Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

1,197 Superb

About SgtBeltfed

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/05/1974
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Yorktown, VA

Recent Profile Visitors

4,173 profile views
  1. That's actually 1 twist in 25 calibers, or 1 full twist in 33 feet 4 inches.
  2. Mass of the shell appears to have little bearing on the twist rate. Battleship, cruiser and destroyer guns all seem to keep a twist rate of around 1 in 25 or 1 in 30. They also all have similar trajectories, and fly in a shallow, but noticeable arc. A British L7 rifled 105mm gun, at least from looking at a cut away example, appears to be around 1 in 10 or 1 in 15, much like a rifle. The rings you see around an artillery shell are driving bands, and their purpose is give the rifling something to engage that isn't steel.
  3. Exactly, and if the nose doesn't tip over because the shell is spinning too fast, it ends up flying through the air sideways.
  4. Tail first, no. The shell hitting the target sideways would be an issue, as capped AP rounds need to hit nose first. Also, when shells are flying sideways, they tend to do interesting things, which really hurts accuracy. It's pretty well described http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-043.php A battleship gun firing at 45 degrees, has a twist rate in the range of 1 in 25 or 1 in 30, and the shell will tip over as intended and fly point first the whole way. A high powered rifle, with a twist rate of 1 in 10 or 1 in 15, essentially shoots flat, and if you were to fire it at a 45 degree angle, the bullet will end up flying sideways and eventually start tumbling
  5. http://navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php pretty well covers any naval weapon you might want if the information is available. Artillery has some different requirements when it comes to projectile spin. An artillery projectile has to be able to tip over so it follows the intended flight path. If a projectile has too much spin for the radius it has to tip over in, it will end up flying through the air sideways. The lower the trajectory, the higher the spin rate. The higher trajectory, the lower the spin rate. Mortars are usually fin stabilized, because with the very high trajectory, the projectile wouldn't tip over and would come down backwards. Gun's like the 88 were built to hurl a round almost straight up, so the shell tipping over was never a concern, hence a high rate of twist is fine. When used horizontally, it seriously limits the options for indirect fire but does make them highly accurate.
  6. SgtBeltfed

    Enterprise & Hornet Superstructures

    Some of the grey area with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau is due to differences in how navies determine the lead ship of a class, and British authors applying Royal Navy practices to foreign vessels, irrespective of how the nation that actually built them goes about it. German ships do not have a name until they are formally christened, so there is no lead ship until then. This is the same reason you will see Maryland class battleships being referred to, even though the US Navy names the class after the first ship as designated by congress, irrespective of any dates.
  7. SgtBeltfed

    CV punishment

    Once you hit tier 6, operations. Once you know the operation, you get fed a steady supply of bots, and you get to make 20 minutes worth of attack runs.
  8. SgtBeltfed

    Cheap guided gun rounds

    There have been very few naval engagements between anything that constitutes modern vessels, and the few there have been, have all been very short. (the US navy v/s Iran in 1988, Russia v/s Georgia in 2008, and the Korea's getting trigger happy in 2009, 2 of the 3 being nearly small boat fights themselves) Too short to be reloading decoy systems, CIWS or Sea Sparrow. (you aren't spending more than 10 minutes with people on deck, where your own outgoing weapons can kill personnel) You might manage to reload the 5" ready ammo if you managed to empty the gun at the start of the engagement, but it will be over by the time your done. I've disregarded fights where one side was all "small boats" as the answer to that is autocannons, machine guns, maybe a large caliber gun firing dumb ammunition, CIWS and if we're feeling really throwing money around, RAM. Anything expensive is counter productive, as the ammo expended is worth significantly more that the value of the plywood, RPG, outboard motor, and nearly unskilled personnel eliminated. Those fights have lasted far longer than actual ship on ship engagements, mostly because of the numbers involved, a lot of rounds end up in the water, and exploding one plywood boat doesn't stop the others. A guided gun round will cost a significant percentage of the cost of a comparable generation missile, for less effect on target. (much smaller warhead) The only thing a guided gun round allows you to do is pack more guided weapons into a ship. If there is no follow on engagements, there's no reason to carry that much ammo that you won't be using. You're better off spending the money to develop the guided gun rounds, plus the cost to procure a couple thousand rounds, and buy a few extra ships. If you need fire a bunch of missiles, the various surface to air missiles are a good choice, being very fast, and hitting hard enough to rip the superstructure of your opponent apart. What you're doing is arguing for a solution that's looking for a problem.
  9. SgtBeltfed

    Cheap guided gun rounds

    All that really matters is the amount of ready ammunition, for a 5" gun it's about 20 dumb rounds, or 10 guided rounds. 2 Harpoon or Exocet launchers provides 8 rounds, all ready. A common modification back in the day was to remove a 5" gun mount, and replace it with 4 single Exocet launchers, which in some cases was upgraded to a pair of quads. Countermeasures are similar, it doesn't really matter how many are carried, it really only matters how many are in the launchers. No fight in the modern world is going to last long enough to reload. You're really not worried about replacement vessels in any case. With a country like Iran, what you just sank was probably all they had. (or the single replacement won't come and play, to likely suffer the same fate) With China, the replacement won't be a single ship, it will be enough ships to overwhelm your defenses and outright sink you. The option isn't to hang around for round two, it's to either get reinforcements yourself, or not be there when the replacements arrive.
  10. SgtBeltfed

    Hypothetical Ise Battlecarrier redesign

    As a concept, they have some merit, the Admiral Kuznetsov was probably the best designed example, back when she carried all those anti-ship missiles along the edges of the flight deck. Her aircraft were her defense against full carriers, but she would have to kill them herself. Real catapults would have helped her greatly, as would Russia having the resources to support her. The Kiev's were also a good attempt, but lacked a suitable aircraft. Other than the Russian attempts, they'd never be useful as the core of an independent taskforce, they'd always be a heavy supporting element. The Russian ones would only be useful as an independent taskforce, due to the limited scale of the effort. As a heavy carrier escort, they could take over the recon duties, carry spare aircraft, ordinance, and avgas. They could help make up for having undersized carriers, which IJN carriers qualify as. Need to be faster than Ise though. Still even better to just build another full carrier. The previously mentioned Amphibious force flagship, even the USN explored that postwar with the Iowas, though they ultimately didn't go that way. Ise would have been good at this, with the aircraft she could actually use. Battleship escort, being able to stay with the battleline would be useful, simplifying the other escort requirements. Ise could have done this, had she been able to employ a useful fighter aircraft. Lastly, acting as a heavy supporting element for cruiser squadrons, similar to a battlecruiser. Being able to provide some air cover to cruisers would be useful, as would bringing along a few heavy guns. Would need the speed of a battlecruiser though, so Ise would be too slow. Battlecarriers are beasts of necessity, there's always a better way of doing what they do, but the resources aren't available and you have to play the cards you've been dealt.
  11. SgtBeltfed

    Hypothetical Ise Battlecarrier redesign

    Physics doesn't care why something was done, only that it was. Ryujo wasn't the only IJN ship with topweight problems, she's merely one of the worst, The Takao class was pretty bad, the IJN also had issues with some undersized DD's that actually did roll over. The festivities go on from there. The IJN had a serious problem of saving weight from within the hull, and then adding topweight. An 80 x 680 foot flight deck is going to weight around 750 tons on it's own, and that's probably still too light to land anything useful. That was just some quick math, so I'll go with it anyway. Ise was built with 4200 tons or so of turrets, roughly centered 30 feet above the waterline. A flight deck is going to be at least 70 feet up. As far as stability is concerned, this is like dropping 2 more pairs of turrets on centerline, without making the ship any wider. Lever arms are great when you want to move something, not so much when they're trying to move you. Ise's stability was probably marginal but still safe after her reconstruction, she lost a lot of old heavy boilers, and added a significant number of AA guns, plus the pagoda. Sticking the flight deck over top of the hull like that has two other major flaws, the AA guns will be blocked, so they too will needing moving to the flight deck edges, which will make the topweight even worse. Second, should that deck collapse due to damage, it will block the turrets and the wreckage would make damage control impossible. Battlecarriers aren't actually a bad idea, if used in very specific roles, with a base hull more capable than Ise. None of which were particularly useful to the IJN after Midway.
  12. SgtBeltfed

    Why do I lose torpedoes...

    CB is actually "large cruiser" aka, the Alaska's CC is USN for Battlecruiser, as in the Lexington's before conversion. BC is Royal Navy for Battlecruiser (and most other countries, even ones that didn't build any) and is seen very frequently. CL's are really 155mm guns and smaller, with anything going up to 203mm being a CA. Anything over 203mm stops being a cruiser by treaty.
  13. SgtBeltfed

    Hypothetical Ise Battlecarrier redesign

    Humorous, I actually design ships for a living. Adding large amounts of topweight is not something to do lightly. The Japanese have extensive experience with with the problems associated with top heavy ships. Having a carrier that's a "Bad Roller" is counter productive. As far as cost effectiveness, the Japanese made many studies before arriving at the one that was nearly useless for their purposes. What was done was the cheapest and most cost effective conversion. Conversions with longer flight decks, and even full length flight decks were studied, and they learned that for anything more than just the back two turrets, they were better off building a new carrier, and the conversions would have impacted new construction.
  14. SgtBeltfed

    Hypothetical Ise Battlecarrier redesign

    Pretty much not workable. Topweight would be horrendous, and people think Ryujo had issues., Having the turrets under the flight deck will cause serious muzzle blast issues, specifically the concussion being reflected back into the rest of the ship. The Ise's were a good idea, if they had been used in a role that actually suited them. They'd make excellent amphibious force flagships, combining air and artillery assets, with a big ship's flag facilities, all in an easy to coordinate package. When they were converted, the Imperial Japanese navy had no need of such ships. The other role they would have been well suited for, if they were about 4 or 5 knots faster, is as a Heavy Escort for carrier groups. They could carry recon aircraft, provide heavy anti-aircraft capability (at least by IJN standards), carry replacement aircraft, and see off any ship that's likely to venture too close to the carrier group. Japan had a huge need of such ships, but other than the Kongo's, which were very busy ships already, had no suitable ships to convert.
  15. SgtBeltfed

    Lexington question

    Some, like Colorado, don't represent any particular member of the class, and instead are a weird mishmash of different ships.