WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
*Shrugs* As I said, it's your decision on deploying the ship, presuming there are no other folks with qualms about the hull strength. I've certainly tried to argue a few causes before where SS allows something not seen in historical designs.

I had initial concerns, but I think Hoo's point of view is reasonable. The warning is for vessels in the open ocean, not rivers. This is a river vessel and will not face large waves.

Yes, I think I'm convinced; though I intend to make any of my own future ships to my previous-mentioned standard.

Dutch needs in this regard is more coastal than riverine, and involves inter-island transit. We may echo the South Afrikans with a vessel in the 200-ton range, but other builds take priority.

When I was simming up the new German riverine vessels (both the Habordansky-class gunboats and the Maximilian-class monitors), I used a hull strength of 1.00 but did not concern myself about trying to keep the seakeeping at 1.00 on the Habordanksy class. My reasoning at the time was that going to less than 1.00 in strength would make the small vessels even more vulnerable to damage then they already were, but they were unlikely to be exposed (in normal conditions) to waves more than another vessels wake. That doesn't mean that they can't possibly sail out into the ocean, they could, but that they weren’t designed to do that.

The reason I used howitzers as the main armament on the Maximilian-class was that that way they could operate as a mobile battery in support of Heer formations and a Heer fire direction center could command them without needing whole new trajectory tables to operate with them. It also simplifies ammunition supply, as Kriegsmarine 15cm ammunition would be more limited around the Danube than it will be around the North Sea.

None of this necessarily applies to what the RSAN is doing, but it's what I was thinking when I designed those two classes.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The reason I used howitzers as the main armament on the Maximilian-class was that that way they could operate as a mobile battery in support of Heer formations and a Heer fire direction center could command them without needing whole new trajectory tables to operate with them. It also simplifies ammunition supply, as Kriegsmarine 15cm ammunition would be more limited around the Danube than it will be around the North Sea.

The Gruno is intended to have a secondary role as coastal fire support, but I went with 125mm guns in DP mounts to allow better plunging fire inland, and set aside some tonnage for a plotting room. They will use the naval tables for fire, with radio links to onshore FOs if possible. Howitzers would simply not offer the surface punch I was looking for, but quite nice for riverine work.

This is not as good as the Maximilian set up as the fixed rounds of the 125mm can not use the variable charges common to many howitzers, including, I presume, Hrolfs. Further, with guns a lower % will be filler.

Correct, the 15cm howitzers used on Maximilian have variable charges (6-7 silk bags of propellent, minimum charge is probably 3 bags) to adjust range and trajectory. The Heer 15cm howitzer projectiles are somewhat lighter (43.5 vs 45.5 kg) than the KM's 15cm cannon projectiles, and they do have somewhat larger bursting charges (4.5-4.75 vs 3 or 3.8 kg). The use of the Heer howitzer also allows the use of smoke rounds that the KM gun doesn't have. <shrug> It's a choice. Germany doesn't expect the Maximilians to get into a battle with other river monitors, so anti-shipping punch is not something they were designed for.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Germany doesn't expect the Maximilians to get into a battle with other river monitors, so anti-shipping punch is not something they were designed for.

I noted that, and the Germans will doubtless be interested to see how the Bulgarian monitors fare in their career on the Danube. Which does include at least one slugging match...

Heh, well, load concrete-piercing shells (available from your local Krupp dealer) and be happy. Of course, against soft targets, the standard 15cm HE shells or the 15cm steel-cased HE will work very nicely. Of course, the 88mms will do their usual sterling work when loaded with AP rounds.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Heh, well, load concrete-piercing shells (available from your local Krupp dealer) and be happy. Of course, against soft targets, the standard 15cm HE shells or the 15cm steel-cased HE will work very nicely. Of course, the 88mms will do their usual sterling work when loaded with AP rounds.

Fits with my analysis. I expected there would be something useful to shoot from the howitzers, and under the conditions involved, the 88s are in play too.

How would you compare the performance of the concrete-piercing 15cm vs the AP 88s?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Heh, well, load concrete-piercing shells (available from your local Krupp dealer) and be happy. Of course, against soft targets, the standard 15cm HE shells or the 15cm steel-cased HE will work very nicely. Of course, the 88mms will do their usual sterling work when loaded with AP rounds.

Fits with my analysis. I expected there would be something useful to shoot from the howitzers, and under the conditions involved, the 88s are in play too.

How would you compare the performance of the concrete-piercing 15cm vs the AP 88s?

Heh, under a lot of riverine conditions, the 37mms are probably in play as well, at the least to sprinkle the enemy with HE and suppress any unprotected personnel.

The 15cm concrete-piercing rounds are probably comparable, until ranges get long (3km+) to the 88mms. The 15cm concrete-piercers aren't truly designed to deal with steel armor and they're fired at only 495 m/s or so, but they've almost 5 times the mass and don't slow down very fast. They also have a bursting charge that's almost half the weight of the 88mm projectile as a whole (and probably 10 times as large a burster as the 88mm AP round has), so it will do a LOT more damage than the 88mm when it hits (the bursting charge is heavier than most 8" AP rounds and just less than most 8" SAP rounds).

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Heh, under a lot of riverine conditions, the 37mms are probably in play as well, at the least to sprinkle the enemy with HE and suppress any unprotected personnel.

Check!

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The 15cm concrete-piercing rounds are probably comparable, until ranges get long (3km+) to the 88mms. The 15cm concrete-piercers aren't truly designed to deal with steel armor and they're fired at only 495 m/s or so, but they've almost 5 times the mass and don't slow down very fast. They also have a bursting charge that's almost half the weight of the 88mm projectile as a whole (and probably 10 times as large a burster as the 88mm AP round has), so it will do a LOT more damage than the 88mm when it hits (the bursting charge is heavier than most 8" AP rounds and just less than most 8" SAP rounds).

Okiedokie. That's about what I expected, then... thanks!