Re: Fighters and Hangers

--- david smith <bifsmith207@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I tried something similar, but used FB ablative armor for the
> >"torpedo protection" of bulges, multiple hulls, and water-filled
> >compartments, and adapted a version of MT integral armor for the
> >belt (originally developed for a B5 conversion).  Also, the 
> >K-guns needed to have range bands scaled to their class rather 
> >than all being equal.
> >
> >I also used a system for separate main drive and maneuver drive
> >systems (also for the B5 conversion) so that ships could be given 
> >varying speeds but the same maneuverability, and also for the 
> >possibility of maneuver damage without propulsion damage (ala KMS
> >Bismark).
> >
> >J
> 
> I always thought that the ranges of navel guns (the large caliber
> ones anyway) was roughly equal once you get above about 8". The 
> only thing you alter are the accuracy and the velocity/shell size
> (or dammage/armour peircing) figures. I say this because the HMS 
> coventry`s (morred in london) 8" guns (or are they 6", have to get 
> reference books out) have a range of about 30 miles. The range of 
> big navel guns was always limited by how far you could see with the 
> curviture of the ocean more than the bore/lenth/mussel velocity of
> the gun.
>

With reference work in hand, I can pontificate with confidence	:)
"Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946", Conway Maritime
Press, 1980:
 
British Naval Guns:
6"/50 cal. Mk XXIII   25,500 yds
8"/50 cal Mk VIII     30,650 yds
14"/45 cal Mk VII     38,550 yds
15"/42 cal Mk I       33,550 yds
16"/45 cal Mk I       39,800 yds
16"/45 cal Mk III     40,600 yds - Lion class, never completed

I couldn't find numbers for the older 12" and 13.5", but they would be
in line with the 15", which is an older gun, whereas the 14" Mk VII and
16" are 20-30 years newer. 

We didn't want a 5"/38 DP (K1) to have the same range as a 16"/50 (K8)
or 18"/45 (K9).  What we did was to give K1 4" RB, K2 5" RB, and K3+
RB= class x 2, K5+ were resized to be +4 MASS per class over K4, and
K4+ have a NPV of class x MASS, and K1 and K2 have cost and MASS
reduced.  So a K6 has 12" RBs, 16 MASS and 96 pts.  We first used this
for B5 rail guns (K1-K3) and mass drivers (K4+).

The only HMS Coventry that I found was a CL (6" guns) built in 1917 and
sunk 14 Sept 1942, before which she was turned into an AA cruiser with
10x4" Quick Firing guns.

You might mean the CL HMS Belfast; built 1938 w/ 6" guns

> And I agree that introducing a "lucky strike" or random hit without
> having to go through the armour (like the torpedo strike on the 
> bismark) would be needed if you were playing, for example, a 
> senario.

I don't mean a "lucky strike".	What I meant was one system (the Main
Drive) provides thrust for *Acceleration Only*, while a separate system
(the Maneuvering Drive) provides maneuvering thrust for course change
and deceleration.  As two separate systems, they take Threshold Checks
separately, so that either one can be damaged without affecting the
other.	Also allows a ship to have higher thrust without increasing
maneuverability (e.g. classic BC or BBF).  Has nothing to do with
bypassing armor.

This initially came about as a way to depict ships shown with big
engines in the back, but that moved cinematically.  PSB is some sort of
grav array on each side of the bow used to turn the ship.  This has
worked great for Narn, Centuari, Galactica, Star Wars, BFG and our
home-grown setting, while leaving the standard, all-in-one drive for
the Minbari and Star Trek.
 
> But I would not use the above in general playing (I wouldn`t see
> a navy intentionally introducing a week point into it`s ships 
> designs).
>
> Can`t belive I just said that, having just watched the documentary
> on the sinking of the prince of wales and the divers examining the 
> wreak.

Can you say "Jackie Fisher's battleship cruisers"? :)

How about "There seems to be something wrong with our ships today." ?
 -Beatty or Jellicoe (I'm not sure which) at Battle of Jutland

J