1/1918 Rules Updates

[Kaiser Kirk]

I would assume 1/3 of a corps based on manpower.

That was my presumption, that the Active:Reserve ratio should  based on manpower, just thought I'd air it out to the board before moving forward.

[Kaiser Kirk]

New question :
There used to be a light cruiser tech :
1920: turrets and barbettes

Which has vanished. I note that there is now a BB tech
1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns

Which I suppose takes it's place.
But I'd like to point out that means you now have to learn how to make quad 8"+ turrets before you can figure out how to make a twin 6" turret. Which seems odd to me.

[The Rock Doctor]

Well, a ship that could incorporate quad 8". 

The logic was that modern light cruisers would evolve down from armored cruisers, rather than being a development of protected cruisers with deck mounts.

[Kaiser Kirk]

My impression has been that light cruisers went from 4" guns to 6" in single mounts such as Bristols had. Then you saw some twin 6" mounts* in the Omahas and powered single mounts up to 7.5" in Hawkins. I read things to leave the impression that both the twin 6" and single 7.5" were a bit heavy and not entirely satisfactory.

In the 1920s you see some pre-treaty cruisers, and I don't know which were mounts or turrets, they were not generally not heavily armored Duguay-Trouin was splinter proofed, Hawkins had 3"belt, Emden had 1.5" belt,  Omaha had a 3" belt. Wiki says the Pensacola CAs came from a Omaha replacement design, and I think post-treaty heavy cruisers are more related to these mid-1920s light cruisers than the pre-1914 armored cruisers.

As for secondaries in turret on battleships, you see some what get called twin 6" turrets on the Dante Aligheiri class of 1909, from the location near the main guns, likely a blast consideration IMHO.

*I've seen them called both mounts and turrets, I'm thinking they were mounts. Navweaps calls them that, and Haze Grey & Underway calls them turrets but says they were added during construction, far easier sans barbette.

[Guinness]

The twins in the Omahas are mount and hoist in our nomenclature. No barbettes there. The current tech tree doesn't preclude a twin 6" mount and hoist style mount like that. Indeed such ships have been built already in the nverse.

I think I see your point though. The problem is that we've chosen to dictate what sort of mounts can be built via these independent architectural techs which often overlap and cause confusion. Still, since the two techs in question both have start research dates in 1920, I don't think it's a big problem, is it?

[Valles]

The twins in the Omahas are mount and hoist in our nomenclature. No barbettes there. The current tech tree doesn't preclude a twin 6" mount and hoist style mount like that. Indeed such ships have been built already in the nverse.

*raises hand* Yo!
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=2013.msg40806#msg40806

[TexanCowboy]

Yo! Chattanooga's

[The Rock Doctor]

Perhaps we may want to consider having the 1920 tech as a stand-alone, allowing progression from either the BB/AC or PC tech lines.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Still, since the two techs in question both have start research dates in 1920, I don't think it's a big problem, is it?

Only if one was already planning on researching quad turrets, which I at least hadn't decided on yet.

Otherwise it's only a problem in a storyline sense.  I know one can make a 6" twin mount & hoist with unlimited armor as the rules stand now. I happen to think it's a bad idea. My vague impression is they were found to be overly heavy and slow to train.  There are several ships that seem to have mounts in the weight range of the Omaha twins, and they were followed by ships with turrets and barbettes. So I rather liked having the progression be in the cruiser line, and it made sense to me.

[Sachmle]

I can see Kirk's point. They're Cruiser MAIN guns, and Battleship/Battlecruiser SECONDARY guns. So I would think the tech would follow the PRIMARY weapon.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
I fully agree with the situation being confusing. That's one of the reasons I'm building SMALL armoured cruisers, as I feel safe with 191mm turret&barbette on them. I'm using mount&hoist for anything smaller, just in case, which leads to (temporary?) abandoning of 6" as a calibre.
Borys

[maddox]

France uses a 195mm twin mount and hoist with light armor. 
The Demarce IV's use that. It will have successors, but anything above 195mm will get turret and barbette.

Simular tech based twins are the 6.5 and 5.5 twins seen about on every ship above DD size.

For reference, the 5" twins on the Iowa's, and the same one for the Montana's are what we call mount and hoist designs.

It's another matter when 4"+  triples emerge, those need a barbette to carry the weight of the large turret to house all the people and equipment.

[Kaiser Kirk]

For reference, the 5" twins on the Iowa's, and the same one for the Montana's are what we call mount and hoist designs.

It's another matter when 4"+  triples emerge, those need a barbette to carry the weight of the large turret to house all the people and equipment.

I disagree. I think the governing consideration was the weight of the mount + armor, not how many guns it has, or even the size of the single gun.

The only triple 4" I can recall is Couragous/Renown,
which was an open mount, 18.5 tons

That is comparable to the weight of a single 6"
PG Erie single 6" mount with shield : 15.4 tons

The two mounts I was talking about are considerably larger
Hawkins single 7.5" powered mount with half shield : 45.975 tons
Omaha twin 6" , single cradle mount, ~1" armor ; 51.8 tons

While the 5" twins the US used generally were in between.
5"/38 twin enclosed ring mount & hoist, armor (varied), power ramming, power train, RPC  :
mk22.0 : 37.625t to
mk32.4: 60.1845 (some Essex class)

Turrets+ Barbettes allowed much greater weights.

Nelson's twin 6" turrets, with 1" armor : 84tons
Leaners twin 6" turrets, with armor : 91 tons
Southhamptons tripe 6" turrets, with armor : 182 tons

Navweaps description for the RN 5.25" twin DP mounts swaps back and forth between turret and mounting, but describes "short trunk" and "long trunk" which sound much more like barbettes. More to the point there is a picture that certainly looks like a barbette. It also notes they are hard to train in no-powered mode. Weights ran from 77.5 to 96 tons.

Extrapolating from the Hawkins and Omaha, around 50 tons they are getting slow to train. Logically there should be a point where the unreinforced deck structure, regardless of the bore or quantity of guns and armor, is not sufficient and a turret is needed, that is a weight issue.

[miketr]

Why not make it simple...  Any gun house that mounts more than... 2" of armor requires a full turret design and anything less can get away with a mount and hoist design.

Michael

[Valles]

Because there were, as I understand it, successful historical mounts with faces considerably thicker than that.