Compensators, Wallers, and tonnage

fleadermouse wrote:Just to be clear about an earlier comment BCL do not have less CM tubes than BCP according to HOS a BCL has 64 CM tubes and 84 PD clusters while a BCP has 60CM tubes and 84 PD clusters.

BCp has 26br 8for 4 aft for a total of 64CM's. I had already stated that the GSN BC'p was superior to the RMN BC'P as it had more CM tubes and had individual missile tubes...

BCL has 64CM on a hull that is 40% larger.

So, yes, BCL does have fewer. The whole argument was derived on a tonnage basis as I had previously pointed out comparing hulls 40% different in tonnage is ludicrous.

Carl wrote:Seriously do you have to use 3 posts to reply.

Yes. Got my points nice and easily delineated. It is easier as well.

wastedfly wrote:

fleadermouse wrote:Just to be clear about an earlier comment BCL do not have less CM tubes than BCP according to HOS a BCL has 64 CM tubes and 84 PD clusters while a BCP has 60CM tubes and 84 PD clusters.

BCp has 26br 8for 4 aft for a total of 64CM's. I had already stated that the GSN BC'p was superior to the RMN BC'P as it had more CM tubes and had individual missile tubes...

BCL has 64CM on a hull that is 40% larger.

So, yes, BCL does have fewer. The whole argument was derived on a tonnage basis as I had previously pointed out comparing hulls 40% different in tonnage is ludicrous.

Oi, just noticed I did say, both RMN/GSN had more CM's. erm not true on RMN side of things.

wastedfly wrote:

wastedfly wrote:BCp has 26br 8for 4 aft for a total of 64CM's. I had already stated that the GSN BC'p was superior to the RMN BC'P as it had more CM tubes and had individual missile tubes...

BCL has 64CM on a hull that is 40% larger.

So, yes, BCL does have fewer. The whole argument was derived on a tonnage basis as I had previously pointed out comparing hulls 40% different in tonnage is ludicrous.

Oi, just noticed I did say, both RMN/GSN had more CM's. erm not true on RMN side of things.

I believe that BC(L) has full off-bore on all CM...and the somewhat older BC(P) designs do not. Possibly the Covington II's do.

dreamrider

Lord Skimper wrote:Only thing you missed is the new smaller mobile forts.

A Fort that can do everything the Wayfarer did with modern pods and LAC and many more of them modern military wedges and Armour pretty much negates the need for bigger SD or SD(P).

They are the in system answer or if you need to attack another system they are the big slow giants that can do what nothing else can.

A Nike BCL is the military ship that does the old SD role.

The CLAC is the new ship that does the WWII aircraft carrier role that replaced the battleship. The LAC the heavy bomber role and fighter space ship role.

perhaps the next SD(P) will not have missiles just be a big CLAC with a pod type LAC launcher.

The mobile Pod and LAC with punching power.

shouldn't be too hard to replace the graser with a mk23 pod.

-shakes head- No, just no.

dreamrider wrote:I believe that BC(L) has full off-bore on all CM...and the somewhat older BC(P) designs do not. Possibly the Covington II's do.

dreamrider

Showing contrarian claws tonight As if a ship with Keyhole is not going to have off bore everything...

Angst! Meow!

Take Deep breaths now

Besides who cares if the Aggies or Corvorsairs do? Has no bearing on the discussion now does it? OH yes, and I am sure the COVINGTON CLAC's have offbore firing CM's...

wastedfly wrote:

dreamrider wrote:I believe that BC(L) has full off-bore on all CM...and the somewhat older BC(P) designs do not. Possibly the Covington II's do.

dreamrider

Showing contrarian claws tonight As if a ship with Keyhole is not going to have off bore everything...

Angst! Meow!

Take Deep breaths now

Besides who cares if the Aggies or Corvorsairs do? Has no bearing on the discussion now does it? OH yes, and I am sure the COVINGTON CLAC's have offbore firing CM's...

The post I added comment to was about BCs, not CLACs. I apologize for having written "Covington II" (I don't think there is one...yet) when I meant to write "Courvosier II".

Only 4+ squadrons (~35 of 85, some dead) of Aggies have Keyhole, and C II's apparently do not. I strongly suspect that even with Keyhole, the retrofitted Aggies only have "limited" off-bore CM, "into adjacent arcs".

First mention of "limited off bore capability", for ship killers, is for the Sag-B, initially operational in 1917 PD. The first class that I am aware of where off-bore CM was been specifically identified is the Nike BC (op circa 1920) although by implication (Battle of Monica), Sag-C (op circa 1920) may have that capability as well.

Flight I Covingtons were operational as early as 1915. So I am not confident that any except the most recent or recently refitted Covington-class CLACs have off-bore CM capability, unless there is textev somewhere of them having or using it.

Uh, firing off bore has everything to do with the missile being shot out the tubes. Remember, RFC made up that hoey, that missiles originally could not "turn the corner" due to velocity sheer Even when they are pulling a hundred thousand gees and have reaction thrusters able to spin longitudinally just fine...

Has zilch to do with the ship class or type other than having enough of RFC's make-believe control links.

Every ship, even pre 1905 ones, now have off bore firing.

Relax wrote:Uh, firing off bore has everything to do with the missile being shot out the tubes. Remember, RFC made up that hoey, that missiles originally could not "turn the corner" due to velocity sheer Even when they are pulling a hundred thousand gees and have reaction thrusters able to spin longitudinally just fine...

Has zilch to do with the ship class or type other than having enough of RFC's make-believe control links.

Every ship, even pre 1905 ones, now have off bore firing.

I wouldn't have phrased it quite like that, but basically I agree.

Offbore missile capability is said to be a factor of the missile design (more accel resistant molicirc) - so any ship with new CMs would have off-bore capable CMs.

IIRC David said that Aggies starting with ship #2 were refit on the ways with Keyhole. So only HMS Agamemnon herself is lacking it. At least for RMN BC(P)s that addresses any issues with insufficient control links.

So their BC(P)s should have the same offbore CM capability as the BC(L)s.


In fact, in Ch 27 of AAC, we see one of the 6 original Agamemnon-class BC(P)s, HMS Hector, (in company with the BC(L) HMS Nike) use her Keyholes to fire CMs fully 90 degrees off-bore while rolled behind her wedge.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:Uh, firing off bore has everything to do with the missile being shot out the tubes. Remember, RFC made up that hoey, that missiles originally could not "turn the corner" due to velocity sheer Even when they are pulling a hundred thousand gees and have reaction thrusters able to spin longitudinally just fine...

Has zilch to do with the ship class or type other than having enough of RFC's make-believe control links.

Every ship, even pre 1905 ones, now have off bore firing.

I wouldn't have phrased it quite like that, but basically I agree.

Offbore missile capability is said to be a factor of the missile design (more accel resistant molicirc) - so any ship with new CMs would have off-bore capable CMs.

IIRC David said that Aggies starting with ship #2 were refit on the ways with Keyhole. So only HMS Agamemnon herself is lacking it. At least for RMN BC(P)s that addresses any issues with insufficient control links.

So their BC(P)s should have the same offbore CM capability as the BC(L)s.


In fact, in Ch 27 of AAC, we see one of the 6 original Agamemnon-class BC(P)s, HMS Hector, (in company with the BC(L) HMS Nike) use her Keyholes to fire CMs fully 90 degrees off-bore while rolled behind her wedge.

Actually, I believe that the Agamemnon itself has the keyhole upgrade - while you could split hairs, technically, it was the #2 ship in the class.

The first finished Agamemnon was the Lord Cromarty, completed with a smaller Podbay and fitted as the Royal Yacht, It was finished while the other 5 or 6 ships waited in a 1/2 completed state due to Janacheck's ineptitude. It's Royal conversion is probably the reason it did not (or could not) receive the Keyhole upgrade.

So most likely, all the 85+ combat BC(p)s have Keyhole I.