/nwg/ naval wargames general

Can someone give me the custom nation editor
I have to wait for the account to get approved

File: k44Wq90[1].png (97KB, 860x303px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 860x303px

>>54763391

File: 1208185892209.jpg (463KB, 2966x2034px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 2966x2034px

>>54763413

File: 1223262384748.jpg (940KB, 1751x1010px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 1751x1010px

>>54764273

File: 1409947107398.jpg (757KB, 2424x1626px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 2424x1626px

>>54764286

File: 1488236970798.jpg (765KB, 1927x989px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1927x989px

>>54764298

File: Iankov 1913 torpedo battleship.jpg (57KB, 543x413px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 543x413px

>>54764316

File: USCruiser.jpg (32KB, 799x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 799x500px

>>54764413

I've always enjoyed this idea. I wish they'd made something like it irl.

>>54766202
Those /20&/30 cannons never stop looking so comically short.

>>54764439

You hate winning wars, anon?

>even as a scouting cruiser, something which nobody ever complained of having one, aviation fuel is a DO NOT WANT-tier battle hazard

>>54771769

So do you rate the Tone sisters as junk then? Honest question.

>>54771769

Or the Gotland? Perhaps my favorite warship ever produced by a minor European power.

>>54771934
>>54772161

See: "something which nobody ever complained of having one"

>>54771934
man, just about every major ship power got in on the whole "put all the guns in front" thing except the USA, eh?

File: image.jpg (76KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x600px

>>54773802
We waited until guns weren't cool anymore and then did it to be ironic.

>>54773915
>goddamnit who let Petty Officer Fujiwara at the helm again

>>54774204
>multiwake drifting
I've been meaning to do a shoop or a shitty drawing for a while now, I might have to get on that tomorrow.

File: original_191981_FvUPML69r6TVX1292bNyBYVsq.png (2MB, 1295x994px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1295x994px

Thoughts?

>>54776804
Wizkids kind of gives me pause, but that may be because I used to play BattleTech.

>>54776804
It was a fun beer and pretzels game, and you can use the ships to try out other Age of Sail systems without investing in models.

>>54778097
Clicky Tech was poorly handled, but it wasn't all bad. I say this as someone who wrote a five page screed railing against Pogwarrior, so take that as you will.

File: HMS Furious is compensating.png (737KB, 1295x740px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 1295x740px

>>54778651
>Be no coffenated
>read filename as "pervert"
I truly have become a bote fucker, haven't I?

>>54776804
Loved that, it got me into ships.

File: MAScamo.jpg (53KB, 696x407px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 696x407px

What's the cutest boat of them all?

File: 64edb56e0811e37469cd57de5849e443.jpg (47KB, 564x317px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 564x317px

>>54779010
I'm partial to the ones that fly, myself.

But as a rule, gunboats, monitors, some DD's all tend to a cute.

File: 35vn283a.jpg (35KB, 600x441px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x441px

>>54779054
Don't tend to like the appearance of modern botes as much, but Vietnam era river monitors were pretty cute.

File: 2048px-SMS_Odin_NH_47886.jpg (437KB, 2048x1622px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 2048x1622px

>>54779066

File: DD 131 USS Buchanon.jpg (132KB, 727x577px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 727x577px

>>54779076
Four Stackers always a cute.

File: Monitor_Faa_di_Bruno.png (1MB, 1390x754px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1390x754px

>>54779107

File: Generali Class Torpedo Boat Achille Papa.jpg (114KB, 678x1020px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 678x1020px

>>54779137

File: HMS Ladybug gunboat.jpg (92KB, 800x791px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x791px

>>54779142

>>54779137
Wew the fuck is this one function. It's a harbor defender or what.

>>54779173
>Monitor_Faa_di_Bruno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)

>>54779173
its the 'Floating turret' approach. Actually not as uncommon as it sounds but you have to go back to the age of sail for analogs

Basically for defense of a port or shelling forts. Getting them to the forts was always a trial.

>>54779192
I could see why, it doesn't seem to be very seaworthy.

>>54779785
Well there's always the bit about having to tow it where you need it as well.

File: 800px-Sparviero_DN-ST-84-03940.jpg (71KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x554px

>>54779010

Cute semi-modern boat.

File: morris.jpg (26KB, 600x408px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x408px

>>54781204

Cute little putt-putt has teeth.

>>54781204
Seems like a miniature. Aww look at him go.

>>54781266
I've got a soft spot for the cold war hydrofoil classes/projects. Horrible radar signature i'm assuming.

>>54779173

Shore bombardment in WW1 along the northeast Italian coast. The shoreline between Venice and Trieste is marshy, shallow, and comprised of hundreds of lagoons. Building a monitor with a very small draft allowed the Italians to take advantage of that while also keeping the vessel away from the KuK navy.

di Bruno provided some good service during one of the later Isonza offensives, but the fact she was basically a barge with twin 15" guns meant her sea keeping abilities sucked. She ran aground during during a storm while withdrawing due to the Central Power's Caporetto offensives.

>>54781767
Fascinating. Designed with a very specific purpose and location in mind. Quite unique.

Ugly as hell though.

>>54782214
Designing ships with narrow role in mind isn't exactly that rare, see Fisher's fast Baltic monitors for another example of this.

>>54782214
It's so ugly it wraps all the way around again into cute.

File: 8382281755_dd96c05169_b[1].jpg (102KB, 1024x386px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x386px

'vettes a cute too

File: 2-HN-Ma-kits-Revell-HMCS-Snowberry-Flower-Class-Corvette-1.144-600x458[1].jpg (56KB, 600x458px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x458px

>>54784597

>>54783171
Well aware of Fishers Follies. Trick with those is that the "Baltic Plan" was only one of many reasons he gave for those three. Above all else it was a way for him to get another three BC in the fleet while skirting around the no-BC build order. The Baltic Plan was just a convenient way to pass them off.

>>54784597
Just looked these little guys up and I have to say...i'm impressed.

File: 800px-Six_Pegasus_class_hydrofoils_underway.jpg (99KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 800x533px

>>54781204

File: 941342_329543310507778_39622052_n.jpg (58KB, 720x449px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 720x449px

>>54790565

File: falconemm80nn8.jpg (169KB, 800x560px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 800x560px

>>54790581

File: BC_3rd_cover_c.jpg (63KB, 547x800px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 547x800px

Does anyone here have any experience with the various naval games produced by Minden Games?

Dreadnoughts & Battlecruisers(Jutland Edition), Tsushima, and Battleship Captain fell into my lap a ways back and I just dug them out last weekend.

Wanted to see if anyone else had tried them out before now.

>>54776804

always a ton of fun!

>>54782214
>Fascinating. Designed with a very specific purpose and location in mind. Quite unique.

Exactly. She was slapped together and worked just well enough in a very specific location in a very specific role for a very short period of time. IIRC, she was commissioned in late '16, used to support the Isonza offensives in '17, and then ran aground in November of '17 during the Central Powers' Caporetto offensives. IIRC, she worked with a group of UK monitors too, but well inshore of them because she could basically float in a teacup.

The entire Adriatic naval campaign in WW1 is absolutely fascinating. The KuK navy routinely bitch slapped the Italians and even held it's own against the RN & MN. There were some incredible raids conducted by both sides. The KuK navy had enough warning of Italy's DOW on the Central Powers to have forces positioned to hit a couple of Italian navy bases the night the war began. In another raid a KuK captain BACKED his DD into a narrow Italian harbor so he could steam away faster after shooting the place up!

>Ugly as hell though.

>>54791927
Not familiar with them, give us a rundown afterwards?

>>54793385
Any reading recommendations for that theater? It sounds very interesting.

>>54793425
I will do so once I get a handle on the basics. I have the older out of print version of Battleship Captain though(2ed) so what I may say could differ from others exp with 3ed.

>>54793485
>Any reading recommendations for that theater? It sounds very interesting.

Halpern's "Naval History of WW1" is a good place to start.

>>54790565
>>54790611
>>54790581
Cute, what's the reason they aren't more popular, that kind of craft? More complex mantainment?

>>54790611
go hero bote go go

>>54795714
The US versions (Pegasus) at least weren't cost effective for role they found themselves in (coastal/narcotics operations which they were good at) vs the role they were intended for (which they thankfully never had to engage in). Not sure about the Italian/Japanese designs, nor the Russian ones.

I really like the Norwegian Skjold class. Pretty neat successor, I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvWS01GjKIw

Is there anything better, naval gun wise, in general service or production now then the OTO Melara 76mm gun? They seem to be the gun of choice the world over.

File: _snapshot_005625_20100714_204854.jpg (93KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1920x1080px

>>54795714
I mostly remember them from the various Gerry Anderson things like Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet.

It's such a cool concept though; making a boat faster by taking most of the boat out of the water, even more than a catamaran.

>>54795262
Goddamn it Italy, STAGGER YOUR SECONDARIES! They could have easily had an additional 2 or 3 AA turrets per side if they split them between two tiers...

>>54800952
Technically those are tertiary. Littorios had 12x 6" guns in four triple turrets. But yes, the DP battery could have been arranged better.

>>54797095
Looks comfy, but not a fan of the "modern" look, remind me of those litoral defense uglies the USA is packing right now.

File: USS Pope.jpg (87KB, 800x454px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x454px

>>54802175
It's not exactly my cup of tea either in terms of looks, but none of the most modern generation of ships really are. Then again, pic related is more my speed, so ymmv.

>>54789129
Gabbianos were well designed little botes. I'm sure RM wished they'd had them at the start of the war, but nobody in pastaland had expected a protracted conflict.

>>54795714
1. Yes, gotta go fast = gotta watch maintenance schedules.
2. No AAW. I cannot think of any surface ship < 3k tons can effectively defend itself from modern airplanes.

>>54800340
They look pretty cool, kinda of flying above the waves, being so tiny.
>>54804439
Well, for the moment airplanes are the too OP pls nerf stuff of our times.

>>54804561
I was thinking more along the lines of limited sensors. Even the OH Perry class frigates, loved by many, were notorious for having a Ray Charles radar and a Helen Keller sonar -- and it had 4k tons to work with. Weapons and speed are nice, but today, electronics and electrical generating capacity matter too.

File: Dlczz.jpg (61KB, 800x383px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x383px

>>54804561
>They look pretty cool, kinda of flying above the waves, being so tiny.

Be careful with that fancy, m8, it might lead you into developing interest in GEVs and other things that blur the line between boat and aircraft.

>>54807027
>Implying wing in ground effect isn't the patrician choice for travel

>>54776804
I lost my entire collection of these, even had one of the limited edition 10 mast ships

Anyone know where to get these for cheap?

>>54808239
yummy
good rtw inspo

File: clip+(2017-08-10+at+10.03.28).jpg (715KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 1920x1080px

Computer Naval Wargames welcome here? /wgg/ is ded so I figured this would be more appropriate than /hwg/ general for CMANO.

File: Missiles.jpg (772KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 1920x1080px

>>54809996
Just let loose 150 tomahawk missiles on their AB's, will be cleaning up what's left with SEAD aircraft. Pardon the shitting up of the thread, I deleted the incorrect posts and fixed it up.

>>54808837

Good luck on getting them cheap. Hills whole sale gaming and ebay are your best bet.

File: clip+(2017-08-10+at+11.54.26).jpg (519KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1920x1080px

>>54810800
It appears I was unable to completely destroy their runway before they could get some dudes off the ground, and they've shot down about twelve of my missiles. Time to do some clean up with an air superiority team and a SEAD team.

>>54809996
>Computer Naval Wargames welcome here?

Probably considering how often RTW and SAI stuff gets posted here.

File: Inn and fail to get out.jpg (278KB, 1920x1041px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1920x1041px

I was pretty confused but hyped when the battle popup told me I was about to participate in a fleet battle against Austria-Hungary. Little did I know that I was about to recreate the Battle of Antivari but in the Baltic.

>>54816478
>>54818026
That is pretty damn impressive variation in the freeboard.

>>54816992
I love designing ships in that game, putting together fleets, but I'm -always- unlucky in the battles.

>>54818026

Wow...I think i've found the ugliest pre-dread ever.

>>54816478
>>54818026
How hard would it have been to continue the main deck ALL THE WAY to the stern? maybe just add bulges below the waterline for the additional buoyancy the mass would mandate...

>>54818634
Like a rundown floating tenement. I really miss the tumble home now.

>>54819695
A very accurate choice of descriptions

>>54819239
That would had been conventional and we can't have conventional stuff in an experimental boat, can we?

Help, /nwg/!
I don't know what to do - mai waifu's got me back in her claws once again & seriously, I don't know what to do anymore:

I buy TW:WH, play it a while, and then, totally out of the blue, I remember that Dwarf Navy's got Ironclads in it: bam - I'm dragged back.

Start up yet another attempt at Planes & Mercs, and go on to write up a mission ... like, for example, sinking a battleship: bam - and there I go again.

Ever since I bought her two years ago, it's always been this way, /nwg/ - seriously, the latest has been as I watched a trailer for "Master and Commander" - it went down something like this:
"man, those frigates are awesome - just like their grandkids: the battlecruisers."
And bam: suddenly I find myself making a Battlecruiser-only run.
First time ever I'm kicking ass as Austria,
tho.

Help me, /nwg/, you're my only hope!

>>54821785
So what is the problem here?

>>54829378
Man, them 'Murricans really did love their cage masts and superfiring turret configs on their dreadnoughts, didn't they?

File: henri iv2.jpg (82KB, 1800x900px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1800x900px

>>54818634
Little bit of make-up can do wonders.

Hello my friend, does anybody have rules for "2nd Fleet" game in pdf? Can you upload it somwhere please, I found only 7th fleet rules in the internet

>>54831089
Problem is we saw her without her makeup first...after a late night of drinking...in her stained sweats...coated in vomit.

Yeah the paint helps a bit but it's still butt ugly.

File: NH 106438.jpg (2MB, 9100x5225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 9100x5225px

>>54829642
If you're gonna go with all big guns design you might as well go with one that lets you use all of your turrets for a broadside.

File: USS_Florida_(BB-30)_-_NH_61261.jpg (170KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1280x853px

>>54832974
Word.

>>54831089
>boat up front
>barge in the rear
Okay, this is officially my new second-worst looking ship after the Russian UFO monitors.

>>54831256
Have I ever posted the Fleet Series games here? You lot would really like this:
https://mega.nz/#F!i1N3xZxL!C6fQ3Z8o2U0gtk5kdXuVcQ

>>54835094
So why'd they reuse the name Vanguard after the previous one blew up at anchor for no discernible reason?

>>54835129
Mm, the previous Vanguard's explosion was just a bit under two and a half decades prior, to be fair. Long enough to let the heebie jeebies run out, I think.

File: it_cr_76[1].gif (23KB, 442x211px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 442x211px

>Side-by-side, cross-deck and superfiring main battery guns all in one ship
Italy, stop

>>54834344
Wow, that great thank you.
But I dont understand is this Victory Games fleet series or something else?

>>54834344
Still could find 2nd fleet game here

>>54836635
>Couldn't
notsofastfix

File: [muffled warcrimes in the distance].jpg (127KB, 970x701px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 970x701px

Wait, what.
WHAT.

>>54837946
Yeah, elevens occasionally land troops as their surprise attack.

>>54836580
>But I dont understand is this Victory Games fleet series or something else?

It's a 3rd party expansion series of the famous VG series. I don't know how good it is or whether you need the original rules to play.

>>54837873
Probably one of the best looking profiles of any WW2-era warship.

>>54835957

Man, that looks like one of mine ...

File: 30072a9c.jpg (141KB, 1280x911px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1280x911px

>>54838987
Negative.

First of all Repulse looked better. Those tower bridge structures the brits updated their ships with are NOT appealing.

Secondly the Scharnhorsts are much better looking.

File: 2.png (96KB, 500x399px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x399px

>>54839854
The wikipedia article on the two Nino Bixios is pretty scathing, it's almost funny.

>They were intended to serve as scouts for the main Italian fleet, and as such required a high top speed. They were overweight as built, which prevented them from reaching their intended maximum speed. They were a disappointment in service, especially compared to the earlier—and faster—cruiser Quarto, which cut their careers short.
>Both ships were sold for scrapping in the late 1920s, the victims of very tight naval budgets and their own poor performance.
>...and disposing of the two Nino Bixio class ships, which had never met design expectations, was an easy means to trim the naval budget.

Man, now I feel bad for the little pastabotes.

>>54840689
>First of all Repulse looked better. Those tower bridge structures the brits updated their ships with are NOT appealing.

Eh, I like those towers.

>>54826312

Man, the pre-Teddy American stuff was a hoot.

>lets play a game:
>Take a Edwardian-era American battleship
>IS it a battleship? Or a legless protected cruiser reclassified as a battleship?
>Guess! Guess!

File: Hamina class patrol.jpg (2MB, 3800x2528px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3800x2528px

>>54779010

>>54790611
>>54790581
>>54790565
We should have brought back fast attack Hydrofoils instead of the hilarious, budget draining, ineffective LCS shit which the Navy is already looking to end as soon as possible.

File: 3a7ed0d10b39d040_large.jpg (113KB, 1280x965px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1280x965px

>>54840689
>Those tower bridge structures the brits updated their ships with are NOT appealing.

Are you mad, they're aesthetic as fuck, makes it really look like the floating fortress it is

File: a4a69e0eda575054_large.jpg (109KB, 1280x1022px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1280x1022px

>>54842354

File: 165 - UK HMS Nelson Nelson class.jpg (411KB, 2000x1304px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 2000x1304px

>>54842375

File: 1920px-HMS_Howe_(32)_passing_Suez_Canal_1944.jpg (279KB, 1920x1452px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1920x1452px

>>54842502

File: howe-battleship-suez-canal-imperial-war-museum-a24897.png (198KB, 800x608px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 800x608px

>>54842599

File: 1452800090235.gif (868KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

868KB, 320x180px

>>54842354
>>54842375
>>54842454
>>54842502
>>54842599

>>54842354

Ok let me clarify. I dislike the vessels that were modernized to include the towers as well as several that were built with them. I preferred their pre-tower looks. I enjoy the KGV class and their towers. Something about how it fits into the overall look and that it was designed that way makes it ok. Basically no other tower vessel built to include them from the beginning gets my approval.

File: Heemskerck_warspite.jpg (175KB, 1222x804px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1222x804px

>>54842644
The only thing disgusting is your taste in superstructures, I bet you like cage masts too you filthy casual

>>54842693
Warspite's looks improved with the new tower though, looks bulkier, more fearsome.

Someone else compared their superstructure to "floating castles" and they look like that alright

File: YvgbyjT.jpg (639KB, 3880x2517px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 3880x2517px

>>54842754

File: 6d996adb.jpg (173KB, 905x1280px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 905x1280px

>>54842754
CAGE MASTS ARE LOVE!

CAGE MASTS ARE LIFE!

Obviously you lack a proper appreciation for pre-40s aesthetics you try hard.

File: USS Arizona_pearl harbor.jpg (880KB, 1500x815px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 1500x815px

>>54842983
THOSE ARE TRI-POD MASTS

TRI-POD MASTS > CAGE MASTS

I'm glad you agree

>>54842983

And of course it posts the wrong image.

File: KWGpdXc.jpg (660KB, 2751x2132px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 2751x2132px

>>54843006
Even your computer knows tri-pod masts are better looking, impressive.

>>54842999
Tripods are superior to cage masts...but they're both superior to your British attempts to rip off castle architecture.

File: f9QFICy.jpg (406KB, 2000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 2000x1200px

>>54843019
HMS Hood's front mast was aesthetic as fuck

File: XGs7P79.jpg (423KB, 2055x1370px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 2055x1370px

God I fucking love it when a ship has these two tall masts towering above everything, smoke stacks in between, such an aesthetic look

>>54843038
Hood would had been better with a mansion.

File: worldofwarships_2016_10_02_16_56_25_023.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>54843037
Tripod + tower superstructure is the ultimate combination

File: worldofwarships_2016_10_02_16_33_36_837.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>54843168

File: Lützow at Jutland 3.jpg (534KB, 1771x1152px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1771x1152px

>A sub lieutenant wrote:
>I had to think of the six poor stokers that were still alive when the ship sank. They sat in the forward diesel-dynamo switch room, just like a diving bell, and could not get out. They had called me once, as I had a connection with them, and reported that the water was slowly rising in their room. It was held by the pumps at a certain height. They maintained their courage and optimism until the last. They were still trapped.

On the scuttling of the Lützow.
Sheesh.

File: worldofwarships_2016_10_01_22_38_25_158.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>54843187

File: 1435720399039.gif (987KB, 229x176px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 229x176px

>>54843168

>Argument invalid.
>Use of WoWs proof of illegitimacy.

Try again.

Oh and the tower is still ugly.

File: worldofwarships_2016_09_30_15_58_11_090.jpg (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>54843237
WoW is a legitimate, historically accurate naval simulator, your argument is invalid.

File: 1351828730320.gif (2MB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x197px

>>54843282

File: worldofwarships_2016_09_30_15_57_55_809.jpg (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>54843292
What are you saying

>>54843308

Just don't know how to argue with such stupidity.

>>54842197
You know, for being modern it's cute. Not the cutest tough.

File: Too many guns.jpg (67KB, 901x281px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 901x281px

>>54843282

I see nothing unhistorical with anything in that image so I must conclude the game is just as accurate as you say.

>>54844221
please tell me the ship in this image actually worked out in game

File: leadwall.jpg (538KB, 1914x677px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1914x677px

>>54844247
It did.

But under the specific conditions of a slow tech game (turrets were doing well but nobody was really using the huge guns so the 12" wasn't totally outclassed) and well, fighting in the Med.

Kept the ammunition industry really busy at least.

>>54840689
> Shiny horse
> not shit looking
Yeah nah mate.

hey nwg, can you answer some boat questions I have?

1) What is the difference between a battleship and a dreadnought? Are they two separate types of ships or is one a subcategory of the other?
2) Are frigates and corvettes the same thing? It seems like they're generally used interchangeably for smaller-than-destroyer ships.
3) Were there any models of submarines intended to fight in surface fleet engagements or were they all designed for commerce raiding/ambushes?
4) I heard that apparently in WW2 the USN had something called "radar-guided guns". What are those (the name kind of sounds like they invented homing shells or something, but I imagine that's not the case)?

File: USS Wisconsin.jpg (364KB, 1992x888px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1992x888px

>>54844884
>1) What is the difference between a battleship and a dreadnought? Are they two separate types of ships or is one a subcategory of the other?

Dreadnoughts are battleships that have a large main battery of all big guns (12 inches or more) rather than the pre-dreadnought practice of about 4 big guns and several smaller guns. Over time, this basically became ALL battleships, and the term dreadnought fell out of use.

>2) Are frigates and corvettes the same thing? It seems like they're generally used interchangeably for smaller-than-destroyer ships.

Not sure entirely on this one. I imagine it depends on the navy in question.

>3) Were there any models of submarines intended to fight in surface fleet engagements or were they all designed for commerce raiding/ambushes?

To my knowledge, submarines usually weren't part of fleet actions. Ambushes and commerce raiding was their big niche.

>4) I heard that apparently in WW2 the USN had something called "radar-guided guns". What are those (the name kind of sounds like they invented homing shells or something, but I imagine that's not the case)?

This refers to fire control systems that used radar for more accurately determining the range and bearing of the target than was possible with basic surface search radar and traditional optical rangefinding. I don't think America was the first to actually develop this, but the American system for it was probably the best of WW2.

File: 1499583619080.jpg (365KB, 1450x1027px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1450x1027px

>>54844884
1. Battleships up until 1906 functioned on the premise of multiple batteries (groups) off different-sized guns. Essentially there was no 'primary' armament, even if there was a particuraly large gun mounted. (pic related is a British pre-dreadnought)

Dreadnought battleships are named after the HMS dreadnought launched in 1906. It broke away from this line of though and introduced the all 'big gun' (in this case 12" guns). this was found to be superior and as such all battleships made using this line of thought were considered 'dreadnoghts'

3. The British K-class submarine was an attempt at a fleet-combat (submarged) submarine. it failed.

For surface focused submarines, look at the Surcouf and HMS X-1 and M-class submarines. none of which had any significant use (though the Surcouf is a bit of a mystery as it disappeared)

>>54844884
>1) What is the difference between a battleship and a dreadnought? Are they two separate types of ships or is one a subcategory of the other?
Rather interchangeable titles, really. The original HMS Dreadnought changed the paradigm of battleship design, so you have "pre-dread" and "post-dread" eras of ships. If anything, I guess you could call the post-dread battleships of WW1 actual dreadnoughts, and everything from the 30's onward battleships.

>2) Are frigates and corvettes the same thing? It seems like they're generally used interchangeably for smaller-than-destroyer ships.
WW2 timeframe, frigates and corvettes were different. Frigates would usually have a fleet escort or coastal patrol mission profile, whereas corvettes were more often relegated to convoy duty, sub hunting, and coastal patrol.

>3) Were there any models of submarines intended to fight in surface fleet engagements or were they all designed for commerce raiding/ambushes?
The last thing any submarine would want to do is fight a surface action. Slow-ROF deck guns, lack of any kind of real armor, and "fire and forget" torpedoes would easily be a waste of time, money, and effort. You did have "fleet submarines", however, whose mission usually consisted of long range patrol/raiding, as well as providing ambush capability in a fleet.

>4) I heard that apparently in WW2 the USN had something called "radar-guided guns". What are those (the name kind of sounds like they invented homing shells or something, but I imagine that's not the case)?
Probably more likely than not referring to using radar as fire control for main guns. Radar really came into it's own during WW2, especially during night engagements (The example of USS Washington BTFOing Kirishima [iirc] is a perfect example of this). Most modern direct-fire guns nowadays are almost exclusively radar-guided.

Are there any games that handle (hypothetical) interwar naval battles?

>>54845278
I know that Naval War has rules for free-play in their core rulebook, so that might work interwar battles.

>>54845278
Grand Fleets is a good one for this, not least of which because it actually construction rules for DIY fun.

>>54846906
>construction rules for DIY fun
So I can do silly shit like a battleship armed with lots of 8" guns? That sounds fun.

>>54852883
>both a lattice and a tripod mast

Absolutely disgusting.

File: USSSouthDakotaACR9[1].jpg (277KB, 1400x854px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1400x854px

>>54853466
Is this more to your liking?

>1) What is the difference between a battleship and a dreadnought? Are they two separate types of ships or is one a subcategory of the other?
Quite simply, a Dreadnought is a type of Battleship - more specifically an era, wedged between the 'Pre-Dreadnought' era and the 'Washington Treaty' era.

>2) Are frigates and corvettes the same thing? It seems like they're generally used interchangeably for smaller-than-destroyer ships.
Technically? No, a Frigate is the immediate size class above a corvette. Unfortunately, basically every navy has their own definitions for what is and isn't any given type of ship, so it went up in the air at some point and stayed up there.

>3) Were there any models of submarines intended to fight in surface fleet engagements or were they all designed for commerce raiding/ambushes?
Intended? Certainly! The entire sub-set of Submarines during/around WW2 known as 'Fleet Boats' were designed for Fleet Ops, and were intended to support the Main Battle Fleet. These included essentially all US Submarines built during the war and, if the 'Great Marianas Turkey Shoot' is any indication, they actually performed adequately in this role when the opportunity presented itself (two Gato-class boats sunk two Jap CVs that day) - it almost never did, however.

>4) I heard that apparently in WW2 the USN had something called "radar-guided guns". What are those (the name kind of sounds like they invented homing shells or something, but I imagine that's not the case)?
Homing shells would be Homing shells, anon.
At the time, guns were guided optically - you could only shoot at what you or someone friendly to you could see.
'Radar-guided Guns' meant that the guns were able to 'see' their targets with the Radar units instead of their own eyes/optics. This meant that the ships were able to fire at a target without actually being able to see them, which was considered a massive advantage - especially at night or in bad weather.

>>54853703 was to >>54844884
Sorry.

>>54853630
Pair of military masts is fine, so is also pair of cage masts and pair of tripod masts, but mixing and matching various mast types in a single ship is pure eye cancer.

>>54856090
So what is with some ships from this time period having two smokestacks side by side instead of having just one large smokestack?

File: 0fTVFcl[1].jpg (186KB, 1262x1024px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1262x1024px

>>54856090
>>54856792
>Only two
Hold my vodka.

Does anybody have PnP of fleet series games?

>>54778651
>that little gun in the front

>>54856979
Nice.

>>54861004
Is the perspective here weird, or are the front turrets actually directly on top of each other?

>>54861150
They are in fact directly on top of each other. BuOrk

>>54861150
Literally on top of each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_battleship

>>54831256
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/pwb3nb887a39m/VG_Fleet

2nd and 7th in there

>>54861243
>>54861252
...why would you do that?

>>54861434
They were originally designed when 12-inches could only fire once per a minute or so and thus the 8-inchers were supposed to be used while the bigger guns were being reloaded.

File: 1280px-HMS_Agamemnon_LOC_ggbain_18554.jpg (96KB, 1280x701px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1280x701px

FUCK YEAH SEMI-DREADS

>>54861434

Think of the bright side; those superposed secondary turrets probably were the reason why South Carolinas had superimposed all centerline main battery.

File: Photograph_of_the_Battleship_USS_Michigan_-_NARA_-_19-N-13573.jpg (5MB, 3728x2768px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3728x2768px

>>54866324
Now if only they were as fast as the Standards...

>>54866775
> latice mast
Disgusting.

>>54867571
>implying lattice mast isn't the sexiest type of mast

Does CMANO trigger your Autism, /nwg/?

>>54869573
Its price tag on Steam keeps triggering the miser in me.

>>54869704
Truly

>>54871166
Sexy slug

>>54869704
It's a wider issue with wargames pricing, not just Matrix. They still have the magazine catalogue mail order mindset where their market is limited and specialised and so the price rwflects this, not the realities of the internet age and digital distribution.

>>54845090
>3. The British K-class submarine was an attempt at a fleet-combat (submarged) submarine. it failed.

A lot of otherwise fine concepts (and fleet-support submarines are one of them- the US got *great* service out of the concept- and not just battle-area interdiction) turned to shit in WWII British hands. There's one thing clearly a fault, there- the British were stretched thinner than spray-on margarine. "All up" approaches to operations tend not to perform as advertised when only half of the stuff is showing up and the stuff that does show up is present in no great quantity. The side-by-side Carrier Task Force operations at the climax of the Pacific Theatre was an IRL stupefying example that really shattered the RN's self-perception.

>>54872043
>the British were stretched thinner than spray-on margarine.

Such things tend to happen when your economy gets fucked to hell 3 times in less than 30 years. Especially if it had pretty big feet of clay to begin with.

>>54861273

Thank you ASLanon

>>54861562
>They were originally designed when 12-inches could only fire once per a minute or so and thus the 8-inchers were supposed to be used while the bigger guns were being reloaded.

This and the fact that both guns had the same working range. Not the same maximum range, but the same working range.

Fire control was a stone cold bitch and by the time everyone finally figured it out, carriers had taken over.

>>54856792

Ducting issues, boiler locations, redundancy, etc. Those "one big smoke stacks" you see are really a collection of stacks ducted to the same area and then covered with one shroud.

Look at some WW2 IJN designs and you'll see the ducts running from other parts of the ship to the "one big smoke stake".

>>54874303
>Fire control was a stone cold bitch and by the time everyone finally figured it out, carriers had taken over.

At least the old ways of rangefinding added to the comedy of moments like Dogger Bank.

>>54869704
The Database alone is absolutely worth it.

>>54880007
>4 centerline superfiring turrets
>2 wing turrets
>they'ren't even capable of cross-deck firing

French being French again I see.

>>54882847
At least it's not as brutal on the eyes as Henri IV.

>>54881780
I swear, it's a gorram ocean liner...

>>54883445
Ocean liner with big guns seemed to be UK's the go to aesthetic for their heavy cruisers.

>>54883968
Would've been an awesome Q-ship: paint the hull black and the superstructure white, put up some canvas around the guns and base of the funnels to make the profile blockier...voila!

File: HMS_Nelson_off_Spithead_for_the_Fleet_Review.jpg (299KB, 1280x995px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1280x995px

>>54883968
Well, they already had battleships that look like oil tankers...

File: Torpedo-Squad4.jpg (40KB, 652x485px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 652x485px

TORPEDOES IN THE WATER, HARD TO PORT

>>54885070
>four single gun turrets

Didn't know that Furutakas had communist pygmy relatives.

>>54886301
If the Nips had naval autism, Russia had naval down's syndrome.

>>54890323
Such a cute class of boats.

>>54891549
Ah yes, the New York class, aka the "haha we made a triple-expansion engined super-dreadnought run at 21 knots" class.

>>54884564
>bullying nelrods

It is not their fault that they're assless battletankers.

File: USS_Indiana_(BB-1)_-_NH_73975.jpg (8MB, 5731x4264px) Image search: [Google]

8MB, 5731x4264px

we need to go lower

>>54895456
drop that freeboard until a man's erect penis rises higher above the surface than the deck does

>>54891937

I don't have the Friedman books, but has anyone ever read the "reason" behind that? I know the US was fitting turbines to smaller ships at the time, so was it a case of larger turbines not being available or trusted?

Or was it a delivery issue? i.e. It will take too long, we want the ships now, go reciprocating.

>>54897246
To my knowledge, it was probably an attempt to cut the cost down some to fit in with a few budget cuts that had happened around that time.

>>54893488
The more you look at them, the more they grow on you.

>>54897885
It really is the case. It's a neat design even if it did have some troubles.

>>54897929
I find whenever I paint botes, I find things about them that I appreciate, that the act of painting forced me to notice.

>>54897806

Thanks. I should have figured it was something mundane.

>>54897246
The preceding Wyoming class had turbines. I think my reprint of the 1946 Jane's claimed that the USN was not entirely happy with the engineering plant, and wanted to gain some leverage over the turbine manufacturers. Give us better and cheaper stuff, or else.

>>54844884
In the WW2 RN, frigates were open ocean convoy escorts, similar to USN destroyer escorts. Corvettes were coastal patrol vessels pressed into Atlantic convoy duty due to wartime exigencies.

Post-war terminology is a bloody mess, but usually, destroyer > frigate > corvette.

>>54835957
Minus the cross deck fire, I've built CLs with that gun layout in RTW. Side by side turrets are better for chase situations, and rear super-firing becomes available before forward super-firing most of the time. It allows a 3 gun broadside with only 4 guns, two of which have to super fire. And it can still fire two guns fore and aft.

>>54897246
From what I've heard turbines were less fuel efficient than reciprocating engines were adopted because USN was worried that the ships carrying turbines would be unable to cross the Pacific without having to stop to refuel. Given the endurance ranges that I've seen posted around for Delaware (reciprocating engines 9750nm at 10 knots), North Dakota (turbines 6560nm at 10 knots), and Florida-class (turbines 5776nm at 10 knots) it seems that this concern was at least somewhat valid. For comparison New Yorks had cruising range of 7684nm at 12 knots and the distance between San Diego and Olongapo is about 6456nm.

>>54900478
Should also be mentioned that not only was the engine changed back to triple expansion, the fuel was changed back to coal with oil spray (until her refit, when greater oil availability allowed the U.S. to economically change the New Yorks to pure oil drinkers). So yeah. Less expensive, and easier on the stocks of strategic supplies.

>>54898792
>>54900478
>>54900529

So it looks like there was a basket of reasons for the switch. Interesting.

Regarding fuel efficiency/endurance, I know early turbine/reduction sets were fuel hogs, so much so that some designs had specifically designed cruising turbines along with "battle speed" turbines.

Just why and what the technical issues were I don't know. I do know reduction gear lagged somewhat behind turbine tech though.

Thanks for all the replies, Anons.

>>54900874
>Just why and what the technical issues were I don't know.

I can field this one for ya. So, the problem with a turbine using a direct drive system to the screws is that a turbine is most fuel efficient at high RPMs...but a ship propeller is most mechanically efficient at *low* RPMs. So you have the unenviable choice of running the ship at the best RPMs for the screws and guzzling fuel like an Irishman guzzles beer, or running the ship at the best RPM for the turbines and shaking your fucking ship's drives apart from prop cavitation.

One solution to this is a reduction gear for the turbines. This works, but in the era surrounding WWI this was still kind of inefficient--the reduction gears didn't perfectly balance things out and added mechanical complexity to the drive system.

You can use multiple sets of turbines too, for high speed and low speed. This has similar issues to a reduction gear system. More complexity, more weight, not a perfect balance.

The really neat thing that the Americans did to solve the problem was the turbo-electric drive. Connect the turbines not to the screws directly, but to electric motors that ran at their own speeds to drive the screws. This was a pretty great solution that honestly probably was more viable than some people assume. You could run the turbine at its proper speed, you could drive the screws at their proper speed, and while there's technically a risk of electrical failures taking the drives offline in practice this didn't actually seem to be a massive risk.

It's really a fascinating subject, and if anybody can pop in with more or with corrections to the shit I just spewed, please do so.

>>54901038
>One solution to this is a reduction gear for the turbines. This works, but in the era surrounding WWI this was still kind of inefficient--the reduction gears didn't perfectly balance things out and added mechanical complexity to the drive system.

Ahhh... so it was partly due to a "Can't make good enough reduction gears yet" issue. Thaks Anon!

I stood enough main engine watches to be familiar with reduction gears, I just wasn't aware that the "lag" between their development and turbine development was so wide.

Speaking of turbo-electric, weren't there entire classes of small warships built during WW2 that used that drive system because reduction gear sets couldn't be made fast enough?

>>54901084
>Speaking of turbo-electric, weren't there entire classes of small warships built during WW2 that used that drive system because reduction gear sets couldn't be made fast enough?

I'll have to look that one up, but I know that the system ended up on everything from the refit USS Langley, to the Lexingtons, to the Buckley-class DEs, and even a couple of troop ship classes.

File: USS_New_Mexico_BB-40_1921.jpg (320KB, 1611x1081px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1611x1081px

somebody say turbo-electrics?

'cause I heard turbo-electrics

>>54901130

The Buckley DEs were the ones I was trying to remember. USS Englad was one, the ship which sank 6 IJN subs in 12 days. She had a lot of help of course, was part of a group of 3 or 4 DEs which worked together prosecuting contacts. By luck or coincidence, she made the kill shot all 6 times.

>>54901207

Sorry England, not Englad. Fucking fat fingers.

>>54902499
Probably the best looking out of early dreadnoughts but then again that is hardly surprising considering how South Carolinas pretty much pioneered that generic WW1 battleship look.

>>54904556
And here I thought that Omahas looked kinda derpy.

>>54899905

Why would the RN deploy that POS anywhere overseas?

File: 0401312[1].jpg (123KB, 585x765px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 585x765px

>>54905103
>Ohamas
>derpy

Those are fightin' words, anon.

File: 0401306[1].jpg (157KB, 740x615px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 740x615px

>>54907225
Incidentally, I thought this was a really cool image. Don't think I've ever seen a spotter plane launch underway before, at least not one where it just came off the catapult like that.

Hi,
any reviews about this game: Naval Warfare : Age of Missiles ?
I was looking for it in Wargames Vault but still have no clear idea about it !

>>54887262
Taranto !!

>>54908038
Somebody's been sharing some neat RM footage. There's quite a bit of fun stuff to watch on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDa9hpkxCbw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyPAqBeJi-A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcl2YCgaCxI

>>54908353
Nice videos.

>>54907245
It always reminds me of Battlestations Pacific and using the spotter planes as ghetto fighters.

>>54906789
Presumably it was back when they still thought that big gun submarines was the way subs would go.

>>54915965
>Presumably it was back when they still thought that big gun submarines was the way subs would go.

I'm not asking about the idiotic "thinking" behind the design. That coastal bombardment idea was dropped before the design was finalized and some mumbling about not being able to hit a moving warship past a certain range was a torpedo took it's place.

I'm asking why the RN even bothered deploying the damn thing outside home waters. M1, the only one of the 3 finished during the war, was commissioned in mid-1917 and assigned to the Med, for whatever reason. That picture is odd because there's snow and a mosque. All I can think of is a Black Sea port which means it's the picture is postwar.

Seeing as M1 was part of the Home Fleet by 5/21 at the latest, that leave only a few winters during which time to picture could have been taken.

All I can guess is that they sent her to the Med to hide her.

>>54762703
Just got into RtW. Is there anyway to change the end date? I've been going over the data files for over an hour and couldn't find anything.

>>54916285
You can choose to continue past 1925, I think there's a hard cap at 1950, but everything has usually descended into madness by then anyway.

>>54916289
How do you go about doing that? Every time I reach the end of '26 I get the Game is Over message which is followed by the achievement screen and the whole game closing.

>>54916388
You should be able to choose to continue when that pop-up appears. At least I can on the latest patch.

>>54916410
And now I suddenly remembered that I forgot to install that patch. Thanks

File: what the actual fuck.jpg (54KB, 921x322px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 921x322px

Varied Tech is one helluva drug.
Germany has been hit the hardest, apparently. I don't think they have any superfiring tech and it's 1919 now. They're building 28k ton, 15" gunned Dreadnought copies.

>>54917659
DRAUF SEYDLITZ

>>54917659
That's beautiful and hilarious.

>>54916110
Or it could be that they needed ships in the Med as part of the monitoring and overwatch of the former Central powers and the USSR; the Med and Black Sea being far more favourable conditions than British home waters for the M1.

>>54919235
>Or it could be that they needed ships in the Med as part of the monitoring and overwatch of the former Central powers and the USSR

Plenty of better suited craft for that, especially with the wartime fleet being drawn down.

With the M-class you've got ~60 men, one big gun, 4 tubes, 3 AA guns, and one maybe two small craft for interface work. Among other things, the sub needs special parts, special maintenance, and diesel instead of the more easily obtained coal. Long term habitability is also poor, there's a good reason subs deploy with tenders.

Compare that to one of the huge numbers of escorts, trawlers, drifters, and other small steamers the UK crash built or retrofitted for ASW and inshore work during the war. Larger crews, more guns, more small craft, better habitability, longer endurance, etc.

I think they had a white elephant on their hands, sent her off to a small corner of the war, and kept her there even after in the hopes people would forget. The whole was was worthless from the start. They only built 3 of 4, only completed 1 as designed, and tried to somehow converting the others into seaplane tenders.

>>54920448
I don't think so; tons of navies have had odd designs that didn't go anywhere and people weren't obsessing over the submarines as a class or a failure in the press. They probably just wanted to get some use out of it.

>>54920677
Tbh every navy has at least couple boat classes that end up being underwhelming.

>>54920677
>They probably just wanted to get some use out of it.

Submarines are lousy for "Show the Flag" patrolling. They're not built for it, they don't have the weapons, men, or small craft for it.

If they wanted to get some actual use out of a dodgy design, keeping her home to train ASW forces would have been a job she could actually perform.

They were hiding it in the Med. Nothing more. They tried to hide the two following by immediately converting them for a different role.

>>54921585
Why do you think they were hiding it? From who? Why?

>>54922309
>>54922309