Attached is the revised tech tree as it stands right now. There have been some major changes here. Please note that any techs past 1920 are not to be considered final at this time.
I've been wondering when Wireless could be considered part of a ship's original construction, versus having to pay for a refit of it later.
Looking around, I found this : http://www.jproc.ca/rrp/nro_his.html (http://www.jproc.ca/rrp/nro_his.html)
Which I read as meaning in our terms that it was developed 1899-1900, and in full service after. So I'll pay to refit my earlier vessels.
Oh, and I need to copy and post a section of an article that was in the latest Naval History about magnetic torpedoes. :)
"By 1899, Marconi was able to operate radio equipment at ranges of 30 miles or more. This demonstration enabled him to raise money and the British Marconi Company was formed. Two years later, an American subsidiary was born and it dominated the British and American marketplace until the formation of the Radio Corporation of America in 1919. Many different sets were being developed for communications, however, Marconi's sets proved to be superior and were by far, the most widely fitted sets on ships. At this stage, it should be noted that the Royal Navy was already looking at three distinctly separate uses for wireless communications.
The first use was to communicate from ship to ship with special emphasis on scouting and reporting on the position of the enemy. During the annual manoeuvres of 1899 and 1900, the value of wireless in this role was clearly demonstrated. As more and more equipment was installed aboard ships, the problem of mutual interference became critical as the sets lacked selectivity. The problem posed by the interception of messages by other than the intended addressee was soon recognized with the attendant requirement to use some form of secret code. These problems still exist today even with the proliferation of radio channels and the adoption of high speed fully automatic encryption systems.
The second use was to send and receive messages to a ship when it was within range of a land based station. Messages to and from the ship would be relayed to the telegraph network and then to their ultimate destination. A third use for wireless was to broadcast messages to ships at sea within a 1000 mile range of Poldhu, England."
So I've realized I made a little bit of a mistake in the Capital Ship architecture tech for what I would like to do. I will admit this is fully a self-serving change, hence why I'm asking here. Currently, Quads sit in the 1914 tech. This locks the start of the creation of quad turrets to 1916 at the earliest, which means with the way turret design rules work no ships could be designed with quads until 1920. This is at odds with OTL as the Normandie's were laid down in 1913. What I would propose is to break quad turrets into two parts based on the Capital Ship Architecture tech. Below is how just that portion of the tech would work.
Quote
1910: Quad Turrets (two twin mounts in a single turret)
1914: Quad Turrets (True quad mount)
The 1910 version now represents the sort of quads employed on the Normandie class and allows for laydown at a closer to historic date. It changes the earliest laydown from 1920 to 1916 [1914 if the additional change I have proposed here (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7010.msg89967.html#msg89967) is acceptable]. Does this change seem ok to everyone?
From the lazy self serving point of view ...i.e. I've finished my prebuild and was logging on to post my fleet list... I'd prefer if spending mod points to start with Quad turrets wasn't an option.
We could move that particular capital ship arch to 1911, which would mostly resolve it. My preference is to leave it 1914.
As a defense, we can observe that while the Normandies were laid down, that doesn't mean the turrets would have worked properly in that time frame.
Well I thought about it a bit more and did some looking and have concluded I was wrong.
My concern, that someone could start with the tech is invalid, only up to and including 1909.
So, your proposing research 1910, 1911. Quad turrets available for design work beginning 1912, 6 mo/barrel ...1912/13....so yes, 1914 is earliest it would be fielded, which fits history.
As for the "twin in single turret vs true quad " Looking at Sigfried Breyer's discussion of the Normandie class, he says the turrets were to have a central divider, but be triggered by one fire control officer, and says they were probably meant to be fired in pairs as the substructure supporting them was inadequate for salvos. Sounds like twin mounts in a single turret :)
As a related issue : I've long viewed the beam of the Normandies as suspiciously narrow, it was not unheard of for period ships to be structurally weak- like the Invincible who deformed at drydocking, or Renown who was structurally reinforced after gunnery trials. I still haven't found a cross-section drawing, but I suspect their TDS system was the simple 1-1.5m wing passage with a thin bulkhead like Provence. So just because the Normandies were designed with a narrow beam, doesn't mean they would be successful vessels, or not need significant tonnage allocated to interior reinforcements (which is also how the wing turret examples Walter cited worked- lots of heavy internal reinforcement). I view as significant that the follow on Lyon class with the same weapons was to be 22feet/7m wider. I hazard that was both to provide a stronger cross-section, and provide room for the TDS.
I will also note that just because something was fielded OTL, doesn't mean it was fully researched. The British Quads seem to have been rushed a bit, and what I understand really weren't fully servicable for quite some time, more so than a simple shake down. For that matter, Invincible had electrically driven turrets which apparently failed repeated "frequently prevented a single round from being fired for months".
Sorry, I forgot I posted this.
I've actually got the plans the MN had posted online a while back. Little large to attach here.
So I have a couple things I want to work on with this, but none of these reside in "early" techs so if we need to talk about these a little beyond 8/1 I think that would be ok. I've put what the revised text would look like in quotes where applicable.
Naval Artillery: Add a level for Automatic guns, in a couple varieties. This is done because we have automatics in other trees
Quote1925: Advanced Capped Shells
1930: Automatic guns up to 50mm
1935: Automatic guns up to 100mm
1940: Automatic guns up to 210mm
Capital Ship Architecture: I think the DP batteries being broken up so much is a little wierd and I think the levels could be consolidated a little bit. Im not 100% happy with the below, but it would only involve the 1926 tech and up.
Quote1920: No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns
1926: Improved Torpedo Defence Systems.
1932: DP Secondary batteries. De-Capping plates
1940: Improved DP Secondary batteries. Advanced Torpedo Defence Systems.
1946: Automatic Secondary Guns
Aircraft/Seaplane Carrier Architecture: Add Slanted Decks at the top of the tree.
Quote
1942: Advanced Deck Parks. Advanced Air-Launched Torpedoes. Advanced Anti-Ship Dive Bombs. Rapid Consecutive Takeoffs with 100% of the airgroup.
1946: Slanted Flight Decks. Simultaneous takeoff and landing operations.
Cruiser Architecture: Expansion of the tree to work with developments in Capital Ships. Also the introduction of Box armor schemes.
Quote1920: No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns. Cruisers under 3000 tons may have cross-sectional hull strength > 0.75
1925: Armored Box armor layout.
1932: DP Secondary Batteries
1938: DP Main Batteries
1942: Automatic Main and Secondary Batteries.
Destroyer Architecture: Again, keeping up with developments in the other trees.
Quote
1928: Type H, I, J MTB
1932: DP Main batteries
1940: [Something here, Im not sure what]
Mine Warfare: This should probably be extended as well.
Rangefinding, Fire Control and Gunnery: Extended again to match the rest of the trees.
Quote1930: Electromechanical FC computers - 30km
1935: Early RADAR-Assisted FC - 35km [Requires 1930 Remote Sensing Devices]
1940: Improved RADAR-Assisted FC - Up to the maximum firing range of the main battery. [Requires 1937 Remote Sensing Devices.
Remote Sensing Devices: Again Extended
Quote1930: Primitive search RADAR
1937: Improved Search RADAR
1945: Advanced Search RADAR
Aircraft and Countermeasures: My idea here is to change the flavor text of these techs to take "Up to Historical" and tie it to some characteristics rather than a year. This is to allow for the more fluid development of various types. It's completely a flavor change and will have no effect on what the levels actually do.
Signals/Intelligence: Extended into the 40s.
Quote
1920: Primitive mechanical encoding/decoding machines etc.
1927: Improved mechanical encoding/decoding machines
1935: Primitive mechanical cipher breakers
1942: Advanced mechanical encoding/decoding machines. Improved Mechanical cipher breakers.
1945: Primitive Electronic encoding/decoding machines. Advanced Mechanical cipher breakers.
I have comments, but given my position of admin emeritus/website stucky, feel free to take them with lots of salt and/or ignore willfully.
Quote from: snip on July 30, 2017, 09:14:47 PM
So I have a couple things I want to work on with this, but none of these reside in "early" techs so if we need to talk about these a little beyond 8/1 I think that would be ok. I've put what the revised text would look like in quotes where applicable.
Naval Artillery: Add a level for Automatic guns, in a couple varieties. This is done because we have automatics in other trees
Quote1925: Advanced Capped Shells
1930: Automatic guns up to 50mm
1935: Automatic guns up to 100mm
1940: Automatic guns up to 210mm
I recommend slightly different language. Maybe "automated loading assistance"? But this was really only interesting in the context of AA batteries. See below.
Quote
Capital Ship Architecture: I think the DP batteries being broken up so much is a little wierd and I think the levels could be consolidated a little bit. Im not 100% happy with the below, but it would only involve the 1926 tech and up.
Quote1920: No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns
1926: Improved Torpedo Defence Systems.
1932: DP Secondary batteries. De-Capping plates
1940: Improved DP Secondary batteries. Advanced Torpedo Defence Systems.
1946: Automatic Secondary Guns
I will stipulate that this has been and continues to be confusing, but I think DP belongs in the "light cruiser" tech. Specifically, I see the evolution of gun mounts for guns under 21cm belonging together. So once you've developed a DP 12cm mounting, it can get mounted on any ship.
Also, I think loading automation for guns under 21cm belongs on the same progression.
Quote
Aircraft/Seaplane Carrier Architecture: Add Slanted Decks at the top of the tree.
Quote
1942: Advanced Deck Parks. Advanced Air-Launched Torpedoes. Advanced Anti-Ship Dive Bombs. Rapid Consecutive Takeoffs with 100% of the airgroup.
1946: Slanted Flight Decks. Simultaneous takeoff and landing operations.
"Angled decks." This is a rare place where the Queen's English and American English agrees.
Quote
Cruiser Architecture: Expansion of the tree to work with developments in Capital Ships. Also the introduction of Box armor schemes.
Quote1920: No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns. Cruisers under 3000 tons may have cross-sectional hull strength > 0.75
1925: Armored Box armor layout.
1932: DP Secondary Batteries
1938: DP Main Batteries
1942: Automatic Main and Secondary Batteries.
Also see above. Way back in the day I understood the intention of the "architecture" techs to be to govern attributes commonly applied to those ship classes. So BB/AC architecture governed large caliber mounts and heavy armored schemes. The light cruiser tech governed lighter mounts. And the DD rule mostly governed how big a DD could be (otherwise we'd end up with a bunch of USS Omaha clones running about in 1910).
Quote
Destroyer Architecture: Again, keeping up with developments in the other trees.
Quote
1928: Type H, I, J MTB
1932: DP Main batteries
1940: [Something here, Im not sure what]
Same issue. ;)
Quote
Mine Warfare: This should probably be extended as well.
Rangefinding, Fire Control and Gunnery: Extended again to match the rest of the trees.
Quote1930: Electromechanical FC computers - 30km
1935: Early RADAR-Assisted FC - 35km [Requires 1930 Remote Sensing Devices]
1940: Improved RADAR-Assisted FC - Up to the maximum firing range of the main battery. [Requires 1937 Remote Sensing Devices.
This is fine I think, except the "up to the maximum range of the main battery part". Most WWII capital ships could routinely fire beyond the range they could spot. You'd have to site a (heavy) radar aerial very high in the ship. This is why, even after BBs were shipping radar they still needed aircraft spotting. Unfortunately one of the Friedman volumes I don't have in my collection is his magnus opus on US radar and fire control, but this http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.php (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.php) says that main battery guidance sets could range out to 40k yards. Newer sets were more precise. I doubt the early sets would have resulted in many hits at that range. Mark 3 had a range accuracy of 40 yards, and couldn't range splashes beyond 20k yards.
Quote
Remote Sensing Devices: Again Extended
Quote1930: Primitive search RADAR
1937: Improved Search RADAR
1945: Advanced Search RADAR
Needs (IMNSHO) some more description of what one gets with improved and advanced.
Quote
Aircraft and Countermeasures: My idea here is to change the flavor text of these techs to take "Up to Historical" and tie it to some characteristics rather than a year. This is to allow for the more fluid development of various types. It's completely a flavor change and will have no effect on what the levels actually do.
This turns in to quicksand quickly, which is why the rules were written the way they were originally. Aircraft development was so rapid, varied, and parallel...
I suppose you could do a couple of things. For instance, a more detailed tree of ICE development (or maybe just "aircraft engine" development), coupled with a tree of structure and aerodynamic development?
Quote
Signals/Intelligence: Extended into the 40s.
Quote
1920: Primitive mechanical encoding/decoding machines etc.
1927: Improved mechanical encoding/decoding machines
1935: Primitive mechanical cipher breakers
1942: Advanced mechanical encoding/decoding machines. Improved Mechanical cipher breakers.
1945: Primitive Electronic encoding/decoding machines. Advanced Mechanical cipher breakers.
This ship has sailed, but this was one of the "secret" tech tree categories. Originally these weren't published, and players had to "discover" them either by asking the mods, or being granted a step on that tree (and knowledge of the whole tree) via game play. Back then you'd see research money dedicated toward "secret" or "REDACTED" in reports. Unfortunately at some point a player published their tree with the secret stuff and the cat was let out of the bag. :-(
All that written, I don't this tech was just about decoding. It also needs to cover some ideas about information theory, pattern recognition, etc. In many cases the codes weren't broken, but enough information could be gathered from the use of specific codes for useful intelligence to be gained.
On DD/PC/BB techI think some rewording is possible. I may even have tried to do this at some point.
My proposal: Make DD's about how you can build ships to the DD rules. Mainly size and TT limitations. You might limit whether guns have dedicated hoists (on DDs only) here. Make it clear that otherwise the gun mounts are governed by PC tech.
On the PC tech, make it only about gun mounts <8". Fold all the DP stuff in there. You could say along the way, for instance, that guns larger than 7" have to be mounted in turrets on barbettes, or something to that effect if you'd like. I think this tech could be simply "gun mounts for guns below 21cm".
On the BB/AC tech, make it only about gun mounts >8".
Reword each of them to make clear that the three may all have to be considered together when designing a ship. For instance a BB's secondary armament is governed by the PC tech.
Thanks for the thoughts, a couple responses.
Regarding DP Guns: While I understand your point, I think it's a little late to correctly and fairly pull off the kind of shift you propose. While the original intent may have been as you describe, I think it's evolved to cover all aspects of the ship rather than just its main armament. Would an addition to each level of [Automaticly granted if 1932 [Type 1] OR [Type 2] completed] covers some of the concerns? Or, would it be better to staple DP guns to the Aircraft and Countermeasures tree at this point?
QuoteThis is fine I think, except the "up to the maximum range of the main battery part".
An easy correction to 40k.
QuoteThis turns in to quicksand quickly, which is why the rules were written the way they were original. Aircraft development was so rapid, varied, and parallel...
I suppose you could do a couple of things. For instance, a more detailed tree of ICE development (or maybe just "aircraft engine" development), coupled with a tree of structure and aerodynamic development?
I really don't want to add more complexity to the air stuff, as I'm really trying to keep the non-naval stuff limited. My thought with changing the descriptions of the techs is that it then becomes easier (IME) fluff to a nations air forces. Seeing as all the matters for the rules is "I have X Air Points in Y region and Z tech level", I don't know if the flavor text matters as much as it did.
QuoteNaval Artillery: Add a level for Automatic guns, in a couple varieties. This is done because we have automatics in other trees
Quote1925: Advanced Capped Shells
1930: Automatic guns up to 50mm
1935: Automatic guns up to 100mm
1940: Automatic guns up to 210mm
Looking at this, where do the heavy AA MGs end and the Automatic guns begin? The 2-pdr Mk II was designed ~1915 and it is only a tiny step from 40mm to 50mm so does it make sense to have the 50mm level? To me it looks like a useless step and it is probably better to have the 1935 level as the first automatic gun entry.
With DP or Auto gun + mount, as Guinness kinda indicated, just one tech should determine what can and cannot be done with the DP guns and automatic guns. It really depends on caliber of the guns, but is weird that a capital ship cannot use automatic 12cm guns as secondaries until the 1946 tech is researched while a cruiser can have the exact same guns as both main and secondaries with its 1942 tech. With the DPs it is the other way around where you can 12cm DP guns on a capital ship with the 1932 tech but you cannot have the 12cm DP guns as main batteries on your cruiser until you have the 1938 tech (but you can have the 12cm DP guns as main batteries on a destroyer). Makes no sense to me and probably makes things more complicated than they have to be.
Quote"Angled decks." This is a rare place where the Queen's English and American English agrees.
Actually when I saw "Slanted Flight Decks", I kinda thought that it would be something that is not quite true "Angled decks" which would be 1950s.
To hit a couple things. Im starting to think that I went about this the wrong way and that DP and Autos should be part of the Naval Artillery tree instead. As a quick draft, I get this. Changes bolded.
QuoteNaval Artillery
Baseline: Muzzle-Loading cannon. Primitive Breechloaders. Solid Shot. Primitive High Explosive Shells
1880: Breach loading guns. High Explosive Shells.
1895: Quick-Firing guns. Semi-Armor Piercing Shells
1900: Smokeless Powder.
1905: Improved Smokeless Powder. Armor Piercing Shells
1910: Capped Shells. Automatic AA guns up to 50mm (Requires 1914 Aircraft tech)
1915: Shells can be 10% over SS default
1920: Improved Capped Shells Shells can be 20% over SS default
1925: Advanced Capped Shells
1930: Dual-Purpace Guns Less than >130mm
1935: Dual-Purpace Guns Less than >155mm, Automatic guns up to 100mm
1940: Automatic guns up to 210mm
That then makes the Architecture techs look as follows.
Quote1920: No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns
1926: Improved Torpedo Defence Systems.
1932: De-Capping plates.
1940: Advanced Torpedo Defence Systems.
Quote1920: No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns. Cruisers under 3000 tons may have cross-sectional hull strength > 0.75
1925: Armored Box armor layout.
1936: DP Main Batteries
QuoteDestoyers Unchanged.
I still want to keep main battery DP guns for cruisers behind its own tech wall as in OTL you don't see that come up until later than DP guns. [eg. The 5/38 entered service in 1934 while the Atlantas didn't come around for another 6 years.] Does that look better?
QuoteI still want to keep main battery DP guns for cruisers behind its own tech wall as in OTL you don't see that come up until later than DP guns. [eg. The 5/38 entered service in 1934 while the Atlantas didn't come around for another 6 years.]
I disagree with the idea that the cruiser tech needs that DP entry. The thing is that various early 1930s destroyers used the 5/38 DP as main guns when it was designed so why can't a cruiser, which is bigger and more spacious than a destroyer, not use the same gun as its main guns? Granted you won't have anything like an Atlanta around (unless you use the single purpose Mark 22 twin mount but then it would not be an AA cruiser even though the guns are DP) but you should be able to build a small cruiser that is something like an oversized Faragut with 10 5/38 guns or so in single DP mounts as its main guns. To me, if cruisers must need that 1936 level for DP main guns, then the much smaller, more cramped destroyers definitely need to abide to that tech level as well.
QuoteDoes that look better?
Uhm... "Less than >130mm" = Less than greater than 130mm? Looks kinda odd to me... The same with the "Less than >155mm". :)
With the DP guns, you could have it like this to avoid having Atlanta type AA cruisers too early...
Quote1930: Dual-Purpose Guns Less than 130mm, DP single gun mount, twin gun mount are SP only
1935: Dual-Purpose Guns 131-155mm, DP twin gun mount
My concern is not necessarily Atlanta style ships, because those can't do the same sort of jobs as a more traditional cruiser, but having ~150mm DP cruisers showing up way early. A different approach, just showing Arty and Cruiser techs.
QuoteNaval Artillery
Baseline: Muzzle-Loading cannon. Primitive Breechloaders. Solid Shot. Primitive High Explosive Shells
1880: Breach loading guns. High Explosive Shells.
1895: Quick-Firing guns. Semi-Armor Piercing Shells
1900: Smokeless Powder.
1905: Improved Smokeless Powder. Armor Piercing Shells
1910: Capped Shells. Automatic AA guns up to 50mm (Requires 1914 Aircraft tech)
1915: Shells can be 10% over SS default
1920: Improved Capped Shells Shells can be 20% over SS default
1925: Advanced Capped Shells
1930: Dual-Purpace Guns Less than and including 130mm
1935: Dual-Purpace Guns Less than and including 155mm, Automatic guns less than and including 100mm
1940: Automatic guns up to 210mm
Quote1920: No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns. Cruisers under 3000 tons may have cross-sectional hull strength > 0.75
1925: Armored Box armor layout.
1939: DP Main Batteries larger than 130mm
I think that addresses both concerns.
This is really to much for me to digest right now, a flurry of changes is a beginning of the weekend thing, not a weeknight "fit in" when I'm already busy.
Pretty sure I have issues with the Radar assisted 1935 FC, but would have to go look up stuff. Pretty sure it's 5 years+ early. You need smaller wavelengths and that took time to come about, as I recall the Brits were still working on it in 1940 when the Dutch brought an improved protype with them. Still like I said, I'd have to go do more work. Oh, and I have that book Guinness was referring too. It's dense.
I think the Scout Cruiser design I put out has armored box, since it's not a hard concept to come up with and there was no rules on it. Hmm, yes, it does.
I'll do more comments no later than this weekend unless something comes up.
1) On Research - Is it intentional that the cost of researching a 1910 tech in 1910 is $1, to be paid $0.25/$0.25/$0.25/$0.25 ?
Because that's what the formula on the research page and the results of calculator seem to indicate.
Which means my $7 research dollars can research up to 28 techs / half year. Which was a nuance of the revised rules I hadn't noticed before.
2) Sorry I haven't followed up on the Radar stuff.
My available time has been going into setting up for 1910.
I did some quick looking, the first RN set in use was on KGV in 1940, while the US had a demo set on USS New York in 1939, and entered production in May 1940.
However, looking at Friedman, these early sets were 50cmwhich was primarily rangefinding assitance- it couldn't do aspect/deflection and rate of change.
About 1942 you had 10cm sets- the Dutch brought a prototype with them in 1940, which could be used for fire control, though it seems not full Blindfire. It's notable that the US proximity fuses entered use in 1942 as well.
Blindfire, need to do more reading but 1943/44.
Anyhow, I'll revisit that later and make a better timeline.
Quote1) On Research - Is it intentional that the cost of researching a 1910 tech in 1910 is $1, to be paid $0.25/$0.25/$0.25/$0.25 ?
Because that's what the formula on the research page and the results of calculator seem to indicate.
Which means my $7 research dollars can research up to 28 techs / half year. Which was a nuance of the revised rules I hadn't noticed before.
I see what happened here. The number that calculator puts out is the cost per half to complete the tech in six turns. That was the baseline we were working with during the development of the ruleset. It seems that figure never made it into the actual text of the rules. I will modify the rules and ask Guinness to modify the calculator to reflect this. Apologies for the confusion.
Formula Fun
In which I try to apply what's there.
Perhaps my math skills are too antiquated.
QuoteTechnology cost is modified as follows:
c = cost
b = Base cost
y = difference between current sim year and year listed with technology in tree with earlier than the listed year as negative and later being positive
If y < 0 : c = MAX(0.05 * y, 0.25)
If y ≥ 0 : c = e(0.321888 * y)
Please use the calculator below to get tech costs.
note : "e" is undefined
For a 1908 tech researched in 1910So Y = difference between current sim year (1910) and year listed (1908) . So Y = 1910-1908= 2
The technology in the tree is earlier than the listed year, so Y= -2.
C = MAX(0.05*-2, 0.25)
I don't understand this formula
Guessing MAX means the larger of.
In this case 0.05*-2 is : -0.1, so the cost is 0.25 ?
So for a 1910 tech researched in 1910So Y = difference between current sim year (1910) and year listed (1910) . So Y = 1910-1910 = 0
C = e(0.321888*y).
If Y=0, then
So C = e * (0.32188*0)
Since anything multiplied by 0 is 0..
C = 0
free techs !So for a 1913 tech researched in 1910Y = 3
C = e(0.321888*3).
C=e(.96564)
So, what "e" is becomes relevant.
e is this badboy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)). Dont have the time to reply in full, but the calculator looks good now. What changed was that we went from "Pay to you get it" to "Fixed cost" and never listed that cost.
Ah, Logs.
Yeah, haven't touched that in decades.
Oddly, I do use a little stats and rarely even linear regressions.
Tomorrow I may even use the tangent function.
oooh.
But yeah, totally oblivious to the idea it was some math constant.
Naval Artillery Questions
Looking ahead at my next generation of guns :
1) When I get there, the 1910 Naval Tech allows a 255mm/ 55 caliber gun with a ME of 2500.
While MV and barrel length are linked, as a longer barrel allows complete combustion of the propellants- but that was why guns went from 30-35cal to 40-45cal.
After a certain point, the way to make a shell go faster is add more propellant.
Presumably the limiting factor is the metallurgy to take the chamber pressure of that charge.
According to SS, a 55 caliber shell is 247.75kg.
I've been rounding the .xx part, so 248kg.
According to Logi's Ballistics tool,
a 255mm shell weighing 248kg moving at 921m/s has a ME of 2496.
However, that is well in the "stripping the barrel" range of muzzle velocities, not to mention unstable rounds.
Personally I don't want to push the round past ... say 850m/s.
That takes a ME of 2126.
Question : So, since 2126ME is 85% of 2500ME, does that mean the guns can be 85% of 55, i.e. a 255mm 46caliber gun ?
2) In the above gun, a 46 caliber round is normally 236.69, or 237kg. However the max weight for the tech is 248kg.
Question : The max shell weight for that bore is the one we get to use, correct?
I.e. if I have 1910 tech, allowing 255mm/55ca, I get to use that shell weight even if I'm only building a 45 caliber gun ?
That is honestly something I have never thought about before. I thought that the ME part of the table had depreciated at some point, I just never removed the text because formatting that table is a complete PITA.
Quote from: snip on August 23, 2017, 07:43:45 AM
That is honestly something I have never thought about before. I thought that the ME part of the table had depreciated at some point, I just never removed the text because formatting that table is a complete PITA.
That's kinda funny. For the Dutch in Wesworld, the Bavarians and Italians here, I custom made guns. I figured regardless of what others used, at least my navies would be internally consistent.
Usually I used "Biggun.exe" but I can't get it to work with Win7....plus Logi's tool meant I didn't need to take time to figure out how to make BigGun work.
Formerly, with Bavaria and Italy the increased ME meant I could hold at my desired muzzle velocity, but raise shell weight - which was ahistoric and we've fixed now. That seemed better than raising the MV. For example the British 12"/50cal fired at 850m/s but had a barrel life of 150 rounds and tremendous dispersion.... not worth it for me.
Anyhow, for me it was a combination of giving me consistency on armor and weapon design schemes. For Persia I made a excel sheet of potential weapons and then tested them in Logi's Ballistic - which I calibrated with Navweaps data for AP (not APC) rounds.
This is why the
Gilgamesh Class, designed when battle ranges were still 3,000m, has that exceedingly thick belt to make her proof against own weapons at that short range. The
Enki, designed the year after when the effects of the new gunnery systems would be more evident, are armored for the 6,000m range.
Anyhow, I'm using 825-830m/s as the upper limit for my desired large guns, but I've hit that already with many of my 40 and 45 caliber guns. For something like a 255mm gun, I need 2003ME to fire a 248kg shell at 825m/s, which you get with the 1900 tech. I've also scaled ME by cross section area for smaller guns, and they peak early also.
Hmm, I type too much.
I normally just look at historic guns and modify shell weight from there, hence why its something I've never really done.
Quote from: snip on August 23, 2017, 07:46:40 PM
I normally just look at historic guns and modify shell weight from there, hence why its something I've never really done.
I did that originally, but I had problems with the treaties meant the powers kinda standardized weapons, while I wanted to explore ahistoric choices.
For example, the heaviest hand loaded round is pretty much the UK's 7.5" on Hawkins, which is slightly larger than the US 7" and smaller than the French 194mmm. Supposedly the 8" gun was a Japanese demand as they had problems handloading shells this size. As a result, modern versions of weapon range doesn't exist to compare to. Meanwhile SS thinks the top of the QF range is 165mm, so that's my top QF gun....but there is no historic parallel, closest is the German 6.75", which went away. Likewise the 9-10" range, which is handy, went away historically.
Then there's things like my desire to top out at 17" or 20" - neither with historic parallels :)
So I got into designing my own guns. One light battleship I made I specifically played with the parameters so that the shell would drop heavily beyond 20,000 yards, and be a very good deck hitter- accepting the accuracy issues- so I could field a viable small battleship for island and escort duty :)
Anyhow here in Nav7 it's decidedly influenced my ships. The new
Tiamat class using the 1905 gun tech (gained 1907, guns done designing 1909..), I redesigned the early ship to upgun the weapons from 360L40 up to 365L40 specifically because the 360mm fires at 840m/s and the 365mm fires at 824m/s and has much better penetration at combat ranges.
Because light shells bleed velocity faster, the 360L40 and a 345L45 at 10,000m have virtually the same performance. But the 365mm "costs" more in tonnage, but with a return on performance.
Anyhow, if you are curious and if you burrow into my encyclopedia, you'll see my naval artillery section has a summary of what I came up with. The stats will change with Capped shells, as I'll recalibrate Logi's tool for newer weapons. https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7037.0.html (https://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,7037.0.html)
To answer my questions.... I'm getting the hint you don't care that much, so I'll feel free to make my next 1905 tech 10" class gun...nominally a 10/55 gun at 912m/s into a 10/46 with a 850m/s velocity.
To sum it up, as far as I am concerned two things here are true.
1) Whatever options exist in the gun table (even things I thought were depreciated), they are to be considered the maximum upper bound.
2) When good justification and research exist, Im likely to be happy.
Quote from: snip on August 25, 2017, 01:44:08 PM
To sum it up, as far as I am concerned two things here are true.
1) Whatever options exist in the gun table (even things I thought were depreciated), they are to be considered the maximum upper bound.
2) When good justification and research exist, Im likely to be happy.
Well I was typing up stuff offline.
I agree with your positions, what I expect :)
Anyhow, now to post more of my endless blathering about minutia nobody cares about ! ... but I find weirdly interesting !
More fun with ME : A 1910 tech gun will be available in 1914, when 1912 fire control is available, so say 10% hits at a range of 14km.
If you build the max bore for the range, it's not always the best answer. For example, building a 16.5" gun is likely better than a 18" gun, because you still get the 6500ME, but it gives you a better MV.
1910 Tech, 18" / 40cal Gun : 6500 ME, SS default shell 1268kg, gun 138t
1910 Tech 16" / 45 cal gun : 5800 ME, SS default shell 937kg, gun 115t
1910 Tech 14"/50 cal gun : 5100 ME, SS default shell 659kg , gun 90t
1910 Tech 12"/50 cal (same as 1905 tec) : 3600ME, SS default shell 415kg, gun 56t
1910 tech 10"/55 cal : 2500 ME, SS Default shell 245kg. gun 37t
While a 1910 tech 16.5"/40cal with 6500ME, has a default 976kg shell and wt 106
So what's the Penetration at 14,000m ?Well using my adjustments to Logi's tool based on some Navweaps comparisons, adding 20% to the belt pen for APC shells.
18"/40, 1268kg @ 657m/s : 26seconds flight, descent at 15deg, Belt : 260mm, Deck 109mm (!!)
Great deck pen, but this shell is not going to be terribly accurate as it's really starting to plunge.
While 5 seconds may seem like little, that's a 25% longer flight time than the 12-14" weapons, during which time a ship at 18knots moves 147 feet - about 1/3rd of hull length of say HMS Erin, and more than the entire beam.
16"/45, 937kg @ 722m/s : 24seconds flight, descent 13deg, Belt :281mm, deck 86mm.
Better mix, but since under..18km?...you're still looking at more belt than deck, and plunging shots are much harder to land, still not a great trade off.
14"/50, 659kg @ 807m/s : 21 seconds flight, descent 10deg, Belt 304mm, deck 64mm
12"/50, 415kg @ 855m/s : 21 sec flight, descent 10deg, belt 255mm, deck 52mm
Obviously, the OTL British 12"/50 at 850m/s was the reference point, and it had been replaced by the 13.5" at this point.
10"/55, 245kg @ 927m/s : 20sec flight, descent 10deg, belt 217mm, deck 40mm
The 927m/s is way to high, barrel life would be under 100 rounds. Even so, the light shell means it just can't carry the kinetic energy to matter in a capital ship fight. It would however have ventilated an
Invinvible class or anything smaller than a capital ship, while 10" guns were faster ROF than 12".
At 830m/s the barrel life climbs dramatially, while penetration should be about 174/50, perfect for cruiser killing. Hence my interest in a 10"/46. Heck I may rearm my old 1894 coast defense ships with something like that to extend their usefulness.
Then that hybrid 16.5" / 40 : 976kg @ 749m/s :23sec flight, 12deg angle, Belt 293mm, deck 78mm.
Better/faster/lighter than the 18"/40, comparable to the 16"/45, but weighs more, fires slower.
Makes sense that the US used 14"/50s, while the Brits fielded a 15"/42 (get the ME of the 16"/45").