Has anyone heard of the two-inch rule and how it can make the game stranger?

[kriegerfaust]

Applying the two-inch rule is simple if you want to increase the size of a gun by two inches you must remove one gun.  An example would be taking the Iowa and give her eighteen-inch guns you must go from three-gun turrets to two-gun turrets.  You could do the same thing in reverse and down gun an eight-inch heavy cruiser with twin guns to a six-inch cruiser with three-gun turrets.  Of course, in insanity you could have five gun and single gun turret battleships but let's leave that alone for the moment.   

What about a cruiser with quad six-inch inch guns (If this exists let me know) or a destroyer with triple three-inch guns.  The only trouble is pinning ships given that you are reduced to a lower caliber as in game reduction of caliber like in real life does not seem to lead to a drastic reduction in range.   Or even imagine destroyers with a seven-inch gun.  Of course, width is only one way of measuring a gun we can look at the British fifteen and sixteen-inch guns as well as the super heavy shell.  We can see that the length or caliber maybe be even more important as well as velocity when exiting the gun in effecting penetration at least.

The comparison of the large 7.6 round of the AK-47 to the M-16 5.6 round or comparing the 9MM and 45 caliber rounds or SM6 and pistols.  Add in the importance of rate of fire and multiple hits and the water gets muddy i mean we can see in real history a move away from heavy to light cruisers for this very same reason.  But for my own sanity has anyone heard of the two-inch rule that is moving a gun up or down two inches means you can add or subtract a gun from the same turret.  Maybe i am just going crazy but it does seem to apply a lot of the time, this could just be an answer looking for a question.

[Project45_Opytny]

Plymouth.

In essence a general rule of thumb regarding turret swap designs, though the problem in my opinion is that previously such designs were generally frown upon.

Again talking about CL/CA without referring to the Treaty regime.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, kriegerfaust said:

Applying the two-inch rule is simple if you want to increase the size of a gun by two inches you must remove one gun.  An example would be taking the Iowa and give her eighteen-inch guns you must go from three-gun turrets to two-gun turrets.  You could do the same thing in reverse and down gun an eight-inch heavy cruiser with twin guns to a six-inch cruiser with three-gun turrets.  Of course, in insanity you could have five gun and single gun turret battleships but let's leave that alone for the moment.   

What about a cruiser with quad six-inch inch guns (If this exists let me know) or a destroyer with triple three-inch guns.  The only trouble is pinning ships given that you are reduced to a lower caliber as in game reduction of caliber like in real life does not seem to lead to a drastic reduction in range.   Or even imagine destroyers with a seven-inch gun.  Of course, width is only one way of measuring a gun we can look at the British fifteen and sixteen-inch guns as well as the super heavy shell.  We can see that the length or caliber maybe be even more important as well as velocity when exiting the gun in effecting penetration at least.

The comparison of the large 7.6 round of the AK-47 to the M-16 5.6 round or comparing the 9MM and 45 caliber rounds or SM6 and pistols.  Add in the importance of rate of fire and multiple hits and the water gets muddy i mean we can see in real history a move away from heavy to light cruisers for this very same reason.  But for my own sanity has anyone heard of the two-inch rule that is moving a gun up or down two inches means you can add or subtract a gun from the same turret.  Maybe i am just going crazy but it does seem to apply a lot of the time, this could just be an answer looking for a question.

This is the first I've heard of the two-inch rule.
But, it makes sense, given the engineering capabilities during the 1930's through the 1940's.

The projectile & gunpowder hoisting and handling equipment, the metallurgy of the gun barrels and their associated mechanisms (which hold, elevate & traverse them) and the weight of the turret designed to contain and protect the entire assembly from anticipated threats.

Experiments were performed by various nation's navies and Japan's wasn't the only navy to research 18-inch guns.
But, after all the experiments were done, and the performances acheived and the trade-offs considered, legitimate virtues, vices & quirks were found.

The Other Ships With 18in Guns - with Special Guest Drachinifel

 

[Arcus_Aesopi]

1 hour ago, kriegerfaust said:

Applying the two-inch rule is simple if you want to increase the size of a gun by two inches you must remove one gun.  An example would be taking the Iowa and give her eighteen-inch guns you must go from three-gun turrets to two-gun turrets.  You could do the same thing in reverse and down gun an eight-inch heavy cruiser with twin guns to a six-inch cruiser with three-gun turrets.  Of course, in insanity you could have five gun and single gun turret battleships but let's leave that alone for the moment.   

What about a cruiser with quad six-inch inch guns (If this exists let me know) or a destroyer with triple three-inch guns.  The only trouble is pinning ships given that you are reduced to a lower caliber as in game reduction of caliber like in real life does not seem to lead to a drastic reduction in range.   Or even imagine destroyers with a seven-inch gun.  Of course, width is only one way of measuring a gun we can look at the British fifteen and sixteen-inch guns as well as the super heavy shell.  We can see that the length or caliber maybe be even more important as well as velocity when exiting the gun in effecting penetration at least.

The comparison of the large 7.6 round of the AK-47 to the M-16 5.6 round or comparing the 9MM and 45 caliber rounds or SM6 and pistols.  Add in the importance of rate of fire and multiple hits and the water gets muddy i mean we can see in real history a move away from heavy to light cruisers for this very same reason.  But for my own sanity has anyone heard of the two-inch rule that is moving a gun up or down two inches means you can add or subtract a gun from the same turret.  Maybe i am just going crazy but it does seem to apply a lot of the time, this could just be an answer looking for a question.

I haven't heard of it.  The video @Wolfswetpaws shared was interesting in how and why most nations (except IJN) settled at 16" for their "biggest" naval gun.

It doesn't make sense to me for an existing ship.  You'd have to replace the whole turret due to the vast amounts of steel involved in changing the gun enclosure, carriage and movement mechanisms... not to mention the elevation changes and additional powder/shell handling equipment for the extra barrel.  Early enough in construction, perhaps it could be considered similarly to the 8" AA main gun battleship version that wasn't ever made.

What one "could" do probably doesn't matter unless one is going to change the whole turret and it's shell/charge handling equipment.

[kriegerfaust]

Meet the four ships of the IJN Mogami Class followers of the 2-inch rule

For the 1931 Fleet Replenishment Program, believing themselves understrength in cruisers, the IJN chose to build to the maximum allowed by the Washington Naval Treaty. This resulted in the choice of 155 mm (6.1 in) guns in five triple turrets (a first for Japan) in the Mogamis, also capable of 55° elevation, making the Mogamis one of the very few classes of cruiser to have a dual purpose (DP) main battery; this was coupled with very heavy anti-aircraft protection, as well as the standard reloadable, turreted torpedo launchers, also unique to the IJN.^[1]

Following Japan's withdrawal from the Second London Naval Treaty, plans were made to modernize and expand the entire fleet. Beginning in 1939, the class was brought in for substantial reconstruction, replacing the triple 155 mm turrets with twin 203 mm (8-inch) guns, turning over the 155 mm turrets for the battleships of the Yamato class.^[6] Indeed, the designers had designed the class in mind so that the 6-inch guns could be switched with 8-inch batteries, in effect making them heavy cruisers and skirting the London Naval Treaty, though the Japanese had withdrawn from the conference and were not signatories to the Second London Naval Treaty of 1936.

[invicta2012]

5 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

An example would be taking the Iowa and give her eighteen-inch guns you must go from three-gun turrets to two-gun turrets.  You could do the same thing in reverse and down gun an eight-inch heavy cruiser with twin guns to a six-inch cruiser with three-gun turrets.  Of course, in insanity you could have five gun and single gun turret battleships but let's leave that alone for the moment.   

That happened, though. HMS Courageous (2 x 2 x 15 inch guns) and HMS Furious (2 x 1 x 18 inch guns) - same ship design and (I believe) same proportions of barbettes, etc to allow 15 inch guns to be retrofitted to Furious if the 18 inch guns were unsatisfactory. They weren't, but the ship was too lightly built for them. 

Where the two-inch rule might fall down, though, is with smaller calibre guns. There is no doubt that 6 inch / 155mm guns work in a triple turret - every major navy had a cruiser with this kind of armament - but 4/4.5/5 inch turrets didn't lend themselves to the triple arrangement at all.

[Project45_Opytny]

29 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

That happened, though. HMS Courageous (2 x 2 x 15 inch guns) and HMS Furious (2 x 1 x 18 inch guns) - same ship design and (I believe) same proportions of barbettes, etc to allow 15 inch guns to be retrofitted to Furious if the 18 inch guns were unsatisfactory. They weren't, but the ship was too lightly built for them. 

Where the two-inch rule might fall down, though, is with smaller calibre guns. There is no doubt that 6 inch / 155mm guns work in a triple turret - every major navy had a cruiser with this kind of armament - but 4/4.5/5 inch turrets didn't lend themselves to the triple arrangement at all.

A triple gun mount for 4-inch gun was developed for a few British battlecruisers (Renown and Courageous-classes) but I recall turned unsatisfactory (too bulky in relation with their calibre) in service.

[Yedwy]

Yes its a “rule of thumb” thing for BB main guns in the dreadnoght era and up to ww2, I guess one could extend it to other ship types and sec armament to a degree even if said is not quite so simple regarding those

[Ensign Cthulhu]

5 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

but I recall turned unsatisfactory (too bulky in relation with their calibre) in service.

The bulk wasn't the problem. If anything, the problem was the opposite - the breeches were too close together in the name of compactness and the loaders therefore got in each other's way, so that what we call the DPM wasn't all that much better than a twin mount if at all. 

[Aethervox]

13 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

Applying the two-inch rule

They say that's all you need ....... . Please, OP, your topic is a really, imo, bad idea. WoWS has already got far too many bogus gimmicks as it is.

[Nevermore135]

12 hours ago, Arcusaesopi said:

I haven't heard of it.  The video @Wolfswetpaws shared was interesting in how and why most nations (except IJN) settled at 16" for their "biggest" naval gun.

It doesn't make sense to me for an existing ship.  You'd have to replace the whole turret due to the vast amounts of steel involved in changing the gun enclosure, carriage and movement mechanisms... not to mention the elevation changes and additional powder/shell handling equipment for the extra barrel.  Early enough in construction, perhaps it could be considered similarly to the 8" AA main gun battleship version that wasn't ever made.

What one "could" do probably doesn't matter unless one is going to change the whole turret and it's shell/charge handling equipment.

The only times it had any practical historical implication was when ships were specifically designed with such a conversion in mind, with the original turrets being earmarked for another use. As has already been brought up, the Mogami-class is the most well-known example, with their triple 155mm guns being specifically designed to have the same barbette diameter and weight (or near close enough) to facilitate the change to 203mm twin turrets once Japan was free of their Treaty obligations. The 155mm guns were repurposed as secondary armament for the Yamato-class, as well as the main armament of Ooyodo. The Germans did something similar with the Scharnhorst-class: the class was planned to mount the same 15” guns found on Bismarck and Tirpitz, but German industry (which was coming of a long hiatus from manufacturing large naval guns) lacked the know-how to produce the guns on the needed timetable. As a result, the ships were instead fitted with triple 11” turrets that evolved from those found on the Deutschland-class that utilized the same barbette structure as the 15” guns in development. Gnesineau had her guns removed, even if the 15” refit was never started, and one of her turrets can still be found today as a decommissioned coastal battery in Norway.

Where the “two-inch” rule has greater relevance is when it comes to the design of new ships. For example, the most well-known A-150 design (Shikishima) mounted three twin 20” turrets in place of her predecessors’ three triple 18.1” turrets because such a design would necessitate only relatively minor changes to the Yamato-class hull design. The Colorado-class hulls were also very closely based on those of the preceding Tennessee-class, with the 4x3 14” armament replaced by 4x2 16” guns.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Nevermore135]

9 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

That happened, though. HMS Courageous (2 x 2 x 15 inch guns) and HMS Furious (2 x 1 x 18 inch guns) - same ship design and (I believe) same proportions of barbettes, etc to allow 15 inch guns to be retrofitted to Furious if the 18 inch guns were unsatisfactory. They weren't, but the ship was too lightly built for them. 

The Courageous-class ships were arguably too lightly built for even the 15” guns.

The other major reason Furious was considered a failure in her battlecruiser/“large light cruiser” form was that there were severe drawbacks to having only two guns each in their own turret. For large-caliber guns there is a certain minimum number of shells per salvo/firing event that is ideal for assessing the fall of shot (because dispersion was even more pronounced IRL than in-game) and subsequent adjustment of a firing solution. For the USN and the Royal Navy, 3-4 shells was considered the ideal minimum for this purpose.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Arcus_Aesopi]

Answering the title about making the game stranger... no problem!  We already have ships that can change their main guns between battles!   Pixels rule!

Großer Kurfürst for one 🙂

[Nevermore135]

9 minutes ago, Arcusaesopi said:

Answering the title about making the game stranger... no problem!  We already have ships that can change their main guns between battles!   Pixels rule!

Großer Kurfürst for one 🙂

Give it some time. Eventually WG will announce that GK (and FdG) will lose one of the gun options due to it being rarely used, followed shortly by the announcement of new premiums with said armament. 😆

On a more serious note, I’m still surprised that WG hasn’t done this with Mogami.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Nevermore135

[invicta2012]

On 11/27/2023 at 7:54 AM, Project45_Opytny said:

A triple gun mount for 4-inch gun was developed for a few British battlecruisers (Renown and Courageous-classes) but I recall turned unsatisfactory (too bulky in relation with their calibre) in service.

Keystone Cops, by all accounts, as @Ensign Cthulhu points out - three teams attempting to load guns as fast as they could, just got in each others way. The French did make a 5 inch quad mount for Dunkerque but that was, essentially, two twin mounts in a single turret, and considering it the twin mount didn't work very well, the quad was even more challenging. There are some Italian 5 inch triples on some BBs but generally speaking twin mounts were the right size for DDs and small cruisers, where it's important to be firing quickly rather than having a maximum weight of salvo available. 

15 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

On a more serious note, I’m still surprised that WG hasn’t done this with Mogami.

They've been asked enough times, to be honest, but I think the prevaling view is that an 8 inch Moggie would make the Tech Tree line too similar. I would be very happy with a Premium version, but perhaps Atago/Takao have that base covered.

[Nevermore135]

4 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

They've been asked enough times, to be honest, but I think the prevaling view is that an 8 inch Moggie would make the Tech Tree line too similar. I would be very happy with a Premium version, but perhaps Atago/Takao have that base covered.

The 155mm option is more popular with the players, but given the devs’ historical hesitance to buff the 155s it’s pretty obvious that they never intended for so many players to not “upgrade” to the 203mm guns. The 155mm option on Mogami is really a relic of an older philosophy in the development process where historical nods were considered more important that gameplay/line progression continuity. Even then, she remains as one of very few tech tree ships with multiple gun options (and the only ship that uses two different dispersion models as well) and the one that produces by far the most different gameplay experience.

Ever since WG started playing with the tech tree by removing gun options (Conqueror, Z23) and replacing ships entirely (Kirov, Moskva, etc.) I’ve always gotten the impression that the devs would be happy to remove the 155mm option and sell it as premium a la the path chosen for Legends to produce a more coherent tech tree. The only thing holding the devs back is that the 155mm guns are so much more popular than the “more appropriate” 203s, and they seem to be aware enough to not want to kick over that anthill. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Ensign Cthulhu]

5 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

I would be very happy with a Premium version, but perhaps Atago/Takao have that base covered.

A lot of people, me included, were very surprised when they didn't kick 155mm Mogami out as a premium (giving her for free to anyone who already had her unlocked) and unify the CA line in terms of armament progression. I sometimes think the thing which prevented this is that WG is for some reason loath to create Tier 8 coal ships - and all the tech tree line pulls that became premiums are coal ships. 

The other thing they could have done is to kick her over to the other tech-tree line. As things stand, as good as Mogami is, as a co-op main I'm starting to become even more fond of Shimanto. Her reload might be slower, but her turrets turn like grease lightning and almost all of them are 360 degree rotators, while her torpedo arcs are far more user-friendly in the attack.

[Asym]

On 11/26/2023 at 7:59 PM, kriegerfaust said:

Applying the two-inch rule is simple if you want to increase the size of a gun by two inches you must remove one gun.  An example would be taking the Iowa and give her eighteen-inch guns you must go from three-gun turrets to two-gun turrets.  You could do the same thing in reverse and down gun an eight-inch heavy cruiser with twin guns to a six-inch cruiser with three-gun turrets.  Of course, in insanity you could have five gun and single gun turret battleships but let's leave that alone for the moment.   

What about a cruiser with quad six-inch inch guns (If this exists let me know) or a destroyer with triple three-inch guns.  The only trouble is pinning ships given that you are reduced to a lower caliber as in game reduction of caliber like in real life does not seem to lead to a drastic reduction in range.   Or even imagine destroyers with a seven-inch gun.  Of course, width is only one way of measuring a gun we can look at the British fifteen and sixteen-inch guns as well as the super heavy shell.  We can see that the length or caliber maybe be even more important as well as velocity when exiting the gun in effecting penetration at least.

The comparison of the large 7.6 round of the AK-47 to the M-16 5.6 round or comparing the 9MM and 45 caliber rounds or SM6 and pistols.  Add in the importance of rate of fire and multiple hits and the water gets muddy i mean we can see in real history a move away from heavy to light cruisers for this very same reason.  But for my own sanity has anyone heard of the two-inch rule that is moving a gun up or down two inches means you can add or subtract a gun from the same turret.  Maybe i am just going crazy but it does seem to apply a lot of the time, this could just be an answer looking for a question.

In rifles, the paradigm shifted in WW1 from Accuracy to Volume of Fire.  Which, is a "constant" discussion for almost every combat weapon ever discussed.  Why would ships not be included....  Examples:  Aviation that started with rifle cartridge Machine guns to seriously dangerous aviation cannons (i.e. the German M108...) - Yikes.... 

And, as an aside, I hate the 5.56 Cartridge and many of us called it a "barbie gun" before several authors took up the Barbie moniker in books they have written.  And, the heated discussion as to the optimal Infantry cartridge continues to this day....  Ships are no different - except that Guns on ships are really rare these days....