs since I often enable the other sized launchers.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 14, 2021 6:38:49 GMT -6
Well, I've never seen light or heavy SAMs in action, both on my ships and on the AI's ships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 14, 2021 10:40:37 GMT -6
The builder does not let you place SAM missile launchers in starboard or broadside positions. However, when the Design is checked, ships with non-centreline SAMs are allowed to pass. This is important, since the "Auto Design ship" button constructs ships with non-centreline SAMs, and these *can* be build then. (I have yet to encounter an enemy Ship equipped with SAM, so I cannot say whether the AI really takes advantage of it, or if it is just a quirk in the builder) <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> My opinion is that the game is wrong because surface to air missiles in 1950 would be very heavy and would have to be on centerline, with the loaders behind. The RIM-2 Terrier weighed 3000 lbs., the RIM-8 Talos weighed 7800 lbs. they were all semi-active homing missiles.
|
|
|
Post by navalperson on Nov 14, 2021 13:14:47 GMT -6
The builder does not let you place SAM missile launchers in starboard or broadside positions. However, when the Design is checked, ships with non-centreline SAMs are allowed to pass. This is important, since the "Auto Design ship" button constructs ships with non-centreline SAMs, and these *can* be build then. (I have yet to encounter an enemy Ship equipped with SAM, so I cannot say whether the AI really takes advantage of it, or if it is just a quirk in the builder) <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> My opinion is that the game is wrong because surface to air missiles in 1950 would be very heavy and would have to be on centerline, with the loaders behind. The RIM-2 Terrier weighed 3000 lbs., the RIM-8 Talos weighed 7800 lbs. they were all semi-active homing missiles. Well I hope this is addressed in the dlc since I built a heavy cruiser in 1948 with side sams.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 14, 2021 14:45:23 GMT -6
My opinion is that the game is wrong because surface to air missiles in 1950 would be very heavy and would have to be on centerline, with the loaders behind. The RIM-2 Terrier weighed 3000 lbs., the RIM-8 Talos weighed 7800 lbs. they were all semi-active homing missiles. Well I hope this is addressed in the dlc since I built a heavy cruiser in 1948 with side sams. The game should define the weight and size of the missile. A sea sparrow only weighs about 510 lbs. and can be loaded in dual mounts. But it is only a short ranged missile of about 10 NMI. So if it is a short ranged missile it can be loaded most likely on the sides of the ships however if is a Terrier or Talos type, they have a range over 15 NMI. There are many different variables including engines.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 14, 2021 15:42:06 GMT -6
The builder does not let you place SAM missile launchers in starboard or broadside positions. However, when the Design is checked, ships with non-centreline SAMs are allowed to pass. This is important, since the "Auto Design ship" button constructs ships with non-centreline SAMs, and these *can* be build then. (I have yet to encounter an enemy Ship equipped with SAM, so I cannot say whether the AI really takes advantage of it, or if it is just a quirk in the builder) <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> My opinion is that the game is wrong because surface to air missiles in 1950 would be very heavy and would have to be on centerline, with the loaders behind. The RIM-2 Terrier weighed 3000 lbs., the RIM-8 Talos weighed 7800 lbs. they were all semi-active homing missiles. The British Sea Slug of the 1960s weighed over 4,400lbs depending on variant (the Mk 2 being heavier but longer ranged and - more usefully - twice as fast), so again similar limitations. The similar vintage short ranged Sea Cat had a range of about 5km and weighed in at less than 70kg (approx.154 lbs) and was deployed as a replacement for the 40mm Bofors in 4-missile mounts.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 14, 2021 15:44:44 GMT -6
My opinion is that the game is wrong because surface to air missiles in 1950 would be very heavy and would have to be on centerline, with the loaders behind. The RIM-2 Terrier weighed 3000 lbs., the RIM-8 Talos weighed 7800 lbs. they were all semi-active homing missiles. The British Sea Slug of the 1960s weighed over 4,400lbs depending on variant (the Mk 2 being heavier but longer ranged and - more usefully - twice as fast), so again similar limitations. The similar vintage short ranged Sea Cat had a range of about 5km and weighed in at less than 70kg (approx.154 lbs) and was deployed as a replacement for the 40mm Bofors in 4-missile mounts. Yes, and the Russian's had similar weapons for that era. But this is a game, so all bets are off.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 14, 2021 17:33:40 GMT -6
Here is an example of what I consider the problem. This is a cruiser that the AI designed for me, it placed centerline, and a port and starboard medium missile launchers. Yet, when I tried to add port and starboard, the AI gave me this example. Just a note: A medium range SAM could be anywhere from 10 mi to over 90 miles. It would seem that in the games time frame, only short range basic point to point missiles of 10 miles or less along with medium range over 10 miles in range would be usable.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 15, 2021 10:38:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 16, 2021 18:28:58 GMT -6
Here are some interesting facts about GMLS or guided missile launch systems. The MK 4 Terrier GMLS weighed 279,291 lbs. The MK 7 Talos GMLS weighed 403,901 lbs. MK 8 Terrier GMLS weighed 88,905 lbs. MK 9 Terrier GMLS weighted 510,040. www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/US_GMLS.htmUsing the weights above, now put two on each side of the ship. How does that affect the stability of the ship. Remember the loaders have to be behind the launchers. This is entirely too much weight on the side of the ship and will destabilize the ship. Notice that the later lighter SAM's were used on destroyers because the weight of the Terrier types would not work on smaller ships like tin cans.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Nov 16, 2021 23:38:50 GMT -6
Well, Nassau's 11" wing-turrets weighted some 400 tons (800,000 lbs) - www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-45_skc07.php Now, I'm not a naval engineer, but if it was possible to put 400 ton wing-turrets on an early dreadnought before 1910, I'm pretty sure an engineer could work out a way to put missile launchers on side mounts in 1950. Did the turrets on Nassau affect the ships stability? I have no clue. What I _do_ know is, that it was done. Also, the Iowas carried 10 x 5"/38 Mark 28 Mod. 2 twin turrets with 5 on each side and each turret weighing 170,000 lbs for a total of 850,000 lbs on each side, easily enough for two Talos mk. 7 and almost enough for two mk. 9 www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.php
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 17, 2021 7:55:57 GMT -6
Well, Nassau's 11" wing-turrets weighted some 400 tons (800,000 lbs) - www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-45_skc07.php Now, I'm not a naval engineer, but if it was possible to put 400 ton wing-turrets on an early dreadnought before 1910, I'm pretty sure an engineer could work out a way to put missile launchers on side mounts in 1950. Did the turrets on Nassau affect the ships stability? I have no clue. What I _do_ know is, that it was done. Also, the Iowas carried 10 x 5"/38 Mark 28 Mod. 2 twin turrets with 5 on each side and each turret weighing 170,000 lbs for a total of 850,000 lbs on each side, easily enough for two Talos mk. 7 and almost enough for two mk. 9 www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.phpThe difference is in the beam width and weight of the ship. The Nassau had a beam of 88 feet, but the USS Boston which was the first of the guided missile cruisers only had a beam width of 70 feet. It makes a big difference. Boston's total tonnage was about 14,472 but Nassau's was over 21,000 tons. Guided missiles were for cruisers, not dreadnoughts or battleships. By the time of the guided missile, battleships were a thing of the past. There was a project to create a guided missile battleship named the Guided Missile Battleship USS Kentucky. It was never completed and the idea was transferred to the Boston's. They were not that successful either. Keep in mind, that the missile batteries had to have missiles in storage behind the battery. Once a missile was fired, another missile was reloaded. The Boston carried 144 missiles for the two 2 x 2 rail launchers. That's 72 per launcher. Those were stored in the magazine of the ship and had to be automatically brought up. 72 Terriers weighed 216,000 lbs. So the total weight of the spare missiles and the missile launcher could be about 250 tons. This does not included the loading system to bring the missiles up from the magazine. If it is on the side, it had to be stored where the boilers are located in the center of the ship. It really does not make any sense. You also have to take into account the missile blast when it launches, this was tested on the Norton Sound. The key here is that putting gun turrets on the side of a warship is different from the installation of a dual missile battery. The missiles are longer, and weigh more than the shells, they are harder to reload, they have missile blast etc. It ain't that simple.
|
|