Agreed, they are still weak with this proposal, which is as it should be. But with their 4 triple TT mounts, not totally worthless. I think this proposal would allow a greater variety of ships to be built. Carl
So on this new proposal, a ship like the Kiroshima with something like 10 launchers per side will get to fire a salvo of 10 rounds at once?
I think you meant Kitakami. Kitakami had 10 quad TT mounts/launchers (5 quad mounts per side). No, under Dustin's proposal, you could only fire torps from one mount/launcher at a time. So you could only fire 4 torps at a time from a Kitakami. Under Dustin's proposal, a salvo is defined as firing all the torps in a given mount (or launcher), and you can only fire one salvo at a time. So a Kitakami could fire 10 salvos of 4 torps each, and a Gearing could fire 2 salvos of 5 torps each. Carl
Ohhh! I understand now. And with a 1 minute timer between salvos ... hmm ... I like the idea and would love to see it tried out. The Kitakami would still have an advantage of not having to come in to reload for 10 salvos (5 per side), but at least it would not be a one-shot-ship-killer. Yes, I like this idea.
I am glad so far most that have chimed in have not disliked my proposal. I think it is worth mentioning that for subs and other ships with tubes, the rules wouldn't change (much, if at all). An I-401 could still fire eight bow shots in a salvo (or X number at a time). You would still have the re-load rules, etc... Yes, a Kitikani or Oi would still be dangerous, but given the practical limits with scale and safety concerns I think they are only as dangerous if they had been used as designed (Toerpedo cruiser config--running into an enemy formation at night and firing salvos). In reality, like PT boats and subs, torpedo cruisers' main armament were torpedoes. Granted, torpedo hit rates were very low, however gunnery hit rates in real life were much lower than our hobby due to range. My idea is far from complete in regards to tubes below the waterline. It specifically deals with "launchers". Actually, it might be a good idea to limit all underwater tubes to rods or the tube with ball bearing nose that some of the big gun clubs used back in the day. I have given VERY LITTLE THOUGHT to tubes, so take this paragraph with a lump of salt. For the past month or so I have been thinking why not limit all torps to rods, but there are practicallity concerns unless you change scale. I really don't want to open a can of worms on this one, but since there has been so much discussion on this subject, the local group is trying a mish-mash of the previously discussed rules, MBG, and WWCC rules in different boats. We want to perform a live-fire R&D: see what works and what doesn't. If I could come up with a way to get a historically accurate low hit rate, with high damage potential, I would jump on it. IMHO, it would make torpedoes the "wild-card" they were in era combat. Speaking of worms, I see a can labeled depth-charges in the sub pantry. Does anyone have an old army issue p51 on their keychain?
Oh, and as far as PT boats are concerned, I think if it was launch-able, you can fire it in a salvo. If you can figure out how and get it to fit weight wise. And the salvo on mount/launchers would be per side, so if a destroyer raced in between to enemy ships they could fire port and starboard. Also could risk the wrath of a BB's stern guns twice, come in to port, fire, slow down then come in to starboard, and fire again. All while inviting the BB's escorts to "shoot me".
Had a thought on researching the history of big gun: Way back in the day, .243 (6mm) caliber bullets were used. I wanted to gauge other's thought on allowing these in Battlestations...
I should probably expand: they were used in underwater tubes because they were more areo(thus hydro)-dynamically efficient than ball bearings. You got increased range over ball bearings. They were eventually pulled by the SCBG because they have a tendency to tumble and would leave a hole larger than 1/4". They went with rods, but those tended to stick out of the hull when hitting the internal armor, and if someone side-swiped the hit ship, the rods tended to tear a large section. Then they stuck with two 1/4" ball bearings.
It sounds interesting. Probably more practical than scale length 1/4" cylinders (~2.5" in 96 scale). If I ever get around to the underwater torpedo tests that I intended to do last fall, maybe we could test some.
I have a few concerns: 1) Safety An aerodynamic .243 bullet will be more likely to penetrate skin/safety glasses/etc than a ball bearing. Remember, an accidental "bench" firing would shoot this thing thru the air, not thru the water. I've pretty much been only an observer so far in battles (except for when someone lent me a boat) and I've been hit several times by ball bearings from boats -- both on and off the water. 2) Availability Right now bullets of any caliber are hard to find (the more popular calibers are very hard to find) 3) Price A hundred .243 bullets start around $18/100 and go up from there. Much more expensive than ball bearings. 4) Environmental We should use only non-lead (i.e., solid copper) bullets, since these will accumulate over time in battle ponds. This ups the price even more.
As safety is foremost in our operation (I like my eyes and other parts)... anything that fires anything must pass the foam test, in air. Period. I'm totally cool with new ideas, but any projectile weapon must be safe.
Carl, To address your concerns: 1 Safety: They would still have to pass the blue foam test like any other projectile. If I can find some, I will run a test on safety glasses to determine differences between bearings and bullets. hmmm, I sense some ScienceTM in the near future... 2 Availability: Yep, right now anything firearm related is very hard to come by. This should pass in a few months once the panic buying dies down. 3 Price: As far as the cost, I am not suggesting that we limit torps to bullets, just that they could be an available option if a skipper so desired. 4 Environment: There are also "Green" solid and frangable bullets that are starting to become required for many ranges concerned with lead exposure EDIT: This looks like a good choice: barnesbullets.myshopify.com/collect...-gr-tsx-bt
The WWCC allows .243 bullets for submarine torpedoes, with the caveat that they exit the barrel blunt-end first. This is actually better, hydrodynamically, is less likely to get stuck in the side of the ship (less danger from a sideswipe and doesn't plug its own hole), and is less dangerous to people.
I think the WWCC has a good chunk of the real world testing of these systems under their collective belts. I like using the bullets for the subsurface torpedoes and the use of the standard ball bearings for the above water variety.
That's okay, but all projectile systems have to pass the test in-air. I've already had BBs break skin, admittedly in Fast Gun battles, but it doesn't feel good.
