Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

disc

Members
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

171 Excellent

About disc

  • Rank
    Ensign

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't think so, I believe that it's just an unusual computed dispersion value which shows up most obviously when a whole bunch of guns fire at once. I think there is no "interference", it's all baked into the accuracy stat.
  2. Yes, there are a couple small reasons. When a gun shoots, it creates vibrations and a shock wave at the muzzle, which will disturb the trajectory of other shells in the vicinity. The guns in a triple or quad tend to be closer together than in a twin or several singles. The blast of one gun may therefore interfere with the others to a higher degree, if they are all fired at the same time. The shells might also collide or "kiss" midair, per US reports. This would be less likely if the shells started farther away from each other. These issues could be reduced with delay coils, so that the gu
  3. 3-5 inch guns were rarely carried in triple or quad mounts. There did exist some examples: The British BL Mark IX 4in/45 (101.6mm) in a three-gun mount. These were on battlecruisers and on a monitor. The French Modele 1932 130mm/45 (5.1in) in a quadruple turret. These were on battleships only. The Italian Model 1937 135mm/45 (5.3in) in a three-gun turret. These were on battleships only. Why small triple or quad mounts were not used otherwise, I can't say for certain, but I think there may be some clues. Sheer size and number are factors. It may si
  4. Do you mean having the turrets / barbettes be different sizes for various numbers of guns?
  5. I think I don't understand the proposal. How would it differ from the current system, where successive superstructures add bigger benefits?
  6. The Japanese perspective was that each ship needed to be qualitatively better than its American counterpart, because the IJN would not be able to match the USN in numbers. Battleships were seen as the final arbitrators of sea power, so they would need to outgun the enemy. When designing the Yamato in the 1930s, the Japanese thought a 20in gun would be good because of its immense range, armor penetration, and destructive power. They believed that this would be vital in the theorized big gun Tsushima-type showdown between Japan and the US. But a gun this size would be very hard to make and
  7. disc

    CA-B

    What a bizarre article. It has a lot of accurate information on the CA-B project, but then it goes off the rails and starts making unverified claims about weight and armor reductions. I sure wish there were sources posted. Pretty sure the first half of the essay is derived from Friedman's US Cruisers. The second half... looking at some of the other articles posted on that site, I think it's made up.
  8. Concrete ships might be interesting, but there weren't very many of them. There were, I think, a fair number of concrete barges. I reckon both were vastly outnumbered by wood ships and boats. Either way, these concrete ships usually weren't warships, with the possible exceptions of special repair patches and AA barges and the like. Concrete ships were generally cheap merchant carriers. We can't build merchant ships right now. Fort Drum was not a ship, despite its appearance. It was a highly fortified island.
  9. I do not exactly understand the Naval Ops system, so perhaps I am misinterpreting it. All-or-nothing does not depend on length of protected citadel relative to ship length. The first AON design, Nevada, had its citadel extend 400ft out of a waterline length of 575ft. This gives a protected percentage of about 69.6% of waterline. The following US Standard battleships were designed to meet this fixed protected waterline percentage, with the Colorados amounting to 68.6%. Additionally, heavy armor extended aft of the citadel proper, so as to cover the steering gear, so even more waterline spa
  10. Thanks for the timestamps. I had already watched the video. I see the timestamps in the comments there, too. I was more wondering if the video's creator had posted a script somewhere -- he appears to be reading from one. This would make it easier to reference.
  11. Is the a transcript available of the answers?
  12. Well, the US, UK, and France used dyed shells, too. The Soviet Union at least experimented with them, and may have used them in general service. Not sure if Italy or Germany tried them. My understanding is that they were a rather late innovation. Difficult to dig up, but it appears they first started showing up about 1928 in the US and some years after that in the other navies -- 1936 in France, 1941 in Japan, and 1942 in the UK. A little unclear when the Soviets first started using them, but I think by about 1931. As for tracers, the US Navy used them on many shells for big gu
  13. It is true that many destroyers carried no reload torpedoes, but a substantial number carried a partial or full set, too, as did some torpedo boats. For Japan, this included: The aforementioned Fubukis, and the Akatsukis, with 9 torpedo tubes and 18 total torpedoes (possibly reduced to 12 total after refit); The Hatsuharus, with 9 tubes and 18 total torpedoes, later reduced to 6 tubes and 12 torpedoes (and then later eliminated in favor of light AA guns); The Shiratsuyus, Asashios, Kageros, and Yugumos, with 8 tubes and 16 torpedoes: And the Akizukis, with 4 tubes
  14. This depends on the time period and the exact type of tube. To my understanding, there were few vessels that carried more than one anti-surface torpedo reload per above-water rotating-mount tube. The only sure examples that I can think of are the Royal Navy's Halcyon class of torpedo gunboats, which had one fixed and two rotating twin mounts with a total of six reload torpedoes, and their torpedo boat carrier-cruiser Vulcan, which initially carried 30 torpedoes with four or two trainable tubes and four fixed tubes. I suspect there are others, but I do not have evidence of that. The odd Royal N
  15. There are differences between rangefinder accuracy characteristics -- mainly relating to target shape and operator proficiency --but I have never heard of this before. What is your source?
×
×
  • Create New...