Post by tbr on Oct 13, 2015 16:31:56 GMT -6
Currently the price for land fortifications is excessive. The "top of the line" turreted 14inch installation costs 44 million (4.4 million times 10 months). One can design a very decent small "station" BB for that price which would have both more tactical as well as strategic utility. It would just take more time to complete but when you need to "surge" capability the last thing you build is land installations.
A 14 inch double turret with 13T and 3TT armor costs around 6.5 million. Even four would come to 26 million. But for landbound (or modified) turrets construction/modification with extra armor was cheaper than for ship's turrets. The magazines, hoists etc., that is all paraphernailia of the turret and its guns, could also be built/designed to be significantly cheaper than on board a ship. The other thing is that concrete and land construction labour is and was waaaaay cheaper than steel and shipbuilding work. Then there is the fact that a land installation does not need propulsion...
Not just the top of the line "turreted 14inch" but all land installations need a severe reduction in price. Else it stays a-historical and they are just not worth building in the game. I recommend a reduction in price by at least 50% and a 16 month build time, so the 14inch turreted installation would cost 22 million total and 1.375 million per month to construct, with the other installations modified accordingly.
There is also the range and fire control issue. Land installed heavy coast defense artillery had significantly more range, with higher elevation than in even "high elevation" ship gun turrets, and more accuracy (dispersed fire control stations for triangulation and prepared as well as shot local firing tables) than ship mounted guns of the same calibre and calibre length. So those installations should also be waaay more dangerous to ships. At the moment, whenever there is an enemy land installation in a scenario, and one has heavier CA's, BC's or BB's, it does not represent a threat but "bonus points" if one can spare the ammo. With installations which have superior fire control and longer range with a higher ballistic arc (which means more turret top and deck hits in proportion) this would change and having your valuable BB's and BC's in the range of such installations would be a huge risk. I recommend generating an additional firing table for every "land defense gun", not just using those of the ship version.
Some data on the topic is to be found at Nathan Okuns excellent website:
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
One example: With the German "12inch" 30.5 cm/50 SK L/50 the initial shipboard maximum elevation was +13.5 degrees, later increased to +16 degrees. The coast defense mount with the same gun had a maximum elevation of +50(!) degrees.
I would also like to see more possible installation sites, as currently their number is a bit limited with multiple installations overlapping if one is overeager in producing them for test reasons.
A 14 inch double turret with 13T and 3TT armor costs around 6.5 million. Even four would come to 26 million. But for landbound (or modified) turrets construction/modification with extra armor was cheaper than for ship's turrets. The magazines, hoists etc., that is all paraphernailia of the turret and its guns, could also be built/designed to be significantly cheaper than on board a ship. The other thing is that concrete and land construction labour is and was waaaaay cheaper than steel and shipbuilding work. Then there is the fact that a land installation does not need propulsion...
Not just the top of the line "turreted 14inch" but all land installations need a severe reduction in price. Else it stays a-historical and they are just not worth building in the game. I recommend a reduction in price by at least 50% and a 16 month build time, so the 14inch turreted installation would cost 22 million total and 1.375 million per month to construct, with the other installations modified accordingly.
There is also the range and fire control issue. Land installed heavy coast defense artillery had significantly more range, with higher elevation than in even "high elevation" ship gun turrets, and more accuracy (dispersed fire control stations for triangulation and prepared as well as shot local firing tables) than ship mounted guns of the same calibre and calibre length. So those installations should also be waaay more dangerous to ships. At the moment, whenever there is an enemy land installation in a scenario, and one has heavier CA's, BC's or BB's, it does not represent a threat but "bonus points" if one can spare the ammo. With installations which have superior fire control and longer range with a higher ballistic arc (which means more turret top and deck hits in proportion) this would change and having your valuable BB's and BC's in the range of such installations would be a huge risk. I recommend generating an additional firing table for every "land defense gun", not just using those of the ship version.
Some data on the topic is to be found at Nathan Okuns excellent website:
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
One example: With the German "12inch" 30.5 cm/50 SK L/50 the initial shipboard maximum elevation was +13.5 degrees, later increased to +16 degrees. The coast defense mount with the same gun had a maximum elevation of +50(!) degrees.
I would also like to see more possible installation sites, as currently their number is a bit limited with multiple installations overlapping if one is overeager in producing them for test reasons.