Question for Bullethead concerning Invincible class BCs.

[TheSatyr]

I was just wondering why in the game Invincible class BCs can only fire 3 turret broadsides? In real life the Invincibles often fired 4 turret broadsides.

Granted the outer wing turret had a limited field of fire,but having just finished reading a book on the Falkland Islands battle it was quite clear that both the Invincible and Inflexible were frequently firing 4 turret broadsides.

[Bullethead]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

IGranted the outer wing turret had a limited field of fire,but having just finished reading a book on the Falkland Islands battle it was quite clear that both the Invincible and Inflexible were frequently firing 4 turret broadsides.

I have never believed those accounts, because 4-turret broadsides from these ships appears to have been physically impossible. But the Invincibles were embelished with mucho propaganda to make them appear more capable than they really were, so I figure this is more of the same.

IMHO, "limited arc of fire" for the far-side turret is a huge understatement. Take a look at the ship from above and you'll see why. For most of the potential arc, the near-side turret is in the way. The far-side turret could only traverse into this area with its guns at maximum elevation to clear the near-side turret's roof. Thus, any firing in this area could only be done at maximum range--nothing shorter. And even then, the near-side turret would block the sights of the far-side turret, not to mention that firing over the top of another turret wasn't done in the RN due to the blast problems. So this big part of the potential far-side arc is ruled out.

That leaves the very narrow gap between the superstructure and the near-side turret. However, this gap is so narrow that there's just barely enough room for the gun tubes, with no room to traverse them. Thus, any firing here would have been along an essentially fixed bearing. While this might have been done on occasion (but doubtful, due to the potential for blast problems in the other turret), it could not have been done very often at all because the target would usually not be in line with the guns. In real life, therefore, I think the only purpose traversing the far-side turret into this gap was to clean the guns.

For these reasons, it was not deemed worth the trouble to implement this dubious arc into the game.

[TheSatyr]

I wouldn't consider eyewitness accounts of gunnery personnel in "Q" turret complaining about the smoke and shock caused when "P" turret fired screwing up their gunnery as dubious,or the photographs I've seen of both midships turrets firing as being dubious,but then I guess it just comes down to which sources you believe.

Personally,that is actually my only complaint with Jutland. I think you guys put out one hell of a game.

[geosub1978]

As far as I know and just for the INVINCIBLES, the firing of a wing turret towards the other side of the ship, caused great stretching of the deck and was not permitted during controlled cases. However during intense BC actions they were definitely used. After all there is a historic photo of HMS INVINCIBLE seconds before the explosion, where you can see that the non firing side wing turret had properly turned to the firing side.

I don't know if this problem of stretching still existed to the next BC and BS classes.

[Bullethead]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

I wouldn't consider eyewitness accounts of gunnery personnel in "Q" turret complaining about the smoke and shock caused when "P" turret fired screwing up their gunnery as dubious,or the photographs I've seen of both midships turrets firing as being dubious,but then I guess it just comes down to which sources you believe.

Well, as I said, except for what was essentially a fixed bearing, it was impossible to fire on the far side except blindly at max elevation. The tiny fixed bearing without this problem was considered of so little utility that it wasn't worth doing. Lots of work for having only momentarily, if any, use in an engagement.