Colonial Navy

[Delta Force]

I've decided to start with armaments first, so that I can standardize my armaments. I don't know too much about pre-dreadnought weaponry and hopefully you guys can help me to whittle down this list to a few guns, especially when it comes to the closer calibers that can somewhat be merged in roles. I plan on having my naval artillery be overcharged for its size to gain a higher muzzle velocity and thus a flatter trajectory, so the shells are somewhat light for their caliber.

Also, would there be any real life precedent for having the artillery caliber be in standard units but the shell weight in metric? I generally prefer metric, but for naval weapons it just seems better to have the caliber in standard units.

27 mm/1.06 inch gun: 0.25 kilogram shell
35 mm/1.38 inch gun: 0.50 kilogram shell
50 mm/1.97 inch gun: 1.50 kilogram shell
75 mm/2.95 inch gun: 5.00 kilogram shell
90 mm/3.54 inch gun: 8.00 kilogram shell
115 mm/4.53 inch gun: 16.00 kilogram shell
125 mm/4.92 inch gun: 24.00 kilogram shell
140 mm/5.51 inch gun: 32.00 kilogram shell
150 mm/5.91 inch gun: 40.00 kilogram shell
175 mm/6.89 inch gun: 64.00 kilogram shell
190 mm/7.48 inch gun: 80.00 kilogram shell
240 mm/9.45 inch gun: 164.00 kilogram shell
250 mm/9.84 inch gun: 185.00 kilogram shell
275 mm/10.83 inch gun: 245.00 kilogram shell
300 mm/11.81 inch gun: 320.00 kilogram shell

[Carthaginian]

You'll just have to sim them all out- but everyone else is probably going to do that.

You need no precedent for Metric/Imperial units and their relations.
If your culture measures in feet/inches and grams/kilos... well, stuff happens.

'Overcharging' your guns to have flat trajectories isn't necessarily the best idea, but it can work.
Just remember, you have to use historic weapons as a guideline at least.
You can't overcharge too much beyond what actually existed.

[Delta Force]

You'll just have to sim them all out- but everyone else is probably going to do that.

You need no precedent for Metric/Imperial units and their relations.
If your culture measures in feet/inches and grams/kilos... well, stuff happens.

'Overcharging' your guns to have flat trajectories isn't necessarily the best idea, but it can work.
Just remember, you have to use historic weapons as a guideline at least.
You can't overcharge too much beyond what actually existed.

By overcharging I meant more having the same or a bit more powder for a lighter weight shell. The shells are about 15% to 20% lighter than what SpringSharp has as the standard size for guns of the calibers listed, so that should give more bang for the buck in the propellent department (at least for speed). I am taking somewhat of a similar approach to the Italians. Hopefully keeping the gunpower charges the same or only slightly increased will reduce some of the wear concerns.

[Carthaginian]

Uhm... you can't really just figure things like that DF.

I have some knowledge of small-scale ballistics- generally rounds of .45 caliber and below.
Just because you make the bullet lighter and keep the powder charge the same doesn't automatically result in longer ranges... or even a bullet that will hit anything. You might wind up with a bullet that will be unstable in flight, fragment rather than penetrate, and have problems with ricochets.

[Delta Force]

Uhm... you can't really just figure things like that DF.

I have some knowledge of small-scale ballistics- generally rounds of .45 caliber and below.
Just because you make the bullet lighter and keep the powder charge the same doesn't automatically result in longer ranges... or even a bullet that will hit anything. You might wind up with a bullet that will be unstable in flight, fragment rather than penetrate, and have problems with ricochets.

I figured that ricochets and fragmentation might be issues due to the lower mass, but I did not really think that instability would be an issue. I know wind can impact ballistics of smaller bullets and other projectiles (quite visible when playing paintball on a windy day), but I did not think it was as large a factor at the scale of an artillery shell (in terms of a windy day causing shells to miss). Is this more of general advice for the future or should I revise the weights upwards for these particular pieces to ward off issues?

[Nobody]

I have some knowledge of small-scale ballistics- generally rounds of .45 caliber and below.
Just because you make the bullet lighter and keep the powder charge the same doesn't automatically result in longer ranges... or even a bullet that will hit anything. You might wind up with a bullet that will be unstable in flight, fragment rather than penetrate, and have problems with ricochets.

That's probably true especially if the barrel rifleing/twist is fixed, but for our purpose anything that's within the proximity of (scaled) real cannons should be fine, right?


Delta Force, how do your proposed guns fare in my program? Especially the "density" and average pressure*?


*) of course that depends on the barrel length and I noticed that most of us seem to intend to use rather long ones, I'm just not sure if they are too long or not.

[Carthaginian]

I have some knowledge of small-scale ballistics- generally rounds of .45 caliber and below.
Just because you make the bullet lighter and keep the powder charge the same doesn't automatically result in longer ranges... or even a bullet that will hit anything. You might wind up with a bullet that will be unstable in flight, fragment rather than penetrate, and have problems with ricochets.

That's probably true especially if the barrel rifleing/twist is fixed, but for our purpose anything that's within the proximity of (scaled) real cannons should be fine, right?


Delta Force, how do your proposed guns fare in my program? Especially the "density" and average pressure*?


*) of course that depends on the barrel length and I noticed that most of us seem to intend to use rather long ones, I'm just not sure if they are too long or not.

DF is talking about building rifles which- on the small scale that I am used to- would present a lot of the problems that British naval guns showed at Jutland: long-range accuracy problems, rounds that fragment rather than penetrate on direct strikes, rounds that ricochet rather than penetrate on more oblique angles.
We experience similar problems in the hand-loading world, and I have personally encountered them while learning how to build bullets. It can lead to some rather nasty problems with thick skinned game- I'd hat to know how those problems multiply when your target's 'skin' is face-hardened armor!

[Jefgte]

IMO, Choose a country:
Japan, USA, Germany... in Navweapons & use the historical guns & turrets.

That is simple & the mecanic is exact.

Jef  ;)

[Delta Force]

I ran the program testing a real life 0.7 kilogram shell with 640 m/s velocity against my planned 0.5 kilogram shell with 760 m/s velocity (both 35 mm shells). The 0.7 kilogram shell had a much longer range and greater penetration at any realistic range compared to the 0.5 kilogram shell. It even had a higher velocity at the longer ranges. Both of them had the same kinetic energy at the start however.

I tested a SpringSharp recommended 0.6 kilogram shell and it beat both of them in penetration and range. Perhaps Springsharp knows best? I think that the issue may be down to shell density as opposed to a major issue with the concept of lighter/high velocity shells in general though, as the density was significantly lower on the 0.5 kilogram shell. The 0.5 kilogram shell might be too light for its size.

IMO, Choose a country:
Japan, USA, Germany... in Navweapons & use the historical guns & turrets.

That is simple & the mecanic is exact.

Jef  ;)

Yeah, I tried to get the calibers very close to historical ones and modify the shells. For example, the 90 mm is close to the German 88 mm, and the 115 mm is close the British 4.5 inch gun. I was trying to get clean increments for caliber and shell weight increases, but things are starting to look rather complex since no one country used really even a majority of these calibers.

[Delta Force]

Torpedo design studies:

350 mm/5.000 meter torpedo
Weight: 0.366 tons
Slow performance: 6,000 meters at 18 knots
Standard performance: 4,000 meters at 25 knots
Fast performance: 2,000 meters at 33 knots

This torpedo is more of a paper design. It is too slow and short ranged to be of practical usage, and even if the ships using it manage to hit the enemy ship it has a very small warhead compared to larger weapons. Depending on the ship deploying it, it might even have a slower standard speed than the ship deploying it.

400 mm/5.600 meter torpedo
Weight: 0.517 tons
Slow performance: 7,650 meters at 22 knots
Standard performance: 5,100 meters at 30 knots
Fast performance: 2,550 meters at 40 knots

Being somewhat more practical than the 350 mm torpedo, this may actually be used on a few very small torpedo boats.

450 mm/6.300 meter torpedo
Weight: 0.720 tons
Slow performance: 9,450 meters at 27 knots
Standard performance: 6,300 meters at 36 knots
Fast performance: 3,150 meters at 48 knots

The standard light weight torpedo of the navy, being one of the earliest designs perfected for military use on Earth. Used on the torpedo boats of the navy.

500 mm/7.00 meter torpedo
Weight: 0.972 tons
Slow performance: 10,500 meters at 27 knots
Standard performance: 7,000 meters at 37 knots
Fast performance: 3,500 meters at 49 knots

A more ahistoric torpedo size that was introduced around 3905. Used on some of the larger torpedo boats of the navy, as well as some of the smaller destroyers.

550 mm/7.700 meter torpedo
Weight: 1.281 tons
Slow performance: 12,300 meters at 31 knots
Standard performance: 8,200 meters at 42 knots
Fast performance: 4,100 meters at 56 knots

This will be the heavy torpedo of the navy, equipping larger ships such as cruisers and battleships. Will be seen on newer construction ships in the navy, entering service around 1911 historically.

600 mm/8.400 meter torpedo
Weight: 1.651 tons
Slow performance: 14,100 meters at 36 knots
Standard performance: 9,400 meters at 48 knots
Fast performance: 4,700 meters at 64 knots

A heavy torpedo for ships intended to use the torpedo as their primary weapon. Will start being specified for new construction shortly after game start and be intended for use in a role similar to that of the later Long Lance.

650 mm/9.100 meter torpedo
Weight: 2.089 tons
Slow performance: 15,150 meters at 36 knots
Standard performance: 10,100 meters at 49 knots
Fast performance: 5,050 meters at 65 knots

This super-heavy torpedo will serve as the primary armament of torpedo cruisers and battleships, ships designed to deliver torpedo broadsides in the line of battle. Such ships are intended to keep enemy ships farther away from the line of battle so my ships can take advantage of their "high velocity" artillery at longer ranges. Will enter service in 3915 as an armament on new torpedo cruisers and battleships, where it should still be able to compete against traditional naval artillery due to its long range.

[KWorld]

You've got a couple of BIG fish there for the period: the 550mm, the 600mm, and the 650mm are all long for the period, and of course the 650mm's bigger than anything fielded up through the end of WWII (the Long Lance was a 610mm).

[Nobody]

You've got a couple of BIG fish there for the period: the 550mm, the 600mm, and the 650mm are all long for the period, and of course the 650mm's bigger than anything fielded up through the end of WWII (the Long Lance was a 610mm).

Yea I thought the same.

Two related things I would like to mention

• the German J/9 - a 9 meter long 70 cm torpedo under development in 1917, as a result of the 'sudden' and 'unforeseeable' increased battle ranges
  
• a statement from the time, indicating that the torpedo size was originally only increased to overcome newly installed underwater protection systems (we we are not allowed to have on pre-start ships) and that bigger torpedos were only later demanded after they had been proven successful to increase range and speed so that they could be deployed from outside the range of (new) anti-TB weapons.

[Carthaginian]

Delta - do remember that a torpedo isn't an instantaneous effect weapon.
It takes a L-O-N-G time to reach the target.
Your longest-ranged torpedoes will have virtually no chance of hitting- they will be spotted LONG before you get to the target.

Also, the torpedo rules are in the process of being handicapped- this is in a discussion from much earlier; there will be range and speed penalties for every year prior to 3930. KWorld rightly pointed out that my torps were over-performing for the period; I just haven't gotten the adjustments published.


Additionally, people have been advised to look toward historic examples for appropriate ideas.
This setting is not carte blanche; you must stay within the "realms of the realistic" when designing ships and weapon systems. Look at historic torpedoes and decide what you plan to build.

[KWorld]

You've got a couple of BIG fish there for the period: the 550mm, the 600mm, and the 650mm are all long for the period, and of course the 650mm's bigger than anything fielded up through the end of WWII (the Long Lance was a 610mm).

Yea I thought the same.

Two related things I would like to mention

• the German J/9 - a 9 meter long 70 cm torpedo under development in 1917, as a result of the 'sudden' and 'unforeseeable' increased battle ranges
  
• a statement from the time, indicating that the torpedo size was originally only increased to overcome newly installed underwater protection systems (we we are not allowed to have on pre-start ships) and that bigger torpedos were only later demanded after they had been proven successful to increase range and speed so that they could be deployed from outside the range of (new) anti-TB weapons.
  

Yeah, the J9 was worked on to some degree, but never fielded, and no torpedo of similar size was ever completed and fielded after it.

As far as torpedo bulkheads go, we haven't, per se, banned them, just the strengthened bulkheads version that doesn't work in 3.3.  Additional bulkheads are, as far as I know, still allowed.

[Delta Force]

You've got a couple of BIG fish there for the period: the 550mm, the 600mm, and the 650mm are all long for the period, and of course the 650mm's bigger than anything fielded up through the end of WWII (the Long Lance was a 610mm).

Those three torpedoes really represent future planning more than anything that will be in service on any ships at start. The 550 mm is going to be my navy's version of the 533 mm torpedo like the French did. The 533 mm torpedoes entered service around 1910-1911. The 600 mm is a heavy torpedo based on the German 60 cm H8, which started development in 1912 before the war. The 650 mm torpedo really has no historic analogue for this era (being found on some Soviet and Russian submarines of the modern era) but the Germans were considering much larger torpedoes towards the end of World War I, like the 70 cm J9.