Moderator: Beowulf
Strawman.Hotfoot wrote:See, what you forget is that the natural firing position of the ball turret is perpenticular to the hull, wheras the flat turret is parrallel. Translation? You need to move it 90 degrees in any direction to get to a point the flat turret needs to turn 180 degrees to get to. It offers better fire coordination as a result, and also offers more guns to any particular target, as fully half the guns on the ship (as shown) can fire at one target at any given time.
Wrongo; see NoXion's reply.Hotfoot wrote:Another thing to consider: What is the shortest distance between two points?
Answer: a straight line
A ball turret can move in a straight line from target to target, while a flat turret must first rotate, then elevate. Both can have the same arc of fire, if you design them right, but strictly on the math alone, a ball turret will be able to sight in a given target faster.
Oh, really?Beowulf wrote:See the red arrow? That's the area where your flat turret has no possible armor protection. The ball turret can have armor covering it in that spot, because it can use a curved piece right under the armor. It's a fairly serious unprotected spot, because a hit there would knock out that turret, as well as possibly going deeper into the ship, causing massive destruction.
the 10000km ship isn't used anywhere near a solar system. That it has got some technobbable to keep it's shape.NoXion wrote:You do realise that with a length of 10,000km you've got to take into account gravitational effects? Your ship will keep trying to form itself into a sphere.
1000km is the maximum size a ship can be before spheres become a good design philosphy.
And people said MY ships were big...
No, because even in space, you can't change the fact that the natural "at rest" position for a turret shaped like a Tank/Wetnavy Battleship turret is parallel to the hull. Besides, imagine you have to track fire control across a target that was almost at a 90 degree angle from the hull but a bit forward, then AT a 90 degree angle to the hull, then a bit backward. Guess which turret design would have the best tracking ability.AMX wrote:Strawman.
There is no "natural firing position" in space - if it's inside the turret's range of movement, you can have the barrel stick out in that direction by default.
His can't because of their placement and the strange hull design, a problem with the hull itself, not the turret. If you REALLY want to get technical, the other turrets can't fire a full 180 either, because other turrets get in their way on the shallow angles.You would be making a point with the 90°/180° if we were talking about Antares' turret design (fixed barrel, freely rotating turret) - but we're not.
Why?
Because his design can not achieve 180° elevation, which is one of the abilities claimed for ball turrets (I'll let you figure out why, but it's rather obvious).
His reply fails to consider a target moving straight across the line perpendicular to the hull, which is the turrets most glaring problem. The turret has to rotate "up", then turn the entire turret, then rotate back down. While it might look cool, it's not that terribly efficient, and if you try to rotate the turret BEFORE it reaches its maximum angle, you have a period of time which you simply cannot fire at the target.Wrongo; see NoXion's reply.
That would get in the way of the guns being able to rotate up to 90 degrees straight up (or more).Oh, really?
How about putting a fixed armor plate below the gun barrel, then?
You know, one that doesn't have to be moved to adjust elevation...
Read my lips:Hotfoot wrote:No, because even in space, you can't change the fact that the natural "at rest" position for a turret shaped like a Tank/Wetnavy Battleship turret is parallel to the hull.
An almost valid concern.Besides, imagine you have to track fire control across a target that was almost at a 90 degree angle from the hull but a bit forward, then AT a 90 degree angle to the hull, then a bit backward. Guess which turret design would have the best tracking ability.
Think again. There's a far more fundamental problem.His can't because of their placement and the strange hull design, a problem with the hull itself, not the turret. If you REALLY want to get technical, the other turrets can't fire a full 180 either, because other turrets get in their way on the shallow angles.
See above.His reply fails to consider a target moving straight across the line perpendicular to the hull, which is the turrets most glaring problem. The turret has to rotate "up", then turn the entire turret, then rotate back down. While it might look cool, it's not that terribly efficient, and if you try to rotate the turret BEFORE it reaches its maximum angle, you have a period of time which you simply cannot fire at the target.
Not necessarily.That would get in the way of the guns being able to rotate up to 90 degrees straight up (or more).
Don't forget that sensors outrange the weapons considerably and as such the turrets will already be tracking the target before they get in range.Hotfoot wrote:No, because even in space, you can't change the fact that the natural "at rest" position for a turret shaped like a Tank/Wetnavy Battleship turret is parallel to the hull. Besides, imagine you have to track fire control across a target that was almost at a 90 degree angle from the hull but a bit forward, then AT a 90 degree angle to the hull, then a bit backward. Guess which turret design would have the best tracking ability.
But most targets when doing that will come within the forward/rear firing cone, where the ship's fire is strongest, and not only that, but the topmost rows of guns can easily turn 90 degrees and attack attackers from the side:Hotfoot wrote:His reply fails to consider a target moving straight across the line perpendicular to the hull, which is the turrets most glaring problem. The turret has to rotate "up", then turn the entire turret, then rotate back down. While it might look cool, it's not that terribly efficient, and if you try to rotate the turret BEFORE it reaches its maximum angle, you have a period of time which you simply cannot fire at the target.
Accept that with larger ships, you need larger expolsives to blow it up. That, and the enemy isn't particularly smart.Gil Hamilton wrote:I'd thing with huge massive weapons, like you are talking about, sheer mass would be a disadvantage, since it would require significantly more delta-vs to manuever and thus would be less likely to avoid getting blown up. One well placed bomb of significant size will take a big ship as much as a small ship and a big ship will be easier to target from range.NoXion wrote:Gil,
You're forgetting about powerplants (The bigger the more power, and thus destructive potential and stronger shields) Crew (Each ship is going to need a trained bridge crew and Humans can't simply throw them into teeth of battle like the Fang can) and sheer mass (Harder to destroy a large object than a smaller one)
Wrong. With more ships, you need a larger office corps. For ten ships, you need ten captains, ten XOs, and so forth. As NoXion is stated, Mankind has the resources, but not the manpower.And each ship will need a crew, sure, but is a big ship going to have just as much of a crew as a group of small ships of similar volume and but all their eggs are in one basket.
Shield generators and powerplants both run on Volume, while shield covering runs on surface area, meaning you can get much heavier shields per surface area with a bigger ship.Sure a bigger ship can have a bigger powerplant, but a smaller ship doesn't need as big a powerplant/drive motor, since it has vastly less mass to shove around. Also, it since a much smaller force field would be necessary to have the same field intensity, merely because it covers a vastly smaller surface area. Multiple targets means less firepower used against a given ship in your fleet as well, so it's not just one target getting bombarded by a large amount. Finally, a big powerplant will have no effect on the yield of your missiles, which are by far the most useful space weapon possible.
Your merely calling it bullshit does not make it so. Tell me, what protection from random space debris does the flat turret offer the guns when they are fully inclined? Answer: none. The only real advantage they would get when "stowed" would be if they are returned parallel to the hull. Meanwhile, a ball-turret (which you seem to have made some assumptions about that I did not put forward), can extend the same protection no matter what the position of the gun, allowing you to stow it in the position where it can track a target the fastest no matter where the relative position.AMX wrote:Read my lips:
BULL. SHIT.
An almost valid response, except you offer no basis for your claims.An almost valid concern.
Except that turrets with considerably more than 90° elevation run into a heap of problems regardless whether they are spherical or not.
Either say something or don't bother, I'm not interested in playing a game of "I know something you don't know". If I've missed something, fucking say it and move on or fuck off, I'm not in the mood to deal with petty bullshit.Think again. There's a far more fundamental problem.
You have yet to give an appropriate response to the problem I have presented. Either put up or shut up.See above.
You haven't solved the problem at all. Look at the angle created by your curved armor at the joint and the flat bottom of the turret. That's pretty much the same vulnerable area as before, and a shot coming in that way would still disable the turret.Not necessarily.
Although I admit you need a curved piece of armor, similar to the one you proposed for the ball turret - only much smaller:
Blue is the fixed plate. Red is the curved, moveable plate.
Yellow is the additional plate you need to give the ball turret 180° elevation.
Why would anyone walk into the largest field of fire if they could avoid it? Why wouldn't they attack somewhere where your field of fire would be the weakest?NoXion wrote:But most targets when doing that will come within the forward/rear firing cone, where the ship's fire is strongest, and not only that, but the topmost rows of guns can easily turn 90 degrees and attack attackers from the side:
I admit it's not perfect, but I think it's adequate.
Finally an actual argument.Hotfoot wrote:Your merely calling it bullshit does not make it so. Tell me, what protection from random space debris does the flat turret offer the guns when they are fully inclined? Answer: none. The only real advantage they would get when "stowed" would be if they are returned parallel to the hull. Meanwhile, a ball-turret (which you seem to have made some assumptions about that I did not put forward), can extend the same protection no matter what the position of the gun, allowing you to stow it in the position where it can track a target the fastest no matter where the relative position.AMX wrote:Read my lips:
BULL. SHIT.
Ammo feed.An almost valid response, except you offer no basis for your claims.An almost valid concern.
Except that turrets with considerably more than 90° elevation run into a heap of problems regardless whether they are spherical or not.
OK, since you ask so nicely...Either say something or don't bother, I'm not interested in playing a game of "I know something you don't know". If I've missed something, fucking say it and move on or fuck off, I'm not in the mood to deal with petty bullshit.Think again. There's a far more fundamental problem.
My response is: We'll just do it the way AAA does it all over the world.You have yet to give an appropriate response to the problem I have presented. Either put up or shut up.See above.
*Looks*You haven't solved the problem at all. Look at the angle created by your curved armor at the joint and the flat bottom of the turret. That's pretty much the same vulnerable area as before, and a shot coming in that way would still disable the turret.Not necessarily.
Although I admit you need a curved piece of armor, similar to the one you proposed for the ball turret - only much smaller:
Blue is the fixed plate. Red is the curved, moveable plate.
Yellow is the additional plate you need to give the ball turret 180° elevation.
Funny, I was thinking the same thingAMX wrote:Finally an actual argument.
Fine. consider also the stress of acceleration on the joints when fully inclined. A ball turret can have support up to the end of the barrel, depending on the design, reducing stress on the joints.But rather weak - random debris that just happens to hit the barrel is pretty far down on my list of concerns.
Can be done through a flexible feed line in either case.Ammo feed.
Depends on the design. In any case, you've got empty space no matter what, so I fail to see what the problem is. Might help to actually say WHY it is a problem, rather than just saying it is.Lots of empty space to provide enough clearance for the movement.
Say what?Control inversion.
You're right in that you need to feed the ammunition to the gun (this is a problem even with energy weapons, you're just dealing with smaller individual units of "ammunition" with electrons/photons/plasma/whatever). However, that said, this problem can be solved in a variety of ways. One way is that you don't have FULL 180 degree firing, but rather slice off a few degrees from the shallower angles where there is the possibility of hitting your own ship. Then you can have everything except the pivot point armored, allowing the ammo feed a nice freedom of movement. The other possibility is to put the ammo feed directly under the pivot point, and giving the feed enough slack to follow the turret around. Another possibility is to simply have the inside of the turret filled with the appropriate ammunition and make all that empty space the loading mechanism. The last solution, clearly, would only have a net benefit if you were somehow worried about having an ammunition line cooking off all the way back to your ammo stores, as it can be designed to blow out in the event of a catastrophic breach.OK, since you ask so nicely...
Remember: We're using solid projectiles.
These have to be passed from the ship into the turret somehow, which requires an opening at the bottom of said turret.
An opening you would not want to expose.
How would that be more likely with a ball design than a flat one, pray tell?Of course, there's also the matter of the gun barrel impacting the deck...
You mean forget about it and use missiles instead?My response is: We'll just do it the way AAA does it all over the world.
Possibly, but the angle of yours is very much steeper, meaning that even an off-target shot could be deflected into a killing blow. Generally speaking, you want to angle incoming fire AWAY from the rest of the vehicle, to prevent such an occurance. An obtuse angle, in the case, would be infinitely superior to an acute one.*Looks*
*Squints*
No, i don't see it, sorry.
Also, a shot hitting exactly the corner between barrel and armor would probably eliminate your ball turret, too.
Something you don't need to be worried about in the first place.Hotfoot wrote:Funny, I was thinking the same thingAMX wrote:Finally an actual argument.Fine. consider also the stress of acceleration on the joints when fully inclined. A ball turret can have support up to the end of the barrel, depending on the design, reducing stress on the joints.But rather weak - random debris that just happens to hit the barrel is pretty far down on my list of concerns.
Nope. Your ball turret has to be loaded from the side due to the strip cylinder of armor that's attached to protect the inside of the turret. Meaning, there's going to be an ammo feed that'll prevent the turret from rotating after a specificed number of rotations. With the standard turret, there is no problem.Can be done through a flexible feed line in either case.Ammo feed.
No idea what AMX's talking about, so skipDepends on the design. In any case, you've got empty space no matter what, so I fail to see what the problem is. Might help to actually say WHY it is a problem, rather than just saying it is.Lots of empty space to provide enough clearance for the movement.
You're a fucking idiot for now knowing what this is, and he's a fucking idiot for not knowing it won't be a problem. Start with the slot for barrel movement perpendicular to the spine of the ship. Turn the turret 180 degrees. Which way is down?Say what?Control inversion.
Accept this is sheer bullshit.You're right in that you need to feed the ammunition to the gun (this is a problem even with energy weapons, you're just dealing with smaller individual units of "ammunition" with electrons/photons/plasma/whatever). However, that said, this problem can be solved in a variety of ways. One way is that you don't have FULL 180 degree firing, but rather slice off a few degrees from the shallower angles where there is the possibility of hitting your own ship. Then you can have everything except the pivot point armored, allowing the ammo feed a nice freedom of movement. The other possibility is to put the ammo feed directly under the pivot point, and giving the feed enough slack to follow the turret around. Another possibility is to simply have the inside of the turret filled with the appropriate ammunition and make all that empty space the loading mechanism. The last solution, clearly, would only have a net benefit if you were somehow worried about having an ammunition line cooking off all the way back to your ammo stores, as it can be designed to blow out in the event of a catastrophic breach.OK, since you ask so nicely...
Remember: We're using solid projectiles.
These have to be passed from the ship into the turret somehow, which requires an opening at the bottom of said turret.
An opening you would not want to expose.
Fuck if I know what he's talking about. That's a simple idea, and nothing to worry about.How would that be more likely with a ball design than a flat one, pray tell?Of course, there's also the matter of the gun barrel impacting the deck...
You're a dumbass.You mean forget about it and use missiles instead?My response is: We'll just do it the way AAA does it all over the world.
Um, yeah, both of your arguments *almsot* make sense. If anything hits the point where the barral guard (for lack of a better term) meets the turret armor, it's not going to be a problem. The things are fucking huge, and are going to have equally vast amounts of armor (as much as feasible in relation to the ability of the thing to turn.Possibly, but the angle of yours is very much steeper, meaning that even an off-target shot could be deflected into a killing blow. Generally speaking, you want to angle incoming fire AWAY from the rest of the vehicle, to prevent such an occurance. An obtuse angle, in the case, would be infinitely superior to an acute one.*Looks*
*Squints*
No, i don't see it, sorry.
Also, a shot hitting exactly the corner between barrel and armor would probably eliminate your ball turret, too.
Yes, because warships will never undergo sudden bursts of acceleration, and gradual wear and tear is something that should never be a concern.Singular Quartet wrote:Something you don't need to be worried about in the first place.
Really? Because, the damn thing won't NEED to rotate, it will never twist the ammo feed, meanwhile the flat turret is constantly rotating to get to a target...Nope. Your ball turret has to be loaded from the side due to the strip cylinder of armor that's attached to protect the inside of the turret. Meaning, there's going to be an ammo feed that'll prevent the turret from rotating after a specificed number of rotations. With the standard turret, there is no problem.
Yes, because anybody who has never heard a specific term before is a fucking idiot, rather than just ignorant. Nice job, jackass. Forgive me if he throws out terminology with not one fucking argument to explain why it's supposedly a problem and I'm expected to understand this. I'm used to people at least explaining why something is a problem, rather than just stating it is. I don't know everything, nor do I claim to. Neither do you, I'd wager, but then I think you proved that when you claimed a ROTATING FLAT TURRET would never twist an ammo feed, while a translating ball turret would. Bravo, dickhead.You're a fucking idiot for now knowing what this is, and he's a fucking idiot for not knowing it won't be a problem. Start with the slot for barrel movement perpendicular to the spine of the ship. Turn the turret 180 degrees. Which way is down?
First off, that was my THIRD idea to store the ammo in the extra space in the turret, and I already said it wasn't a very good one. Want a quote that you can maybe read in more detail? I'll even bold it for you:Accept this is sheer bullshit.
Your first idea is bad because: you don't have enough space. to store that much ammo, and with all of that ammo, your tracking is going to go to shit. That, and you're gunner is going to be over-moving the turret when it starts to run low on ammo. You have an entire ship for a reason, and any system to reload that ammo-store is going to be overly-complicated.
I also didn't suggest that the ammo store in the turret would be reloadable on the fly in the middle of combat, but we can already tell your reading comprehension isn't that great.Hotfoot wrote:Another possibility is to simply have the inside of the turret filled with the appropriate ammunition and make all that empty space the loading mechanism. The last solution, clearly, would only have a net benefit if you were somehow worried about having an ammunition line cooking off all the way back to your ammo stores, as it can be designed to blow out in the event of a catastrophic breach.
Wiseass, maybe, but let's be honest, more often than not, a missile is more likely to take down a modern jet fighter. AAA is good against slower aircraft, and by far the cheaper option, but a missile that goes big boom is better than bullets that go little boom or no boom. And, oh, look, what is that on the more advanced models? Why, yes, it's SAMs! Why, what are Surface to Air Missiles doing on an anti-air design, I wonder. Maybe because they do a better job at hitting a fast target than slugthrowers?
Even with thick armor, something that massively deforms the armor is still a problem, or something that jams itself in there and fuses the upper layer of the armor, or something that explodes with enough force to knock the pivot point around. However, if offensive technology is so poor as to not be able to penetrate a weak point, that's up to the creator of the setting in question. However, I would like to point out that curved armor, while expensive in comparison, is superior in that the area in which a shot at any given angle can easily penetrate (as opposed to being deflected) is tiny, compared to the wide areas of flat armor. Since the rest of the ship is made up of a more-or-less curved structure, the main hull gains the benefit of this, however each and every flat turret offers a relatively easy way in.Um, yeah, both of your arguments *almsot* make sense. If anything hits the point where the barral guard (for lack of a better term) meets the turret armor, it's not going to be a problem. The things are fucking huge, and are going to have equally vast amounts of armor (as much as feasible in relation to the ability of the thing to turn.
Amen to that, like it said already by me several others if ship has too many gun per m^2 it becomes unintresting wankSpanky The Dolphin wrote:Anyway, I don't have a problem with the actual designs of the ships. There are just too many weapon emplacements. Almost to the point of immediate lack of interest.
yes I remember them and said MICE do not have wire or anything else running into the ball. A ball turret is more like a dome over a Telescope. The Turret has to have a wat to get Ammo inside it and the trackball it a bad analogy because there is nothing inside the ball as all!Hotfoot wrote:Remember those funny mice, the ones we had before the shiny optical ones came out? Those had balls in them. You could use them to point to any point on the screen. You never needed to "rotate" them, or twist the mouse.
Even better, think of a joystick, one of those wacky ones with only an X and Y Axis. You pull to the left, whatever you're controlling goes to the left. You pull up, whatever you're controlling goes up. Full range of motion for a turret, no need to spin around in place. In this case, you can even think of the stick itself AS the gun, just extend the range of motion, and away you go.
No "rotation" needed, no motion that would supposedly twist or tangle an ammo feed.
Ah, but what you're missing is the fact that in order to get the full range of movement, spinning in place is NOT NECESSARY.Isolder74 wrote:yes I remember them and said MICE do not have wire or anything else running into the ball.
So you're just ignoring the bit about the joystick, or the fact that it's easy to show how to get a full range of movement out of a ball without having to twist it as you claim?A ball turret is more like a dome over a Telescope. The Turret has to have a wat to get Ammo inside it and the trackball it a bad analogy because there is nothing inside the ball as all!
Try and make that joystick move 90 degrees, Yoiu can,t because its wires get in the way! In order to do so the wires mist alway stay on the bottom of the mount meaning you now need more structure underneath. The joystick transverses 45 degrees at best, fine for a Point defense gun if it is never expeted to fire allong the ships hull or Any elevation under 45 degrees.Hotfoot wrote:Ah, but what you're missing is the fact that in order to get the full range of movement, spinning in place is NOT NECESSARY.Isolder74 wrote:yes I remember them and said MICE do not have wire or anything else running into the ball.
So you're just ignoring the bit about the joystick, or the fact that it's easy to show how to get a full range of movement out of a ball without having to twist it as you claim?A ball turret is more like a dome over a Telescope. The Turret has to have a wat to get Ammo inside it and the trackball it a bad analogy because there is nothing inside the ball as all!
