Some questions

[Kaiser Kirk]

Greetings all,

A couple of questions for the gallery,

1. While considering HY2, I made the mistake of looking at the Naval Gun Technologies rules again, only to decide I'm doing it wrong.

Simply put, I have been researching a 254mm gun to wed to the RRgun tech I picked up, except I do not have the prerequisite 8" gun. (edit, technically Bavaria has some, but they are Austria leftovers, we don't have the knowledge)

The problem is, I don't intend on having an 8" gun. I want to field 90mm, 120mm, 150mm and 180mm, then skip to 10" . 

So- will the 7"/180mm "count"  for the 8" class, so the next gun can be 10" ?
Or do I really need to research a 210mm gun also.

On an associated note...I'll be replacing the 254mm research with a retconned smaller weapon in my next report....

2. Anyone happen to know the maximum dimensions for a vessel to transit the  Lugwig Canal?  I am considering US Civil War-style riverboat ironclads and would like them to be able to transit from the Danube to the Rhine.

3. Small units.
Looking ahead, I can see where Bavaria will seek to field a Marine regiment and a Kommando regiment. Currently, they are only purchasable in units of 50,000.

Since I only want 2,500 of each, I'm rather hoping I don't really have to account for them...or chalk them up to the difference between the 50,000man specialist corps, and the 46,000 men Mtn Corps I actually field.

The problem comes when I want larger than regiments.... um later. I think I get why some have 'divisions'.

So..can I chalk the storyline specialist regiments up to 'slop' from the Mtn Corps?

[Kaiser Kirk]

as an addendum, while trying to prepare one of those tech lists with the nifty colors, I noted the following text :

Secondaries are 4-7" guns. 8-10" medium-caliber guns are not secondaries, but medium-caliber main guns
3 technologies were merged into one

and

Twin gun mounts requires hoists, and they are power operated. Their armor is limited to splinter protection - 1".
Battleship Architecture is not valid for guns 6.5" and smaller. To have armored turrets with small guns, this technology is required.

Which may be relevant to my query as to the 180mm counting towards going to 10" next.

But there is also an interesting gap that 7" guns are secondaries, but apparently still fall under battleship architecture.
IMHO, as HMS Hawkins had 7.5", and the USS Connecticut had 7" secondaries, 7.5" and less- i.e. not requiring power loading, should be non-battleship tree.

[Blooded]

Just an opinion, but I would think that every country would have access to at least 12"/40cal Guns. The 1905(should it be 1902 or 1907?) Gun Tech shows that the Gun Industry isn't too far behind. Bavaria may not have built them but I think the knowledge of the processes involved and machinery available should allow at least that.

Anyone else?

As too the Gun gap. The UNK considered 7.5" to be Medium Guns and Turret Capable(Researched in 1908-10, though I never built them- the 9.2" seemed better) and 6" and below small guns. I had no plans to fill the 6"-7.5" Gap.

As to the small elite types, I would have no issues with them filling in Corps leftovers. I believe they would need full (ie Wartime/Mobilized) Upkeep(if maintained for 2 years unit gets elite status). So if you maintain a Mtn. Corps at full upkeep I have no problem with it.

Ludwig Canal? No idea.

[Korpen]

2. Anyone happen to know the maximum dimensions for a vessel to transit the  Lugwig Canal?  I am considering US Civil War-style riverboat ironclads and would like them to be able to transit from the Danube to the Rhine.

It is quite small: http://sv.wikiloc.com/wikiloc/view.do?id=118233

[Eugenius]

I have a similar situation, so I'd like to check here.

China has ships armed with 13" guns constructed in 1907-9.  If I were to try to build a ship with monster (c. 16") guns, and I had reached the required tech level (1915 guns), would I follow this development path

1905 13.5-14" --> 1915 13.5-14" --> 1915 16"

or would I have to follow this development path?

1905 12" --> 1910 13.5-14" --> 1910/1915 13.4-14"/15" --> 1915 16"

Basically a question of where Phoenix's 13" guns lie on the chart: under 1905 12" guns or 1905 13.5-14" guns.

[The Rock Doctor]

The figures in the gun chart indicate the largest gun allowed under that particular column.  The "13.5 - 14" column really means: "306mm/12.1 inches to 356 mm/14 inches".

In developing gun techs, you can make one of three jumps between new gun and old gun:

-Up to a 51mm /2" change in bore
-Up to a 25.4mm/1" change in bore and a 5 caliber change in length
-Up to a 10 caliber change in length.

This generally allows multiple paths between older guns and newer guns.

I suspect the Chinese 13" guns are 35 caliber - they'd reverse-engineered such guns from the Associacao Comericial do Mundo (ACM) when they acquired Macau.  GC and UNK had/have similar relics in their inventories for the same reasons.

With respect to the Bavarian gun issue:  Bavaria had the 1905 tech from Bazhell's time, if not earlier.  I think it's reasonable to assume Bavaria could have developed guns appropriate to that tech prior to Bazhell's play. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

With respect to the Bavarian gun issue:  Bavaria had the 1905 tech from Bazhell's time, if not earlier.  I think it's reasonable to assume Bavaria could have developed guns appropriate to that tech prior to Bazhell's play. 

Well, I had presumed the 1902 Coastal Battery of 210mm guns was Austrian Skodas, as Bavaria didn't get that region until later. However I suppose those could be 1902 Bavarian guns emplaced later.  Ok, back to my 254mms :)

[P3D]

Bavaria hardly had any significant gun technology. Both French and Austrian heavy gun manufacture was elsewhere. And Bavaria did not need any before - so I'd assume the capacity is there, the knowledge is not (yet).

However, Bavaria can overcome this easily with buying a production license for a gun of your choice from someone.

[P3D]

The 7-8" gap was inserted there intentionally. Besides, 7" shells cannot be moved/loaded by a single men, despite Friedmann's claims.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Bavaria hardly had any significant gun technology. Both French and Austrian heavy gun manufacture was elsewhere. And Bavaria did not need any before - so I'd assume the capacity is there, the knowledge is not (yet).

However, Bavaria can overcome this easily with buying a production license for a gun of your choice from someone.

Frankly, this had been my starting assumption.

I will note that a case could be made for having such guns. Bavaria did start in 1908 with the 1905 tech, so we have some domestic knowledge of large gun manufacture. This makes some sense as we have been separated  from the Prussians and Austrians since the 2nd Franco-Prussian war. We just apparently haven't bothered to put the knowledge to use prior to now.

However, I knew I was signing up for a landpower, so if I have to start from scratch, so be it.

And I think I will home-brew my guns, which should forestall future issues of this sort.

The 7-8" gap was inserted there intentionally. Besides, 7" shells cannot be moved/loaded by a single men, despite Friedmann's claims.

I was rather hoping 7" would be in the same bracket as 8", it goes 8 to 9-9.5 etc, was thinking perhaps that 8 range was really 7-8".  To bad, as I said I don't want 8" weapons right now. 

As for the handloading/movement I think the key here is ...they can...but not easily and the men wear down fast. So sustained rates of fire are closer to 8" than 6".  Plus one can always have more than one man carry the round- like Army 8" field guns of the period.

So, 6inch may be the largest easily handloaded, but numerous countries went beyond that to what they felt the limit was.
As a result, there are many OTL guns which fall in the gap I noted.


The UK fielded several guns which were 7.5in, one of which was originally Chilean
Austria-Hungary had 19cm casements and turrets
USN  Connecticut & Mississippi had 7inch  casements
Germany had 6.75inch casements
Italy had 7.5" in turrets

All of these do not count as Secondary or Medium guns.
As battleship tech is specifically excluded for guns 6.5" and smaller regarding twin mounts, one can presume these count as battleship guns.
But under research they do cost 1/2 like everything else under 8".

Perhaps this is intentional, and 6.6-7.9" guns are meant to not quite fall under any one ruleset, but it seems unduly messy to me. Shouldn't they at least count as either secondary or medium?

[maddox]

@Rocky
The MK reverse-engineered the 13" L35 guns, better still, got a full shipyard with the gun manufacturing capacity and the engineers when the ACM desintegrated. It was one of the reasons the MK-NS war started.


On gun size. Not putting this to a concrete rule, but I feel the 7"ish guns are  transitional calibers.
To get any good result from them, these have to be at least casemated, mount and hoisted, or even turreted.
You can deck mount them, even use as a QF gun, but don't expect wonders in accuracy or rof.

It all depends on the tech possibilities of the country. And the filosophy of the builders, the ideas of the politicians and the insight of the admirality.

Putting a 7"ish gun on a ship , it is or a clear main gun, or a clear secundary.
Using these on a BB/BC/AC as secundary.
In turrets, we'll see the turret based on a cruiser turret. (irl example, the 155's on Yamato)
But it can be developed as a BB secundary turret, with the pricetag of such a turret. Making them as expensive as 8" guns.
The same for mount and hoists, the rules there are clear, mount and hoists are limited in armor protection, 2" shield, 1" other above deck and 3" below deck. Going over this armorlimit will impose restrictions in use.

[P3D]

The 160mm to 7" guns were justified as the largest caliber that could be handled by one man. No one used such caliber after WWI even if there was no treaty restriction on them. Neither the US nor France.
The 7.5" and 194mm guns were the largest calibers that could be handled by two men. See Hawkins class and the French/KuK ACs. And only 0.5" difference in caliber means a lot of weight.

There's the speculation that Japan insisted on the 8" limit in the WT because of it. Every nation would be inclined to build the largest possible caliber. However, the IJN felt that while Europeans have no difficulty handling 7.5" shells, the Japanese with smaller stature would have problems with it (see the adoption of the 5.5" caliber instead of 6"). So 8" guns would need heavy machine-handling equally, while with a 7.5" limit the Japanese felt they'd have a disadvantage.

6.5-7" shells were forbidden strongly discouraged. They are a bit large for the usual deck mount. Then, if they are counted as main gun, why would 6" (and 5.5" or even 5") guns excluded. In that case, 90% the cruisers laid down in Nverse would have looked like a slow treaty cruiser (with a possibility of some odd calibers). In like 6 Nverse years the distinction would cease to matter. But uou should be able to build a 180mm gun turret even now IMO.

Home-brewing guns will take some time if you do not want any foreign assistance.

[Kaiser Kirk]

With the 18cm I want to initially use them in a mix with 12cm. Centerline single mounts and in casements for the 18cm, then 12cm QFs in deckmounts over the casements. Possibly even double casements like the OTL Hapsburg class- which OTL was built in Trieste like the rest of the Austrian battleships. :) Until FC gets reliably beyond the 17k range, the elevation constraints of casements should not be a big deal.

I've read the assertion regarding the Japanese as well. As I recall the assertion was they felt if they demanded 8", that would mean everyone had to spring for power assist, while the smaller sizes could mean the smaller IJN sailors would need it but not the big European sailors.

This was to be my last HY on the 254, so I've changed that to 210. I will have a 254 in a couple of years yet.

[Kaiser Kirk]

The figures in the gun chart indicate the largest gun allowed under that particular column.  The "13.5 - 14" column really means: "306mm/12.1 inches to 356 mm/14 inches".

In developing gun techs, you can make one of three jumps between new gun and old gun:

-Up to a 51mm /2" change in bore
-Up to a 25.4mm/1" change in bore and a 5 caliber change in length
-Up to a 10 caliber change in length.

This generally allows multiple paths between older guns and newer guns.

I was trying to build a Bavarian naval artillery page with appropriate Navweaps, which seemed easy, but I ran into this question :

The 210mm guns I just had to research simply to get on the Naval Gun Technologies chart, would I be starting with 1885 style 210mm/40 in the far right, or the 1905 style 210mm/50s my tech level allows?

The figures in the gun chart indicate the largest gun allowed under that particular column.  The "13.5 - 14" column really means: "306mm/12.1 inches to 356 mm/14 inches".

So the very rightmost column, the 8",  represents a maximum bore size of 8"?  So where is the beginning of that category, i.e. 6.1"-8"? ....and yes I am going back to my question of if a 180mm gun would have 'counted' towards 8". 

P3D was quite clear it did not, he built the chart, ok...but where is the bottom of the 8" range- or is it simply 8.0", or perhaps 200mm-210mm, so 180mm is to small.

[P3D]

So the very rightmost column, the 8",  represents a maximum bore size of 8"?  So where is the beginning of that category, i.e. 6.1"-8"? ....and yes I am going back to my question of if a 180mm gun would have 'counted' towards 8". 

P3D was quite clear it did not, he built the chart, ok...but where is the bottom of the 8" range- or is it simply 8.0", or perhaps 200mm-210mm, so 180mm is to small.

The 8" column covers everything below. 204mm is the next step.