WesWorld

Hood wrote:

Quoted

As to Bruce's information that such rates of fire were impossible until the 1960s onwards or even the 1980s, as Navweaps points out the same technology was used by Vickers for the Army and for 4in naval guns for Chile which could sustain 40 rpm. See; 4in/ 45

I did not say that they were impossible - I said I doubted that they were possible, based on the information I had at the time I made the comment; you have shown me information that would suggest that it was within the realm of possibility; I therefore stand corrected.

My first inclination was to freak out, but I do have an unlikely prototype of my own out there right now. We'll wait and see what production models are like.

Agree that we're going to have an era of automatic guns. I think it's problematic that we'll have relatively few historical examples to work from, though. It'll probably lead to some more arguments about whether a proposed weapons' specifications are practical or not.

On the ship itself: I agree with the concept of building a special, but have questions about the specifics:

-The box armor doesn't seem to be a full deck high

-Why the armament layout - particularly the Q mounting?

-Are 0.66" machine-guns still considered viable AA defence?

Bruce, sorry for the misquote. Indeed there seems to be a problem with data that we need to rectify moving forwards. Navweaps is good for info but there is not nearly enough elsewhere on the web and sources like Jane's Weapon Systems are hard to obtain (luckily my university library has a decade's worth from the 1980s). The problem is few of the 1940s and 1950s designs were built for a whole host of technical and financial reasons. Some proved intractable, others seemed not worth the effort. The RN for example was already working on 4.5in and 6in auto so why bother with the 5in MCDP? I wish there was more info on older naval automatic guns, indeed the 4in Vickers N fitted to the Chilean destroyers was never exported elsewhere so its relatively unknown.
Our recent, and stimulating discussion about the SAE/Indian heavy auto gun led to Hoo's great idea to list what nations had what. The big stumbling block is the lack of any quantifiable data. While several players, myself included, made shortlists there was no technical info. I do not know, for instance, the rate of the fire for the current Canadian 5.5in even though it equips my latest AA cruisers. The Italian and Dutch gun tables seem not have been updated since the 1930s and so we lack any real information. Had I posted HMS Revolution without any RoF data then no-one would have been able to criticise it technically on that basis. I wanted everyone to know what was desired and what would be.

Maybe we should start a separate thread so that everyone can list and explain and ask questions about auto guns. We need to work out the groundrules before we get deeper into the era of automatics and, as Rocky says, we end up with more arguments.

Rocky,
Good points, I've amended the boxes. I thought 7ft would just do it but its slightly too low I think. I've changed the HMGs for single 40mm. The layout is historical from the original cruiser-destroyer design this ship is broadly based on. At first the design had three guns A, Q, Y. Then with the reduced RoF I added a fourth mount as B mount, first superfiring and then lowered to reduce topweight. All should have reasonable arcs and to tackle a cruiser beam fire is going to be crucial.

Here is an amended sim;

HMS Revolution, Great Britain Cruiser-Destroyer laid down 1945

Displacement:
3,499 t light; 3,673 t standard; 4,178 t normal; 4,582 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
463.00 ft / 448.00 ft x 48.60 ft x 14.60 ft (normal load)
141.12 m / 136.55 m x 14.81 m x 4.45 m

Armament:
4 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns in single mounts, 80.00lbs / 36.29kg shells, 1945 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
4 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
2 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 348 lbs / 158 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 450
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 120.00 ft / 36.58 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 41 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.50" / 38 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Conning tower: 0.50" / 13 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 60,000 shp / 44,760 Kw = 34.04 kts
Range 7,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 909 tons

Complement:
259 - 337

Cost:
£2.621 million / $10.482 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 53 tons, 1.3 %
Armour: 137 tons, 3.3 %
- Belts: 110 tons, 2.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 25 tons, 0.6 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 3 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 1,515 tons, 36.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,523 tons, 36.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 679 tons, 16.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 270 tons, 6.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,862 lbs / 1,298 Kg = 34.4 x 5.5 " / 140 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19
Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 13.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.23
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.28

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.460
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.22 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 24.36 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.50 ft / 8.08 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 21.50 ft / 6.55 m
- Mid (50 %): 20.50 ft / 6.25 m
- Quarterdeck (14 %): 20.50 ft / 6.25 m
- Stern: 20.50 ft / 6.25 m
- Average freeboard: 21.25 ft / 6.48 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 135.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 165.6 %
Waterplane Area: 14,550 Square feet or 1,352 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 56 lbs/sq ft or 275 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.66
- Longitudinal: 2.66
- Overall: 0.75
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Belt armour is box protection for magazines (40 tons misc weight to sim box roofs)
Torpedo tubes are fixed at an anlge of 55 degrees with one reload for each tube
Twin Squid A/S Mortars are fitted

Electronic Systems;
Surface Search Type 970 X-Band
Height-Finder Radio-Location Type 272
Aerial Search Type 971
Two Gunnery Director Type 288 with 'Tallboy' console
Four Heavy Automatic Gunnery Director Type 289 mounted on four CRBF (Close-Range Blind Firing)
VHF Direction Finder Type 295Q
Type 293 Passive Radio Intercept series (293P, Q, M & O)
Type 297 Passive Radio-Location Intercept (S, C and X-Bands)
ASDIC Type 147
Deep ASDIC Type 148
Depth-Finding ASDIC Type 145

With the understanding about a more realistic rate of fire, I don't have any further complaints about this.

I guess with all the automatic guns appearing, though, I'm going have to break down and either join the auto gun club (which I have fortuitously prepared to do, even though I'd rather not) or maybe start seriously developing missiles to counter the auto club people. I guess with the way things are going, I should see if I can afford my own "Special" in 1945.

Not sure if I'll build these, or whether they'll take this form (one larger version tops 11,000 tons light). The idea behind these ships is to provide whatever needs a carrier task force needs to keep going while at sea. The Unicorn is of course a dedicated flat-top floating repair ship but these are more for stores, ammo and bombs and fuel.
Any thoughts?

Lyness Class, Great Britain Carrier Stores Tender laid down 1945

Displacement:
9,006 t light; 9,247 t standard; 11,312 t normal; 12,964 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
626.94 ft / 620.00 ft x 72.00 ft x 18.70 ft (normal load)
191.09 m / 188.98 m x 21.95 m x 5.70 m

Armament:
2 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (1x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1936 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mount
on centreline forward
4 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 0.66" / 16.8 mm guns (2x2 guns), 0.14lbs / 0.07kg shells, 1936 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 99 lbs / 45 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.50" / 38 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 18,500 shp / 13,801 Kw = 21.05 kts
Range 15,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,717 tons

Complement:
547 - 712

Cost:
£2.702 million / $10.808 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 12 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 9 tons, 0.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 9 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 467 tons, 4.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,663 tons, 32.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,306 tons, 20.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 4,855 tons, 42.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
20,660 lbs / 9,371 Kg = 453.4 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells or 3.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
Metacentric height 3.5 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 16.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.54

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, raised quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.474
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.61 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.90 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 33 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Forecastle (17 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m (17.00 ft / 5.18 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m (16.00 ft / 4.88 m before break)
- Stern: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Average freeboard: 18.34 ft / 5.59 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 61.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 164.4 %
Waterplane Area: 29,067 Square feet or 2,700 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 192 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 89 lbs/sq ft or 432 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.04
- Longitudinal: 0.98
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Class Names: RFA Lyness, Stromess, Tarantness

Misc Weight
5 tons for one Type 970 surface search set
200 tons for cranes
3,000 tons aircraft fuel
350 tons for 30 crated spare aircraft
300 tons ammunition
250 tons spare parts and engines etc.
500 tons dry stores
250 tons for workshops

This is the sort of vessel a fleet needs if it is to keep the seas in the present era. It's not sexy, but it is necessary.

That said, you might want to limit these to carrying of stores only, as 3,000 tons of fuel oil will not go that far in fueling a carrier task force. I would use dedicated oilers in such circumstances, with vessels like these carrying everything else.

As I found with the Kriegsmarine's dedicated Donau class replenishment ship, a dedicated multi-role support ship of a size to do it all reasonably is expensive.

I would think that the crated spare aircraft should be calculated a 25 tons per plane, just like on a carrier. 350 tons would mean 14 planes.

While I have a few conversions to support my carriers, I did have this idea of a single carrier support ship specifically build for both the Hiyo and the Junyo. Rather big vessel at ~22,000 tons (light), but that is to be expected when the cargo is 1,200 tons ammunition, 19,300 tons fuel, 9,000 tons aviation fuel, aircraft ammunition, etc., 3,000 tons stores and 3000 tons for aircrafts and aircraft parts...

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
While I have a few conversions to support my carriers, I did have this idea of a single carrier support ship specifically build for both the Hiyo and the Junyo. Rather big vessel at ~22,000 tons (light), but that is to be expected when the cargo is 1,200 tons ammunition, 19,300 tons fuel, 9,000 tons aviation fuel, aircraft ammunition, etc., 3,000 tons stores and 3000 tons for aircrafts and aircraft parts...

= VLFT = Very Large Floating Target

I thought it was Very Large Flamable Target. You're talking about ~38300 tons of fuel and ammo on that design.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
I thought it was Very Large Flamable Target. You're talking about ~38300 tons of fuel and ammo on that design.

Perhaps. If you prefer flammable, that's fine by me.

I feel that crated aircraft should be rated less than 25 tons. I always thought the 25 tons per plane was to sim its fuel and weapon load, other extra bits and deck space requirements for the purposes of operational shipboard use.
Crated aircraft are just disassembled airframes in a wooden box. How many naval aircraft weigh 56,000lbs?

The 3,000 tons is aviation fuel and should do for topping off the carrier's stocks, it might be better on a dedicated smaller tanker perhaps. I wondered about splinter protection for the bomb magazines but I don't think its worth it given the flammable content anyway (though when we get to naval jets the lower flash point will improve things slightly).

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I feel that crated aircraft should be rated less than 25 tons. I always thought the 25 tons per plane was to sim its fuel and weapon load, other extra bits and deck space requirements for the purposes of operational shipboard use.
Crated aircraft are just disassembled airframes in a wooden box. How many naval aircraft weigh 56,000lbs?

The 3,000 tons is aviation fuel and should do for topping off the carrier's stocks, it might be better on a dedicated smaller tanker perhaps. I wondered about splinter protection for the bomb magazines but I don't think its worth it given the flammable content anyway (though when we get to naval jets the lower flash point will improve things slightly).

A crated aircraft might weigh less than 25 tons, but the volume of a crated aircraft is the determining factor. An aircraft will only disassemble so far before it becomes a collection of spare parts. Major components - wings, fuselages etc - take up far more volume than they mass. I believe that such thinking is behind the 25-ton per crated aircraft rule; not that I whole-heartedly agree with it, but it is an accepted convention.

3,000 tons of FO or other fuels might serve to top off an aircraft carrier. The RN is fortunate in having shore bases everywhere to take care of its needs. Some of us are not so fortunate and must bring everything with us.

IIRC that 25 ton bit is what we agreed upon in the past for the crated planes and I make no difference between crated planes on a carrier or on a cargo ship.

What takes up more space? A 2000 kg plane that has been partially disassembled so it is still workable for the carrier crews to get it back together again or a 2000 kg block of alluminium?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I do not know, for instance, the rate of the fire for the current Canadian 5.5in even though it equips my latest AA cruisers.

There have been several discussions, publicly on the board, in PMs, and on IRC regarding my guns. I've been of the opinion that the firing rates for my guns are highly variable on how long they've been in service, how new the ship is, whether the crew has them dialed in (and are dialed in themselves).

There's also the minor quibble that the RCN's rationale and approach to designing it's automation originally came from another direction than what most automatic guns seemed to be designed for; The RCN wanted a sustained ROF for it's rather heavy 5.5" shells. Only after said automation was made workable was any effort made in speeding up the process, which involved some trial-and-error on the part of guncrews once the weapons were in service.

So, to summarize, I've avoided listing a concrete ROF for the Canadian autos because they're somewhat variable based on several factors.

I have said that when introduced, The first 5.5" autos were run at around 12rpm when they were introduced; essentially the same rate the WW1 era manuals ran before crew fatigue set in. As the technology (and procedures and training to use said technology) has matured, that number has risen (in ideal conditions) to somewhere around 18rpm. No sustained effort is being made by the RCN to regularly operate at those rates, so the service rate is somewhere in between, varying on the ship in question.

The RCN is currently keeping the performance data of the newer 7.5" guns closely held. Anyone with a burning need to find out is encouraged to take a shot at one of those frigates and find out.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Well with a number of people not expressing interest in continuing WW beyond the 1950 SS2 deadline, why not end WW with a nice big bang by having a nice big world war? We built all these nice ships, lets go sink them!

I don't concur with the "Everything ends 31 December 1949" mindset, but I've been wanting to see something interesting happen for years. I've even worked out how to get our Second Great War started. No one's terribly interested.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I've even worked out how to get our Second Great War started. No one's terribly interested.

Here. Interested. Why don't you open a new thread to discuss this in public. I cannot remember to have seen your ideas yet...

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I've even worked out how to get our Second Great War started. No one's terribly interested.

Here. Interested. Why don't you open a new thread to discuss this in public. I cannot remember to have seen your ideas yet...

Seconded

Quoted

Originally posted by snip

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I've even worked out how to get our Second Great War started. No one's terribly interested.

Here. Interested. Why don't you open a new thread to discuss this in public. I cannot remember to have seen your ideas yet...

Seconded

Third(ed?)

Thanks for the RoF info Shin.

I think the plan he has in mind is probably the usual invasion of Vinland idea.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Thanks for the RoF info Shin.

I think the plan he has in mind is probably the usual invasion of Vinland idea.

"What'll we do tonight Brain?"
"The same thing we do everynight. Take over Vinland."

My original idea was a year or so ago, with somewhat different alliance structures, so it may need to be reexamined. I kept the details somewhat to myself so that if I could pursue it, it would evolve naturally.


And while we have someone playing Nordmark now, he made it very clear when he started that he wants no conflict, so the liberation of Newfoundland is frustrated, as always.