Spitfire109 Posted July 10, 2022 Posted July 10, 2022 Ive really noticed that if you want to try and make historically inspired designs of say Nevada, Cavour, or KGV you are penalized for no logical reason. Several cruisers, battleships, and even a few destroyer models had this practice of a few of their main gun turrets had a different number of rifles and I've found nothing really that says this barrel arrangement was detrimental. As it stands in the game, if you try and replicate such ships you are penalized even though each gun is the same caliber and size. This really kills ladder aiming for some reason and the ammo pool is for some reason all not one thing. I believe this also hurts you if you have Wing and Centerline guns. Even though we know full well the German BCs at Jutland suffered no accuracy difficulties at Jutland due to wing mounted turrets. As a side note Id very much like if the battleships volleyed and not just fired the guns off as soon as they reloaded. Here's some historical examples. USS Nevada herself, B and I believe Y turret are both doubles while A and X are triples. Her Italian counterparts Andrea Doria and Cavour actually had an exact similar layout. They did suffer accuracy issues but not from the gun arrangement. http://i.imgur.com/YbL8z9V.jpg And maybe the most famous example is KGV. From everything I've read and watched about the class is the unreliability of the Quad turrets, which are mostly just a quirk of Quad guns, but her accuracy as a ship seemed more than adequate. 6
Pappystein Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 While I understand what you are talking about. There WAS dispersion issues the more barrels you added. This is A reason that modern (in context here) Battleships had bigger turrets. The gun barrels were further apart to allow for such over-pressure/dispersion effects. Look at the difference in distance between the 16"/45s on Colorado vs North Carolina, for a visual clue in as to when these issues were "solved" But I *DO* agree that how turrets are handled for accuracy really REALLY needs a look. Also there are many turret types NOT COVERED. Going to use Nevada as above. Her Turrets were 1,1,1 guns in A and Y (or 1 and 4 if you prefer) and 1,1 Guns in B/X (2, and 3) They were not triple and twin turrets as earlier classes! They were INDIVIDUAL GUNS and not a mono-block turret like say the twins on the New York class that predeceased them. This is commonly called "individually sleeved" I believe. Drachinifel did a good job covering this in basic detail on his New Mexico 5 minute post from about a week ago. https://www.youtube.com/c/Drachinifel Another example of this. The French never built a Quad Turret for their main Battleship cannons. They built Twin Twin turrets. Where the Left half and the Right half were really no different than a twin turret. Each Half operated independently from the other... with the exception of Azimuth aiming (because that is from the rotation of the gun-house which both twin turrets shared!) So as a solution. Utilizing the Mk Turret system... Mk III (or IV) should loose the Interference issues of the Mk1 and 2 for any number of barrels Accuracy wise. And it really does not make sense to have a re-loading penalty for big turrets. Little cramped turrets (looking at you 14" US BB 1,1,1 turrets! SHOULD have a reload penalty and it shouldn't go away!) Historically, By the Time Quad Turrets came around to everyone, the interference issue was pretty much solved.
Spitfire109 Posted July 11, 2022 Author Posted July 11, 2022 7 hours ago, Pappystein said: While I understand what you are talking about. There WAS dispersion issues the more barrels you added. This is A reason that modern (in context here) Battleships had bigger turrets. The gun barrels were further apart to allow for such over-pressure/dispersion effects. Look at the difference in distance between the 16"/45s on Colorado vs North Carolina, for a visual clue in as to when these issues were "solved" But I *DO* agree that how turrets are handled for accuracy really REALLY needs a look. Also there are many turret types NOT COVERED. Going to use Nevada as above. Her Turrets were 1,1,1 guns in A and Y (or 1 and 4 if you prefer) and 1,1 Guns in B/X (2, and 3) They were not triple and twin turrets as earlier classes! They were INDIVIDUAL GUNS and not a mono-block turret like say the twins on the New York class that predeceased them. This is commonly called "individually sleeved" I believe. Drachinifel did a good job covering this in basic detail on his New Mexico 5 minute post from about a week ago. https://www.youtube.com/c/Drachinifel Another example of this. The French never built a Quad Turret for their main Battleship cannons. They built Twin Twin turrets. Where the Left half and the Right half were really no different than a twin turret. Each Half operated independently from the other... with the exception of Azimuth aiming (because that is from the rotation of the gun-house which both twin turrets shared!) So as a solution. Utilizing the Mk Turret system... Mk III (or IV) should loose the Interference issues of the Mk1 and 2 for any number of barrels Accuracy wise. And it really does not make sense to have a re-loading penalty for big turrets. Little cramped turrets (looking at you 14" US BB 1,1,1 turrets! SHOULD have a reload penalty and it shouldn't go away!) Historically, By the Time Quad Turrets came around to everyone, the interference issue was pretty much solved. You are correct, the guns essentially being too snug together caused some dispersion. But It definitely didn't harm the accuracy to the point it does in game and It defiantly didn't hamper ladder aiming like it seems to do in game. Considering all the guns are the same size and thus same same splash sizes. So though maybe a small penalty because that's just a quirk of double, triple, ect guns, but not to this nearly crippling degree.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now