Standard Exchange

[Jefgte]

I wonder if I can change:

=> T2x102/45 QF mlle 1919 (12.5t + 9t magazines) by T2x102/45 DP mlle 1931 (13.5t +12.5t magazines)
in standard exchange.

=> T2x120/45 QF mlle 1919 (19.5t + 11t magazines) by T2x114/45 DP mlle 1931 (18.5t + 26t magazines)
in standard exchange.

Do I have to pay refurbishment 20% - 0.2$ (02BP (200t ! )) more for 1000t DD ?
-------------------
Add the weights of the 120 & 114 turrets

[The Rock Doctor]

I think I need to see more math to fully understand.

[Jefgte]

Sorry, I forget rules.
That's just the cost in $ => 20%. not 20% BP.

For a 6000t cruiser
4T2x120 replaced by 4T2x114
4T2x120=>61t

4T2x114=>89t
cost 0.089BP
0.089$ + 1.2$ = 1.289$

[Jefgte]

From Rules

...Fuel, ammunition & stores; non-functional miscellaneous weight ...

=> T2x120/45 QF mlle 1919 (19.5t + 11t magazines)
=> T2x114/45 DP mlle 1931 (18.5t + 26t magazines)

For DDs, lockers on the deck and enlargement of the shells hold, no particular protection.
For cruisers and BBs, shells hold expansions are in the citadel.

[Kaiser Kirk]

The way the modification rules are written could be improved.
Long ago I clarified some with Snip, others I have made Mod clarifications.

The question seems to be aimed at the phrase "Changes to number and size of main-battery shells in magazines, but overall weight not increased. "
in the Refurbishment clause.

The question is - what counts as a "main-battery"

The mod clarification I make is that "main-battery" is turreted weapons, and that magazine size is what is referred to.

Other magazines can - and in reality  were- handled with ammo lockers which could be added and modified.

While one could argue Cruiser M&H often drew from magazines, they often had ready-use in the turret/working room as well.
With research, I might be able to come up with a more precise measure, that would take more work,
but the Turret/Non-Turret seems a good 'keep it simple ___' measure.

I do find it humorous that while the Parthians are introducing a 115, the Byzantines are introducing a 114. Great minds think alike...

[TacCovert4]

The Aztecs went to the 120 and 90mm varieties to get better RoF for AA use out of DP guns, but then went longer on the barrel to hedge bets and preserve long-range surface firepower/penetration.

Of course the 120/55 DP is the same tonnage as the 130/50 surface gun, but with vagaries its put off the refits of the M and Victory class BBs, R class, and Uhlans as those three use 130mm M&H and that's a much deeper refit than replacing surface-mounted 100s and 130s, so everything else, from DDs on up, is getting refit before my 'modern' battleships and cruisers do.

[Kaiser Kirk]

For me, I've stepped up from 90/45 10kg to 90/50 and now 90/54 11kg.   The German 88, Italian 90 and USA 90 were all well regarded, so I've used it rather than a 75mm.

The Parthian 130mm was not a preplanned gun size, as I recall I wanted something I could swap out 1G 165mm for 2G versions.

It was sadly near the 120mm in size.   I had the 120/45 then with better powder I could get the MV I wanted at 120/43.
For a long time I thought of sticking to the 120.

The USN 5"/38 has been lauded as a great mix of gun size and train/elevate, with guns like the Brit 5.25 being criticized as too slow.  So a gun in the same 5/38 size range seems like a target, and a 5/38  a barrel the same length as a 120L40.2 , so when it came time for DP guns I thought I'd field that.

Instead I realized that with the 1925 gun tech, I could fire a shell of the same weight from a smaller bore, which should be better sectional density, for more KE at a given range and a flatter trajectory - all good AA things, while same DD firepower.
That winds up being the 115mm gun I'm fielding.

The 1925 series of guns are generally 47 caliber, while if I was sticking to the 5/38 model, it would be a 115/42 not 115/47.

Meanwhile I'm using the 1925 tech to create a 130mm gun firing a 39kg shell , and a 165mm firing a 80kg shell -
the latter the same weight as my original 180mm. Jefgte mentioned the French using 40kg as a desired weight cut off, and I figured out I could *almost* do that on the 130, so it looks like that bore size will remain in service rather than fading away.

[TacCovert4]

Yeah, overall the 120/55 is going to probably be a bit too 'surface' as a DP gun to be the sort of work the 5/38 was famous for.  A bit too heavy on the shell and cumbersome on the traverse.  The 90/55, given it's so much lighter anyway, might wind up sticking around as an AA gun and DP gun for smaller ships.