Teutonic Marine Concepts

[Nobody]

Really? Why would a casemate gun fire significantly slower than one in a turret? If it only fires at half the speed of a turreted gun (or worse), a Q turret would be a much better choice.

Uhm... different shell handling equipment?
A rotating gunhouse on a barbette would have a much more automated shell-handling system than a casemated mount. Look at pictures of the two different types of mounts historically to see what I mean. Then imagine trying to load a 300kg shell with the kinds of equipment you see in the casemate mounts.

I could not find any data to support or oppose that view. Navweaps does not mention different rof for different type of mounts and the only picture of a casemate mount I could find looks exactly the same as a turret cross-section. But since that is a 15 cm gun there is no special shell handling equipment anyway.

[Carthaginian]

I could not find any data to support or oppose that view. Navweaps does not mention different rof for different type of mounts and the only picture of a casemate mount I could find looks exactly the same as a turret cross-section. But since that is a 15 cm gun there is no special shell handling equipment anyway.

I can, and it was easy.

6"/L47 turret diagram
http://www.usslittlerock.org/Armament/Little_Rock_6_inch_Gun.html

Casemates don't have powered loading equipment, they are loaded by hand.

[Nobody]

Carth, I don't see how that would support either view. It doesn't even mention casemates. Besides, as I said 6" guns are loaded by hand anyway.

What I was looking for was some kind of comparison between the same big gun (>8") when mounted in both turrets and casemate.

[Carthaginian]

Hmmm... as for a 'modern' casemate, this is a picture of one of the 5"/L51 guns of the U.S.S. Nevada:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h93000/h93414.jpg

There is a shell hoist, but there is no kind of power assistance; all the work is done by human hands. Because of this basic feature of a casemate mount, Springsharp isn't figuring in power assist loading for the heavier calibers. This means that the heavier shells must be transferred to the heavy guns with block and tackle and be hand rammed... meaning that the ROF is significantly lowered.

SMS Scharnhorst would be our best bet for comparisons in the 'modern' gun world; I'm looking for info on her, though I'm also seeing her 8.2" casemates referred to as 'wing turrets' in some sources- which, if they are, would disqualify them from comparison.
Additionally, we could compare the ROF in the older 9.2" British AC's with the more modern turreted versions.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-31_mk3.htm
On monitors without the setup of the 'mount & hoist' on the cruisers, the ROF was halved... at least. The higher practice figures (generally what's given on NavWeps) make it more like 1/8 the ROF.  I see no reason that guns this heavy (11") without any 'helpful equipment' except a shell hoist would be able to fire as fast as their turreted counterparts with purpose-built equipmetn to speed loading.
The turreted versions compare favorably with the 'mount & hoist' cruiser mounts, but exceed their ROF when powered ramming is adopted.

[Nobody]

Again I think not a suitable comparison. Neither 5 or 6 inch guns need power assist. In fact they might be a hindrance. On the other hand, I don't believe you can reload a 300 kg shell without. Therefore it has to be there. If it's there, then why should the gun in a casemate fire slower than in a turret?

The 21 cm guns would certainly be interesting - if we could find pictures or sketches of how they were installed in both turret and casemate.

[Carthaginian]

Again I think not a suitable comparison. Neither 5 or 6 inch guns need power assist. In fact they might be a hindrance. On the other hand, I don't believe you can reload a 300 kg shell without. Therefore it has to be there. If it's there, then why should the gun in a casemate fire slower than in a turret?

The 21 cm guns would certainly be interesting - if we could find pictures or sketches of how they were installed in both turret and casemate.

Again- it is not there because Springsharp isn't programed to assume it. The massive weight savings that are reflected by casemate mounts is partially because they do not consider this. Basically, the program doesn't make the same assumptions that you do. Also, if you are to include this powered equipment in a casemate mount, then you will have to either accept
1.) a fixed loading angle, as a result of the loading equipment not rotating with the entire assembly
OR
2.) what would basically amount to a Coles/Ericsson mount; a giant turntable where all the equipment is mounted on it.

The 21cm guns aboard the Scharnhorst offer our best comparison... if anyone can find information on this, then we will have at least an indication of our solution. HOWEVER we must also take into consideration a difference of 100+kg in some cases, and the effect that would have on shell handling.

Also, the 6"/47 caliber turrets were not hand-loaded.
The page detailing the turrets operation specifically states that the (powered) loading equipment didn't work at elevations of >22*. In fact, this page goes so far as to list the actual makers of the equipment makers for each piece of the turret's machinery!
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Admin-Hist/075-Ordnance/075-Ord10R.html
   

The 6"/47 triple turret gun program involved the procurement of 148 assemblies at a total approximate cost of $38,800,000.[3]

    The Naval Gun Factory, with the exception of the powder and projectile hoists, was the sole source of supply for these turrets, because of its heavy production schedules, the job shop nature of its work, and the fact that the manufacture of turrets was not easily adapted to mass production, many anxious moments arose during the early stages of the shipbuilding program. The Gun Factory, nevertheless, was able to ship the ordnance equipment to the shipbuilders within the time required for installation with the result that throughout the entire war period lack of turret equipment in no case caused delay in a ship's completion date.

    The Jeffrey Manufacturing Company supplied all the powder and projectile hoists, and its performance was outstanding. Various other components were produced by commercial manufacturers. The Gilbert and Baker Manufacturing Company produced the sights, the elevating and training gun attachments as well as the fuze setters. Rammers were manufactured by the Carrier Corporation, which did an excellent Job on this particular work. General Mills machined counter-recoil cylinders and plungers.[4]

    The Bethlehem Steel Company and the Midvale Company produced the 6"/47 forgings which were shipped to the Gun Factory and South Charleston for machining. Advanced deliveries permitted suspension of barrel.

[Nobody]

Again- it is not there because Springsharp isn't programed to assume it. The massive weight savings that are reflected by casemate mounts is partially because they do not consider this. Basically, the program doesn't make the same assumptions that you do.

Springsharp makes no difference between casemate and deck mount. Only if you add a hoist or barbette the weight of the mount multiplies. I always thought anyway that the main difference was the weight saving in armor.

Also, if you are to include this powered equipment in a casemate mount, then you will have to either accept
1.) a fixed loading angle, as a result of the loading equipment not rotating with the entire assembly
OR
2.) what would basically amount to a Coles/Ericsson mount; a giant turntable where all the equipment is mounted on it.

The 21cm guns aboard the Scharnhorst offer our best comparison... if anyone can find information on this, then we will have at least an indication of our solution. HOWEVER we must also take into consideration a difference of 100+kg in some cases, and the effect that would have on shell handling.

Now that's the kind of argument I was looking for! So if you're saying that a casemate mount is less efficent, that's fine. But if it only fires every 2nd or 3rd 'round' then they are useless and the tonnage better spent on more AY-ships. If they take say 50% longer between shots and therefore are included in 2 out of 3 salvos than that's perfectly fine and understandable for me.

[Carthaginian]

Springsharp makes no difference between casemate and deck mount. Only if you add a hoist or barbette the weight of the mount multiplies. I always thought anyway that the main difference was the weight saving in armor.

Looking at a diagram of a casemate mount and a deck mount, the only real difference is one is below the main deck, and one is above. Both are basically just pedestal mounts with an armored shield.

Now that's the kind of argument I was looking for! So if you're saying that a casemate mount is less efficent, that's fine. But if it only fires every 2nd or 3rd 'round' then they are useless and the tonnage better spent on more AY-ships. If they take say 50% longer between shots and therefore are included in 2 out of 3 salvos than that's perfectly fine and understandable for me.

I thought I was explaining this with all the comments on powered loading equipment not being present in a casemate mount and presenting evidence to back my choice up?

[KWorld]

Another example of a gun with and without power assist are the German 28cm L/40 and the 28cm L/45: the L/40 was hand operated and rammed, the L/45 was power-rammed.  The L/40 fired at up to 2 rounds per minute, the L/45 at up to 3 rpm (both per navweaps).


SMS Scharnhorst's beam 21cm guns clearly are in a casemate mounting of some sort, not a turret, but it's certainly possible that there's a limited-traverse and elevation turret mechanism inside that casemate.

[Nobody]

Something truely riddicious this time:
(i wonder if I can manage that with 18 or 22 cm guns as well...)
CCC, Teutonic Crazy Cruiser Concept laid down 1900

Displacement:
   10.056 t light; 10.602 t standard; 13.432 t normal; 15.695 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (524,93 ft / 524,93 ft) x 65,62 ft x (26,25 / 29,64 ft)
   (160,00 m / 160,00 m) x 20,00 m  x (8,00 / 9,03 m)

Armament:
      4 - 8,66" / 220 mm 40,0 cal guns - 308,65lbs / 140,00kg shells, 120 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1900 Model
     4 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      24 - 5,91" / 150 mm 40,0 cal guns - 99,21lbs / 45,00kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1900 Model
     24 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      8 raised mounts
      8 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
      20 - 4,13" / 105 mm 40,0 cal guns - 33,07lbs / 15,00kg shells, 120 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1900 Model
     12 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
      12 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      10 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1900 Model
     10 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      10 double raised mounts
      20 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm 20,0 cal guns - 1,32lbs / 0,60kg shells, 150 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1900 Model
     4 x Quintuple mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 double raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 4.502 lbs / 2.042 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   4,72" / 120 mm   334,65 ft / 102,00 m   9,19 ft / 2,80 m
   Ends:   1,97" / 50 mm   187,01 ft / 57,00 m   9,84 ft / 3,00 m
     3,28 ft / 1,00 m Unarmoured ends
   Upper:   3,94" / 100 mm   288,71 ft / 88,00 m   6,56 ft / 2,00 m
     Main Belt covers 98% of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   7,87" / 200 mm   3,94" / 100 mm      7,09" / 180 mm
   2nd:   5,91" / 150 mm   3,15" / 80 mm      3,94" / 100 mm
   3rd:   3,94" / 100 mm   3,15" / 80 mm      1,97" / 50 mm
   4th:   1,18" / 30 mm         -               -
   5th:   0,47" / 12 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 1,18" / 30 mm
   Forecastle: 0,79" / 20 mm  Quarter deck: 0,79" / 20 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 5,91" / 150 mm, Aft 3,94" / 100 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 3 shafts, 21.062 ihp / 15.713 Kw = 21,00 kts
   Range 7.000nm at 15,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 5.093 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   623 - 810

Cost:
   £1,056 million / $4,224 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 772 tons, 5,7%
      - Guns: 772 tons, 5,7%
   Armour: 2.710 tons, 20,2%
      - Belts: 1.072 tons, 8,0%
      - Armament: 1.049 tons, 7,8%
      - Armour Deck: 469 tons, 3,5%
      - Conning Towers: 120 tons, 0,9%
   Machinery: 3.291 tons, 24,5%
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 3.284 tons, 24,4%
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3.376 tons, 25,1%
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     13.840 lbs / 6.277 Kg = 42,6 x 8,7 " / 220 mm shells or 1,7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,48
   Metacentric height 5,2 ft / 1,6 m
   Roll period: 12,1 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,30
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,35

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a ram bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,520 / 0,538
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8,00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22,91 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 41 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10,00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   25,00%,  16,40 ft / 5,00 m,  13,12 ft / 4,00 m
      - Forward deck:   25,00%,  13,12 ft / 4,00 m,  13,12 ft / 4,00 m
      - Aft deck:   30,00%,  13,12 ft / 4,00 m,  13,12 ft / 4,00 m
      - Quarter deck:   20,00%,  13,12 ft / 4,00 m,  13,12 ft / 4,00 m
      - Average freeboard:      13,45 ft / 4,10 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 97,2%
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 93,8%
   Waterplane Area: 23.375 Square feet or 2.172 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116%
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 107 lbs/sq ft or 522 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,97
      - Longitudinal: 1,23
      - Overall: 1,00
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily




Carth, what does showing a couple of 'small' guns in casemate mounts with no power assist prove if I know that such guns were hand-loaded anyway even in WW2, independent of the mount they were installed in - be that turret, deck mount or casemate?

KWorld, thank you. I think that is useful information.

[KWorld]

Heh, that's an escort cruiser: intended to kill TBs, DDs, and CLs dead, with capability as well against other ACs.  :)

[KWorld]

On casemate mountings, one other thing that I note as interesting: the 21cm casemate mountings on SMS Scharnhorst are about the biggest smokeless powder casemate guns I can recall, followed by a Russian 8"/45, the French 194mm/50, and with the US 7" being the next largest (the British 7.5" guns were all in turrets or the open mountings in HMS Hawkins).  There were some Russian 9" casemate mounts from the 1880s as well.

[Carthaginian]

Carth, what does showing a couple of 'small' guns in casemate mounts with no power assist prove if I know that such guns were hand-loaded anyway even in WW2, independent of the mount they were installed in - be that turret, deck mount or casemate?

Because the text on the site with the 6" diagram mentioned loading equipment... meaning it wasn't entirely hand-loaded. The second site I showed mentioned mechanical rammers, meaning that the shells might have been transferred by hand, but loading was power-assisted.

Now, if none of these are taking place in hand-loaded casemates with heavy guns:
1.) we know that the 200lb shells of the 7.5" guns suffered ROF problems because of manual loading.
2.) the shells of the 11" guns are at least 3x as heavy as the 7.5" gun shell.
3.) if a 7.5" gun loads slower with manual loading, then a 11" will be far less efficient.

It's a logical chain of conclusions supported by fact. I can also point to the ROF of the older broadside battleships that had large guns and manual loading, but didn't want to because of the era difference.



All that being said- I don't think that the ship with 12 6" casemates per side is strange or unreasonable at all. There were British cruisers which mounted 8 per side and devoted more weight to engine space; they had the volume to mount that many 6" guns had the decision been made that firepower was more important than speed. Exactly the same timeframe as well.

[Desertfox]

My question would be, what prevents a casement from having power loading? Perhaps siming power loaded casements as wing turrets with a note stating that they are limited to casement style movement?

[Carthaginian]

My question would be, what prevents a casement from having power loading? Perhaps siming power loaded casements as wing turrets with a note stating that they are limited to casement style movement?

Casematess don't historically have power loading equipment... so Springsharp doesn't devote mass to it. There are also much lighter weights of armor and structure involved. Thus, you can't just assume that bigger calibers will have power loading equipment because they are bigger calibers- because the program doesn't make the same assumptions.

I wouldn't mind your idea about it, DF, except for two things:
1.) stability will be adversely affected, because the turrets cannot be mounted below the main deck. :(
2.) you'd still be paying for the large structural difference between the two gun types.

Here is how the comparison works:
12" casemate with 1" armor all around & 150 rounds
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 104 tons, 1.0 %
      - Guns: 104 tons, 1.0 %
   Armour: 8 tons, 0.1 %
      - Armament: 8 tons, 0.1 %
   Machinery: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,671 tons, 96.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 274 tons, 2.7 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

12" turret/barbette with 1" armor all around & 150 rounds
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 190 tons, 1.9 %
      - Guns: 190 tons, 1.9 %
   Armour: 20 tons, 0.2 %
      - Armament: 20 tons, 0.2 %
   Machinery: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,573 tons, 95.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 274 tons, 2.7 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

So, we see two things here:
1.) armor would be different in weight- it would be too heavy if we used turret & barbette as a substitute for casemates
2.) there is a marked difference in gun mount weight, which will amount to the heavier mounting and supporting equipment

I REALLY like the idea of finding a work-around, DF... but honestly, we are dealing with ships that are soon to be eclipsed and thus will be used for a limited amount of time. I don't know why we have to devote so much time to debating them. We should just look historically, take those vessels as examples of what is available at this general tech level and run with it.

I don't understand why that is a bad rule of thumb?

NOTE: hull used was 400'x80'x20' with 16' freboard