Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

disc

Members2
  • Posts

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by disc

  1. 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 Navy battleship Victoria carried four torpedo tubes, some above water and some below water, with a total of 24 torpedoes. The classic Royal Sovereign battleships had five above water tubes and two below water, for a total of 24 again. But I am unsure if these or later British battleship broadside above water tubes were trainable. Carrying one reload per rotating tube was fairly common. More than that generally seems to have been considered a waste, for whatever reason, presumably due to weight and top space. If a greater number of torpedoes was desired, the next step would usually be to add more tubes. Submerged ship tubes frequently carried a very large number of reloads. A stand-out example is the US Dreadnought battleship Pennsylvania, which was equipped with two torpedo tubes and 24 torpedoes. Fixed above-water tubes were also in some cases equipped with more than one reload. In particular, the Japanese heavy cruiser Myoko and the US hunter-killer cruiser / destroyer leader Norfolk carried very large numbers of heavy torpedoes. The Myoko class was built with twelve fixed tubes, with two reloads per tube, for a total of 36 torpedoes. The Norfolk was built with eight fixed tubes, with a total of 30 torpedoes (thus two reloads per tube, plus six torpedoes "left over"). This was probably because both anti-surface (Mk15/16/17) and heavy ASW (Mk35) torpedoes were to be carried. Light ASW torpedoes complicate things, because modern-day surface ships tend to carry a large number for helicopters. Thus they may carry a great number of potential reloads for their self-defense rotating tubes (eg Mk32 triples).
  2. 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?
  3. I would echo what others have described above. I enumerated some of these issues in a post some time ago. Of those requests I have seen, I would say that more flexible barbette placement is the most popular. I would say that the most pressing battle issue is the simple armor and damage model. It has curious knock-on effects. I think it is partially responsible for some of the dissatisfaction with gunnery modeling. Basically ships are covered top to bottom with armor. Certainly there were many ships with this arrangement, but the "all or nothing" idea is not possible. There are problems with the sheer thickness of armor possible -- it tends to the unrealistic. The system handles torpedo hits in strange ways. Notably, torpedo belts are currently not ablative, so they can absorb many hits without degradation. I think others have discussed the oddness of water pumping, too. There are a number of possible solutions to this, and I hope to see ideas from others. I think a rework of compartments, citadel length, and armor coverage are the keys.
  4. I think a relatively useful and simple modification would be for semi-manual firing. That is, the ship would lock onto its target and tell the player when it is ready to fire its tubes (or if any can't fire yet). It might also tell the player if it thinks hits are likely or not. Then the player just clicks on a launch button, and the torpedoes go instantaneously. This would make the laborious process of changing firing preferences much easier, and increase player control, without contrivances. For some extra complexity, the player could manually aim torpedoes, adjust the computer's aim, or launch one bank at a time. I am unsure if that is necessary. I think, in general, it would be good to show which specific weapons are currently locked on target, and which are reloading or rotating.
  5. I found their explanation a little curious. The system still exists, in watered-down form, as the length varies with displacement.
  6. I think we need editable hulls. I wonder why they never appeared, after the trailer. Editable towers would also be fantastic.
  7. The end-on problem is traced to a few issues. Guns tended to have worse accuracy when fired fore and aft. They are more affected by cross-roll and (indirectly) by range-rates. These problems lessened with the advent of fire-control computers aboard Dreadnoughts. It is simply harder to arrange guns to fire fore-and-aft, because ships are longer than they are wide. You must either accept wing turrets, concentrate the guns into fewer turrets (eg quads), or have super-firing guns. All of these impose certain disadvantages. Additionally, guns on the bow must be relatively high to avoid spray. It is harder to arrange good armor for a chase scenario. The stern and bow tend to have worse flotation, as they are thinner than the mid section, so they cannot accommodate heavy weights. A ship with a very heavy bow may have great hull stresses and bad seakeeping. The alternative to a heavy bow belt was a heavy transverse bulkhead set further back, which leaves the fore parts thinly armored. At long range, range errors predominate, and deck hits become much more common. A ship that fights end-on has a higher chance of sustaining deck hits than one that is fighting on the broadside. It is hard to control a fleet that fights line-abreast. Line-ahead is easier, which is very nice when the battle inevitably descends into complete chaos. Line ahead makes broadside tactics natural, which in turn leads to ideas like "crossing the T."
  8. ...? A lot? The 3in was simply too small. The US moved to 5in deck guns to attack sampans and boats for its greater power. The 5in shell weighed four times as much as the 3in. Had USS Darter and Dace only four bow tubes, like the S class or some of the Type VIICs (the others having just two or four and a stern tube) Palawan Passage would have been different. Ten available torpedoes is very nice. The snorkel-battery arrangement is what made I-201 and the Type XXIs so revolutionary. The full electric transmissions of US subs made them much more flexible than their contemporaries. Unreliable Diesels crippled the early US and Japanese fleet submarines. I would agree that each of these characteristics individually did not make a devcisive difference. But put them all together, and things change.
  9. For the Washington Naval Treaty, the Japanese delegation was led by Navy Minister Admiral Kato Tomosaburo and his chief aide Admiral Kato Kanji. The US delegation, and indeed the Treaty conference as a whole, was led by US Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes. The Washington and 1st London treaties did not include strong official provisions for compliance. Navies were required to communicate certain basic characteristics about covered classes to the signatories, but there was no method of checking the truth of these statements. Blatant violations would naturally be obvious to outside observers, unless perhaps great secrecy was taken (ie highly suspicious activity to other signatories). There were no official consequences to violations, but obvious wrongdoing might collapse the treaties and have grave political effects.
  10. I think that spotter/scout aircraft could be added in simple ways. As special modules, the ship designer could allow the player to add catapults. As mentioned, some are already modeled -- I don't think particularly many models would be necessary, and indeed adding just one rotating catapult might be sufficient, for now. This would give ships the ability to launch planes. Certain hulls and towers could give bonuses, such as increased hangar capacity. Additionally, the player could have the option to select different types of plane. There needn't be many visual plane models, either, and just one could work as a start. Battle mechanics could be pretty easy. With a ship selected, the player could have a button to launch a plane. A plane would appear on a catapult, launch, and then fly up and disappear. The launching ship could then receive a bonus to long-range accuracy or scout distant enemies. If there are more planes in the hangar, the player could launch another after a short time, for compounded effects. After a certain amount of time -- a few game hours, depending on plane type -- the bonus would run out, displayed to the player as a plane fuel bar. The player would get the option to recover any launched planes, which would require the ship to slow down for a time. The plane(s) would reappear, fly down, and land on the water near the ship. A crane might extend to pick up the plane, at which point it might again disappear, and after a certain time become available for launch again. The planes would naturally add a fire hazard, possibly either a base increase to fire chance, or by increasing the fire chance of a specific compartment. On the other hand, they might also have positive campaign effects, adding to scouting ability and adding some anti-submarine capability to any ship that carries them. For an even simpler implementation, no need to add any new animations or fancy mechanics. Just give these flat bonuses to ships with a catapult installed. I don't think it is proof planes will be added, but some of the Italian cruiser hulls also have catapults and hangars modeled, in their bows.
  11. 1.a. Yes, ammunition could be transferred between magazines. This was sometimes done in battle, under duress. The process would probably be very slow and somewhat dangerous if the magazines were not immediately adjacent. 1.b. Typically a fixed minimum rounds-per-gun system was used. For example, 100 rounds per gun. A triple turret therefore required, and would have, a more voluminous magazine. For torpedo tubes, it varied widely. After rebuilds, all the 10 and 8 gun Japanese heavy cruisers carried 24 torpedoes, even though some carried 16 torpedo tubes and the others 12. US destroyers usually carried 4 reload torpedoes, total, without regard to the number of tube launchers. Many other arrangements existed, especially for fixed or underwater launchers.
  12. Would it be difficult to implement two separate rulesets?
  13. That example is a little extreme, but certainly there were plenty of ideas for building small ships with enormous guns.... ...granted, not very good ideas.
  14. Some navies stuck with one type, but the US and IJN, for example, used a mixture of each after WWI.
  15. Coincidence and stereoscopic rangefinders use different mechanisms, but they give similar results. With all othe factors being the same, for the same base optical length (the size of the device), they have equal accuracy. The advantage of a coincidence rangefinder is its ease of use. However, typically a vertical line must be visible to make a good "cut," so it can be harder to use against airplanes and some very special camouflages. The advantage of a stereo rangefinder is that it can more easily deal with irregular shapes, such as planes. The disadvantage is that it requires innate skill on the part of the user. Aside from those differences, I would not say one is better than the other at various ranges. I do not know how they work in the game.
  16. I think that the ability to fire to both sides simultaneously would add some value. It would be nice in "bad" tactical situations, like when one's T has been crossed and targets are on both port and starboard. Maybe there could be a penalty to accuracy or something similar.
  17. Marine gas turbines are mainly derived from aircraft engines, so they came into use when jets ruled the skies. You are correct, it was Prinzregent Luitpold. The Bayern-class battleship Sachsen would have used a similar layout, but it was never completed. There were several combined powerplants used in service during our timeframe, many of them tested in combat. This is not including projects or incomplete ships. The French destroyers of the Voltigeur class had a three shaft arrangement. The center shaft was driven by a reciprocating steam engine, for cruising. The outer two shafts were driven by turbines, for sprints. The French aircraft carrier Bearn had a four prop arrangement. The center two shafts were driven by steam turbines. The outer two shafts were driven by reciprocating steam engines. Like the Voltigeurs, this was intended to save fuel. However, Bearn was completed in 1927, by which time geared cruising turbines were well-established, and reciprocating steam engines obsolescent. The German light cruisers of the Koenigsberg class had a two prop arrangement. They were originally designed for steam turbine propulsion only, complete with cruising stages. However, "as an afterthought," two small, very lightweight MAN Diesels were squeezed in. These could be used to cruise up to 10.5 knots. These could not be coupled with the turbines, so each shaft could only be powered by either the Diesel or the turbines -- but not both at the same time. The German light cruisers of the Leipzig class had a three prop arrangement. They were designed with a combined plant from the start. The center shaft was powered by a set of Diesels, while the outer shafts were driven by geared turbines without cruising stages. As the Diesels and turbines were on separate shafts, they could all be run at the same time. However, there was a problem: "Where one of the two methods of propulsion had been disengaged and it was required to double-couple [that is, reconnect all engines], all shafts had to be brought to a standstill for about ten minutes while the change was made." That is, the ship would have to stop. Leipzig attempted this in the wrong lane of a channel and was rammed by the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. Incidentally, Leipzig also trialed a variable-pitch propeller, which was entirely unsuccessful and eventually replaced by a fixed prop. The Japanese seaplane carriers / light aircraft carriers of the Chitose class had a two prop arrangement with a combined turbine/Diesel plant. Unfortunately, I do not know many details. I suspect that it was an "and/or" arrangement, where either Diesels or turbines could drive each shaft separately or all of them could run together simultaneously. The Japanese training cruisers of the Katori class had a two prop arrangement with a combined turbine/Diesel plant. It was an "and/or" arrangement, where either Diesels or turbines could drive each shaft separately or all of them could run together simultaneously. All engines would run together to get the ship to top speed -- a sedate 18 knots. I suspect that the Japanese system had the same issue as the Leipzig class, where the ship would have to stop to clutch and de-clutch different engines. In all these ships, the idea was to save fuel by using a more efficient reciprocating engine.
  18. I am not sure why you think this is ludicrous -- the Russo-Japanese War was kicked off by a surprise night destroyer attack on battleships. Destroyer attacks on battleships or battlecruisers were also made at Tsushima (again at night), Dogger Bank, both the daylight and night phases of Jutland, and in a number of actions in WWII (Guadalcanal, Samar, Surigao Strait, HMS Glorious). Part of the popularity of torpedo boats in the first place was that a single torpedo could endanger a battleship. Otherwise I agree that the damage model needs a rework.
  19. Solid shot AP can cause fire if it hits ammunition or other highly flammable items. This happened at Yalu River, where the Chinese battleships were using AP shot in their main guns. The same could happen with overpens. For the game, I agree that the chance of fire should be lower with an overpen. It might already be: I'd be curious to know.
  20. I think this has been discussed well before, but most ships can "crash stop." While the ship is still moving forward, the engines reverse and the screws generate braking power. However, this process typically takes a long time, so despite the name it is not very rapid unless a very powerful reverse engine is used. To avoid an obstacle while traveling at high speed, turning is usually better. Reversing the screws will tend to reduce rudder authority, too, so likely a turn with a crash stop is not as useful as might be thought. Reversing in combat would be fairly rare, and I can only think of a few situations where it might be done. Most notably, if one ship rams another (intentionally or by mistake) or grounds, it might need to reverse out. If traveling at low speed, a crash stop might be attempted to prevent collision. Another theoretical situation for reverse would be if the bow was greatly damaged. The ship might proceed backwards to port, to avoid straining forward bulkheads. However, in such a state, the ship would be in great danger to any attack, as so any further combat would be unwanted, to say the least. This is how the cruiser USS New Orleans was forced to travel after Tassafaronga, until better repairs could be made. Temporary repairs were made at Tulagi, and the ship then proceeded in reverse to Australia, where a steel stub bow was fitted. The ship was not attacked during that time, to my knowledge. After some investigation, it seems that what actually happened was that, fearing a collapse of the forward bulkheads, reverse was attempted while travelling to Tulagi, rather than to Australia. However, the ship was uncontrollable in reverse and slow forward speeds were used instead. Seems Wikipedia has a garbled account. Not sure of any other examples. American aircraft carriers were expected to be able to operate in full reverse. Friedman has a interesting passage on the subject, when the Essex class was designed: 'The fleet wanted both high speed and high sustained astern speed, the latter “to permit landing in the forward arresting gear without true wind (22 knots has been given as the desirable relative wind for safe carrier deck landings). . . . Alterations have recently been completed permitting the Lexington to operate astern at 20 knots, which has apparently been accepted by the ship without serious objection.” Such operation, which may seem bizarre to a modern reader, was valuable both tactically and from the point of view of damage-limitation. Although earlier carriers had been fitted with arresting gear forward, it appears that the Essex class was the first in which such astern operation was a major design consideration. Perhaps the greatest virtue of recovery over the bow was its contribution to the survivability of the carrier’s air capability, despite the vulnerability of an unarmored flight deck. That is, a single bomb hit at either end would still leave one elevator, one takeoff deck, and one set of arresting gear intact. Forward arresting gear was not removed from U.S. carriers until 1944. High astern speed placed a considerable strain on any conventional geared-turbine plant; for a time, Preliminary Design considered substituting turbo-electric drive, intrinsically capable of generating full power astern and also superior from the point of view of damage control. That was why it had been adopted in U.S. battleships during World War I and also in the battle cruisers that ultimately became the Lexington and Saratoga.' I am not sure if this was actually done in combat operations, but here is a picture of USS Yorktown CV-10 landing a plane in full reverse. You can see a full deck park at the stern, a key advantage of this idea; the ship could land planes but soon be ready for full takeoff. Finally, a ship might potentially (I guess) be attacked while reversing in port or on trials or maybe during search-and-rescue operations when picking up survivors. The idea of "bow-tanking" is rather stupid and to my knowledge was not attempted by anyone. Closest concept would be a chase or approach scenario, which would not involve the pursuer stopping and becoming a sitting duck.
  21. Probably the torpedo protection of the Richelieu class of battleships would be considered very good, or indeed the best of the modern battleships. At 3.5m below waterline, the maximum depth of the torpedo belt was about 7 meters (amidships), and its minimum depth was about 4.12m (forward armored bulkhead). Additionally, there was a wiring passage traveling the length of the citadel inboard of the holding torpedo bulkhead, with a thin bulkhead inboard of that, so its ~1.2m depth could be added as some extra minor protection. Finally, refits added a 1.27m (maximum, presumably) bulge to the exterior of the ship. Therefore, the maximum torpedo protection reached 8.25m, or 9.45m counting the wiring passage. This was generally superior to Yamato, which had about 5.5m amidships, or Iowa, approximately 5.8m amidships. As there was not much stiff armor, there was limited protection against diving shells. Armor has some positive effect in rejecting torpedo fragments and blast, but it is not flexible and may be a source of fragments itself. Extra armor was indeed used on Richelieu in narrower regions, such as around the magazines, where depth was considered insufficient. Richelieu had some other features that added to the torpedo protection. The magazines had a triple bottom. There was water-excluding rubber foam ("ebonite mousse") in some compartments, including a large compartment forward of the citadel. Subdivision was considered very good. The boiler and turbine compartments did not have a longitudinal centerline bulkhead. The boiler and turbine compartments alternated. There was a strong armored deck. However, the design was not perfect. The machinery only had a double bottom. Some of the bulkheads were too close to one another. The citadel proper and torpedo protection belt covered only 54.2% of the ship length. The water-excluding foam was highly flammable. This system was not put to the test. Before refit, it was considered proof against 300kg of TNT, but this was a conservative estimate. After refit, it was thought good against 500kg TNT. Dunkerque, which had a similar layout, successfully rejected depth-charge damage against the belt, so that French designers were satisfied.
  22. It would be good to see direct comparisons between commercial Diesel and turbine ships of the era. On Yamato, the propulsion plant was to be a split Diesel / turbine setup, with each driving two of the four shafts. The turbines would make 75000 hp and the eight Diesels 60000 hp. However, it was decided during design that the Diesels would be too unreliable and an all turbine setup was therefore better. This caused a rapid redesign. The boilers and uptakes were doubled, and the funnel arrangement and superstructure changed. Waterline length was increased from 253m to 256m, and the trial displacement rose from about 65200 tonnes to 68200 tonnes. The engine power was increased from 135000 hp to 150000 hp. The speed was unchanged because of the increase in weight and only slight increase in length. Machinery weight decreased from 5430 tonnes to 5043, but fuel weight shot up from 2961 to 4330 tonnes in order to keep the same range. There was a decrease in lubricating oil required, but also an increase in feedwater needed. So in sum the all-turbine setup was not especially preferable, except to increase reliability. An addendum is that the boilers and turbines were effectively derated from destroyer equivalents in an attempt to ensure reliability.
  23. Poor choice of words. What I mean is the heavy barbette armor was only above the waterline. Iowa's main armored deck was the second deck, the one just under the main (topside) deck. The barbette structure continued down to the bottom, but the heavy barbette armor was only above the armored second deck. There was some internal armor. It was 3in from the 2nd to the 3rd deck, with I believe another internal structural ring of 1.5in. It was 1.5in below that. The 3in ring was probably there as a support to the armor above it and as a splinter guard for penetrating bombs and shells. Here's a nice picture. The red number 7 sits on the second deck. The shells are inside the barbette, but the more volatile charges are outside of it, so flash from a turret fire couldn't get to them. If a torpedo impacted abreast Iowa's turret, and the blast penetrated the torpedo belt, then it could hit the powder charges in the magazine and detonate them. The 3in to 1.5in internal barbette armor, further inboard, would only protect the handling rooms and stop fragments flying the whole width and hitting the other side. I suppose that you could argue this internal ring was therefore beneficial against torpedoes, but the heavy armor above it was of no consequence.
×
×
  • Create New...