Kaiser BB and its very strange firing arcs.

[X15]

Obviously this is a 100% accurate diagram, did it myself.

Point being, I ran into this thing in a pub match and decided to take a look, here's what I learned:

edit: LEGEND: the turrets have colored dots on them that correspond with the colored lines. The lines that branch off indicate the inside of the arc. The big lines are pure fluff.

It also seems to turn well but the turret traverse looked like crap. (worse than Fuso)

I'm guessing it will be death to chase but like the New York, getting all your guns on target may be a very bad idea.

Notes: The 2 and 3 guns have a better arc in the rear allowing for better angling. Turret 3 does not fire in the shown position.

[Legendary_Typo]

This image confuses me.

[X15]

This image confuses me.

 

Did my edit help?

[Poltr]

This image confuses me.

 

He color coded each turret and then put what looked like the firing arcs each turret was able to fire in, in the color of the turret

 

Edit: too slow

[Legendary_Typo]

 

Did my edit help?

 

Oh! Thanks.

[Crucis]

The Kaiser's mid turrets layout probably is about as strange as it gets.  I suspect that they didn't go with the 2 mid turrets both on the center-line in an attempt to keep the overall length of the ship down, thus reducing overall displacement.  An all-centerline turret arrangement would have been simpler with better arcs, but longer and I assume heavier.

 

It also seems odd to me that they were willing to go with superfiring turrets in the rear, but not in the front.  Strange.

 

 

[Captain_Dorja]

The Kaiser's mid turrets layout probably is about as strange as it gets.  I suspect that they didn't go with the 2 mid turrets both on the center-line in an attempt to keep the overall length of the ship down, thus reducing overall displacement.  An all-centerline turret arrangement would have been simpler with better arcs, but longer and I assume heavier.

 

It also seems odd to me that they were willing to go with superfiring turrets in the rear, but not in the front.  Strange.

 

Staggered wing turrets were pretty common in early dreadnought era capital ships. It mostly stemmed from 3 factors.

1. It was believed that super-firing turrets would interfere with eachother (but as you can see, her 2 rear turrets super-fire, hence items 2 and 3)

2. Wing turrets allowed maximum end on firepower, which was considered important

3. Wing turrets allowed maximum broadside firepower in the same ship where end on firepower was also maximized.

 

The stopped using wing turrets for a few reasons.

1. Super-firing turrets made the concept largely obsolete.

2. Wing turrets had a really strange effect on the structure of the ship when firing. Basically, they put weird stress on the hull that broke stuff.

3. Firing arms were really limited, which limited the practical use of the broadside firing, which was a major reason for even doing the wing turrets.

 

Those are just a few really basic reasons why wing turrets were common, then quickly dropped.

[Crucis]

The Kaiser's mid turrets layout probably is about as strange as it gets.  I suspect that they didn't go with the 2 mid turrets both on the center-line in an attempt to keep the overall length of the ship down, thus reducing overall displacement.  An all-centerline turret arrangement would have been simpler with better arcs, but longer and I assume heavier.

 

It also seems odd to me that they were willing to go with superfiring turrets in the rear, but not in the front.  Strange.

 

Staggered wing turrets were pretty common in early dreadnought era capital ships. It mostly stemmed from 3 factors.

1. It was believed that super-firing turrets would interfere with eachother (but as you can see, her 2 rear turrets super-fire, hence items 2 and 3)

2. Wing turrets allowed maximum end on firepower, which was considered important

3. Wing turrets allowed maximum broadside firepower in the same ship where end on firepower was also maximized.

 

The stopped using wing turrets for a few reasons.

1. Super-firing turrets made the concept largely obsolete.

2. Wing turrets had a really strange effect on the structure of the ship when firing. Basically, they put weird stress on the hull that broke stuff.

3. Firing arms were really limited, which limited the practical use of the broadside firing, which was a major reason for even doing the wing turrets.

 

Those are just a few really basic reasons why wing turrets were common, then quickly dropped.

 

 

A.  You hardly needed to tell me any of this, since I knew ALL of it.

 

B. While wing turrets were common, the layout of the Kaisers wasn't, IIRC.  I think that the hexagonal layout was more common, at least for a short while.  And the "all turrets on the centerline" layout with some waist turrets even more common.

 

 

[crzyhawk]

The Moltkes and Seydlitz used the same layout, as did the British Collossus and Neptune

[Crucis]

The Moltkes and Seydlitz used the same layout, as did the British Collossus and Neptune

 

 

Actually, having looked up all of those examples, as best I can see from the limited pictures, those ships really did NOT use the same layout.  Those ships had their wing turrets placed considerably further apart along the long axis of the ship, which meant that when they aimed over the centerline the other wing turret was highly unlikely to be blocking their line of fire, which on the Kaisers was quite easy to do.

 

The layouts may be conceptually similar.  But functionally, the ships in your examples appear to have executed the layout much more effectively than the Kaisers did.

 

 

[Captain_Dorja]

A.  You hardly needed to tell me any of this, since I knew ALL of it.

 

B. While wing turrets were common, the layout of the Kaisers wasn't, IIRC.  I think that the hexagonal layout was more common, at least for a short while.  And the "all turrets on the centerline" layout with some waist turrets even more common.

 

Sorry man. It read like you were wondering why some ships had this sort of setup. 

 

You just can't win sometimes. Look what I get for trying to be polite and informative 

[Crucis]

A.  You hardly needed to tell me any of this, since I knew ALL of it.

 

B. While wing turrets were common, the layout of the Kaisers wasn't, IIRC.  I think that the hexagonal layout was more common, at least for a short while.  And the "all turrets on the centerline" layout with some waist turrets even more common.

 

Sorry man. It read like you were wondering why some ships had this sort of setup. 

 

You just can't win sometimes. Look what I get for trying to be polite and informative 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with being polite.  Just remember that some people here do know quite a bit, at least in layman's terms, about BB's, etc.

 

 

[wontletmepickusername]

 

 

A.  You hardly needed to tell me any of this, since I knew ALL of it.

 

B. While wing turrets were common, the layout of the Kaisers wasn't, IIRC.  I think that the hexagonal layout was more common, at least for a short while.  And the "all turrets on the centerline" layout with some waist turrets even more common.

 

 

 

Sadly, from some of the reply's in the forum (not this thread specifically, but the forum in general), many people appear to be ignorant about ships, and lack the ability to google for answers. Much less pick up a book.

[Crucis]

 

 

A.  You hardly needed to tell me any of this, since I knew ALL of it.

 

B. While wing turrets were common, the layout of the Kaisers wasn't, IIRC.  I think that the hexagonal layout was more common, at least for a short while.  And the "all turrets on the centerline" layout with some waist turrets even more common.

 

 

 

Sadly, from some of the reply's in the forum (not this thread specifically, but the forum in general), many people appear to be ignorant about ships, and lack the ability to google for answers. Much less pick up a book.

 

 

Kinda makes you wonder why they came to the game in the first place.  I think that a lot of players come to the game because warships are a bit of a hobby of theirs and think that it's cool to see those ships in action.

[Fire_Drake_84]

The odd firing arcs were a problem for ships like this for the duration of their careers. All of the issues listed above are very valid, but there was another factor that saw the ships becoming increasingly obsolete. The turrets being placed so far from the beam created unique stresses on the hull, and the barbettes were notoriously hard to armor, being so close to the sides of the ship. This made it awfully worrisome that a enemy AP shell could pierce the ships side and wreck the turret, and risk a magazine explosion. 

Germany was resistant to the idea of using superfiring turrets like the U.S. Navy did, for the same reasons that the British were resistant as well.  The turret layouts for the first several battleship and battlecruiser classes that the Imperial Navy used were also dictated by their use of triple expansion machinery long after the Dreadnought was put into commission. 

[wontletmepickusername]

The odd firing arcs were a problem for ships like this for the duration of their careers. All of the issues listed above are very valid, but there was another factor that saw the ships becoming increasingly obsolete. The turrets being placed so far from the beam created unique stresses on the hull, and the barbettes were notoriously hard to armor, being so close to the sides of the ship. This made it awfully worrisome that a enemy AP shell could pierce the ships side and wreck the turret, and risk a magazine explosion. 

Germany was resistant to the idea of using superimposed turrets like the U.S. Navy did, for the same reasons that the British were resistant as well.  The turret layouts for the first several battleship and battlecruiser classes that the Imperial Navy used were also dictated by their use of triple expansion machinery long after the Dreadnought was put into commission. 

 

They had the idea that end on fire was important, it's reflected in several of the ship designs used in the game (Omaha being a prime example), where in real life they realized that broadside fire was more effective. Of course in real life (unlike this game) the crap about suffering extra penetrations (and thus massive damage) to your citadel areas didn't happen. That's why crossing the enemy's T was something you wanted to do.

[Crucis]

The odd firing arcs were a problem for ships like this for the duration of their careers. All of the issues listed above are very valid, but there was another factor that saw the ships becoming increasingly obsolete. The turrets being placed so far from the beam created unique stresses on the hull, and the barbettes were notoriously hard to armor, being so close to the sides of the ship. This made it awfully worrisome that a enemy AP shell could pierce the ships side and wreck the turret, and risk a magazine explosion. 

Germany was resistant to the idea of using superimposed turrets like the U.S. Navy did, for the same reasons that the British were resistant as well.  The turret layouts for the first several battleship and battlecruiser classes that the Imperial Navy used were also dictated by their use of triple expansion machinery long after the Dreadnought was put into commission. 

 

 

 

 

All very true, though, just as an FYI, the proper technical term is "superfiring", not "superimposed".

[Royeaux]

 

Staggered wing turrets were pretty common in early dreadnought era capital ships. It mostly stemmed from 3 factors.

1. It was believed that super-firing turrets would interfere with eachother (but as you can see, her 2 rear turrets super-fire, hence items 2 and 3)

2. Wing turrets allowed maximum end on firepower, which was considered important

3. Wing turrets allowed maximum broadside firepower in the same ship where end on firepower was also maximized.

 

The stopped using wing turrets for a few reasons.

1. Super-firing turrets made the concept largely obsolete.

2. Wing turrets had a really strange effect on the structure of the ship when firing. Basically, they put weird stress on the hull that broke stuff.

3. Firing arms were really limited, which limited the practical use of the broadside firing, which was a major reason for even doing the wing turrets.

 

Those are just a few really basic reasons why wing turrets were common, then quickly dropped.

 

Yeah, the Kawachi and the Fuso were only laid down 3 years apart, but man what a difference 3 years makes.  Same about of turrets with both ships, but that turret placement makes these two ships look like they were built era's apart.

[TenguBlade]

They had the idea that end on fire was important, it's reflected in several of the ship designs used in the game (Omaha being a prime example), where in real life they realized that broadside fire was more effective. Of course in real life (unlike this game) the crap about suffering extra penetrations (and thus massive damage) to your citadel areas didn't happen. That's why crossing the enemy's T was something you wanted to do.

There's a number of reasons why Crossing the T doesn't work very well in WoWS, primary one being distance compression, but factors like HP pools and the armor mechanics also contribute.  You're at such relatively close range that it's more important to minimize damage taken rather than maximize potential damage dealt (especially because you're limited by HP); in the Battle of the Denmark Strait the closest Hood got to Bismarck before she blew up was 14km.

 

Crossing the T at long range with focused fire is still a viable team strategy in-game, assuming people who are broadside are smart enough to dodge.  Concentrated HE spam will melt battleships, and just the superior number of shells being thrown downrange ensures a higher team hit ratio.

[Kingfishercritic]

Just bought and read a book about Kaiser, Konig, and Bayern. The book seems to imply that the #3 turret on Kaiser should be able to fire across the ship directly into the arc the OP labeled in red. Not 100% sure though.

[Royeaux]

There's a number of reasons why Crossing the T doesn't work very well in WoWS, primary one being distance compression, but factors like HP pools and the armor mechanics also contribute.  You're at such relatively close range that it's more important to minimize damage taken rather than maximize potential damage dealt (especially because you're limited by HP); in the Battle of the Denmark Strait the closest Hood got to Bismarck before she blew up was 14km.

 

Crossing the T at long range with focused fire is still a viable team strategy in-game, assuming people who are broadside are smart enough to dodge.  Concentrated HE spam will melt battleships, and just the superior number of shells being thrown downrange ensures a higher team hit ratio.

 

Well, we see history backing up the fact that Crossing the T isn't all that great.  When multiple ships fire on a single ship, they cant gauge their own ranges because they can't tell whose splashes are whose.  Plus, the bow armor is much stronger then the hull, while the T crosser has to expose the broadside to get all the guns to fire.  At Jutland, the British well and thoroughly crossed the German's T, and they lost out in this exchange, because the Germans were able to accurately target the HMS Invincible with their bow turrets and destroy it.  No German capital ships were lost during the T-crossing phase of the Battle of Jutland (and only after the battle would the Lutzow have to be evacuated and scuttled).  Even when the German's accidentally got their T crossed for the 2nd time when they overcooked their Gefechtskehrtwendung maneuver, they still managed to pull off the "Death Ride of the Battlecruiser" without losing any Battlecruisers during the action.  And mind you, the German vanguards were being hit by the entire British Grand Fleet and they were still able to close in and threaten the entire British fleet with a massed torpedo attack.  At Jutland, for the Germans, minimizing damage was more important then firepower, since they were badly outnumbered...and it sorta worked out for them.  The Germans fell into the greatest naval ambush in history and managed to sailed away while embarrassing the Royal Navy.

 

I'm sure crossing the T was more effective during the time of sail, since maybe about 4% of your firepower could be directed forward, but after the Dreadnought era, it only sorta worked.  It's a high-risk high-reward formation that would win out in a protracted battled.

[Guest]

Indeed, the turret arrangement did cause some quite interesting arcs of fire, though it is fairly decent for fitting in two turrets without having to resort to a longer hull. 

[Fire_Drake_84]

 

They had the idea that end on fire was important, it's reflected in several of the ship designs used in the game (Omaha being a prime example), where in real life they realized that broadside fire was more effective. Of course in real life (unlike this game) the crap about suffering extra penetrations (and thus massive damage) to your citadel areas didn't happen. That's why crossing the enemy's T was something you wanted to do.

 

You do have a valid point there, but in general, the Omahas were considered failures as ships because of the way their armament was laid out. Broadside cruisers were out of favor for some time before the Omaha class was commissioned. 

[Fire_Drake_84]

 

They had the idea that end on fire was important, it's reflected in several of the ship designs used in the game (Omaha being a prime example), where in real life they realized that broadside fire was more effective. Of course in real life (unlike this game) the crap about suffering extra penetrations (and thus massive damage) to your citadel areas didn't happen. That's why crossing the enemy's T was something you wanted to do.

It was a case of my mind thinking one thing and my fingers going another! lol Its fixed now! Thanks!

[Magic_Fighting_Tuna]

I kinda like its turret layout, you will have a gun at the ready no matter which side your enemy approaches.