WesWorld

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 48
(4/15/03 4:15:22 pm)
To King of Riva
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I would make a separate post of my reply, rather than continuing to pollute the "Iberia Light Cruiser Draft I" thread. I hope you don't mind...
Here we go:

Quoted

Yep, but she´s a capital units and triples on BBs were already known - think Viribus Unitis or Nevada. Both classes laid down 1911. A year more or less for the introduction of heavy tripples doesn´t matter, though.

I am aware of these ships. Did I mention that it was unusual for a capital unit to have triples ? I thought I mentioned that I like the 4x3 layout and then mentioned the 4x3 layout on the Nagato. If you got the impression that I find the 4x3 layout unusual for that time, even for capital ships, my appologies. That was not my intention.

Quoted

Until the plans to equipe german Emden with a 4x2 layout 1920/21 and the french Duguay-Trouin laid down 1922 _nobody_ used a 4x2 layout on cruisers. Further more, only a few cruisers carried twin turrets in those years anyway.

Didn't see them either but I did see the 1908 Blucher with 6x2 8.2” guns. At least one cruiser existed with more than two twin turrets.

As for the twin turrets itself, I found 14 classes of cruisers with twin turrets (most of them 2 turrets) in Jane’s Fighting ships of WWI, going as far back as 1897 (Fürst Bismarck). Maybe it is a mere 5 percent (or less) of all the cruisers in the book, but I didn’t expect to find this many when I opened it. 27 ships in all.
Looking at it a bit broader, ships with Cruiser displacement (Old Battleships Monitors etc. below our 13,000 ton limit for a cruiser), there are an additional 53 ships with twin gun turret(s) (I found the Dutch “Evertsen” class BB funny: 3,520 tons. What kind of BB is that ? )

The farthest I got back in time for a cruiser displacement ship with twin guns is 1891-92 with the old German BBs Brandenburg and Wörth (10,060 tons, 3x2 11”).
So maybe some years pass and then a lunatic designer sees such smallish ships as the Brandenburg and thinks “That is something I’ll use on my new cruiser designs: two guns in one turret. It might be heavier than two single guns, but it saves a bit of space on the deck. And since the guns are in a turret, the gunners will remain dry when it rains.” From this point on, a nation would build cruisers with two twin gun turrets rather than singles. I doubt it would take long until there are more than two turrets on the cruiser. How far off are the superfiring guns from this point ? Is it truly that unrealistic ? How closely will this design be followed by a 3x3 and a 4x3 design ?

But seriously, in my opinion a 4x2 superfiring layout is much more realistic for the 1910-1920 era than 120 AA guns…
Guess I’ll have to think up a good story why Japan went to built the smaller ships with twin turrets rather than building them with single gun mounts like other nations did (I’m already busy with the AA guns story to be posted soon).

(There is another reason why these ships have such layouts. While my copy of Jane’s Fighting ships of WWII has been used so many times that the spine of the book is loose from the backside, my copy of Jane’s Fighting ships of WWI was bought last Saturday. I never knew so many ships had single mount guns.)

Quoted

So you´re power-gaming where most others like Northman, Pengolodh, myself and some others try to do this as realistic as possible.

Not at all… If I wanted to do that, there would have been 18.1” guns on six Nagato class BBs. That and I wouldn’t have sunk about 65% of my BBs.

Quoted

When will you introduce your first nuke carrier? In 1942?

It is already being built…
but don’t tell anyone. It is a secret.

Back to the guns…
Now, I’m not an expert with naval guns and such ships, but were single gun mounts used to save weight to be used for speed etc. or was there another reason ? When I looked through JFSoWWI I got the impression that most had only a protective shield.


Walter

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 29
(4/15/03 7:26:33 pm)
An answer...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote:

"Didn't see them either but I did see the 1908 Blucher with 6x2 8.2” guns. At least one cruiser existed with more than two twin turrets."

Well, BLÜCHER was an AC, some even say a semi-BC and its size rates her as a small capital unit.

The original thread and questions was about light cruisers - as was my comment. I´m well aware that _ACs/Large Cuisers_ carried twin mounts much earlier than light cruisers.

"As for the twin turrets itself, I found 14 classes of cruisers with twin turrets (most of them 2 turrets) in Jane’s Fighting ships of WWI, going as far back as 1897 (Fürst Bismarck). Maybe it is a mere 5 percent (or less) of all the cruisers in the book, but I didn’t expect to find this many when I opened it. 27 ships in all."

How many of those cruisers were light cruisers. My guess: not even one. But light cruisers was the topic I was refering to.

"Looking at it a bit broader, ships with Cruiser displacement (Old Battleships Monitors etc. below our 13,000 ton limit for a cruiser), there are an additional 53 ships with twin gun turret(s) (I found the Dutch “Evertsen” class BB funny: 3,520 tons. What kind of BB is that ? )"

Well, that´s a completely different thing. Rating all coast defence vessels, semi-capitals and ACs surely gives you many classes with twin turrets.

"The farthest I got back in time for a cruiser displacement ship with twin guns is 1891-92 with the old German BBs Brandenburg and Wörth (10,060 tons, 3x2 11”)."

One of the most advanced design in those days, indeed. But one has to note that the mid-ship turret had shorter guns than the forward and aft turret. This lead to some problems with FC at a certain range and beyond.

But again, the BRANDENBURGs weren´t light cruisers. And they had no superfiring twin turrets.

"So maybe some years pass and then a lunatic designer sees such smallish ships as the Brandenburg and thinks “That is something I’ll use on my new cruiser designs: two guns in one turret. It might be heavier than two single guns, but it saves a bit of space on the deck. And since the guns are in a turret, the gunners will remain dry when it rains.” From this point on, a nation would build cruisers with two twin gun turrets rather than singles. I doubt it would take long until there are more than two turrets on the cruiser. How far off are the superfiring guns from this point ? Is it truly that unrealistic ? How closely will this design be followed by a 3x3 and a 4x3 design ?"

It took 30 years from the BRANDENBURGs before the first light cruiser with superfiring turrets was introduced. Thus _I_ think it would be unrealitic to have a 4x2 layout several years before 1920. Having a single twin forward and aft is _maybe_ a different thing and can be introduced ~1914 but it still would be unlikely.

Turrets, especially superfiring turrets, have a fundamental influence on a ships design and capabilities.

(For more on this see below.)

"But seriously, in my opinion a 4x2 superfiring layout is much more realistic for the 1910-1920 era than 120 AA guns…"

That´s for sure. I noticed some guys put very many small guns on their ships. Unrealistic _I_ think but that´s just my opinion.

Btw, I read your story why the IJN ships carry so many small guns. Nice anecdote - but unrealistic. There´s way too much hindsight involved - or too much foresight of this japanese gentleman.

"Guess I’ll have to think up a good story why Japan went to built the smaller ships with twin turrets rather than building them with single gun mounts like other nations did (I’m already busy with the AA guns story to be posted soon)."

You better find a _really good_ reason for your turrets. There were many why turrets were not used historically.

"Back to the guns…
Now, I’m not an expert with naval guns and such ships, but were single gun mounts used to save weight to be used for speed etc. or was there another reason ? When I looked through JFSoWWI I got the impression that most had only a protective shield."

Nore am I an expert. There are first rate experts around in the net like Dr. George Elder, Peter Lienau, Richard "Tiournu" Worth, Nathan Okun etc. Compared to those guys I´m only a 10th rate "expert" but I´ll give it a try. Maybe I can light up the mystic ideas behind single mounts.

There were many reasons why single mounts were used for so long while larger units got turrets and even superfiring turrets.
Note that my limited knowledge is mainly based on german ressources and therefor I know why the Germans kept their single mounts but not why the British did so (to name the two most important navies in those days) but I guess theirs were similar.

First you have to understand a small cruisers role in those days. Small cruisers were used as scouts, avisos and fleet screen more than anything else. To fullfill these tasks they had to be able to fight their own kind and (multiple) fast small units because those were most likely their opponents. Light cruisers were in no way semi-ships of the line.

1.) Rate of Fire (ROF)

To fight those battles small cruisers needed guns with a high ROF. Due to their limited armor (if any) the doctrines asked for short duels with a maximum of shells fired - in the hope to cripple/sink any enemy or at least prevent it from intercepting ones own mission. Further more, a high ROF offered the only chance to effectively fight small highly manoverable targets like torpedoboats. (Think of one or more torpedoboart flotillas that are attacking an enemy battle line simultaniously. To prevent you BBs to be peppered with torpedos you need cruisers as a screen that can fight multiple targets simultaniously in a knife fight. This is much easier with single mounts.)

Those are the main reasons why the Germans used the 10,5cm gun for so long as the main weapon on their cruisers for example. The first german CLs build (and not re-armed) with 15cm guns were PILLAU, ELBING, WIESBADEN and FRANKFURT 1913. This ended a long discussion between those responsible in High Command and the commanding officers. The latter prefered to stick with the fast firing 10,5cm guns while the others asked for the larger caliber with its heavier punch. The advent of vertical armor finally proofed the 15cm gun to be the right choice - at least against larger targets.

Turrets always had a much slower ROF than single mounts in those days. So ROF was _the_ argument to have single mounts.

2.) Weight

The single mounts with normal shields were lighter than a turret with an enclosed armored gunhouse, barbet and training gear.

This is important for the construction of the hull (supporting frames for example) as well as for top heaviness (especially when it comes down to superfiring turrets) and thus stability.

The weight of the turrets would also have impaired the ships seakeeping abilities due to the additional weight near the bow. Think of the hull forms used in those days. Ram bows with no sheer and little buoyancy. Any additional weight would have been a problem.

3.) Size

Closely related to weight is size. Many of those small cruisers (3000ts-5000ts) would have had problems to carry the guns in twin turrets due to the lack of volume inside the hull (lack of beam) for the barbets.

Size as well as weight also impairs a gun/gunhouse training rate, slows down targeting.

4.) Idea of firepower reserve

For years it was argued that a firepower reserve is necessary for cruisers. Once the guns on one side are destroyed, the ship simply should turn and use the other sides armament. Due to this thoughts the Germans did not use centerline guns for their CLs. Even their latest wartime designs kept the feature of main guns on both side where the British build their C-class cruisers with 5 centerlined guns.

The idea of firepower reserve could only be effective with single mounts because turrets would have been too heavy and large.

[BLÜCHER got her wing turrets due to this theory, btw.]

5.) Central FC

There was no central FC. The ships were build for fast short-range brawls where every individual gun has to put out as many shells as possible against a target only a few thousand meters away.
On the other hand turrets go well with central FC where you have controlled fire cycles, spotting etc. Especially when ranges started to grow...

These are just a few thoughts on single mounts. It is not a complete list and I may have totally missed some other important points but it should be sufficient to explain why light cruisers and smaller units kept single mounts while larger units, fighting (slower) enemies that are sailing a more constant course, such as ACs and capitals got twin, tripple and finally quadrupple mounts. It also explains why quadtruple turrets on cruisers are nonsense. If I had the choice between a 4x2 or a 2x4 cruiser I would _always_ take the 4x2. And if it is pre-central FC I would most likely opt for 8x1 instead.

Hope this helps...

[And remember: Don´t quote me, I´m not an expert and thus may be totally wrong. ]

Edited by: King of Riva at: 4/15/03 7:33:58 pm

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 9
(4/15/03 7:32:53 pm)
I know ...i'm not the king of riva but...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....as far as i can tell single mounts had various reasons for being used. If you look at the Scharnhorst for example, her single 5.9" guns are right around her funnel area which also has her 4.1" AA,directers and life boats. Forward of that is a twin 5.9" turret and behind that is her torpedo's and aircraft crane and aft of that her other twin 5.9" turret, so there is not alot of room for a third twin turret. I also think the germans were trying to get a nice cymetrical layout for their ship allthough practical use often over-rules the looks factor.
The weight of a german twin 5.9" turret is between 119 and 132 tons while casemate twins ar 51 tons so i would expect a single 5.9" turret to weigh around 60 to 70 tons maybe less so unless the single turrets are more lightly armed than the twins there really wouldn't be much of a weight difference, two single turrets could way slightly less to slightly more than one twin turret depending on the armor used.

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 30
(4/15/03 7:38:49 pm)
WW2-Scharnhorst
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WW2-Scharnhorst is a completely different story. You´re right, there was not enough space for a third turret otherwise there would have been no singles.

The use of singles on this class has nothing to do with the arguments pro single mounts mentioned above which apply only to the years pre-1920/22. When the WW2 Twins were laid down, technology had made a few leaps forward. In fact, the single mounts on the Twins were some sort of anachronism.

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 31
(4/15/03 7:46:58 pm)
An alternative maybe is...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the use of a twin mount with an open shield and with both guns in a single cradle. For such a gun no barbet is necessary and it´s not too heavy. The drawbacks are muzzle blast interference due to the small spacing between the guns and a slow training rate due to the heavier mount. You will also have the "too many eggs in one basket"-problem maybe.

But still, a 4x2 layout is highly unlikely pre-1918/19 and a layout using twins for an aft prior to 1914/15.

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 52
(4/16/03 11:33:31 am)
Re: An alternative maybe is...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eventhough it was in a thread about light cruisers, I thought that when you mentioned "Cruisers" you meant cruisers as a whole (light, heavy and armored). Sorry.

The bit you wrote about the single mount guns was very interesting (who needs an expert anyway ? )

Maybe I'll do something about the turrets (Probably after Mother's day unless the Germans stop buying flowers ).

... and no I won't quote you (yet).

Now something completely different...

I read about your problem with a pair of 28cm BCs in 1911 and a pair of 38cm BCs in 1920. That it was and unrealistic design process because you forgot a class of 35cm BCs in 1915/16.

You don't have them in your nation in 1921 but who says that South Africa never built them ? All it takes are a few mines, some torpedoes, sloppy handling in the powder room, a fierce naval battle, a major design flaw or a trip to the Twilight Zone (like my Kongo class). However this would mean that you'll have to adjust your infrastructure.

Walter

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 55
(4/16/03 11:48:54 am)
You know...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... two 40 caliber turrets and a 35 caliber turret...
Looks pretty weird in the book

Walter

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 35
(4/16/03 12:45:53 pm)
Forgotten BCs...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I read about your problem with a pair of 28cm BCs in 1911 and a pair of 38cm BCs in 1920. That it was and unrealistic design process because you forgot a class of 35cm BCs in 1915/16.

You don't have them in your nation in 1921 but who says that South Africa never built them ? All it takes are a few mines, some torpedoes, sloppy handling in the powder room, a fierce naval battle, a major design flaw or a trip to the Twilight Zone (like my Kongo class). However this would mean that you'll have to adjust your infrastructure. "

The latter is the problem. I don´t want anybody to cry. It wouldn´t be fair to add them once I posted all the stuff and it was settled down. The only option, for realisms sake, would be to exchange two of my four 35cm BBs for two 35cm BCs laid down in the same years as the BBs. This wouldn´t change anything with infrastructure but would make the developement of design more realistic. I´ll think about it but before I change it, I´ll ask all players if they agree.

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 11
(4/16/03 4:34:16 pm)
as an example
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantis has a class of light cruisers coming into service that have two twins and three singles. Its a small class though, four ships.

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 53
(4/22/03 12:23:46 pm)
Sounds interesting...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have a pic or the specs at hand? I´d like to take a look if I´m allowed...

Cheers,

HoOmAn