A simple pair of digital verniers is all that's needed to test orifice size. Please note: I have no idea what I'm talking about here, the history of how the current system came to be, what the current system actually is, and I have no opinion either way as to whether or not it needs altering, I'm just throwing numbers around, for the lulz.
Rcenger try mine and se how it compares. Darren how big were bismarks secondarries and rodneys and how many for both bis and rod?
I agree with rcenger on the orface thing, for example look at a garden hose when you constrict the end with you thump you are making the opeing smaller but nearly the same amount of water exits just farther and faster.
Bismarck's secondaries:12 x 150mm 55cal, plus 16 x 104mm 65cal. (converted to inches: 150mm =5.9" 104mm = 4.09") Rodney's secondaries:12 x 6" 50cal plus 6 x 4.7" 40cal
Hoood works out to be 8x15+5.5x12/30=120+66/30=186/30=6.2=6 units current hood is 6 as well Bismark is 8x15+12x5.9/30=120+70.8/30=190.8/30=6.36=6.5 units Current bismark is 6.5 Rodney is 9x16+12x6/30=144+72/30=216/30=7.2=7 units Current Rodney is 6 or 5.5 because of the metric ton thing has me confused somewhat on that one But it seems to work good to me, any else have an opinion?
Oh I just rmember what mike M said about 1/4in opening, get a strong enough pump who needs cannons when you have a water torch
That applies with any size orifice, most pressure blasters have quite small openings, and cut balsa like it's not there. Can't see a battery powered impeller pump getting anywhere near those sort of pressures though. Thankfully.
Been trying to figure out how to slot Aircraft carriers into these calcs. Treat each 10 planes as 1 x 16"50cal gun?
The planes calculation doesn't work very well, as there are a number of carriers that end up either over-represented or under-represented. For example, the Shinano only carried 40-odd planes IIRC, but was a converted Yamato-class battleship that was intended to support an entire group of carriers with fuel and parts. After trying many variations on the number-of-planes method for arming, finally settled on an over-20K tons/under 20K tons division, with larger carriers getting 16 guns and smaller carriers getting 12 guns, with no more than 50% in any one arc. So far, though, people still prefer battleships to carriers, and none have been built to the new rules yet.
Would all carriers that started out as other hulls go with that class like shinano yamoto thing and carriers thatwere built as a carrier go with like 12 or 18 in shells?
There's no good answer for lots of reasons. Simple counting of barrels and bore size is not an accurate reflection of units, especially since units also determine the defensive abilities of a ship. The one thing that offense and defense on a ship has in common is weight. The more firepower or armor you add, the more your weight goes up. Bore size and barrel count is not even a good measure of offensive firepower. Take for example, the Rodney and the Iowa. Both have 9 X 16" guns. Rodney's shells weighed 2,048lbs for an AP shell. Iowa's AP rounds were 2,700 lbs. That means a broadside from Rodney is 18,432 lbs. A broadside from Iowa is 24,300 lbs. Iowa's rate of fire is 2 rounds per minute per gun, Rodney's is 1.5 rounds per minute per gun...so every 2 minutes Iowa fires 9 more shots that hit harder then Rodney. So there's really a lot more to the tale then just basing units on the number of guns and how big they are. the bottom line is, any kind of mathematical formula you come up with, will not end up significantly different then what you have now (and still be playable) and will be exceedingly complex and have room for loopholes and exploitation because data is not complete for all ships. Really, the fast gun guys who wrote the original shiplist back in the 80's got it mostly right as far as units go. We shouldn't be fixing what isn't broken.
The present rules on carriers aren't bad. We gave them units as if they were a battleship iof the same tonnage, so big carriers are sitting at 5-6 units and have a good deal of freedom on what they can do with those guns. I live in fear of the day someone figures out just how good a Hiryu or Soryu would be with triple stern guns mounted in the back with a depress servo.
Thank you for the idea, I'll try and "miss" you with the triple sterns Good to hear from you its been a while.
I'd appreciate that. Hiryu and Soryu both have twin rudders and 5.0 units. Both are 35 or 36 knots, and are around 745 ft in legth IIRC, so should be comparable in maneuverability to my single rudder, 719 ft long Salem. You can mount the guns all the way in the back and give them as much downangle as you want, because our rules specifically limit the depression on sidemounts..but say nothing about bow and stern guns. The ship EASILY has the room for a depression servo so you can adjust the range at which you wish to shoot. At close range, the guns would be shooting below the waterline. It's easy, you sucker a battleship or battlecruiser in close (because let's keep it real, none of them will be able to resist the temptation) kick the rudder over, drop the elevation blast them below the waterline 12-15 times before they figure out they've been had and accelerate away and start looking for your next victim. You're likely to never get hit Now the battleship captains are going to say "but I've got sidemounts" to which you reply, "I'm 35 knots and you're 30. How will you ever get those sidemounts on target?" The answer is, they won't but, they'll certainly try at which time you get to perforate their bow with your triple stern guns. Even a 35 knot capital can only keep up with it and not necessarily overtake it...and that's assuming you haven't already perforated the bow and put some water in the hull to slow it down! So yeah, I think some of the IJN carriers would be a pond dominating ship if built and battled correctly. There is NO counter to them.
