Thoughts on Naval Gun Mountings

[eltf177]

GUN NOTES

This is something I've been thinking about for some time, some common sense ideas on weapons and layouts. I'm posting it on several boards for feedback:

I'm thinking there's three usual situations that occur with weapon design:

1) Technologically feasible and practical
2) Technologically feasible but not practical
3) Technologically unfeasible (at least at this time)

So these are my thoughts...

DECK MOUNTS & HOISTS

Without a hoist ROF will be impacted, but smaller weapons can't usually justify a hoist. Guns up to 4.33-inch (110mm) can easily get around not having a hoist, although DP and AA weapons needing a high ROF should have them. Guns in the 4.5-inch (115mm) to 5.12-inch (130mm) range can get by without hoists, but ROF will be compromised. A 5.3-inch gun (135mm) should have a hoist and anything larger in my mind must have one although shells up to 6-inches (152mm) can be hand-loaded.

Historically the biggest deck mounts were 10-inch (254mm) guns on some UK export cruisers to Japan and a 9.2-inch (230mm) gun on the 1892 RN BB Victorious. I have no problem with an 11-inch or even 12-inch deck gun but they must have a hoist and these are probably technologically feasible but not very practical; having a low ROF, slow to train and requiring a large crew with minimal cover.

TWIN AND TRIPLE MOUNTS

Historically nothing larger than 6-inch (152mm) guns have been in twin mounts. Trying to do a twin 6.5-inch (165mm), 7.5-inch (190mm) or 8-inch (203mm) falls under technologically feasible but not practical in my mind. And any twin mount must have a hoist.

The only triple mount I can think of were the triple 4-inch mounts on BC's Renown and Repulse plus the Light BC's Courageous and Glorious. They were, according to Anthony Preston, "clumsy and required a very large crew." I'm sure loading the middle gun was difficult at best. I would require these to be mount and hoist, and wouldn't allow anything bigger than a 5-inch (127mm) or 5.12-inch (130mm) triple mount, anything bigger should be experimental and almost certainly a failure.

CASEMATES

Historically the largest casemate guns were 8-inch (203mm) on the Russian Andrey Prevanssany-class Intermediate Dreadnoughts and 8.27-inch (210mm) on the German AC's Scharnhorst and Gneisneau. These were wet. I would have no problem with a 9-inch (228mm), 9.06-inch (230mm) or 10-inch (254mm) gun in a casemate but would not allow more than 4 per beam and these must be mounted low. If just two per beam then they can be mounted high but will take up a lot of space forcing smaller weapons to be low and wet. Anything larger (like an Italian PDN with eight 12-inch guns [2 twin turrets and 4 casemates]) should end up an interesting but failed experiment.

All casemates were historically single. Twin 5.91 (150mm) casemates were proposed for CV Graf Zeppelin which, in my mind, would have proved abject failures. Any twin casemate mount over 4-inch (102mm) or 4.13-inch (105mm) should prove technologically unfeasible and even the smaller ones should prove impractical.

TURRETS

These aren't a problem, although quads should prove problematical in the early years. Anything larger (5 or more barrels) should prove very troublesome and probably not practical (by the time the technology works the battleship will be obsolete).

These are just my thoughts, any feedback is appreciated.

[Jefgte]

I agree strongly, Mountings of guns must follow a trend. It is not possible to start with T2x8"
There should be a progression of max technologies year after year.
eg:
1912: 4 "& deck mounts + light armor to protect the gunners vs predators
1913: 6 "& deck mounts & casemates
1914: 8" mounts & hoist
1915: T2x8"
1916: T2x12"
1917: T3x12"
1918: T2&T3x14"
1919: T2x16"
1920: T3x16"
1921: T4x14"
1922: 18" all turrets
1923: no limit


Jef

[Nobody]

Interesting thoughts you two and nice to see... something.

[...]
I'm thinking there's three usual situations that occur with weapon design:

1) Technologically feasible and practical
2) Technologically feasible but not practical
3) Technologically unfeasible (at least at this time)

Would you count very high performance guns (e.g. the Italian 38 cm) as 2?
Then what about rather low powered guns like the German 38 cm? (historically it might have had a higher accuracy, especially compared to its WW1 predecessor)
Edit: Maybe as "feasible, practical and proven"

CASEMATES

Historically the largest casemate guns were 8-inch (203mm) on the Russian Andrey Prevanssany-class Intermediate Dreadnoughts and 8.27-inch (210mm) on the German AC's Scharnhorst and Gneisneau. These were wet.

Actually they had a slightly larger caliber (Germany fielded guns of ~211 and ~213 mm) - but that doesn't really matter.

TURRETS

These aren't a problem, although quads should prove problematical in the early years. Anything larger (5 or more barrels) should prove very troublesome and probably not practical (by the time the technology works the battleship will be obsolete).

These are just my thoughts, any feedback is appreciated.

Any idea what a difference there could be between the turret types SpringSharp offers?

[Carthaginian]

Excellent points- especially the last one; I never thought that the Tillman designs could be considered realistic with those massive sextuple turrets. A cap of four guns per turret sounds reasonable.

[Kaiser Kirk]

My observation/belief is that the limiting factor between deck mount and barbette is rotating weight and power assit, while hoist provision reflects the difference between human chain delivery and mechanical.

The Omaha's twin 6" at 52tons, the Hawkin's single 7.5" at 46tons were both noted as slow to train and not terribly satisfactory. The US twin 5"/38 ranged from 37-54tons in most mounts.  The British 5.25" twins seems above the transition point, as they had partial stalks, and the early 77.5tonners were cramped and unsatisfactory. 

I believe the problem with the triple 4" was just getting ammo to the middle gun- thats the critique I've seen.

So I'd lobby from a game/SIM view for a cap on "mounts" of about 55 tons, and put the "hoist" requirement in relation to shell weight - mandatory over 100lbs, recommended for full ROF over 75lbs..or something.