Logi's Design Studies

[Sachmle]

The secondary armament, on the other hand, is not too small. Perhaps it is a habit that comes from designing RRC ships, but N-Verse proves the swarm theory to be very very effective. The destroyer/torpedo-boat attack is extremely deadly and has been used over and over in several wars, breaking through thick screens. That's why there is sufficient warrant for very heavy secondary batteries in N-Verse.

But how is 20 4.75's better than 18 5.5's?

Also, one of the last things Carth did before he quit was finish the research on the 4.75" Triple mount. Now, we know from hindsight that this will suck, just like the triple 4.7" on R&R did, but w/o hindsight, it seems a plausible weapon for secondary.

[Logi]

According Guinness' naval artillery page;

The 4.7"/50 is the newer gun (1912 gun tech) between the 4.7"/50 and the 5.5"/50 (1910 gun tech). I opted for the gun with better tech behind it.

Since tbh, the 70lb and the 50lb of the 4.7" and the 5.5" doesn't make a big difference in no. of shots required to sink a rushing dd/tb. I would much prefer the higher RoF and better train/elevation times of a 4.7" mount over the 5.5".

You have to remember, there's a big difference lugging a 50lb shell over a 70lb shell. They both will need 2-3 shots to sink a dd/tb, but the 5.5" exhausts quicker than the 4.7" for relatively no advantage.

[Delta Force]

I agree the AA weaponry is too heavy, but it's what is on the last BB of the CSA. A lot of nations here have ships with absurdly large AA complements, I dislike it, but there's nothing I can do about it. I'm designing to a standard, the CSA's.

The secondary armament, on the other hand, is not too small. Perhaps it is a habit that comes from designing RRC ships, but N-Verse proves the swarm theory to be very very effective. The destroyer/torpedo-boat attack is extremely deadly and has been used over and over in several wars, breaking through thick screens. That's why there is sufficient warrant for very heavy secondary batteries in N-Verse.

Has there been any good in game reason given for large AA batteries, or have people just been metagaming a bit since they don't add too much to a ship's weight and we know from history that aircraft will pose a grave danger someday? Because no admirals in the 1920s were losing sleep scared that hordes of aircraft would come to destroy their navies.

[ctwaterman]

1919 was the year for the First Air Attacks on Ships....

In The 2nd Rift War Italia Vs. New Zion and New Switzerland Et. Al. The Empire with a long history of trying inovative things with those fragile air machines attempted an attack on the New Swiss Fleet.  Rummor has it that Several hits were achieved on New Swiss Cruisers.  Some of which were consequently lost in action possibly laimed and unable to run.

In the Chinese Civil War the RRC has repeatidly attacked Merchant and Naval Costal shipping from the air litterally throwing thousands of aircraft into the effort.   Lots of planes lost over open water and in bad weather.

And Just a few Days ago in Sim time New Switzerland fighting to defend the home Islands launched a huge airstrike using @500 aircraft operating nearly within sight of their base.   Rummors will begin to eventually spread of some rummors of success.

Huge numbers of AAA well that would be hindsight until July 1919 thru the Present.

Charles

[Valles]

The air attacks I've been suffering haven't been crippling, in the larger sense, but they have been inconvenient. You can expect future Maori ships to carry two or three times their current number of AA mounts, and for the standard type of that mount to be upgraded from a single 35mm to twin 50mm. Since I use 'mount with hoist' to keep from storing their ammunition on deck, those mounting points effectively come pre-stressed for carrying heavier loads - my 'upgrade' path is new mount designs mounting more and more guns, rather than adding new mounting points, both because it makes upgrading simpler and because it does the same thing to firing arcs.

[Guinness]

The CSA's twin 1" mg mount would be a terrible AA weapon. I think there's a story to that effect around here somewhere. That mount is hand-trained, hand-elevated, and aimed by eye. It also likely doesn't elevate sufficiently.

It *is* a good anti-small boat weapon, which is where it's roots are.

So I don't think the Tennessee's ship too much anti-aircraft weaponry. The only AA gun mounted that would actually be useful is the 2-pounder, of which there are only two, and there is no barrage AA capability at all.

[Delta Force]

Would it be best to use heavy AA like the 5 inch, or best to use 3 inch or 37mm/40mm light guns? It will be many years before aircraft are able to go faster than 200mph or so, so a heavier weapon would stand a good chance of a one hit kill. When radar guided the 5 inch proved to be very deadly in WW II.

[ctwaterman]

If you combine the USN 5"/38 with the VT Radar Proximity Shell and the USN Mk 37 gun director then Yes from say late 1943 onwards you have a deadly combination of well directed shells that only have to get close.   But that is decades and decades in the future.

For now well mostly its individual guns blazing away with what ever they have available.  For the Italia I built a Quad 25mm Mount with High Angle capability but at the time it was because It was the Best Anti  Airship weapon the Empire of Italia could produce.  With Changes to the rules those would probably change and to be honest the mounts are not designed to track something as fast as even a 1916 Torpedo Bomber they would probably shoot down 1 plane per mount but thats pure volume of fire and probably after the plane has dropped its bomb or torp. :'( 

Realisticially we are entering the Era where planes are just starting to get dangerous and people have to start designing an Anti-Airplane guns instead of Anti-Airship guns.

[P3D]

Would it be best to use heavy AA like the 5 inch, or best to use 3 inch or 37mm/40mm light guns? It will be many years before aircraft are able to go faster than 200mph or so, so a heavier weapon would stand a good chance of a one hit kill. When radar guided the 5 inch proved to be very deadly in WW II.

If you believe in level bombing, you need large caliber ammo to shoot that high.
With flimsy interwar aircrafts, HMGs have adequate stopping power, and put out the largest amount of shells. Good against low-level bombing and strafing aircrafts, but against torpedo bombers mainly a retribution weapon.

IMHO a ~20mm gun is ideal for this era, without shield so it could be aimed by manual power.

[Desertfox]

Anthing bigger than 25mm and smaller than 75mm will shoot too slow while not having enough sharpnel to be useful. I would say that the Maori enclosed single 35mm mounts might be about the worse AA weapon currently being shipped. And for all of you shipping 40mm cannons, they too are not very useful. The much malinged US 1.1" quads where actually a really good weapon against fabric biplanes.

[Sachmle]

Anthing bigger than 25mm and smaller than 75mm will shoot too slow while not having enough sharpnel to be useful. I would say that the Maori enclosed single 35mm mounts might be about the worse AA weapon currently being shipped. And for all of you shipping 40mm cannons, they too are not very useful. The much malinged US 1.1" quads where actually a really good weapon against fabric biplanes.

But the 1.1" is a 28mm gun. I use the 37mm because it's the smallest in service gun. I will have a 25mm MG soon enough, probably start refitting those in in place of the 37mm. I use 88mm for 'flak' guns.

[Valles]

I'd be very surprised to hear that anyone else had gone for fully powered elevation and training this early, actually. The mount was designed from the ground up as an AA setting, after all, and it'd be entirely predictable that the gunhouse would slow down a manual mechanism unacceptably. Likewise, the 35mm gun used there has its origin as part of a development project aimed at maximized rate of fire. Mechanical reliability might be lower than would be wished, since its mechanisms are prototyped for scalability to larger weapons, but it puts up a lot of shells - and unlike with the treaty-mandated 'solid' rounds of a 1" or smaller piece, one hit will actually have a good chance of finishing the target.

[ctwaterman]

Hmmmm when Im on a real PC I might break this off out of Poor Logi Ship Design Section into its own Discussion.

The Problem with the early aircraft are that any hit to fuel tank, Pilot or Engine is likely to bring the plane down.   And any bulled 7mm or .30 Cal or larger is likely to get the same result all the way thru our 1" or even 40mm Guns.    But the 1" or 40" guns in this time frame need a solid hit on someting like the Engine or the Fuel tank to activate any fuse it might be carrying.  A hit to the fabric of the wing unless it also hits a strut is likely to leave a nice neat hole in the plane without doing significant damage.

The USN 1.1" Quad was a fully powered mount and the fuse was designed to be set off by even the cloth coating of biplanes or light metal of the later ones.   But that was much latter then we are currently.

I know Guinness wrote a story about the CSA trying out the training rates of his different guns I forget how it ended but it called for a powered mount for the 1" and the best gun he had was a twin .50 I think.

[Guinness]

I found that story:

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3404.msg42947#msg42947

The conclusion was that the twin 1" MG  wasn't so good. The 2 pounder was ok, but what was needed was a 0.50" MG and 6 and 20 pounder AA guns.

[Kaiser Kirk]

The Problem with the early aircraft are that any hit to fuel tank, Pilot or Engine is likely to bring the plane down.   And any bulled 7mm or .30 Cal or larger is likely to get the same result all the way thru our 1" or even 40mm Guns.    But the 1" or 40" guns in this time frame need a solid hit on someting like the Engine or the Fuel tank to activate any fuse it might be carrying.  A hit to the fabric of the wing unless it also hits a strut is likely to leave a nice neat hole in the plane without doing significant damage.

The advantage the larger autocannons- if they are autocannons- have is longer range. The trade off is a significantly lower rate of fire than the MG and in some cases a lower muzzle velocity.

My Bavarians are trotting out a 90mm gun for Anti-Zeppelin and long range work, and have started a quad 30mm mount. Conceptually, the quad arrangement will ensure enough rounds down range, while hopefully having the range to swat down would-be torpedo bombers before release.  The choice of 30mm was mainly influence by not wanting to field yet another 37/40mm gun.

Single AA to deter annoying light bombers will be Becker 20mm Mk11 or 13.2mm MGs.