[Post Reply] [*]  Page 8 of 9  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page « 15 6 7 8 9 »
Author Message
SrGopher
Post subject: Re: The Centennial AUPosted: July 21st, 2012, 11:59 am
Offline
Posts: 371
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 9:21 pm
The Bofors are the early models, built in Sweden, but also under license in the USP. It was just shipped to Britain for installment. The 20mm Oerlikons are the early models that were deemed to have a low muzzle velocity. These aren't the fully developed versions that served during the war.

Thiel:
The USP wanted to have the ability to perform surface battles and AA battles at the same time. The 4" guns were chosen as the primary weapons so that they could theoretically perform either task as needed. The 3" gun was included in all destroyers and in order to provide a dedicated heavy AA armament for moments that involve both surface and anti-aircraft warfare (Still learning from some lessons for Jutland, but mainly Billy Mitchell's bombing run against the Ostfriesland). It was developed independently from the USP's allies, mainly due to the fact that USP destroyers were designed to have a chance against cruisers, bringing them into more direct gun battles than their foreign counterparts. In other words, since the 4" guns were not always going to be completely focused on the air, the USP wanted a similar weapon that would fend of aircraft when the 4" could not.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KHT
Post subject: Re: The Centennial AUPosted: July 21st, 2012, 12:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1378
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 12:49 pm
Also, to support that reasoning I would like to point out that several destroyers of th IRL RN mounted, except for their 4,7" artillery, at least one 4" gun, the latter for extra AA. It might be a flawed part of a design, and not the ultimate way to go around it, but it is possible.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: The Centennial AUPosted: July 21st, 2012, 12:57 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4096
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
KHT wrote:
Also, to support that reasoning I would like to point out that several destroyers of th IRL RN mounted, except for their 4,7" artillery, at least one 4" gun, the latter for extra AA. It might be a flawed part of a design, and not the ultimate way to go around it, but it is possible.
The 4" gun mounting in RL destroyers of the RN was installed for the sole reason that the 4.7" gun was not AA gun at all. Early versions of the gun had 40 degrees elevation (Tribal class for instance) and later version 55 degrees like the later war emergency type destroyers. Earlier destroyers had only 30 degrees.

_________________
[ img ] Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KHT
Post subject: Re: The Centennial AUPosted: July 21st, 2012, 1:13 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1378
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 12:49 pm
Woops, my bad. I just assumed it was relatively AA capabable(i.e, for but not with).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: The Centennial AUPosted: July 21st, 2012, 2:03 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
SrGopher wrote:
The Bofors are the early models, built in Sweden, but also under license in the USP. It was just shipped to Britain for installment.
There were no early models of the Bofors. The M1936 was the very first model produced by the factory.
SrGopher wrote:
The 20mm Oerlikons are the early models that were deemed to have a low muzzle velocity. These aren't the fully developed versions that served during the war.
I suppose that's an option,but why you'd want an expensive, slow firing, temperamental gun where the spares have to be custom fitted to each is beyond me.
SrGopher wrote:
Thiel:
The USP wanted to have the ability to perform surface battles and AA battles at the same time. The 4" guns were chosen as the primary weapons so that they could theoretically perform either task as needed. The 3" gun was included in all destroyers and in order to provide a dedicated heavy AA armament for moments that involve both surface and anti-aircraft warfare (Still learning from some lessons for Jutland, but mainly Billy Mitchell's bombing run against the Ostfriesland).
Thing is, you don't have any AA directors so your chances of hitting an aircraft without the aid of tracer fire is somewhere between slim and non-existent.
SrGopher wrote:
It was developed independently from the USP's allies, mainly due to the fact that USP destroyers were designed to have a chance against cruisers, bringing them into more direct gun battles than their foreign counterparts. In other words, since the 4" guns were not always going to be completely focused on the air, the USP wanted a similar weapon that would fend of aircraft when the 4" could not.
No amount of 4" guns is going to give you a chance against a cruiser, especially not when they're residing in an egg-shell.

Personally, I'd fit her with British QF 2 pounders. A single on each side and a twin in place of the 3". (I'm not sure if they made a twin, but it's hardly a stretch to say that they did, or you could develop one locally)
The Oerlikons could be replaced with single or twin mounted 0.5" MGs or, if it absolutely positively has to be 20mm guns, the Danish Rifle Syndicate had just begun producing the 20mm Madsen MG which, while in inferior to the 20mm Oerlikon M1939, it was significantly better than the M1934.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
SrGopher
Post subject: Re: The Centennial AUPosted: July 21st, 2012, 4:16 pm
Offline
Posts: 371
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Thiel wrote:
There were no early models of the Bofors. The M1936 was the very first model produced by the factory.
I was going for some pre-production models with this, but I'm looking towards the QF 2-pdr.
Thiel wrote:
I suppose that's an option,but why you'd want an expensive, slow firing, temperamental gun where the spares have to be custom fitted to each is beyond me.
I see the logic in that, but this is just the testbed for future vessels. Although, due to the nation's nature as a neutral state, I have also considering acquiring German 20mm cannons. The only two nations strictly off-limits for trade are the Soviet Union and Japan.
Thiel wrote:
Thing is, you don't have any AA directors so your chances of hitting an aircraft without the aid of tracer fire is somewhere between slim and non-existent.
I wasn't aware of any AA director for lighter guns, but I'll look into directors for the main guns. But the lighter guns will have to have tracers at this point.
Thiel wrote:
No amount of 4" guns is going to give you a chance against a cruiser, especially not when they're residing in an egg-shell.
The tactic was designed to fight treaty cruisers that had thin armor. The destroyers would open fire with a high volume of light shells, then while the cruiser takes light hits, the destroyer would be moving in for torpedo runs. It proved to be quite unsuccessful against ships that were easily able to reply with a large volume of their own battery. That failure in operational philosophy is what leads to a more comprehensive buildup of the surface fleet during the war.... ;)

I thank all of you for the advice and input, and hope to see some more with the coming designs.

But the 3" guns will remain.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: The Centennial AUPosted: July 21st, 2012, 4:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
SrGopher wrote:
Thiel wrote:
Thiel wrote:
Thing is, you don't have any AA directors so your chances of hitting an aircraft without the aid of tracer fire is somewhere between slim and non-existent.
I wasn't aware of any AA director for lighter guns, but I'll look into directors for the main guns. But the lighter guns will have to have tracers at this point.
Tracers will have no purpose on a 3in gun. You're not firing anywhere near fast enough for it to be useful.
The 3in gun is unfortunate because it's too big to rely on its rate of fire to score a hit, yet too small to generate hits by air bursts.
That's why it disappeared almost completely once heavy MGs like the QF 2 pounder came on to the scene and didn't reappear developments in proximity fuses, directors and automatic loaders had progressed significantly.
It was used before that because the aircraft it was trying to hit were slow and fragile things and because DP guns had yet to be invented.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
SrGopher
Post subject: Re: The Centennial AUPosted: July 21st, 2012, 5:16 pm
Offline
Posts: 371
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Sorry! Miscommunication on my part once again on this thread. I meant tracers for the 40mm and 20mm guns. The 3" gun won't have tracers. I'm positive that tracers don't exist for naval guns that aren't automatic. But the USP design is a modified American 3"/50. The mount is similar to the mount of the American 5"/25 mount, and also used Pacifican-designed shells based off of the 5" shells the USN deployed on the 5"/38. The gun itself was able to fire as a slightly faster rate than the 4" guns, providing some extra edge over the latter. They were designed as smaller, purpose-designed AA guns than the 4" main cannons, providing similar AA performance. The gun was also provided with only AA-capable shells, further highlighting its dedicated heavy AA role.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
SrGopher
Post subject: Re: The Centennial AUPosted: July 21st, 2012, 5:23 pm
Offline
Posts: 371
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Updated with A pair of quad 2-pdrs and 4 single 2cm Flak 30s (At least I think those are the Flak 30s).
[ img ]

I'm still looking for directors for the main guns, so another update will come in the following days.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: The Centennial AUPosted: July 21st, 2012, 5:37 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Basing it on the 5"/25 will give you a power operated 3" DP gun which is nice, but it doesn't solve the issue. Basing the shells on the VT-fused 5" shell is a no-go. They hadn't been invented yet and the US weren't selling them. Indeed they didn't even tell anyone that they had them for quite a while.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 8 of 9  [ 84 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 15 6 7 8 9 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]