The next steps in gunnery w/ gunboats and Canals

AirTech wrote:

Dilandu wrote:Yeah, and this gun failed mizerably; to survive the impact inside the barrel, they were so durable, that the oly way to do some damage with them was to achieve direct hit. When they fall on the ground, they simply made a deep hole, and harmlessly detonated on the bottom.

Germans... They never really knew how to build weapons.

The lack of a proximity fuse was the core of the problem. The Americans got it working in time to block the V-1 threat but the Germans trailed behind. The 280mm cannon deployed by the US Army was about as big as you can go with road mobile gun as opposed to the railway guns that got extensive use during the first world war (but these require a preexisting rail network to move the components. The German V-3 could have done severe damage to London without the allies air superiority but static guns like this require static front lines.

To be fair, German gun issues may be more a matter of getting far too excited about big and powerful without sufficient concern for ammunition, transportation, practicality, and fitting it all into an integrated, sensible organization. Having had a fine learning experience in WWI helped a lot, and they were able to go back to the drawing board and create a new model, nominally mechanized army thereafter with an air force that paid fair attention to the close air support mission.

In their next chances to see how things worked though, they found themselves in conflicts far too easy then far too hopeless (without being able to recognize the difference) to maintain good habits. And Nazi leadership and paramilitary forces aren't conducive to reasonable adjustments of means to ends or of ends to realistic expectations.

RunsInShadows wrote:Well, I would think that given the planet was planned out and settled with much of the same reasoning that was used as people settled the earth. Most population centers can be found along a water source. Be it canal, river, ocean, or lake. At which point it would make sense to have the longer ranges, and higher precision so that you can hit land targets farther inland, and without hitting as many civilian targets.

And for that you need better fire correction - not fire direction.

I.e. you need to develop a system, where a distant observer can correct fire onto a distant target.

Remember, even the smaller calibre guns (i.e. 4 inch) have a range of nearly 10 miles - which is a LOT further then can be corrected from on board the ship.

The range of the KH is sufficient for almost ALL current indirect fire needs - but without the use of a forward observer, it is going to be blind-fire.


One last point - while you are correct in that a lot of Safehold is within a relatively short distance of water - remember that a majority of the water transport routes are relatively small canals. It is going to be difficult to get anything larger then an 8" gun on a canal-base warship.

MWadwell wrote:

RunsInShadows wrote:Well, I would think that given the planet was planned out and settled with much of the same reasoning that was used as people settled the earth. Most population centers can be found along a water source. Be it canal, river, ocean, or lake. At which point it would make sense to have the longer ranges, and higher precision so that you can hit land targets farther inland, and without hitting as many civilian targets.

And for that you need better fire correction - not fire direction.

I.e. you need to develop a system, where a distant observer can correct fire onto a distant target.

Remember, even the smaller calibre guns (i.e. 4 inch) have a range of nearly 10 miles - which is a LOT further then can be corrected from on board the ship.

The range of the KH is sufficient for almost ALL current indirect fire needs - but without the use of a forward observer, it is going to be blind-fire.


One last point - while you are correct in that a lot of Safehold is within a relatively short distance of water - remember that a majority of the water transport routes are relatively small canals. It is going to be difficult to get anything larger then an 8" gun on a canal-base warship.

Unless you build a canal equivalent version of a railway gun. Something like a jack-up oil rig could work (and give a very stable base to work from).

AirTech wrote:

MWadwell wrote:quote="RunsInShadows"Well, I would think that given the planet was planned out and settled with much of the same reasoning that was used as people settled the earth. Most population centers can be found along a water source. Be it canal, river, ocean, or lake. At which point it would make sense to have the longer ranges, and higher precision so that you can hit land targets farther inland, and without hitting as many civilian targets./quote

And for that you need better fire correction - not fire direction.

I.e. you need to develop a system, where a distant observer can correct fire onto a distant target.

Remember, even the smaller calibre guns (i.e. 4 inch) have a range of nearly 10 miles - which is a LOT further then can be corrected from on board the ship.

The range of the KH is sufficient for almost ALL current indirect fire needs - but without the use of a forward observer, it is going to be blind-fire.


One last point - while you are correct in that a lot of Safehold is within a relatively short distance of water - remember that a majority of the water transport routes are relatively small canals. It is going to be difficult to get anything larger then an 8" gun on a canal-base warship.

Unless you build a canal equivalent version of a railway gun. Something like a jack-up oil rig could work (and give a very stable base to work from).

Be a heck of a lot easier just to build steam powered tanks.

MWadwell wrote:
And for that you need better fire correction - not fire direction.

I.e. you need to develop a system, where a distant observer can correct fire onto a distant target.

Remember, even the smaller calibre guns (i.e. 4 inch) have a range of nearly 10 miles - which is a LOT further then can be corrected from on board the ship.

The range of the KH is sufficient for almost ALL current indirect fire needs - but without the use of a forward observer, it is going to be blind-fire.


One last point - while you are correct in that a lot of Safehold is within a relatively short distance of water - remember that a majority of the water transport routes are relatively small canals. It is going to be difficult to get anything larger then an 8" gun on a canal-base warship.

I think fire correction falls under the purview of fire direction.

Fire Direction is definitely doable from aboard just about any ship if you could get high enough. IIRC, the old WWI four stacker destroyers had a viewing platform on a mast right behind the bridge that was used for Fire direction, among other things, because they couldn't depend on air or satellite recon for marine tageting. That said however, directing fire to land targets is a bit more challenging given topology, so one might have to go even higher and/or maneuver to get a view.

I agree that most ships won't be able to go into the canal systems, thus gun boats capable of taking a couple medium sized cartridge loading guns on turrets would be preferable. 4"/50s have about a 9mile range, and use cartridge ammo, so rate of fire is insane compared to the enemy. problem is, I don't know if charisian steel is up to the standards needed for the 4"/50 yet least of all the powder.

Does any one know the Average Dimensions of a safehold canal?

If we use the Erie Canal, as it was when the first enlargements were finished in 1862, as an example, we can expect 70ft wide and 7ft deep. I'm guessing that the safehold canals are actually a bit different than this, given the canals that were created upon colonization of the planet. Present day Erie Canal is 120ft wide and 12ft deep, though I'm guessing safehold locks couldn't handle that volume of water.

These canal sizes would allow for a good size boat to pass. Make a gunboat with about a 30ft max beam, and a shallow draft of 6ft or so. Length would be limited by the length that could be reasonably turned around in the canal(I'm guessing that there are places that are specifically made for turning around, though I have no textev to support this).
.

RunsInShadows wrote:If we use the Erie Canal, as it was when the first enlargements were finished in 1862, as an example, we can expect 70ft wide and 7ft deep. I'm guessing that the safehold canals are actually a bit different than this, given the canals that were created upon colonization of the planet. Present day Erie Canal is 120ft wide and 12ft deep, though I'm guessing safehold locks couldn't handle that volume of water.

These canal sizes would allow for a good size boat to pass. Make a gunboat with about a 30ft max beam, and a shallow draft of 6ft or so. Length would be limited by the length that could be reasonably turned around in the canal(I'm guessing that there are places that are specifically made for turning around, though I have no textev to support this).
.

Why would you need to turn around? Since the canal boats are powered externally, i.e., by draft dragons, both ends can be pointy and all you need do is unhitch them from one end and move them to the other. I had thought that the safeholdian canals were similar to the narrow British canal system, which according to Wikipedia: "For reasons of economy and the constraints of 18th century engineering technology, the early canals were built to a narrow width. The standard for the dimensions of narrow canal locks was set by Brindley with his first canal locks, those on the Trent and Mersey Canal in 1776. These locks were 72 feet 7 inches (22.1 m) long by 7 feet 6 inches (2.3 m) wide.[13] The narrow width was perhaps set by the fact that he was only able to build Harecastle Tunnel to accommodate 7 feet (2.1 m) wide boats" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_system#18th_century Although that size would not really allow for the riverine gunboats that are now operating on them. Certainly the original Erie Canal at 40' wide provides a better model. "The original canal was 363 miles (584 km) long, from Albany on the Hudson to Buffalo on Lake Erie. The channel was cut 40 feet (12 m) wide and 4 feet (1.2 m) deep, with removed soil piled on the downhill side to form a walkway known as a towpath." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal

Keith_w wrote:
Why would you need to turn around? Since the canal boats are powered externally, i.e., by draft dragons, both ends can be pointy and all you need do is unhitch them from one end and move them to the other. I had thought that the safeholdian canals were similar to the narrow British canal system, which according to Wikipedia: "For reasons of economy and the constraints of 18th century engineering technology, the early canals were built to a narrow width. The standard for the dimensions of narrow canal locks was set by Brindley with his first canal locks, those on the Trent and Mersey Canal in 1776. These locks were 72 feet 7 inches (22.1 m) long by 7 feet 6 inches (2.3 m) wide.[13] The narrow width was perhaps set by the fact that he was only able to build Harecastle Tunnel to accommodate 7 feet (2.1 m) wide boats" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_system#18th_century Although that size would not really allow for the riverine gunboats that are now operating on them. Certainly the original Erie Canal at 40' wide provides a better model. "The original canal was 363 miles (584 km) long, from Albany on the Hudson to Buffalo on Lake Erie. The channel was cut 40 feet (12 m) wide and 4 feet (1.2 m) deep, with removed soil piled on the downhill side to form a walkway known as a towpath." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal

The gunboats would probably be internally powered, like KH. With KH's guns arranged as they are and twin screws/steam engines, she has a beam in excess of the 15 ft nessisary to operate in a canal 40' wide, and I'll just about guarantee she has a draft lower than the 3.5ft.

IIRC, many of the first canals were dug by orbital weaponry(?). Given this, and the prescriptions for taking care of the locks, why wouldn't they make the canals big enough to handle the traffic that will eventually grow to be on it? IMO, the 70'wide by 7' deep canal is the ideal size to allow for reasonable barge sizes, and traffic. This size would also be just about ideal for maintenance of the locks by the technology of the day with the help of the prescriptions.

Was KH compared to an old earth warship in the books that we might be able to get dimensions?

RunsInShadows wrote:
Was KH compared to an old earth warship in the books that we might be able to get dimensions?

As i recall, the data of KH's is:

HMS King Haarahld 896 Redesign

Design Displacement:
11,400 Tons

Dimensions:
Length: 431’ 6”
Beam: 76’ 1”
Draft: 22’4”

Armament:
4 10”/40 (2 x 2 centerline with shields)
10 8”/40 (10 x 1 in casemates)
8 4”/45 (8 x 1 with shields)

Machinery:
2-shaft, triple expansion: 31,000 SHP

Speed:
28.3 knots (24.6 Old Earth knots)

Bunkerage:
Design: 2,500 tons
Maximum: 3,600 tons

Endurance:
7,143/10,286 miles @ 12.5 knots (10.9 Old Earth knots).
3,643/5,294 miles @ 21 knots (18.2 Old Earth knots)

Armor:
The main armor belt is 220’ long, 12’ deep, and 6” inches thick, tapering to 2” at the lower end. It extends from the main deck to 5’ below the waterline. The ends of the belt are closed by 5” armored bulkheads, and a secondary belt 2.25” thick extends from the ends of the main belt to bow and stern. The deck is protected by 1.5” armor.

The 6” guns are mounted in a casemate protected by 6” armor. The 10” guns are protected by open-topped gun shields with 6” faces and 4” side panels. The 4” guns are protected by gun shields with 2” faces and 2” side panels. All guns are capable of "all around" loading.

The belt armor is backed by 6” of Charisian teak, reduced from the original 12” following experience with the River-class ironclads in 896.

My visualisation (definitely not canon, but right in dimensions and weapon arragement):

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/ ... 81e9mw.png

Generally speaking, the KH's is a type of late-XIX-to-early-XX centuries armored cruiser; presumably british type.

RunsInShadows wrote:If we use the Erie Canal, as it was when the first enlargements were finished in 1862, as an example, we can expect 70ft wide and 7ft deep. I'm guessing that the safehold canals are actually a bit different than this, given the canals that were created upon colonization of the planet. Present day Erie Canal is 120ft wide and 12ft deep, though I'm guessing safehold locks couldn't handle that volume of water.

These canal sizes would allow for a good size boat to pass. Make a gunboat with about a 30ft max beam, and a shallow draft of 6ft or so. Length would be limited by the length that could be reasonably turned around in the canal(I'm guessing that there are places that are specifically made for turning around, though I have no textev to support this).
.

The later Miami-Erie canal had a minimum depth of 4 feet and could accommodate boats up to 90 ft (27 m) long and 14 ft (4.3 m) wide. It was designed for 2 way traffic (though the locks were usually singletons). The Ohio Portions (side branches went into Indiana and were less regulated since they were not bound by the Ohio laws which created the main Canal) were at least 40 foot wide, with wider turn arounds every 10 miles or so.

Remember, the original Safeholdian canals are considerably smaller then the newer ones. Knowing the size of the "Volunteer" at the Providence locks in Ohio, I'd imagine that the existing ironclads couldn't use the Ohio system - which makes me wonder about their useability in the older canals.