You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

21

Friday, November 17th 2006, 10:59pm

I'm having problems reconciling the differences in rate of fire for essentially similar weapons. The variation is between 8-22rpm for similar shell weights, power rammers and recoil lengths. I have no other idea how to account for it, unless the lower figures are conservative and the upper overoptimistic.

Quoted

Wouldn´t it be logical to use high angle guns then?


Italy doesn't have any HA 135mm mountings. No Italy doesn't have, enclosed, armoured HA 135mm mountings. So would need to either develop a new mounting or revert to 100/65 guns. Heavy AA weapons themselves aren't really worth it. Even so, the 45° elevation on these mountings is fine for engaging most aircraft. Not against dive bombers or closer-flying aircraft, but the 47mm battery will make short work of them.

22

Saturday, November 18th 2006, 10:28am

Ban autogyros? You must be mad!

I feel they will revolutionise naval warfare in WW before 1950. Argentina not being a CT nation would think nothing of putting them on warships, especially escorts. They could be an early warning OTH recon/targeting system for an escort group and no carriers to worry about losing and you can equip more ships with aircraft and keep the carriers for strikes.

Such a concept I feel would suit RA's cruiser concept. The autogyro's can search for the target and help vector those fighters/bombers onto the target. Without them I fail to see how this ship can direct aircraft at what it can't see without radar.

23

Saturday, November 18th 2006, 11:23am

Quoted

Ban autogyros? You must be mad!

Not at all. That's the easiest way to avoid the 'all ships are now carriers since our autogyros can land on them' talk in regards of the CT.
And as far as I know, only Iberia and Italy use them so it can easily be done.

Quoted

The autogyro's can search for the target and help vector those fighters/bombers onto the target. Without them I fail to see how this ship can direct aircraft at what it can't see without radar.

Without them, he'd use the 'old' trusted formula of floatplanes & catapults. Plenty of space aft.

24

Saturday, November 18th 2006, 12:05pm

I take your point but since when did Italy ever do things the 'old' way? ;o)

25

Saturday, November 18th 2006, 12:16pm

Since the ban on autogyros that was established the moment I mentioned it.

26

Saturday, November 18th 2006, 12:17pm

An interesting concept but wouldn't joe public be upset about a ship as big as a Cruiser armed as only a Destroyer?

Quoted

It'll be useful in coordinating a strike on the Greeks/French. Shadow and remain in distant contact with their vessels whilst vectoring in a SM.79 strike.


So the commander is on the ship thats out in front doing the scouting?

Greek captain: Open fire on the Italian Fleet!

Greek gunner officer: What target?

Greek captain: The one with all the f*cking aerials!

With all the electronics do the crew get tin-foil hats?

Info on Greek 6" twin turret .

Cheers,

27

Saturday, November 18th 2006, 1:05pm



Here is a version with 8x152/53. I had to delete the CIC spaces to make room for the extra guns. Maybe I'll just have to grow the ship a bit to accomodate both.

28

Saturday, November 18th 2006, 4:00pm

It doesn't look like you lost too much internal space with the upgrade to larger guns.
You should still be able to accomdate a CIC in this configuration.
I don't know where you had CIC located.
In most US cruisers CIC was located below decks
In some conversions, CIC was moved to a position near the bridge in the superstructure
The goal was to either protect CIC (a vital space) below the armored deck, or locate CIC near the bridge to facilitate access by the command staff.
I think the new tripod main mast appears more realistic for the time (the heavy main mast on the original version seemed more suited to the installation of heavy radar antennas)