This is a proposal that's not meant to be taken too seriously, but which might be fun.

As I'm sure most, if not all, of you know already, after the battle of Lissa in 1866, some naval architects, most prominently Benedito Brin of Italy, came up with warship designs with their turrets mounted diagonally. This was done so that all of the main guns could fire directly ahead to support a ram.

While there are no rams in the SFU, I've long had crazy thoughts of a W-era FRAX ship with diagonal turrets that could fire in both the forward hex row and rear hex row.

The thoughts were to have these turrets able to fire cross-deck as well.

A ship of this type would have two turrets, each with a single disruptor and a single phaser 2, able to fire in the LS+R and RS+L arc.

The turrets themselves, as a partial explanation for why the designs weren't continued, rotate as per the Qari/Borak turret rules and, when rotated into an arc where they can't fire, are effectively off-line for the next eight impulses.

As I said, this idea really isn't meant to be taken too serious, but as a tribute to a forgotten idea from naval history, is it something anyone else likes?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - 05:16 pm: Edit

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - 10:07 pm: Edit

WOW!

Did you already have that image on file?

(In other words, did I, as usual, "Create" something that's already been discussed?)

To quote a line from a movie, "That's what you (I) get for missing staff meetings."

(Movie # III, right after the crew steal The Ship after springing the Doctor from prison)



In all seriousness, this is VERY much what's been running through my alleged brain for quite a while. The only really noteworthy things was that I was picturing much fewer phasers on it (as a comparison, the D3 has seven phasers while this ship looks like it has fourteen) and I'd imagined the turrets as having two weapons each (a disruptor and a phaser).

Another thing I neglected to mention (just in case this ISN'T an old idea) was the shields. As a W-era ship, I wondered about either having only minimal shields (say, five in every direction?) backed up with belts of directional armor protecting the #'s 2, 3, 5, and 6 shield facings, or having (maybe) ten points of armor, but having shields of 0-8-8-0 as a way of having the very front and rear arcs exposed.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - 12:40 am: Edit

The Chinese DingYuan ironclads also had this turret arrangement (built in Germany). There's a beuatiful 3D render of it in DeviantArt.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - 12:46 am: Edit

*duplicate post*

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - 04:59 am: Edit

I whipped up the image in about five minutes from my memories of those old Italian battleships.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - 08:21 am: Edit

Five minute to do that art work? I hate you. That would have taken me half and hour, at least.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - 03:06 pm: Edit

I started from an existing Frax CA, made it wider, made the bridges narrower, moved the phasers around, created an armored lozenge to hold the barbettes, singled up the guns (putting phasers in the turrets created an uncomfortable sausage and two potatoes image).

To do it from a blank page would take 30 minutes, but from the closest ship, 5 minutes is about average.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Thursday, April 26, 2018 - 01:03 am: Edit

Don't feel too bad about it, Garth.

I know that it would have taken me a couple hours with my best crayons and rulers/straightedges to make anything even remotely like that, and it still would have looked like the #2 that got run through the fan...

(grin)

Speaking of my crayons, SVC, is this idea, in your opinion, something that might be fun enough that I should break out the crayons and graph paper to send a dead-tree prototype SSD in?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 26, 2018 - 02:10 am: Edit

Ball point pen on graph paper, can't beat a classic.

Or just send an email listing the boxes.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Thursday, April 26, 2018 - 12:45 pm: Edit

You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend. Those who draw their SSDs in pencil, and those who draw their SSDs in ink.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, April 26, 2018 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Those who draw their SSDs in pencil, and those who draw their SSDs in ink.

I've moved up to electrons, saves wear and tear...

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Thursday, April 26, 2018 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Ball point pen? Pencil?

*Facepalm*

No wonder my SSDs look so bad...



While I'd love to skip a few rungs and move up to electrons, Stewart, there's a problem I have with it; I'm the computer version of Typhoid Mary. I touch a computer, it gets a virus!

I break Windows!

I turn Apples into Lemons!

They sing "Daisy" whenever they SEE me, regardless of whether they have a speaker or not!

In all seriousness, as I've explained elsewhere, as someone on the Autism spectrum, my brain works well in some areas, but poorly in others. Arithmetic, telling stories, and telling jokes is easy for me. Advanced math, legalese, computer operations, and dealing with the bureaucracy are all but impossible for the way my mind works.

TBH: what little i HAVE done with SFB has been more by accident than by good knowledge on my part, but also as I've said repeatedly, both of the Steves have been VERY kind and patient with me, despite my... Condition... And I appreciate them, and the SFU as a whole, very much.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Although not a FRAX design, another (VERY) screwey thought I had for a real anachronistic ship was one for the Qari.

Much as the diagonal turreted ships (for FRAX) was based on an idea that, in the face of reality, turned out to be a bad idea, there was also a couple of pre-war tank designs that, when faced with the capabilities of better designed tanks, proved lacking; the multi-gunned tanks.

The two that come foremost to my mind were the French Char-1bis and the U.S. M-3 Lee. What I was thinking was that their limited arc heavy guns could be represented by a fixed forward single or two box KKM (or perhaps even a single box KKH), perhaps even limited to a mauler arc, while the turret is limited to using KKLs.

As with the previous diagonal turretted ships in this thread, I had been imagining these things as part of an "April Fool's" package, and limiting them to (at best) "Y" era capabilities (with maybe a German A7V representing a "W" era ship), but as of this time, what I've managed to cook up has been closer to offal than awful.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, November 22, 2018 - 04:03 am: Edit

From what I have read, the big issue with the Lee was NOT the hull gun mounting. It was the overall height & the low velocity of the gun.

the Hetzer, STG, Jagdpanzers, and such assault guns/ tank destroyers did just fine.

Not least of the issues with turreted tanks is the darn cost of the turret & the additional height of the tank. Hence the low profile of the post war Russian tanks, and the S-tank of the Swedes (I always wanted to see one of those things).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, November 22, 2018 - 05:06 am: Edit

Michael Grafton:

I built a model of the Swedish S tank when I was in high school.

For the life of me I could not figure out why it was called a tank rather than a tank destroyer, as it had no turret, just a limited traverse main gun like a Jagdpanther.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, November 22, 2018 - 08:54 am: Edit

I am not at the office today but ask me again tomorrow.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - 11:15 pm: Edit

The S tank traverse ability came with rapid zero turn capabilty using the tracks. It was a turretless tank, not a TD, since doctrinally it was used as a tank, filling the same role. So yes, it could have been called a TD if the Swedes simply changed how they intended to use it. The use versus the design really dictated what they called it.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 12:26 am: Edit

Another thing I read about the S-tank was that, because of its low profile, it was supposedly a difficult target.

With that thought (among others) in mind, what would a SFB S-tank look like? Would the low profile (difficult targeting) translate into using rule G15.8 for it, even though it isn't Orion? Would its rapid turning (which Dennis pointed out) grant it a turn mode of A? Would the size of the main gun (I believe it's 105 millimeter) qualify it as a KKH? Would its fixed location on the hull limit it to Mauler arcs?

(... and should I be required to be the one sliding Cold Ones around as we discuss this?)

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 10:22 am: Edit

Not just a low profile, but ridiculously sloped armor with baffles to pre-detonate HEAT rounds.

World of Tanks has the S-tanks with their "seige mode" hydraulic suspensions. They're pretty hilarious if they get set up on the right terrain.

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, November 29, 2018 - 03:44 am: Edit

I would be interested in seeing what changes, using the basic design, would be made using modern tech.

Advanced armor? "Go Pro" cameras for 360 vision? Could you cram a 120mmm smoothbore into one? Perhaps the 3rd crewman would become the gunner while the commander would only command? I liked that they put a dozer blade on every one for digging fighting positions. Maybe a eensy backhoe (like the one that fits on a bobcat) on the rear for making foxholes at high speed for your infantry?

It's an interesting design exercise.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Thursday, November 29, 2018 - 03:49 pm: Edit

I do know that Rheinmettal (and I'm hoping I spelled that correctly) has a remotely operated system for their 25 millimeter chain gun in a discrete rooftop mounted turret. One of those on the S-tank, perhaps?

In SFB terms, that'd obviously be a 360 degree mounted phaser one.

As far as the backhoe goes, I'm afraid I can't let myself see that one. It adds a lot of weight, requires a massive rework of the hydraulic system (normally only used for the tracks elevations), and would be something prone to breaking down that adds virtually nothing to the main mission of getting main tank gun rounds on targets invading Sweden.

(In a way, it makes me think about the quote regarding regular starships using prospecting charges. I may be paraphrasing this a bit, but there's no real reason why a naval warship wouldn't have a harpoon mounted on it, aside from it takes up deck space, is an accident waiting to happen, does nothing to help the ship accomplish its mission, and probably has nobody on board who knows how to operate it in any event.)

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, November 30, 2018 - 05:35 am: Edit

Actually those backhoes (like on a bobcat) are pretty light. And you'd be amazed at all the things a hoe can do.

A tank NEEDS infantry support.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Friday, November 30, 2018 - 04:14 pm: Edit

I agree wholeheartedly that tanks NEEDS infantry support...

... REAL tanks, that is...

Qari tanks, perhaps less so (although the various MiG fighters qualify as infantry?)

TBH, I've also run other EXTREMELY screwball ideas around in my (alleged) mind regarding Qari tanks; most of these revolve around smokescreens.

IMO, there're already perfect rules for smokescreens in SFB; the plasma cloud generator used by the Alunda.

Given that the Qari are a simulator race, how hard would it be to have the simulators programmed to allow them to use that weapon? For that matter, how about allowing the Qari to deliver the smokescreens by mortars (as an optional arming mode for their TMs)...

I've not tried playtesting them (and suspect that either one could easily end up being a game breaker), but I still want to throw them out there.

(BTW: I've driven bobcats during my time on a construction crew and have used backhoes before. Among friends, yeah, they're cool like few other things! However, I gotta tell you, they can be a maintenance nightmare and the operators panels for them would be HUGE in the confines of any tank. For this reason, I have to respectfully suggest that they be kept in specialist vehicles, rather than be attached to a tank.)