WesWorld

GUN NOTES

This is something I've been thinking about for some time, some common sense ideas on weapons and layouts. I'm posting it on several boards for feedback:

I'm thinking there's three usual situations that occur with weapon design:

1) Technologically feasible and practical
2) Technologically feasible but not practical
3) Technologically unfeasible (at least at this time)

So these are my thoughts...

DECK MOUNTS & HOISTS

Without a hoist ROF will be impacted, but smaller weapons can't usually justify a hoist. Guns up to 4.33-inch (110mm) can easily get around not having a hoist, although DP and AA weapons needing a high ROF should have them. Guns in the 4.5-inch (115mm) to 5.12-inch (130mm) range can get by without hoists, but ROF will be compromised. A 5.3-inch gun (135mm) should have a hoist and anything larger in my mind must have one although shells up to 6-inches (152mm) can be hand-loaded.

Historically the biggest deck mounts were 10-inch (254mm) guns on some UK export cruisers to Japan and a 9.2-inch (230mm) gun on the 1892 RN BB Victorious. I have no problem with an 11-inch or even 12-inch deck gun but they must have a hoist and these are probably technologically feasible but not very practical; having a low ROF, slow to train and requiring a large crew with minimal cover.

TWIN AND TRIPLE MOUNTS

Historically nothing larger than 6-inch (152mm) guns have been in twin mounts. Trying to do a twin 6.5-inch (165mm), 7.5-inch (190mm) or 8-inch (203mm) falls under technologically feasible but not practical in my mind. And any twin mount must have a hoist.

The only triple mount I can think of were the triple 4-inch mounts on BC's Renown and Repulse plus the Light BC's Courageous and Glorious. They were, according to Anthony Preston, "clumsy and required a very large crew." I'm sure loading the middle gun was difficult at best. I would require these to be mount and hoist, and wouldn't allow anything bigger than a 5-inch (127mm) or 5.12-inch (130mm) triple mount, anything bigger should be experimental and almost certainly a failure.

CASEMATES

Historically the largest casemate guns were 8-inch (203mm) on the Russian Andrey Prevanssany-class Intermediate Dreadnoughts and 8.27-inch (210mm) on the German AC's Scharnhorst and Gneisneau. These were wet. I would have no problem with a 9-inch (228mm), 9.06-inch (230mm) or 10-inch (254mm) gun in a casemate but would not allow more than 4 per beam and these must be mounted low. If just two per beam then they can be mounted high but will take up a lot of space forcing smaller weapons to be low and wet. Anything larger (like an Italian PDN with eight 12-inch guns [2 twin turrets and 4 casemates]) should end up an interesting but failed experiment.

All casemates were historically single. Twin 5.91 (150mm) casemates were proposed for CV Graf Zeppelin which, in my mind, would have proved abject failures. Any twin casemate mount over 4-inch (102mm) or 4.13-inch (105mm) should prove technologically unfeasible and even the smaller ones should prove impractical.

TURRETS

These aren't a problem, although quads should prove problematical in the early years. Anything larger (5 or more barrels) should prove very troublesome and probably not practical (by the time the technology works the battleship will be obsolete).

These are just my thoughts, any feedback is appreciated.

I think this write-up of yours is lacking some key qualifiers, namely what time frame(s) you're talking about and other limiting factors.

"Historically nothing larger than 6-inch (152mm) guns have been in twin mounts"

iirc, the main amament for the early interwar USN cruisers weren't quite full turrets, and techinically classified as "mounts" rather than "turrets", including the first few classes of the 8 inch cruisers.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I think this write-up of yours is lacking some key qualifiers, namely what time frame(s) you're talking about and other limiting factors.

"Historically nothing larger than 6-inch (152mm) guns have been in twin mounts"

iirc, the main amament for the early interwar USN cruisers weren't quite full turrets, and techinically classified as "mounts" rather than "turrets", including the first few classes of the 8 inch cruisers.

That's correct. I'd have to double-check Friedmans to tell you which ones, but it definitely included the Pensacola class, which had both the twin 8" and the superfiring triple 8".

Navweaps says "Until the New Orleans class", which fits with my recollection.

iirc the Lexingtons and Pensacolas used the same twins, and Pensacolas and subsequent tinclads used the same triples.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I think this write-up of yours is lacking some key qualifiers, namely what time frame(s) you're talking about and other limiting factors.

"Historically nothing larger than 6-inch (152mm) guns have been in twin mounts"

iirc, the main amament for the early interwar USN cruisers weren't quite full turrets, and techinically classified as "mounts" rather than "turrets", including the first few classes of the 8 inch cruisers.

You're right on both counts. I was thinking around 1905 for this data and improvements in technology will make certain ideas work or at least workable.

I did double check Freidman's US CRUISERS and you're right here too, they're considered enclosed mounts rather than real turrets. I'm thinking this applies to the twin 8-inchers on LEXINGTON and SARATOGA as well. My bad...

NavWeaps basically says the enclosed twins from the Lexington are the same mounts as Pensacola and Salt Lake City. Likewise, the Northamptons and Portlands used the same triples as SLC. The New Orleans class were the first to move to full turrets.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk9.htm