Rule changes...

[Borys]

Ahoj!
My two cents ...

In all of the above cases, I'd suggest:
- coastal bombardment vessels (especially those with 12"/35 guns) go with 100 tonnes FC;
- ship to ship vessels - if wishing to fire at longer ranges - go with 250 tonnes FC.

Borys

[Jefgte]

250T for BBs FC...

That's too much for old BBs built before 1900. They use just single range finders on the blockaus.

250T FC is for range finder on the mast...did we consider a tripod mast ?


Jef  ;)

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Pre 1910 BBs do NOT have FC, so no need to worry :)
- the Mk.I "Eyball" does not need misc. weight.

Rangefinding, Fire Control and Gunnery
(development takes twice as long as a normal tech)
1908: centralized FC, early directors - 12kyd
1912: primitive FC computers -18kyd
1918: Central director stations, long base-length RF - 24kyd
1928: Search radars, spotting planes, electromechanical FC computers - 30kyd

Borys

[Blooded]

Hello,

Thanks for the info. I will leave the 35 calibre guns with 100 ton FC and alter the twin turret 40 cal to 250 ton FC.

Hopefully this wont affect Korpen too much. His two ships will be 'grandfathered' I suppose(twin 13.5"/45).

BTW, I meant 'Arkansas/Conqueror' not 'Drudge'. Conqueror had a normal hull with a low freeboard for the gun.

Gotta Go.

[Borys]

Ahoj
All I wrote is IMHO.
Borys

[The Rock Doctor]

I think I could handle 100 t for a monitor with a single heavy turret.  If somebody wants to use 100 t for a two-turret monitor (or, I suppose, pre-dread), I might not veto it, but it might come back to haunt them in a battle.

[Ithekro]

I can agree on that point there the change of things bitting one in the foot later.

[Korpen]

Hopefully this wont affect Korpen too much. His two ships will be 'grandfathered' I suppose(twin 13.5"/45).

I hope so, as they were laid down in 1911.

I think I could handle 100 t for a monitor with a single heavy turret.  If somebody wants to use 100 t for a two-turret monitor (or, I suppose, pre-dread), I might not veto it, but it might come back to haunt them in a battle.

Would that posibillity apply to the two 1911 ships (i hope not as they should be "'grandfathered")?

[The Rock Doctor]

This is only an issue with ships laid down after 1/1/12. 

[P3D]

Found this about tripod mast weight.
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/cagvtrip.htm

Weight. - The comparison of weight given on page 5, enclosure (B) [not reproduced], is from the latest information available as regards the wieght of the foremast on H.M.S. HOOD. No absolutely accurate weights are available, but it can be safely said that the totoal weight of the tripod mast, including struts, mast, topmast, spotters' tops, defense, platform, etc., but not including the decks below the searchlight platform, os at least 100 tons. The increase in the size of the spotters' top, due to increasing the size of the range finders, increasing the diameter of the struts, and making the revolving hood for the 15" rangefinder and 15" director tower power-driven.

The total weight of about 23 tons for a single cage-mast for Battleships 49 to 51 given on page 5 of enclosure (B) [not reproduced], contemplates light plating for the sides of the spotters' top and director tower. For special treatment steel side plating the total weight would be increased about 4 tons. This weight provides for 3" x 1/4" tube, whereas in the old design of cage-mast the tube was 3" x 1/8".

[P3D]

I had some numbers that what sized fleet could be supplied from a naval base of given size, but when I looked at the rules, it was missing. Why was it deleted, when e.g. tenders do have such numbers listed?

[The Rock Doctor]

Don't know.  I'll have a peak.