Why is X turret unlocked before B turret?

[junctionsystem]

Seriously, you'd think superfiring turrets would be a single tech for either direction, but apparently not. It's resulted in games where we can only build aft superfiring turrets for two decades despite funneling our entire R&D budget into nothing but ship design the entire time. Seriously, why is it implemented this way?

[aeson]

I would suggest that it has something to do with the fact that both Britain and Germany adopted a 5x2 main battery with cross-deck fire and an aft superfiring turret for a class or two of dreadnought battleships before adopting a forward superfiring turret, which is something that the player is not particularly likely to do given access to both superfiring turrets.

[wknehring]

And from a technical point of view, it is more likely you get your boilers and turbines in a new arangement at aft, that fits with the superfiring barbette, than at the bow (B-turret), especially when coal firing and you have not enough space for your boilers. That´s why German Kaisers and the 3 BCs (Moltke, Goeben, Seydlitz) had en-echelon turret layout so late, while the Brits already had centerline-only with Tiger and Lions.

And maybe it is a strategic decission too. Think about a scouting BC running in a battle squadron- you turn away and wish you would have as many guns covering your retreat, as you can get.

I had many early games, where my 1st BC with 3 centerline turrets was built, when I had superfiring X turret. It is better than the midship turret. Yes, 4 turrets would be better, but 2 aft turrets are more than OKish, especially if the following class has en-echelon turrets.

[cormallen]

*cough*cough* Minas Geraes class *cough*cough

The idea that putting turrets in various places is somehow a "Technology" is a functional game system to encourage an historically realistic/appropriate sequence of ship designs but
it really was just a choice controlled by weight calculations, traditional conservatism amongst Admirals and occasionally relatively obscure (at least outside the service) details of blast effects vs sighting hoods?

Some of the early Dreadnought Committee designs feature TRIPLE level superfiring stacks of twin 12" turrets and were rejected largely due to vulnerability concerns IIRC...

I'm generally fine with the current tech system (and it can always be spoofed in the save-edit if the mood takes me) but it maybe nice to "turn it off" for a bit, at least for the player, occasionally?

[wlbjork]

I looks at the technology unlock as being the 'we've figured out how to make this work' stage of engineering/ship design. Sure, a lot of it is simple in principle, but there's a lot of background stuff that tends to be ignored by people with a casual interest.

It's also worth pointing out that both the Dido and Atlanta class CLAAs had super-superfiring gun turrets, and both also had stability problems as a result.

As for 'turning tech off', sadly the AI wouldn't be able to cope. You can go into a game in 1900, give the AI all technologies unlocked and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the ships it builds. Not much different to a 'new game plus' where you set the year to 1900 around 1968 - the AI will start building 10" CAs and 12" Bs despite having the tech to build a 16" BB or BC.

[cormallen]

Apr 19, 2022 9:56:32 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

I looks at the technology unlock as being the 'we've figured out how to make this work' stage of engineering/ship design. Sure, a lot of it is simple in principle, but there's a lot of background stuff that tends to be ignored by people with a casual interest.

It's also worth pointing out that both the Dido and Atlanta class CLAAs had super-superfiring gun turrets, and both also had stability problems as a result.

As for 'turning tech off', sadly the AI wouldn't be able to cope. You can go into a game in 1900, give the AI all technologies unlocked and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the ships it builds. Not much different to a 'new game plus' where you set the year to 1900 around 1968 - the AI will start building 10" CAs and 12" Bs despite having the tech to build a 16" BB or BC.

I know the AI couldn't cope, thus my suggestion for a player only option. Arguably the early British superfiring capital ships hadn't really reached the "figured out how to make it work stage" as their sighting hood arrangements would have limited firing arcs more than the game ever does!

[Adseria]

I suspect the primary answer is the same reason you can't have more than two centreline turrets in 1900. It's not a technological advancement, it's an institutional one. As the manual points out, from a technical perspective, there was no reason a ship built in 1900 couldn't have been equipped with 3 (or more) centreline turrets; it was simply a case of the people with the best ideas not being in a position to carry them out, and the people who were in those positions not agreeing with the ideas for one reason or another..

[cormallen]

I suspect it's a technical advancement, just not one directly related to main turret location. Several Battleships in the late 19th C. had more than two big gun turrets, it was more to do with the terrible RoF of these early guns and the emergence of the c.6" QF as (for a short while at least) the actual major dealers of destruction that most settled on a using just 4 main guns... As bigger guns got better at rate of fire they added bigger secondaries of course but that had it's own problems and by then the longer range fire control problems were being solved.

[director]

Turrets require a certain width of opening in the hull. Add to that the weight of armor, equipment, guns and munitions, and you have a lot of stress on a narrow part of the hull. It's the same reasoning behind the later Pensacola class having twin turrets lower down and triple turrets superfiring: if you want to carry a heavy weight you need to widen the beam. Widening the beam may not be desirable for a lot of reasons, including the availability of dockyards and the extra weight and expense of more powerful machinery to drive a wider ship. And it is easier to widen the ship and/or carry more weight aft due to hydrodynamics, and to the fact that the aft section already has to bear the heavy weight of boilers and/or engines.

The US South Carolina class used superfiring turrets fore and aft, but the US accepted a small displacement and a speed comparable to pre-dreadnoughts as a consequence.

[fronstermog]

Apr 23, 2022 16:57:12 GMT -6 director said:

The US South Carolina class used superfiring turrets fore and aft, but the US accepted a small displacement and a speed comparable to pre-dreadnoughts as a consequence.

Man, what you were saying made sense until this line. Superimposed mounts don't force a ship to have a lower displacement, much the opposite and all the stuff you mentioned before this line indicates.

Nah, the superimposed designs were skipped by the British because Dreadnought already had so many other new and potentially risky improvements that one fewer was seen as acceptable. South Carolina having a similar broadside at a much lower weight was part of the point.

[director]

You are correct that Fisher didn't get all the innovations in Dreadnought that he wanted, and some on the design team were leery of superimposed turrets because of well-founded fears of blast effects. From what I've read, he didn't participate much in the day-to-day workings of the committee and was reasonably pleased with the ship they produced, in that it contained his primary wants - speed and gun-power.

The South Carolinas were a special case. The US Congress would not approve an increase in displacement over the preceding Connecticut class, which was 16k tons. That meant the designers were - though they did not know it - trying to achieve a Dreadnought-comparable heavy gun battery on 88% of the tonnage. Additionally, US firms simply were not making large turbine engines and would not be making good ones for most of a decade, so heavier and bulkier compound engines had to be used.

If you compare the overhead views of South Carolina and Dreadnought I think you will see that the American vessel is thicker for more of its length, while Dreadnought's hull tapers smoothly fore-and-aft in a manner similar to the later US standard-class battleships. That elliptical (or 'football') shaped hull is more hydrodynamic. Plus, Dreadnought's greater length is a plus, giving her more speed for equivalent horsepower.

Had Dreadnought had superimposed turrets like the South Carolinas, she'd have had to have carried the widest part of her hull further forward and/or aft, as the American hull-form shows. Her greater length is an advantage, but that blockier hull would have required more power or given a lower top speed, which means increased weight and cost.

So, to sum up: having superimposed turrets meant the hull had to be wider, farther forward and aft. That, given the legally-restricted displacement and the American lack of suitable turbine propulsion, was going to make the American ships harder to drive through the water and require more weight for propulsion. Given that the armor is roughly comparable, the difference is this:

The South Carolinas had to use super-firing turrets to get an 8-gun broadside on the Congressionally-limited displacement. They could not use wing-turrets, and could not make any tonnage savings by using turbine propulsion. So, yes - in a way, the superimposed turrets did permit the South Carolinas to carry Dreadnought-scale armor and firepower on 88% of the same displacement.

[oldpop2000]

Here is what HMS Dreadnought specifications would have been, with superimposed guns. She would have only had four turrets, but would still be able to project a broadside of 8-12 inch guns.

HMS Dreadnought, Great Britain Dreadnought laid down 1905

Displacement:

19,626 t light; 20,688 t standard; 22,558 t normal; 24,053 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)

(544.12 ft / 527.00 ft) x 82.00 ft x (29.00 / 30.54 ft)

(165.85 m / 160.63 m) x 24.99 m x (8.84 / 9.31 m)

Armament:

8 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 871.38lbs / 395.25kg shells, 150 per gun

Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1905 Model

4 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread

2 raised mounts

27 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 45.0 cal guns - 13.62lbs / 6.18kg shells, 150 per gun

Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model

2 x Single mounts on sides amidships

Weight of broadside 7,339 lbs / 3,329 kg

Main Torpedoes

5 - 18.0" / 457 mm, 0.00 ft / 0.00 m torpedoes - 0.000 t each, 0.000 t total

submerged bow tubes

Armour:

- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)

Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 342.55 ft / 104.41 m 10.87 ft / 3.31 m

Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 184.43 ft / 56.21 m 10.87 ft / 3.31 m

Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 342.55 ft / 104.41 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m

Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)

Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 11.0" / 279 mm

2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:

For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm

Forecastle: 3.00" / 76 mm Quarter deck: 3.00" / 76 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 11.00" / 279 mm, Aft 11.00" / 279 mm

Machinery:

Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,

Direct drive, 4 shafts, 29,426 shp / 21,952 Kw = 21.00 kts

Range 6,620nm at 10.00 kts

Bunker at max displacement = 3,365 tons (100% coal)

Complement:

919 - 1,196

Cost:

£1.699 million / $6.797 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 1,584 tons, 7.0 %

- Guns: 1,584 tons, 7.0 %

Armour: 7,430 tons, 32.9 %

- Belts: 3,067 tons, 13.6 %

- Armament: 2,088 tons, 9.3 %

- Armour Deck: 1,896 tons, 8.4 %

- Conning Towers: 378 tons, 1.7 %

Machinery: 2,452 tons, 10.9 %

Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,159 tons, 36.2 %

Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,932 tons, 13.0 %

Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %


Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):

43,378 lbs / 19,676 Kg = 50.2 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.8 torpedoes

Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17

Metacentric height 4.9 ft / 1.5 m

Roll period: 15.5 seconds

Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %

- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.85

Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has raised forecastle,

an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern

Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.630 / 0.638

Length to Beam Ratio: 6.43 : 1

'Natural speed' for length: 26.79 kts

Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %

Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 26

Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 29.84 degrees

Stern overhang: -10.00 ft / -3.05 m

Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):

Fore end, Aft end

- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 29.84 ft / 9.10 m, 29.84 ft / 9.10 m

- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 28.84 ft / 8.79 m, 29.84 ft / 9.10 m

- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 29.84 ft / 9.10 m, 29.84 ft / 9.10 m

- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 29.84 ft / 9.10 m, 29.84 ft / 9.10 m

- Average freeboard: 29.69 ft / 9.05 m


Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 63.7 %

- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 208.0 %

Waterplane Area: 33,894 Square feet or 3,149 Square metres

Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 121 %

Structure weight / hull surface area: 165 lbs/sq ft or 808 Kg/sq metre

Hull strength (Relative):

- Cross-sectional: 0.93

- Longitudinal: 3.73

- Overall: 1.07

Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space

Excellent accommodation and workspace room

Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

[oldpop2000]

Here is what HMS Dreadnought specifications actually were, as designed:

HMS Dreadnought, Great Britain Dreadnought laid down 1905

Displacement:
18,314 t light; 19,497 t standard; 21,301 t normal; 22,744 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(532.00 ft / 527.00 ft) x 82.05 ft x (29.63 / 31.18 ft)
(162.15 m / 160.63 m) x 25.01 m x (9.03 / 9.50 m)

Armament:
10 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 871.38lbs / 395.25kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1905 Model
3 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 x 2-gun mounts on sides, forward deck centre
27 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 45.0 cal guns - 13.62lbs / 6.18kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model
2 x Single mounts on sides amidships
Weight of broadside 9,082 lbs / 4,119 kg
Main Torpedoes
5 - 18.0" / 457 mm, 0.00 ft / 0.00 m torpedoes - 0.000 t each, 0.000 t total
submerged bow tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 342.55 ft / 104.41 m 10.87 ft / 3.31 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 184.43 ft / 56.21 m 10.87 ft / 3.31 m
Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 342.55 ft / 104.41 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 11.0" / 279 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 3.00" / 76 mm Quarter deck: 0.75" / 19 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 11.00" / 279 mm, Aft 11.00" / 279 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 27,936 shp / 20,840 Kw = 21.00 kts
Range 6,620nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,247 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
881 - 1,146

Cost:
£1.799 million / $7.195 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,965 tons, 9.2 %
- Guns: 1,965 tons, 9.2 %
Armour: 7,235 tons, 34.0 %
- Belts: 3,052 tons, 14.3 %
- Armament: 2,141 tons, 10.0 %
- Armour Deck: 1,679 tons, 7.9 %
- Conning Towers: 364 tons, 1.7 %
Machinery: 2,328 tons, 10.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,786 tons, 31.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,987 tons, 14.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
33,122 lbs / 15,024 Kg = 38.3 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 4.9 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 15.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.95
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.582 / 0.590
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.42 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.93 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 36
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -10.00 ft / -3.05 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 25.25 ft / 7.70 m, 25.25 ft / 7.70 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 25.25 ft / 7.70 m, 25.25 ft / 7.70 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 25.25 ft / 7.70 m, 25.25 ft / 7.70 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 25.25 ft / 7.70 m, 25.25 ft / 7.70 m
- Average freeboard: 25.25 ft / 7.70 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 72.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 176.9 %
Waterplane Area: 32,397 Square feet or 3,010 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 157 lbs/sq ft or 767 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.69
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather