Texas secondaries - why only 3 a side?

[capncrunch21]

I really like the Texas except for the weak secondary battery array. Three 5" guns on each side? Ugh.

 

 

According to past 'rules' WG has implemented, they have stated that any gun 3" (75mm) or larger is considered a secondary.

 

So why is it that the impressive array of 76.2mm Anti-aircraft guns aren't considered secondaries on the Texas?

[Mesrith]

According to past 'rules' WG has implemented, they have stated that any gun 3" (75mm) or larger is considered a secondary.

 

If this were true, my Des Moines would have amazing secondaries!  But, it's not.  It appears to be done haphazardly however they choose.

[Macabe]

Dedicated aircraft guns are not dual-purpose.

[MrDeaf]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk10-22.htm

 

76.2mm guns, firing 5.9kg shells

Striking velocity @ 4km is 296mps

 

That's going to be spectacular to watch and be completely ineffective at the same time.

[Grevester]

Not dual-purpose guns, as said.

[Fuchsy]

While IIRC, the Texas had the first 3in DP mounts the US made for Naval Ships...

How much damage do you think a 3in Round is going to do exactly?

I mean, 4in Guns barely do anything at all in the first place.

>.>

[amaROenuZ]

While IIRC, the Texas had the first 3in DP mounts the US made for Naval Ships...

How much damage do you think a 3in Round is going to do exactly?

I mean, 4in Guns barely do anything at all in the first place.

>.>

 

All about that passive fire chance. You aren't going to get cits unless you're in an IJN BB, but setting a fire for free is 100% okay.

[GearaDoga]

Simply put, the reason why is...  

 

Well, that's what the real USS Texas had, so that's what the in-game Texas gets.

[MrDeaf]

 

All about that passive fire chance. You aren't going to get cits unless you're in an IJN BB, but setting a fire for free is 100% okay.

 

I wonder what the fire chance would be... 1 to 3%?

 

Mark 29: 0.14kg explosives (AP shell)

Mark 27: 0.34kg explosives (High Capacity shell)

Mark 31: 0.31kg explosives (AA VT shell)

 

Mark 32: 1.2kg explosives (The HE shell for 127mm/38 guns in WoWs)

And WG gives this shell 5% fire chance.

 

Although, there might be hope yet, considering Tachibana's 76.2mm guns feature 6% fire chance, while firing a slightly lighter shell.

[capncrunch21]

 

If this were true, my Des Moines would have amazing secondaries!  But, it's not.  It appears to be done haphazardly however they choose.

 

 

Ah, I see....

 

It's up to WG to decide. Would be nice if there was some consistency.

[Taichunger]

Wait... these are US guns, right? 

 

Well there's your explanation. If they were IJN guns or Russian guns, it would be a different story....

[SG_ONeill]

Consistency is something WG doesn't apply when it comes to secondaries/AA. Just look at Iowa.

[Darksamus224]

Consistency is something WG doesn't apply when it comes to secondaries/AA. Just look at Iowa.

RIP quad bofors.

[Fletcher7_1944]

The New York- it's other class ship- also has only 6 secondary guns on the top hull.  Same for the Wyoming.   Why would Texas be any different?

 

Those casemate guns allowed wayyy too much water to get in, and thus they closed them off.  They were also of limited use, simply because their range of motion was very limited.

 

  There's also the issue of weight- those mega AA gun emplacements cost quite a bit of weight, and something has to give.  Too much weight, and the ship gets even slower and more sluggish.

[theskull251]

BB secondaries usually just make for a nice fire works show anyways. Every once in a blue moon you might actually set an enemy BB on fire with them.