Orange Capital Ships - Old Thread

[The Rock Doctor]

At this point, if one's navy believes that aircraft can hurt capital ships and will attack in large numbers and won't be scared off by a couple of anti-balloon guns shooting in their general direction, then a large AA battery is reasonable.  But I think it's a very progressive attitude not yet justified by sim-reality.

[P3D]

I guess I can cut the light AA to half, the 3"s are "dual-purpose" - i.e. anti-TB/anti-baloon.

[Carthaginian]

We can have DP guns?
According to SS, this is FAR too early for those.

[Korpen]

We can have DP guns?
According to SS, this is FAR too early for those.

Depending on how one define DP. Even low angle guns can shoot at aircrafts at low level but it is not a DP gun for that, and a AA gun can shoot at targets on the surface, it is after all just a question of depressing the gun.

[maddox]

Korpen, you're an artillery man.  Imagine loading a LA gun with the breach almost to the deck. Not to think about the recoil.

You're totaly right that it's just a matter of depressing/elevating the gun. 
To put it simple
The AA tech is in discussion, but Springsharp doesn't accept DP guns before a certain date.

In the the end, it's Springsharp dat dictates most of the naval matters. Even if it isn't accurate in certain respects, to free or to restricted where OTL desings surpass those constraints.

[Carthaginian]

It is not 'just a question of elevation'- you as an artilleryman know that just because a 155mm can elevate to 60 degrees or so, it is quite useless against a target without the correct sighting equipment and ammunition. My Grandfather- an artilleryman as well- made this abundantly clear to me. The HA mount will be highly unsuccessful in attempting to engage a surface target- it would be a tactic reserved for desperate straits and poorly effective.

[Guinness]

The biggest reason AA mounts weren't much good against surface targets was trunnion height. If you could elevate a pedestal mounted weapon high enough for AA use, it's breech would be way off the deck when shooting at low elevations, making the gun hard to work. The other main difference with AA mounts was needing to train them faster. A local AA "sight" in almost all cases was a plain old ring site, which could be mounted alongside a more sophisticated surface sight easily.

So, to accommodate both surface and AA fire, designers had to turn to either gun wells, which presented their own problems, or mounts incorporating raised platforms for their crews, ala the famed US base ring mountings. The main drawback of these was they were heavier and taller.

All that said, a 3" mount isn't all that big, and the ammunition isn't all that difficult to handle. I'm confident that as long as it doesn't have extreme elevation capability (say 45 degrees or so), that it could make a useful anti-surface weapon and still at least scare the crew of a balloon.

Or to put it all more succinctly: I don't think we need to get too excited about trying to legislate away our navies trying to point the occasional 3" gun at an air target.

[Carthaginian]

Or to put it all more succinctly: I don't think we need to get too excited about trying to legislate away our navies trying to point the occasional 3" gun at an air target.

Unfortunately, as with so many other things, without limits on the small the great also seem to be abused.

[P3D]

What a futuristic Idea!

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNAust_27-50_Skoda.htm

[P3D]

Some more early 'DP' mounts - i.e. normal AA guns, capable of depressing 10* below horizontal. I see no reason why these guns could not have been used in ant-surface role, especially as this category was laid individually, not under the central director control. The later DP mounts are significantly different beasts. Internal hoists for 4-5" ammo, fuse setting machines and central director controls.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk2.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk10-22.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-40_mk1.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-45_mk1.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_88mm-45_skc13.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_3-30_Lender.htm

[maddox]

20° angle...

I was envisioning guns with a 45-80° angle.

In other words, these are the guns I had in mind for a fairly standard 3" range. usable for potshots at airships

Of course the 90° version is a funny one.  It seems the people making springsharp overlooked that  exact type of gun and only allow a 1910 AA version. For Dual purpose you need to wait untill 1920.

[Borys]

Like somebody before already pointed out, these AA/AB (anit baloon) guns are all in the 2,75"-3,5" range.
So I suggest cut-off calibre at 90mm (for the metrically minded).

Borys

[P3D]

The changed AA tech should conform to this...

[Korpen]

Like somebody before already pointed out, these AA/AB (anit baloon) guns are all in the 2,75"-3,5" range.
So I suggest cut-off calibre at 90mm (for the metrically minded).

Borys

Larger guns then that was used as AA guns as well, often the same guns as used in LA mounts.
Better to say no gun shields on over 9cm guns, as that seems to have been extremely rare on larger AA guns, at least until the 30s. 

[Carthaginian]

What a futuristic Idea!

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNAust_27-50_Skoda.htm

Well, given the amount of swing, I'd hate to be the poor SOB with the backbreaking job of loading her at high angles (GAWD, there couldn't be more than 16" to spare between the breech and deck at max) but it could indeed directed at both types of targets if the loader was both a former gymnast and very dedicated to his current job.

I agree that most of the suggestions for a refined AA tech table would cover this situation. I also like the 'no shields' idea, Korpen, as that would really make tese guns of limited value in a 'hot' environment.