Expensive bananas

[maddox]

The UK M class submarines used a 12" mount. Aiming was done by pointing the hull for close range fire.

One of my solutions for this one would like that. 
Just like the tank destroyers, aiming  won't be done with the gun on a pivot, but  pivot the entire ship.  Using a lot of heavy anchors can achive  a good accuracy.

[Tanthalas]

I like Bananas

[maddox]

Flambeur, French Armored Siege Barge  laid down 1920

Displacement:
   11.517 t light; 12.700 t standard; 13.919 t normal; 14.893 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   393,70 ft / 390,42 ft x 59,06 ft (Bulges 78,74 ft) x 19,69 ft (normal load)
   120,00 m / 119,00 m x 18,00 m (Bulges 24,00 m)  x 6,00 m

Armament:
      6 - 14,96" / 380 mm guns in single mounts, 1.807,79lbs / 820,00kg shells, 1915 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
      4 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm guns in single mounts, 1,55lbs / 0,70kg shells, 1916 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on centreline, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 10.853 lbs / 4.923 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   15,0" / 381 mm   234,25 ft / 71,40 m   10,00 ft / 3,05 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   15,0" / 381 mm   234,25 ft / 71,40 m   10,00 ft / 3,05 m
     Main Belt covers 92% of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   15,0" / 381 mm   15,0" / 381 mm      3,00" / 76 mm

   - Armour deck: 4,50" / 114 mm, Conning tower: 15,00" / 381 mm

Machinery:
   Diesel Internal combustion motors,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9.724 shp / 7.254 Kw = 16,00 kts
   Range 5.000nm at 16,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2.193 tons

Complement:
   639 - 832

Cost:
   £3,560 million / $14,240 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1.256 tons, 9,0%
   Armour: 5.977 tons, 42,9%
      - Belts: 3.152 tons, 22,6%
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
      - Armament: 953 tons, 6,8%
      - Armour Deck: 1.684 tons, 12,1%
      - Conning Tower: 187 tons, 1,3%
   Machinery: 340 tons, 2,4%
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 3.544 tons, 25,5%
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2.401 tons, 17,3%
   Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 2,9%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     15.359 lbs / 6.967 Kg = 9,2 x 15,0 " / 380 mm shells or 2,3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,35
   Metacentric height 3,9 ft / 1,2 m
   Roll period: 16,8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,42
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,61

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0,805
   Length to Beam Ratio: 4,96 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19,76 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 66
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -5,00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      16,40 ft / 5,00 m
      - Forecastle (20%):   13,12 ft / 4,00 m
      - Mid (50%):      13,12 ft / 4,00 m
      - Quarterdeck (20%):   13,12 ft / 4,00 m
      - Stern:      13,12 ft / 4,00 m
      - Average freeboard:   13,39 ft / 4,08 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81,4%
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 79,2%
   Waterplane Area: 20.233 Square feet or 1.880 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 81%
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 116 lbs/sq ft or 566 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,95
      - Longitudinal: 1,55
      - Overall: 1,00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

all 6 main guns are mounted on the starboard

100 tons FC
25 tons long range Marconi
25 tons ERADe
100 tons damage controle
100 tons workshops
50 ton crew comfort.

[Jefgte]

IMO, 15" guns are too heavy for 120m hull lenght & the speed too short.

Old 12" PDN on side alterned is an other possibility.


Jef  ;)

[TexanCowboy]

I think the main problem with this ship is it's suspectibility to MTB's. If the goal is for coastal bombardment, only a few cruisers can get that shallow. With that being the case, no secondary, and only 4 machine guns, is going to mean that any MTB can deliever a torpedo into the side of this ship, and no nation would mind losing a 20-60 ton ship for a 11,000 ton one. Perhaps with 6 11'' guns, and more secondary? The case where 15'' guns are needed for shore bombardment is very rare.

[Carthaginian]

The case where 15'' guns are needed for shore bombardment is very rare.

If you ask me and Tan, and probably our other ex-grunts, you'll find that statement dramatically false, TC.

The bigger the shell that you can lob at a stationary, hardened target (like anything being bombarded ashore prior to an amphibious landing) you are MUCH better off firing an 15" than you are an 11". In fact, if you can drop in a 16" or 18" shell, that beats a 15". If there had been anything better than a 16" naval artillery shell at the time of the Normandy or Iwo Jima invasions, you'd better believe that they would have been slinging them by the bushel barrel at whatever was on shore.

[Guinness]

Large caliber HE makes for a good area denial weapon too, and is useful to interdict roads if you can deliver it accurately enough.

These are all exercises in indirect fire mostly though. I would worry that mounted in casemates, these guns couldn't be elevated high enough to make full use of them. Or by casemate, do we really mean something more like the 18" mount on HMS General Wolf?:



I think that mount might better be simmed as a sort of fixed turret or gunhouse.

[Carthaginian]

If we HAD to sim something like that, I'd say that we go with a turret and barbette' mount with very thin armor.

[TexanCowboy]

But Carth, that's for warfare in Atlantic Wall/Iwo Jima type conditions...Not to be rude, but I think Navalism is severelly lacking in Coastal Defense. What, we have Fortress Manilla, a few CSA items, the Darian Line and El Toro's/Russian gunned-Columbian batteries, a crud-load of old Russian and Ukrainian stuff, and the fortresses at Suez and Bopherous. Is that enough to warrent that kind of payload...oh, and the fortress Goa,(who got that anyway?)

[Guinness]

The truth is, other than maybe Fort Drum and some installations in Scandinavia, there really wasn't any sort of a system like the German Atlantic wall. In other words, Hitler's coast defenses were the exception, not the rule. The US Third System and contemporary British works, for instance, weren't mean to defend against an amphibious assault, but rather were meant to defend key sites, mainly naval bases, from enemy bombardment.

It wasn't really until after WW1 that the idea of using coastal guns, etc. to oppose an amphibious assault came up in any serious way.

So all that said, it may be true that a purpose designed vessel for bombarding coast defense in the Nverse may be before it's time. It makes sense to me that the Colombians are interested in such things, as they've also been at the forefront of heavy coast defense guns as well. I suppose the French might want something because, well, their France.

[TexanCowboy]

I think the largest batteries we have here are the Columbian, French, Russian, and CSA 14''/15'' batteries. Probebly the only thing that could have the use of this. You may just be better of mounting a modern Tzar Howitzer, or Gustav...1, no more.

[Carthaginian]

But Carth, that's for warfare in Atlantic Wall/Iwo Jima type conditions...Not to be rude, but I think Navalism is severelly lacking in Coastal Defense. What, we have Fortress Manilla, a few CSA items, the Darian Line and El Toro's/Russian gunned-Columbian batteries, a crud-load of old Russian and Ukrainian stuff, and the fortresses at Suez and Bopherous. Is that enough to warrent that kind of payload...oh, and the fortress Goa,(who got that anyway?)

The answer is simple TC- collateral damage.
The more of it you do to the areas surrounding the enemy's position, the worse off the enemy is. Speaking as a man who saw an Iraqi ammunition dump go off at a distance of 5 klicks (or maybe a bit more) you really have to see something like that to believe it.

Imagine sitting in the passenger seat of a car in a 25 MPH head on collision.
Imagine getting that same effect from something THREE MILES away- literally enough to knock you off your feet and onto your 4th point of contact. ;) Imagine your eyes watering, your ears ringing like from a rifle fired by your head, and your body involuntarily shuddering a bit with the first few concussions. That was THREE MILES from me.

Imagine that kind of effect, now, A FEW HUNDRED FEET AWAY. Imagine the shrapnel ripping through the air... hear the symphony of destruction: the whistle of shrapnel, the screams of the panicked and wounded, the smell of smoke and earth. Imagine the utter disorientation to those who are sufficiently dug in or protected caused by the earth leaping and receding beneath their prone bellies.

Read about the Battle of Passchendaele if you would doubt the successful devastation that can be caused simply by the NEARBY detonation of massive amounts of high explosives. And entire German DIVISION was literally obliterated and thousands of prisoners taken... just from one massive mine (1,000,000 pounds of TNT).

Heavy naval artillery isn't just about DIRECT damage- it's about the INDIRECT damage as well.

[TexanCowboy]

But in that case, wouldn't it be better to dump the 15''/45's, and build something similar to a larger banana moniter seen earlier in the thread, with a 19.7'' howitzer? With the ammo dump's you are talking about, was fire velocity really needed to set it off? Did it really need a FPS of 4,000, like those French guns have? Or would a larger howitzer, with a heavier shell and less FPS, do the same job?

Dear god, a freaking Iraqi ammo dump going off? I saw a video of one online. The camera lens was shattered by the shock wave....

Hat gun? You wouldn't happen to mean THIS, would you?

[Carthaginian]

But in that case, wouldn't it be better to dump the 15''/45's, and build something similar to a larger banana moniter seen earlier in the thread, with a 19.7'' howitzer? With the ammo dump's you are talking about, was fire velocity really needed to set it off? Did it really need a FPS of 4,000, like those French guns have? Or would a larger howitzer, with a heavier shell and less FPS, do the same job?

Dear god, a freaking Iraqi ammo dump going off? I saw a video of one online. The camera lens was shattered by the shock wave....

Howitzers are good for high-angle shots... dropping a payload down on the generally much thinner armor on top of a target, or down into trenches and behind revetments, or for (after their invention) airbursting over 'soft targets' to achieve a maximum shrapnel spread.

Heavy naval cannon are good for long and very-long range bombardment, or for piercing heavy armor on facing targets at closer ranges. Mid-caliber naval guns are good for similar types of jobs at shorter ranges. Both types can be used in roles similar to mortars, if the elevation permits, but that only happens much later on, like the 40's.

Also, guns are, as a rule, more effective when used in groups.
It aids in sighting and in 'area effect.'

[The Rock Doctor]

Well, that latest French fruit - I think "pumpkin" is more appropriate than "banana" in this case - is something.

If it slipped down the coast and showed up off the Darien Canal, I'd probably find myself without a functioning canal soon afterwards. 

Speaking generally to coastal defence - the six heavy Colombian batteries are a relic from when my industrial capacity was limited and "in-game" pre-occupied with building the canal.  It was much easier to build these batteries than capital ships, and would have been enough to keep the French honest at the time.  The profusion of smaller 140mm batteries reflects my desire to create a nuisance for anybody planning to land at one of my port towns.

Generally speaking - I liked monitors.  They have utility to them.  Apart from being a testbed for my triple 35 cm turret, the Sucre would be quite useful for supporting landings or used in combination with minelayers and torpedo-boats in a coastal defence role:  exactly how she's deployed in Zaire right now.