4 replies to this topic

[Dave Franklin]

I had an idea for a desperate WWII battle where the KM even commits Emden, for which there is no SDS. I've made up an SDS, but figured I'd pose one question: should Emden's original main guns (15 cm/45 (5.9") SK L/45) be 5.9" or 5.9"D?In 1942, she is rearmed with the same 5.9" guns (15 cm/48 (5.9") TBK SK C/36) as on the Type 1936A and 1936A(Mob) DDs, so there is a pretty good basis for making them 5.9"D at that point - unless you want to make the arguement the guns could be better serviced on Emden than a DD.

[Dave Franklin]

BTW, I have no idea how what I entered got converted into those smiley-face icons...

[Cpt M]

The 5.9" D designation refers more to the mount than the actual gun tube. The mount as designed, was not particularly successful in its intended role on the later DDs. Major problems arose due to its weight and complexity, which resulted in a reduced rate of fire (note that this weapon does not have rapid fire capability). For Emden, I would stay with the 'regular' 5.9" data as this better reflects the overall capability of her gun outfit.

[Dave Franklin]

Well, I have to admit I'm not convinced. Whar research I've been doing on this has actually led me more toward the thought that neither German 5.9" column should allow rapid fire.I think once Emden is re-equipped with the 15 cm/48 TBK SK C/36 gun, she should be rated has having 5.9"D, as the penetration values for this gun are also different than the 15cm/60 SK C25 on the Königsberg, Leipzieg and Nürnberg classes, or the 15 cm/55 SK C/28 secondaries on the Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Lützow classes.I guess I also think rating her original 15 cm/45 SK L/45s as 5.9"D helps reflect the in-efficiency of her WWI design.

[Cpt M]

Whar research I've been doing on this has actually led me more toward the thought that neither German 5.9" column should allow rapid fire.

There was a considerable amount debate on this issue prior to the release of Amendment 1. While the ROFs of the German equipment was not stellar (compared to, say, the US 6"/47), it was sufficient to qualify (if barely) for rapid fire. As to the 5.9 D, this was meant to be specific to the 36A DD mounts (no other ship used these mounts, although Emden was slated to be retrofited with them in 1942), which were notorious for having a markedly slower rate of fire compared to the earlier mounts, thus, no rapid fire. In the final analysis, it depends on your interpretation of the data at hand. If you feel that rapid fire should not apply, then make the changes you feel necessary.

I think once Emden is re-equipped with the 15 cm/48 TBK SK C/36 gun, she should be rated has having 5.9"D, as the penetration values for this gun are also different than the 15cm/60 SK C25 on the Königsberg, Leipzieg and Nürnberg classes, or the 15 cm/55 SK C/28 secondaries on the Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Lützow classes.I guess I also think rating her original 15 cm/45 SK L/45s as 5.9"D helps reflect the in-efficiency of her WWI design.

Admittedly, my first response was more in the vein of a 'brute force' solution. A more nuanced solution would be to use the penetration values of the 5.9" D with the 'to hit' values of the 5.9. This would preserve gun power of the C/36 while not penalizing it for the lackluster performance of the DD mount.As to the earlier L/45s being inferior to the later weapons, this is not necessarily true. In terms of ROF, it was not at all uncommon for a hand operated single mount to out perform a power operated mount.