Re: Wet Thrust for WW2

> Randy
> >
> Actually the Iowa is rated at 9,  16" guns in three turrets which
> translates to 9 A batts in 3, 3 arc groups.  The reasoning for giving
the
> Iowa 9 A batts to to be able to scale in larger and smaller calibres. 
For
> instance the 18" guns of the Yamoto are rated at 2 18" guns = 3 A bats
> and earlier 14" guns are rated at 3 guns for 2 A batts.  This allows
guns
> with similar range to be grouped as similar batteries but allows
> differentiation between calibres since the weight of fire will be
> different.
> 
> Also, late in the war, American ships did have an excessive amount of
> short range firepower.  The Iowa class mounts 9, 16" guns, 20 5" dual
> purpose guns and anywhere from 40-100 40mm and 20mm AA guns.
> 
> Compare this to Post WWI battleships with 6-10 14" guns, 10-12 5-6"
> secondaries and maybe 10-20 AA guns.
> 
> Another reason for assigning ratios close to 1:1 for guns to batteries
is
> that it makes some of the British designs easier to deal with.  Center
> turrets need to be modeled well since since an entire design concept
was
> based on it.	The theory being that broadside weight was the critical
> factor, but to keep turret size and weight down, the guns were
distributed
> along the length of the ship - front, middle and stern.  Most middle
> turrets were double gunned although there are cruisers with triple
mounts.
> If the ratio of gun to  battery was too high then these middle turrets
> would be difficult to rate correctly.
> 
> Individual turrets are not marked for critical hits.	You can't get a
> turret hit and knock out all three guns on an Iowa.  The best you can
do
> is take them out individually.  I didn't think it was worth the extra
> effort to try to work that particular factor in.
> 
> Therefore, the current rating system for batteries is a compromise
between
> detail and maintaining the simplicity of the FT system.
> 
> One common complaint is that it takes too long to pound a battlship
while
> cruisers and destroyers die very quickly.  This is due to the low
armor (2
> and 1 respectively) as well as the low tonnages of these ships.  I
still
> not certain if it is necessary to adjust this since historically there
> were very few Capital ship vs. cruiser/escort battles.  The instances
I've
> read about seem to indicate that destroyers that did close got ripped
and
> usually stayed a respectable distance away and let the big guys slug
it
> out.
> 
> --Binhan

Binham,
     You might do well to consider the use of the 'AA' megabattery
to represent the 11-18" guns, the range is more comparible with
large calibers. (Assuming 1000 yards per inch.)
     Another advantage, It gives four steps to divide the calibers
between, rather than three.
     It would be preferable to have the main guns mounted as close
as possible to the real world.	 Lets face it, a turret is a large
armored box, and any penetrating hit will kill of disable the crew
of the turret, rendering the turret useless.
     Center turrets exist because the theory states that "Six turrets
with two guns is defensively superior to four turrets with three
guns."	 However! the reverse is: "Four turrets with three guns
is offensively superior to six turrets with two guns."
The three gun turret is superior of offense because it allows nore
firepower when closing with the enemy.	 The two gun turret is 
superior defensively because a turret loss is only 16 percent of
she ships firepower not 25 percent as with the three gun turret.
     
     Most ships did not try to close on battleships (during
daylight), remember the Captain signed out for the ship, and
should he misplace or lose the ship it comes out of his pay!

Bye for now,
John L.