20 replies to this topic

[Dave Franklin]

I saw Lonnie's post under the "Shipboard Fires" thread that he is looking at tweaking the Gunfire CRTs to 1) incorporate a 3000 yard range band, 2) incoporate the 1/2 C/S/T Equivalent Hits rule, and 3) if I understand it correctly, tweak the DD's damage table to include non-damaging but illuminating fires.I certainly applaud the first two! I would also like to put in the following plug/request:Can the Gunfire Modifiers on the right side of the Gunfire CRTs be updated to include all of the optional modifiers, in italics like Evasive Action is (at least on all but the Netherlands) too?Specifially 1.5.10 Initial Salvos and 1.5.13 Not Engaged. Putting a note somewhere for 1.6.5 Crossing the T [penetration] and 1.7.6 Unit Engineering Spaces, would be noce too.Before you say "there isn't enough room", let me provide a solution: either get rid of, or move, the GQ III (3 bar) icon. Perhaps make the national icon at the top smaller, and put the GQ III icon next to it.That way you could also go back and put Evasive Action on the Netherlands CRT too.

[gregoryk]

This is certainly something we can look at. It may be awhile, but I know I have modified my own charts to include initial salvos and a few other mods I wanted included.Gregory

[Joel Tompkins]

Any idea when these new CRT's might be available?Thanx

[Lonnie Gill]

Joel,Now that Fleet Action Imminent is in the production cycle, I'm finishing the GQ III chart updates. I hope to have them available for download within a month. Assuming I get over a wee bug I caught in the next week or so, that is. We'll get them to you as soon as the final changes and touch-ups are done.LONNIE

[Dave Franklin]

Cool!With the charts being updated, I thought I'd bring up one other thing - not sure if we've discussed this before or not.I wonder if on the German Gunfire CRT, the order of the 5.9" and 5.9" D columns shouldn't be switched, so the 5.9" D could lose its rapid fire capability?I seem to recall reading various accounts were the 5.9" DD armament did not live up to expectations.One account I found at hand from Conway's: "Experience proved the 150mm gun to be less than satisfactory since the ammunition had to be handled as separate shells and powder-cartridges as against the single cartridge of the old 127mm weapon."

[Radek Gozdek]

about RF at 6" guns:USN 6-10 ROF RN 6-8 ROF KSM - 6-8 (DD 5-6) ROF RM 4-5 or 5-8 (2 kinds of guns) ROF IJN 5-6 ROFMF 3-5 ROF USN, RN, KSM except DD and RM m29 shoud have Rapid Fire. Instead of San Giorgio guns you should divide italian 6" to m29 and m34 models

[Lonnie Gill]

co_diver,Thanks, that's a good suggestion. The specified RoF for the 5.9" would be at the lower limit for rapid fire, but many sources relate the numerous problems encountered by the top heavy "Narvik" class DDs. Loading those 5.9" guns on a lively, top heavy DD in a seaway must have been quite a feat. The effective rate of fire at sea was accordingly lower than the what was possible in theory. Additionally, the ammunition supply was limited to only 120 rounds per gun, which rapid fire - even if possible - would would have quickly depleted. Put all that together, and I think you suggestion is a good one to delete the 5.9" D from rapid fire. I'll incorporate the fix.LONNIE

[Lonnie Gill]

Ragozd,I like your suggestion to replace the Italian 10" column on the Italian Gunnery CRT as it relates only to the old San Georgio. That is already available on the published chart for those rare occasions when needed.The question is whether it is better to distinguish between the two types of RMI 8" guns or the two types of 6" guns? In both cases, there is a difference in maximum range. I would note that my research does not indicate that either of the two types of RMI 6" gun would qualify for rapid fire. Campbell, the Naval Weapons site and the Regia Marina Italiana site all give firing cycles of 12 to 16 secs per round which would translate into only four to five rounds per minute. This was further slowed at longer ranges as many of the turret configurations had fixed loading angles. The Regia Marina Italian website in particular lists only 5 rounds per minute for these different types of 6" guns. I would think Italian enthusiasts would have access to any significant data which would contradict that.My conclusion is that, while there are differences in the various turret arrangements of the Italian CLs, there doesn't seem to be any solid data justifing a significant increase in rate of fire for any of them. Further, the sources mentioned above (and several others I checked) indicate a low effective rate of fire. You can, of course, adopt a house rule allowing certain classes rapid fire if you feel differently.So, that leaves us with the decision of replacing the old 10" column on the RMI CRT with another 6" or another 8" distinction. These are primarily maximum range differences. I invite you and other members of the GQ community to let me know your preference. I have a few more days to make the change while working on some optional rule text.LONNIE

[Dave Franklin]

What a can of worms! I can hear the screaming already: What about the difference between US 16"/45 and 16"/50? What about the RN "old" and "new" 15" like in GQ 1/2?

[Cpt M]

The differences between the unmodified and modified RN 15" are already included. The main difference was the maximum range; the increase in elevation of the modified mount pushed the maximum range to 33000 yds. If you refer to the RN CRT, on the 15" column there is call-out for the 'Old 15' limiting its range to 24000y yds.

[Jim O'Neil]

Perhaps the call out would be the way to go with the Italian 6 & 8 inch guns as well? Saves another column.I agree with Lonnie that the published rates of fire for Italian 6" guns, from everything I have, don't qualify for rapid fire.I nfact I expect the rapid fire guns to decrease on several nation's weapon charts, as few of them made any effort to bury their opponent with shell fire.

[Radek Gozdek]

http://www.navweaps....3_m1926.htmRate Of Fire Model 1926: 4 rounds per minute (1sth "Condottieri" type)Model 1929: 5 - 8 rounds per minute (2nd through 4th "Condottieri" type)Note: In the Model 1926 a loader which transferred the shell to the breech remained in position while the rammer pushed the shell into the gun. In the Model 1929 a reciprocating lever transferred the shell onto the loader and, when the rammer pushed the shell into the breech, the lever descended to pick up the next shell and was ready to transfer onto the loader immediately following the firing of the preceding round. The Model 1929 was thus able to fire twice as fast as the Model 1926. also armor penetration data was different, it's a different story, armor penetration at GQ3 ...

[Jim O'Neil]

Unless the armor penetration varies by a significant amount ... it's not worth bothering with. Given that -barrel wearPowder Temperaturebarometric pressureOutside air temperatureshell lot number and a great deal more are not accounted for, it's hard to look at differences of 2 inches (50 mm) or less with any conviction.

[Cpt M]

Ragozd,"Rate Of Fire Model 1926: 4 rounds per minute (1sth "Condottieri" type)Model 1929: 5 - 8 rounds per minute (2nd through 4th "Condottieri" type)"Campbell's puts the firing cycle of the Ansaldo 1926/OTO 1929 at 13-15 seconds while the Ansaldo 1934/OTO 1936 is given a cycle of 12 seconds. These figures are supported by Fraccaroli's Italian Warships of WWII, as well. Consquently, at best, the ROF would be no more than 5 roumds a minute for both of of these guns.

[Radek Gozdek]

Breyer told that KGV type had 16" turret front armour - and wikpiedia and a lof sources too - after Breyer. There are no book without errors. there are sources at http://www.navweaps.com:Data from "Naval Weapons of World War Two" by John Campbell "Italian Warships of World War II" by Aldo Fraccaroli "Anatomy of the Ship: The Cruiser Bartolomeo Colleoni" by Franco Gay and Valerio GayI trust http://www.navweaps.com and Italian writers in that question ... anatomy of the ship is more reliable than collective book, and http://www.navweaps.com than any simple book

[gregoryk]

ragozd wrote:

Breyer told that KGV type had 16" turret front armour - and wikpiedia and a lof sources too - after Breyer. There are no book without errors. there are sources at http://www.navweaps.com:Data from "Naval Weapons of World War Two" by John Campbell "Italian Warships of World War II" by Aldo Fraccaroli "Anatomy of the Ship: The Cruiser Bartolomeo Colleoni" by Franco Gay and Valerio GayI trust http://www.navweaps.com and Italian writers in that question ... anatomy of the ship is more reliable than collective book, and http://www.navweaps.com than any simple book

I must admit to being perplexed — it does seem that two posters are citing the same author, Fraccaroli, to support different positions. Regarding websites in general and Wikipedia in particular, I would not trust them any more than any other single sources. These sites themselves pick and choose what books they use as their sources.It is usual that slavish devotion to one source of info can lead to a multiplicity of errors. That is why it is best to double-check against several sources, which is how the the data for GQIII is derived.Gregory

[Jim O'Neil]

Also note that NavWeaps uses Campbell quite heavily.Lastly note that Doctrie of most navies does not support rapid fire.In fact, Only Britain, Germany and the United States have a rapid fire doctrine to my knowledge ... if you can provide something more, please do.

[gregoryk]

Can you define exactly what the "Rapid Fire" doctrine is? What did the ships actually do when they rapid-fired, aside from pumping out a lot more shells?

[Cpt M]

As I understand it, for the USN, rapid fire meant essentially firing salvoes without correction as rapidly as possible. Normal procedure was to correct the fire solution between each salvo which meant waiting for the shots to fall (usually, IIRC, in the form of a ladder salvo) on the target. During rapid fire, as soon as a good fire solution was obtained, fire would be delivered at the fastest ROF possible using the parameters of that last solution. Obviously, it wasn't something that was used at long range since it relied on the target not radically changing relative position during the time of flight of the shots.

[gregoryk]

As Jim says, that sounds as much doctrinal as the capability of the weapon, maybe even more so. Should it be more limited than it is?