HY1, 1936

[Kaiser Kirk]

So, first Weekend in January is Saturday the 4th and Sunday the 5th.

Any objections to moving onto 1936 HY 1 ?

[Jefgte]

I'm finishing the reclassification of the ships.
(BB25-BB26, C17-C18...)
I have some SS to do.
Then I start 1936H1.

Champagne and foie gras confuse the mind.

[TacCovert4]

No objections

[The Rock Doctor]

Go ahead.  I'll get 1/35 up in a short bit and catch up.

[TacCovert4]

Starting the new 20mm AA gun in 1936, the 30mm being considered at once too light and heavy....and honestly redundant now that there's a quite good 40mm option.  The 20mm is a joint project that the Navy probably wouldn't take on if it wasn't for it being developed for dual purposes as an AA and aircraft weapon.

The other gun project I've got to decide on is a new medium-caliber gun.  The 180mm/50 has provided yeoman service for 20 years.  The question on whether to refresh the gun, or go with a new caliber, is now open for debate.  Looking at options from 150mm/60 to 175mm.  The 170mm/55 has congruent performance to the 180/50 currently in service, for a tonnage savings of 3t per gun.  The 155/60 pens 100mm of belt at 10,000m rather than 12,0000m but is 11t lighter per gun and as the shell weight drops from over 80kg to under 70kg it should also see a RoF increase in the types of mounts one can put on a cruiser.  The 150/55 pens the 100mm test plate at just over 8000m.  But at 60kg per shell it should have an even faster RoF.....and at that size it's barely in the range to build out as a DP gun.  As a SP gun, each gun and associated euipment is 19t lighter than a 180/50....as a DP gun it's still 16t lighter per gun.  Of course a 6in DP gun is a bit 'iffy'....but more 'reasonable' than building a ship with an all 120mm armament as 120mm/55 can only penetrate splinterproofs at anything beyond 4km. 

Argh the debate......go 150-155mm, accept the lower performance per shell for the lighter tonnage and faster RoF plus potential DP utility......or go 170mm or refresh the 180mm.........sigh.......

[Kaiser Kirk]

Argh the debate......go 150-155mm, accept the lower performance per shell for the lighter tonnage and faster RoF plus potential DP utility......or go 170mm or refresh the 180mm.........sigh.......

Ah yes, a variant of the 'which gun to make' problem Parthia had a couple years ago, as I blather on about in my cruiser discussion.

After the 1928 Naval Art tech enabled overwieght shells,  Parthia basically redesigned all her guns and mounts over the next couple years. I went with desired shell weights and asked what gun bore makes that happen with, and then how long does it need to be for the performance we want.

I wanted a gun firing the same shell as my 120mm, so 25kg.
Jefgte I believed indicated the French found 40kg the max for sustained fast handloading, and we know lots of nations tried different intermediates between 6.75 and 7.5" for sustained handloading, but there were complaints on shell weight - which is reflected in the Ship Design Guidance as 80-95kg max. I wound up setting most lengths to 47calibers to help denote which generation of gun it was.

25kg goal -> 115L47 firing 25kg
40kg goal -> 130L47 firing 39kg.
80kg goal -> 165L47 firing 80kg
=8in goal -> 190L47 firing 115kg

The AA, well long ago I decided on multiples of 7.5mm.
So 7.5, 15, 23, 30, 37, 45,then it jumps 15s  60, 75, 90, etc.

Historically, 45mm and 57mm didn't work well as autos in this time frame, so 40mm and under seems the cap for

For <1936, the 30mm I felt would meet the same design concepts as the US 1.1" aka 28mm as a perfect size.
So on smaller ships I'm fielding that for now.

On bigger ships I could split the tasks and the 15 & 23mm were faster firing anti-strafe/divebomber guns, while the 37mm had the reach & speed for the divebomber/torpedo bombers. Later, I'll move towards more 37mm batteries.

But, considering the sheer # of effective AA guns vs. what was seen in the Mayan-Japanese War?
I've got to think my ships are sufficiently equipped. I can't justify doing a USN and sticking AA on every available deck spot.

[TacCovert4]

Argh the debate......go 150-155mm, accept the lower performance per shell for the lighter tonnage and faster RoF plus potential DP utility......or go 170mm or refresh the 180mm.........sigh.......

Ah yes, a variant of the 'which gun to make' problem Parthia had a couple years ago, as I blather on about in my cruiser discussion.

After the 1928 Naval Art tech enabled overwieght shells,  Parthia basically redesigned all her guns and mounts over the next couple years. I went with desired shell weights and asked what gun bore makes that happen with, and then how long does it need to be for the performance we want.

I wanted a gun firing the same shell as my 120mm, so 25kg.
Jefgte I believed indicated the French found 40kg the max for sustained fast handloading, and we know lots of nations tried different intermediates between 6.75 and 7.5" for sustained handloading, but there were complaints on shell weight - which is reflected in the Ship Design Guidance as 80-95kg max. I wound up setting most lengths to 47calibers to help denote which generation of gun it was.

25kg goal -> 115L47 firing 25kg
40kg goal -> 130L47 firing 39kg.
80kg goal -> 165L47 firing 80kg
=8in goal -> 190L47 firing 115kg

The AA, well long ago I decided on multiples of 7.5mm.
So 7.5, 15, 23, 30, 37, 45,then it jumps 15s  60, 75, 90, etc.

Historically, 45mm and 57mm didn't work well as autos in this time frame, so 40mm and under seems the cap for

For <1936, the 30mm I felt would meet the same design concepts as the US 1.1" aka 28mm as a perfect size.
So on smaller ships I'm fielding that for now.

On bigger ships I could split the tasks and the 15 & 23mm were faster firing anti-strafe/divebomber guns, while the 37mm had the reach & speed for the divebomber/torpedo bombers. Later, I'll move towards more 37mm batteries.

But, considering the sheer # of effective AA guns vs. what was seen in the Mayan-Japanese War?
I've got to think my ships are sufficiently equipped. I can't justify doing a USN and sticking AA on every available deck spot.

Basically my problem.   I'm satisfied with the 450mm, 240mm, etc.  If anything I'd refresh for the same gun with new ammo.  My AAA and DP guns are all relatively new.  The 180mm has been the staple gun of corvette and frigate for two decades.  But in light of 240mm cruisers, do I want to maintain performance?  Or have a faster fire rate and maybe more flexibility?

Seriously considering a 150/60 DP gun.  Especially since it can be a secondary on capital units.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Seriously considering a 150/60 DP gun.  Especially since it can be a secondary on capital units.

Good luck settling on a big gun bore, I wound up developing a range of new guns to explore options.
Wound up going high and low.

As for the 150/60 DP, I have not gone that path, never fielded a cruiser gun in that range.

Historically, nations were looking for that as there was great concern over horizontal bombing.
Against torpedo attack and divebombers, it would not be more effective, probably less, than the same weight in smaller DP guns.

We've not had storylines espousing the effectiveness of horizontal bombing against shipping.
No staged Ostfriedland sinkings, etc.

With the relatively low number of overall aircraft, and the lack of a WW I analogue,
I've long thought torpedo planes would be the primary concern.
The results of the Mayan war are terribly skewed - the torpedoes had a low hit rate against beached transports, but what folks will remember is the effects were substantial.

Meanwhile Foxy's old destroyers operated under air attack for a couple of months, and did gradually get hit enough to knock a couple out, but the horizontal bombs available to the Mayan aircraft were just not adequate.  The take home would be that the dashing IJN destroyers survived lots of horizontal air attacks, as did the old IJN battleships - damaged but not destroyed by lots of attempts.
So I doubt folks are looking at horizontal as this great potential threat.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Champagne and foie gras confuse the mind.

Ah, but bet you enjoyed it, which is good. :)

[TacCovert4]

Seriously considering a 150/60 DP gun.  Especially since it can be a secondary on capital units.

Good luck settling on a big gun bore, I wound up developing a range of new guns to explore options.
Wound up going high and low.

As for the 150/60 DP, I have not gone that path, never fielded a cruiser gun in that range.

Historically, nations were looking for that as there was great concern over horizontal bombing.
Against torpedo attack and divebombers, it would not be more effective, probably less, than the same weight in smaller DP guns.

We've not had storylines espousing the effectiveness of horizontal bombing against shipping.
No staged Ostfriedland sinkings, etc.

With the relatively low number of overall aircraft, and the lack of a WW I analogue,
I've long thought torpedo planes would be the primary concern.
The results of the Mayan war are terribly skewed - the torpedoes had a low hit rate against beached transports, but what folks will remember is the effects were substantial.

Meanwhile Foxy's old destroyers operated under air attack for a couple of months, and did gradually get hit enough to knock a couple out, but the horizontal bombs available to the Mayan aircraft were just not adequate.  The take home would be that the dashing IJN destroyers survived lots of horizontal air attacks, as did the old IJN battleships - damaged but not destroyed by lots of attempts.
So I doubt folks are looking at horizontal as this great potential threat.

I was looking at it differently.  Corvettes typically don't have secondary batteries.   The advent of needing HAA has made me field some.  A 150mm DP gun would cover the heavy AA role and the anti surface role.  Torpedo bombers are vulnerable to big shells like the 150.  Dive bombers would be considered less threatening to a small maneuvering cruiser.

And 150mm mounts would give my largest battleships a more useful anti DD and CL gun.

[Kaiser Kirk]

My 'light' gun is the 165, you'll see that on my Maritime frigates and many cruisers, including the new Bahktiari class, which I believe is 4T4. Now that they are in service, I need to move them to the
encyclopedia :)
 
But I view the 165 as 'too big' for a reasonable DP mount.
I think my role-equivalent is that 130mm, which I expect will smash up destroyers pretty well.
While I know the RN had massive issues with the 5.25, a great deal of that was a cramped twin mounting.
Not only have I traditionally fielded two-gun mounts, but that's an example of where I expect researching
multiple copies of the same mounting should pay off in practical service. Plus I've now researched 'improved DP mounts'.

[TacCovert4]

The more I mull it over, the more the 150 makes sense for me.  It'll allow for corvettes with a more balanced gun armament, which is important for escort work.  I'm also simming the 3rd iteration of my big BB 'Horizon' with a 150mm DP secondary + 90mm DPHAA, plus the other odds and ends of AA.