AA design.

[Average AMD neanderthal]

hi folks, i am trying to make an AA cannon within the dimensions of a 3x3 axis turret (exluding space taken by ammo clips and feeders) with a building height of 9 to maybe even 10 blocks. so that it fits nice and tight on a destroyer/light cruiser.

its all up and running but i feel like the firepower is lackluster. its currently 3 barrels that sit at only 60mm and despite spamming coolers within the dimensions, it does need 1 or 2 seconds to cool off before another burst. next to that, i tried to make a time fused flak shell but it won't detonate at all. i figured the simplest way to solve that was to use a laser targeter to set the right distances for me. but that doesn't seem to work either. it says its connected but it doesn't point a laser so its obviously not working.

so to summarize:
- at what gauge would a 2 to 4 barrel AA be relevant? (keep in mind the ship is only light cruiser size at best)
- what would the shell composition look like for a timed fused one to make it deadly and working?
- how will i get the damned laser targeter to do its work when its connected?
- and what would the estimated amount of cooling look like to give it an acceptable fire rate?

[FourGreenFields]

Originally posted by PandréTheYandere:

the low fire rate did the trick then?

Yes. RoF limit adds a delay after every shot (as opposed to fire delay in the first tab, which adds the delay before fireing; you generally don't want to use that, and be it just because it's a "not pretty" way to set RoF, previously also prevented projectile-follow).

Originally posted by PandréTheYandere:

i also tried to learn from your advice of the tracer rounds by looking at wich input feeders took a warhead and wich took a tracer in your design. but they all seem to be taking the warhead? the shells look similiar so i changed one of the heads to smoke just to be sure i am telling them apart. but every single feeder is on the same shell. so how is the tracer shell still getting in and firing from the gun?

Top-most loader, and the 3. loader from the bottom. All of their feeders should be connected to the tracer-variant, if I didn't mess up.

[Average AMD neanderthal]

logically assuming that the green shell is always the selected shell, every shell is a warhead and i am not seeing where a tracer round is going in lol. they do come out of the barrel though.

[Average AMD neanderthal]

could it just be a visual bug perhaps? the tracer rounds got to be coming from somewhere or the AA wouldn't shoot them either.

[FourGreenFields]

Ok, it seems I did mess up. All feeders were connected to the tracers...
Still, it does show that they're different designs in the feeders' Q-menu: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1612307083

[Average AMD neanderthal]

i guess ill get half the feeders to aim towards the other shell? by the way, how do you suggest i would even armor it. i mean, its strength is its length more so than its width lol. space wise. still got to make a few main armaments after all.

[FourGreenFields]

Originally posted by PandréTheYandere:

i guess ill get half the feeders to aim towards the other shell?

I'd recommend more-or-less what I had intended to do: Top-most and 3. from the bottom getting tracers, the rest not. And perhaps only part of their feeders, because 1/3 of the shells being tracers is still a bit of a waste.

Or you could do 1 feeder per loader using tracer. That'd mean 1/5 shells being tracers, but also that there'll be a "burst" of 3 tracers quite often.

Originally posted by PandréTheYandere:

by the way, how do you suggest i would even armor it. i mean, its strength is its length more so than its width lol. space wise. still got to make a few main armaments after all.

2m metal for unimportant stuff (e.g. empty rooms in the bow, if you leave any). 2-3m + some HESH and/or HEAT-protection (e.g. metal poles parallel to the armour, possibly with wood in front) for non-vitals (fuel storage, engines, etc.). 3-4m + HESH & HEAT protection (wood -> diagonal slope -> 1-2m metal) for AI and ammo. AI obviously also some EMP-protection. Turrets probably somewhere between ammo and non-vitals. Probably mostly 2m for deck armour.

That is, unless you want to rely heavily on active defences (shields, LAMS, possibly warping). 'Cause while 2m is 3 times as tough as 1m, it still won't last long against powerfull weapons, and APHE CRAMs will easily get through that (RIP internals). Also, HESH and HEAT will practically ignore 2-4m armour, unless you set up your armour to counter it.

[Average AMD neanderthal]

it is a challenge for my amount of play hours to make all that armour weaponry and AI fit in a destroyer sized vessel, but i like to challenge myself so ill be working on it.

by the way, i want to make this destroyer according to real life feasible standards. meaning no magic shields and laser discos :P. my competitive vessel gets a different design.

with that established, what sort of main armaments can i make between 150 and 299mm that still does actual damage? it would feel silly to just slap 400 to 500mm on a destroyer class. what can i effectively use at those gauges to have some high fire rate and actual damage?

[Average AMD neanderthal]

alright so, lets say i want to have a conventional design. can i pull it off decently enough with a few rapid fire 299mm main armaments, some good AA to counter planes and missiles and some torpedo launchers/missile silo's? perhaps both if i can find the space for it.

don't forget that its supposed to be a destroyer so as for the armour, it won't be the meta ship of your dreams, but i do intend to make it decent while being just as mobile and sneaky as an actual destroyer to partially avoid damage.

[Javelin99]

I would like to present to you a valid alternative. One that is still at least remotely effective, fast in speed, and doesn't require much more room than at maximum 3 - 4 blocks in length and width.

I come here representing the creation of a madman: The AAAutocannon. It's construction is near effortless. A single axis turret of one meter, a weapon control block flipped onto it's face, a failsafe ontop, a receiver on the new front, and two autocannons on either side. This would allow one to maintain speeds and rapidity that would be sacrificed otherwise. The damage would not be compromised through propellant, but is lackluster by itself by anything with a multi-layer of metal without time. I present three versions for available construction:

The single autocannon, I would rate as more traversable, but less damaging in comparison and with less shells to fire. This would by itself be great for very enclosed spaces.

Next up is the standard dual autocannon. This would be slightly less traversable depending on it's available placement and surroundings. However it gets an additional 9 shots, and I would rate as being more accurate than the single due to multiple paths of shells.

Finally, the Frankenstein. This will require one standard block behind it, and one block per it's left and right sides. This would be able to hold six autocannons, and cover various open directions, making it's "accuracy" or at least chance to hit something fast moving higher. This also comes with additional shells, 54 I believe with all guns having a three second reload pause. This weapon I'd recommend to utilize against faster erratic aircraft. These can also be utilized similar to the dual to be used as close ranged offensive weaponry, able to reach where no other weapon can. I'd recommend this design for that purpose mostly however, as it's top mounted guns could actually reach over the defensive barrier. Or, you could just build a turret upside down underneath it.

Now with extended space to the sides of course, you can even turn this into a 8 or even 10 gun turret. But it's strength comes more from numbers. On a broadside, you could utilize an insane amount of these weapons to engage a singular or multiple targets. While probably mostly ineffective against all seacraft beyond a submarine and armoured frigate or patrol craft, [unless in extremist numbers more so.] It will be a highly effective anti-aircraft gun except on the most armoured of craft. These could also be utilized to take down missiles with enough design tweaks. I'd highly recommend this AA weapon design, with the second place in cost going to a proper missile system, but overall effectiveness going towards missiles due to modifyable damage without much room being taken except vertically, which could just be solved by making a turret atop deck to ignore it.

These weapon systems in comparison are mostly cost effective, and have been thoroughly tested. When fired directly upwards, they can even reach or nearly reach the range of what could be considered "space". But I wouldn't recommend it as an anti-starship weapon whatsoever, unless you had millions of them, or the enemy craft was so large that it'd be computer breaking to actually bother armouring it. In terms of being the best, that is subjective as can be. But I do again, recommend it as a cheap alternative weapon system with a reasonable damage input by itself. For a ship that is say, 133 meters long, and 16 meters wide, on a single side and spaced out for maximum possible traverse on that side, you could place one dual AAA gun per four blocks. More if it's a single gun version. For maximum placement effectiveness, I'd recommend the furthest part, usually the barrel of their guns, be at least 1, and most 3, blocks apart from another turret. But that's mostly for preventing traverse issues.

But to answer the thread directly if I must, primarily the end section. There is no 4 meter long barrel AA gun, especially underneath 100+mms, that would be an overall effective weapon system with AA-rated range. The lowest tier I'd even go as far to recommend would be a double or single barrel 235mm, with a barrel length of at least 7 - 10 meters. Even then, a shell would be lackluster against larger and heavier aircraft unless designed to detonate within the interior of a target, but that, and given if there was a setting for it in the first place now, would be sacrificing damage potential for armour piercing. You'd need more weapon systems of various design and shell type to be even be remotely effective. However if range is not a problem for you, a weapon of 120mm, 5 - 7 meters in barrel length, and a shell that is mostly fragmentation and whatever else you deem necessary with low propellant could still be "effective". Not an amazing craft murderer, but with time it could get the job done. Fragmentation and some form of reasonable speed, or that and armour piercing in general would do the job. Last time I tested flak and HE, it was practically as relevant of an anti-air gun as one of those battleship shells made for blowing aircraft out of the sky. But an update might of boosted one or both, so meh.

Either way, I would personally, as the gun shill I am, to utilize autocannon turrets instead. Take up far less space, and you could have a smaller ship in general but still have enough AA guns to defend it. Only on the superstructure on anything smaller than 21 meters in width and 100 meters in length would I recommend a dedicated advanced cannon AA gun, because at least then you have enough space to make a large gun with 360 traverse and good damage and range.

[Average AMD neanderthal]

i see alot of different advices in terms of setups and alternatives from alot of people. but i keep thinking about what's best to choose and how to make the dimensions just right for my ship so that its good enough and it fits :p. while still maintaining minimal to medium level armour standards. as APS cannons do like their space. so for reference again since fourgreenfields already requested it the first time:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1612792416

here is the hull with a basic engine and my current armament on it. the only thing certain is the hull (although i might try to expand the stern a little bit if it ends up needing just a bit more space) so feel free to ask/criticize and help me out on this one.

in fact, don't be afraid to show me an example of how you'd set it up. because i'd definitely love if this thing could be a fast little boat that can atleast do chip damage to the heavier enemies (like a real destroyer actually does) while bombarding targets at long range with missiles/torpedoes. and still survive through mobility and tactical protection (no visible futuristic BS like laser discos though)

i think ill learn best if i can get several visual examples of how you guys would make the design and make it operational using the given hull. feel free to reshape the back too to actually fit propellors. i just smoothed it out for the design but i was going to make mount blocks eventually anyway.

[FourGreenFields]

Originally posted by Senpai-kun:

ERA on the inside of the ship is a strange placement. ERA goes on the outer hull, not inside of it. It's meant to stop HEAT/HESH at the impact point.

Quite sure internal ERA does stop HEAT though. And far tougher to strip with airburst frag or airburst HE.

[Average AMD neanderthal]

that's what the idea was. the ship is long but not wide. so i figured it would likely go through in some places anyway. hence the 'idea' of internal ERA.

as for the butchering description of my cannon performance, thanks for that hahaha.
knowing how to build a cannon does not equal making it the best one possible.

i have played some 'build your own vehicle' games before, but usually it isn't too hard in them to get things fitting inside either. most games don't force as many mechanics into it as this game. you need quite some decent size for your armour and turrets. and engines too, if you want your ship to be fast or actually propel a big ass ship forward. hence why i build the hull first. looking for destroyer like dimensions and make things fit in accordingly. i haven't armoured it yet though, you are right about that. all i was certain on is the outer hull design.

nevertheless, i would love to make a ship that doesn't have to be the size of a heavy cruiser in order to be functional battle wise. i can understand it could use some more width. but i wouldn't want it to be forced to either be too big or go home if you get what i mean.

[Average AMD neanderthal]

its quite interesting. the victoria does seem to lack big anti air and could use some more forward thrust, but its a good overall ship with plenty of space for cannons and secondary type armaments. decent armour too.

i guess ill start with making some good prefabs then?
and then actually try to fit a destroyer hull around it.
i have also been studying your compact 150 to 250mm designs.
i understand it now but i don't get the +1 in the dimensions on their descriptions.
is that supposed to be the silly laser targeter? :P

[Average AMD neanderthal]

i see, i see. but is there any way to figure out wich kinds of different shell setups are good for each gauge? because alot of people seem to know what is good for their cannons and advises it to other players. but it's not the type of info that you would find by just going into the customiser and slapping stuff on while looking at the stats practically speaking. and be like: i already know its good before i even shoot it. not unless you have been doing a crap ton of experimenting. because there is more to it than just shell descriptions.

is there any basic logic to learn or to follow when it comes to that? could make it much easier to determine when i would go for sabot, HE, frag, or high velocity AP etc etc. because i tried to just go for real life ammunition logic but the game is semi realistic and ammunition is constantly reworked for the game to reflect that. so that is not precisely working out.

[Sabertoothproton]

For me the rule is inertial or timed frag (depending on if the gun is supposed to shoot air or ground targets) all the way at less then gauges of 300mm. Since HE scales quadratically it isn’t really useful at lower gauges. Upwards of 300 I use HESH/HEAT to do internal damage to ships although recently I have been gravitating more towards HEAT since it goes through all shields with an inertial fuse.

However shields are soo weak these days since their nerf that you don’t really need shells like disruptors to get through them and can circumvent them with enough spam.
In general flak/kinetic finds most of its used on CIWS, flak is better vs smaller missiles while kinetic is better vs larger ones. However pure kinetic is still very weak vs shields so it dosent see much use. However if your target is unshielded it can do a lot of damage.
If you want to use kinetic shells to damage enemy ships the best shell design is almost always an AP capped head and 2 sabot bodies. The rule is to maximize your AP*Kinetic damage value.
Smoke shells are very useful for reducing the effectiveness of enemy lams to allow your own shells or missiles through. Smoke guns are best made at 200 mm since they only work at 200mm+ but they get no benefit for being larger than 200mm as the smoke cloud will not last longer or cover a larger area