We had a build session today, and were lamenting the current unavailability of Big Gun cannons. We talked about printing parts on a 3D printer, getting parts lasercut, and even building Big Gun sized versions of fast gun cannons. Any ideas? One idea we had was giving the option of using BB cannons for any legally-armable cannon from 75mm to 279mm (1/8" to 3/16" under current rules). I know that 75mm is 1mm under 3", but several small ships ran 75mm guns and it's silly to disallow them (I think). People wanting to keep their current guns or to go with the numbers listed (and rates of fire) could do so, but still allow people to opt for a BB cannon in place of those guns. Thoughts?
The availability of the BB sized guns argues for their use. Maybe adjust the fire rate to match the guns they would be replacing.
Agreed on substituting fast gun cannons. Their availability alone argues for the substitution. I think getting armed ships on the water helps the format more than making sure the smaller guns are the correct caliber. That may change down the line, but right now, I want to see more hulls and more ka-pows. When availability changes, them we can re-visit the issue and perhaps give a time frame to convert existing builds. On rate of fire, either the intended or installed caliber works for me.
I think it's a great idea, and I have nothing against it. That will make it simpler for me to arm V-106 anyway. Beaver
No opposition at all. It did not really affect me as the ships I was considering only had bb guns anyway. I think limiting the rate of fire just make things needlessly complex. Just let the bb guns shoot at the bb gun rate.
Agreed with James point. Rate of fire for the installed caliber makes more sense now that I think about it. This could also apply for the issues we have been having with quad Indiana cannons. Most that have been made were for 1/4", but with the exception of the Richelieu and Alsace, all designs that had quad turrets are 7/32" caliber under rules. Duals and triples can fire 7/32" just fine, but quads loose too much to blow-by to work properly. I would suggest allowing 1/4" for quad 7/32" mounts as well, but with 1/4" RoF.
So everyone is okay with BB guns at 3 second ROF for 10.9" and smaller? I am personally okay with Dustin's idea for ships that would run 7/32" quads, but would like other opinions from Big Gun or Battlestations guys who've used them. Obviously, for Ersatz Hannover, I'm building dual 1/4" turrets so it doesn't affect me at this point. Although letting Rodney run 1/4" might
Duals and triples should work just fine firing 7/32" bearings from a 1/4" cannon. The reason I brought the quads up in the first place is that Mikey was having issues with his Strasbourg mains until I traded him some quads with the risers going all the way down into the breech. There are probably four to six quads locally that will not work with 7/32" though, and Mikey, Matt, Phil, Mark and myself have had this conversation in the past, and the general consensus was to allow it at the slower 1/4" RoF, at least on the local level, until cannon availability changes. I'm pretty sure Matt has cannons enough to arm KGV and Bart, if the KGV gets to use the larger caliber.
If it met with the approval of the your group, I'm cool with it, since you guys have the lion's share of the 1/96 battling experience.
I know I'm a little late to the party, but I don't think someone should get a 3 sec ROF instead of a 4 sec ROF just because they chose to use fast gun cannons. First, the delta between .177 and ,1875 isn't enough to warrant a faster rate of fire. Second, unless you are using thick barrels, most fast gun cannons will probably shoot the 3/16 round just fine. That's my 2 cents...
That might be interesting to try with a fast gun cannon that doesn't have a tight-tolerance barrel... But: As far as them getting a 3 sec ROF, they'd be going down a size and not getting any advantage gun power wise over a 5" gun armed destroyer (per gun, anyway). Not sure where their advantage is, apart from being able to buy cannons off the shelf.
I've done that.. the fast gun breech will shoot 3/16" nicely but it needs 2 things: barrel that fits the 3/16" and a slightly larger size of O-ring (up one size, I need to look and see what sizes worked for me, I don't remember. found it -106 I used for BB's, -107 I used for 3/16) The T fitting needs to be checked, some will feed BB but not 3/16, same as the copper magazine line.
I think I am in agreement with everyone here, it is more paramount to continue to grow the format than have slips idle for want of proper caliber guns.
Having owned/operated a Big Gun Dunkerque and a Normandie. I will say that while unfavorable 7/32 rounds can be fired from a 1/4 gun as long as you use tight tolerance mandrel bent stainless barrels. It will however not be not as efficient as an "all 7/32" setup. Firing 7/32 rounds from 1/4 barrels is just poop. I have been drawing a design with balanced airflow to all barrels that traps rounds on the feedramp. This prevents a large slug of air from escaping into the magazine and balances the velocity of the rounds between the barrels. I would like to incorporate these features into a canister style gun. However my canister designs don't meet my own expectations in terms of simplicity. In other words I see to many potential failure points.
I like the idea of simplifying the rules and the mechanics of the boats. I have seen very few people actually run the 3/16" ball bearing cannons in big gun, but plenty of .177 cannons. The reason is that there is no significant change in how effective the cannon is: they have similar penetration both above and below the water. Adding an extra size, 1/8" ball bearings, also will have so significant change in effectiveness. Since all three sizes work equally as well as a small secondary or destroyer cannon, I cannot see any good reason to have three separate sizes when one size will do the trick. It makes sense to merge all three small caliber sizes into a single size. At the moment, Battlestations is essentially a larger scale version of Big Gun. The to most important parts, the gun chart and armor chart, are the same. Those charts, especially the gun chart, is designed for battleships. If you want to stick with battleships, 1/144 big gun is far simpler and easier to handle. If you want to work with what 1/96 scale does well, cruisers and destroyers, then I think a bit more than simplifying may be in order. I think the armor and cannon charts could be reworked to give larger caliber guns to cruisers to emphasize their role. For example, 3-6" gets .177, 6-10" gets 7/32, and 10"+ gets 1/4". That way destroyers keep their small pop guns, cruisers get some firepower to work with, and battleships remain the king of the sea. In particular, 8" heavy cruisers become a better choice with 7/32" cannons and all battleships get the killing power of 1/4" cannons. It's a pretty radical change, but I think encourages the boats this scale emphasizes.
Guys, Wait a sec. Most 96scale DD have BB guns, as Dose my Artems!!! so what are you saying, I'm not sure I understand!! Nikki
That is an interesting idea to remedy the gun question. I think the most prevalent large ship in Battle stations would be either a predreadnought or a heavy cruiser, with the smaller ships being favored, after all the larger scale does afford those smaller ships the ability to be built with Biggun style weapons much easier.
