/nwg/ Naval Wargames General

File: HMSM1.jpg (2MB, 1618x1085px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1618x1085px

From the previous thread's discussion about why on Earth the RN was using the submarine monitor HMS M1 as a patrol boat somewhere in the Black Sea immediately after the war.

>>54921724
>>Why do you think they were hiding it? From who? Why?

Read up on Lloyd George, Haig, and the Admiralty. (To forestall the pedantic spergs, yes, Haig was Army. I included him to emphasize that the military and it's leaders were no longer sacred cows in the eye of Parliament.)

When when M1 was finally launched in mid-1917, events like Jutland the year before, the submarine campaign being currently lost, the Somme the year before, and Ypres being currently fought meant the KNIVES WERE OUT in Parliament for any flag rank service member they could get their hands on.

Here was the RN on one hand screaming about a lack of destroyers and other escorts meant any convoying system couldn't be set up while on the other hand wasting time, labor, and yard space laying down FOUR submarines based on an idea already known not only unworkable but false.

And you still wonder why the Admiralty sent the only one of those subs finished during the war off the Med immediately after commissioning?

Out of sight, out of mind. Having HMS M1 putzing around in home waters increased the chance some MP would remember it and use it's very existence as an excuse to demand a purge.

>>54924515
That is rather interesting casemate arrangement.

>>54925389
Furst Scharnhorst. Died along with its sister ship down in the Falklands as part of Graf Spee's East Asia Squadron.

My favorite Armored Cruiser.

>>54925389

That lower row of three must have been useless in any kind of a seaway.

>>54928210
Oh very much so.

>>54927723

Probably the best one ever. And if it wasn't that's because it was Gneisenau.

>>54931302

As much as they are my favorite ACs i've heard very good things about Rurik(the 1906 variant).

Its Russian in name and service but was built by the Brits.

>>54931538

It's more that, unit-for-unit, Spee's squadron were the most strategically effective ships in history (outside Goeben and Breslau, and one of those was a battleship with a Size L "I'm a cruiser" T-shirt, and the other was an destroyer with a Size S "I'm a cruiser" T-shirt, so Scharnhorst and Gneisenau Best Cruiser).

If Emden had gotten to Basra... if Scharnhorst's shell hadn't been a dud... I can imagine the moment Churchill realizes that the nitrate freighters from Chile have been stopped cold and there isn't a RN cruiser on the waves that can fight Spee and beat him and get chills.

Don't remember where I came on this, but some really cool images.

http://mashable.com/2017/06/17/life-in-the-navy/#K8ML06GJXOqw

>>54936498
Nice find.

File: German_cruiser_Blücher_sinking[1].jpg (58KB, 650x367px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 650x367px

>>54940457
Ships named after Blücher just can't catch a break it seems.

>>54940587
>Horse sounds intensify

File: I will sink from a single 6in hit to the engine room.jpg (45KB, 923x323px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 923x323px

>Cannot combine A, 1 and 2 turret positions.
Plan B it is, then.

I really hope RtW2 will let us build and assign destroyer leaders. Shouldn't be too hard to implent as there are DLs in Steam and Iron Campaign already.

File: example design thrown together in 2 mins.png (59KB, 1012x748px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1012x748px

>>54941445
>5 x 1 6 inch guns

Personally I would had gone with 4 x 2 4 (if you want more torpedoes or have it go faster) or 5 inch guns (if you want slightly better gun performance and are willing to accept rather mediocre top speed), presuming of course that you've got tech to do so.

File: PhotoWW1-10ddGerS113-1PS[1].jpg (57KB, 900x554px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 900x554px

>>54941816
Varied Tech, so now double-mounts on DDs yet, even though it's late 1922. France was stuck with single torpedo tubes until 1920, too.

Regarding the 6" guns, I actually do have quality 1 5" guns, it's just that I'm a huge slut for 6" destroyers.
They actually took part in a fight against an Austrian CL right now. One shell from the Volevoy penetrated and disabled the cruiser's machinery, allowing me to riddle it with torpedoes. I should probably look into outfitting them with directors as soon as I get the tech.

File: Jap1.jpg (110KB, 713x823px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 713x823px

>>54941962

You know I don't think ive every tried putting anything bigger than 5" guns on DDs in RtWs. Its usually 4" guns all the way since I invariably get quality 1 variants early on with the occasional single 5s at the very end.

I'll need to try it at some point.

>>54946287
That is a lot of funnels.

>>54949522
I wonder what the most number of stacks ever run on a warship was.

File: blQUo9e.jpg (284KB, 1450x862px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1450x862px

>>54950630
Probably one of those French armoured cruisers.
IIRC, the original design for the Lexington-class battlecruisers was supposed to have 7 stacks minimum, some of which were supposed to be arranged side-by-side.

File: Lexington-1912.jpg (52KB, 1076x299px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1076x299px

>>54955759
>IIRC, the original design for the Lexington-class battlecruisers was supposed to have 7 stacks minimum, some of which were supposed to be arranged side-by-side.

Geezus...

>>54955893
Not even the weirdest design proposed for Lexingtons desu.

File: s584083[1].jpg (240KB, 1600x1075px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1600x1075px

>>54955893
It gets even better
>5" belt
>35 knots

Someone call an ambulance, I think Lord Fisher just fainted.

File: s584081.jpg (286KB, 1600x1090px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1600x1090px

>>54955985
I prefer the >sidearmor? what is that?-proposal.

>>54956068
>We took a protected cruiser, put 16" guns on it and straightened out the slopes of the armoured deck
Perfect.

>>54955893
>>54955985
>>54956068
>Everything apart from the armaments is perfect for a big carrier
It's like the engineers were planning on building CVs from the beginning, and had to sneak it past the budget team by disguising them as CBs...

>>54956493
>It's like the engineers were planning on building CVs from the beginning, and had to sneak it past the budget team by disguising them as CBs...
Reminds of how the Graf Zeppelin would have been Germany's best heavy cruiser, lol

>>54956634
>turn a perfectly fine heavy cruiser into a horrible carrier
>then go and make your planned aircraft carrier into a weird heavy cruiser

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/19/uss-indianapolis-wreckage-found

>>54956885
Noise, her being +5kms deep should stop locals from strip mining her for scrap metal.

>>54956885
Apparently they took couple images during the trip https://imgur.com/a/3rCSp#0p0pcgt

>>54957605
Awesome.

>>54955759
>>54955893
What is Lexingtons and weird stacks?
>first they were supposed to be have half-a-dozen of them
>then following the carrier conversion they have one fuckhuge smokestack

>>54956068
>hey guys, if the enemy shells pierce through both sides of the ship before they detonate, that's a kind of protection, right?

File: Indy 1.jpg (640KB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 3072x1728px

>>54960515

File: Indy3.jpg (1MB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4096x2304px

>>54960538

File: Indy 4.jpg (1MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x1728px

>>54960559

File: Indy 5.jpg (839KB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 3072x1728px

>>54960581

>>54958494
>What is Lexingtons and weird stacks?

You're confusing a structural shroud with the actual boiler exhaust ducting. That "one fuckhuge smokestack" was actually several smaller exhaust ducts run to one area and then gathered inside the same shroud.

You can see this more easily in many WW2 IJN designs where exhaust ducts run forward and after to meet at one point where they're collected inside one shroud.

>>54960592
Wish they had at least gotten permission to bring up the ship's bell to add to the memorial.

>>54956493
>It's like the engineers were planning on building CVs from the beginning, and had to sneak it past the budget team by disguising them as CBs...
>CBs
Anon.
CBs are 'Large Cruisers', like the Alaskas and (near contemporary, but never built) Stalingrads, and (modern) Kirovs.
You want 'CC', which means 'Battlecruiser'.
Yes, there is a pretty big difference between the two based on how they are built.

>>54962874
>Yes, there is a pretty big difference between the two based on how they are built.

short version is a "large cruiser" is a cruiser design scaled up, whereas a battlecruiser is a battleship design scaled down.

>>54962269
>Wish they had at least gotten permission to bring up the ship's bell to add to the memorial.

USN will most likely do that now that they have the location.

While I seriously doubt the ROV use by Allen's team to take those photos was also carrying the cutting torch and manipulators needed to detach the bell and place in netting or a box for the return to the surface, you shouldn't let pesky things like facts get in the way of your abject ignorance.

>>54963350
Who shat in your shit on a shingle?

>>54923303
>>54954718
>>54960038
>>54960038
Stupid question but does anyone know the purpose of those smaller hornlike pipes around the funnels? The only reason for their existence that I could come up with was that they could be somehow related to ship's ventilation.

>>54968451
Took me a moment to see what you were talking about. Yeah, those are ventilation intakes for the ship, primarily to keep the fires hot in the boilers.

... Don't use them for """emergency pissers""".

>>54932831
that almost crashed my browser

>>54969120
Just what kind of Australian potato internet you've if one 2.97mb 10k x 5k is enough to make it shit itself?

Is it bad that I think pre-dreadnoughts are more aesthetic than everything that came after?

I just like all those little casemates at the sides, adds a bit more variety over plain TURRETS.

What was the best super dreadnought/pre-fast battleship?

>>54970198
The best in what sense? Most technologically advanced? Most suited for is operator nation's needs? Best combat record? Had the greatest strategical impact?

>>54969243
It'll be the resolution that's the problem, not the speed of the internet.

>>54970192
Nope, Pre-dreads are best. Got that transitional period of everyone not knowing what the fuck works going on.

>>54967803
>Old Renown beats out Modernized "floating castle" Renown any day for looks.

>>54970444
How about one (or maybe a top 3 or something) for each of those categories.

>>54970192
pre dreads are the best. They look so FINE.

File: 7b93ec61.jpg (195KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1280x960px

>>54971896

>Oregon = best pre-dred

>>54972087
NO, that's not French weirdness

>>54972134
One does not require a tumblehome to be beautiful.

>>54972087
>what is freeboard

>>54972292
one doesn't NEED it, but it certainly helps.

>>54972087
Dunno about that, but god damn that's a good colorized photo.

>>54968768
>Yeah, those are ventilation intakes for the ship, primarily to keep the fires hot in the boilers.

Those are boiler safety valve discharge stacks. Boiler draft and ventilation intakes are large louvered panels on the superstructure.

File: HMS_Inflexible_1896.jpg (256KB, 1178x1471px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1178x1471px

>>54970192
Tbh I prefer earlier turret, casemate, and barbette ships over the later pre-dreads.

>>54972087

Teddy's Bulldog.

File: age of sail 4.jpg (67KB, 1000x686px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1000x686px

So i asked this in the HWG thread and did get a reply but it appears you all are more interested in this type of game so maybe you can add some depth and recommendations.

There are a lot of games listed in the naval category. Does anyone have recommendations for a good one Set in the Napoleonic/age of sail time frame?

>>54975556
Check out Heart of Oak and/or Wooden Ships & Iron Men.

>another day
>yet another american destroyer getting involved in a collision

Guess that someone in USN is really trying to bring back ramming tactics.

File: NH_66721_Honda_Point.gif (100KB, 566x394px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 566x394px

>>54983010
Meh, this is honestly an improvement.

File: Hedgehog_anti-submarine_mortar.jpg (77KB, 800x614px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x614px

fuck submarines

File: HMAS Australia lewds.jpg (129KB, 700x1000px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 700x1000px

>>54985112
Nah, they're too remote and unapproachable. Now heavy cruisers on the other hand...

>>54988123

Proof that sometimes the things you want can be really, really, REALLY, REALLY, *REALLY*, *REALLY* fucking stupid.

>Italian envy? REALLY????
>just assume that if the eyeties want it, it's not worth having, man

>>54988123
>>54988810

Basically yet another wack on the dead horse of proof that Empire foreign policy ran on anything other than public mass hysteria.

Fresh from getting their shit pushed in by among other things, a literal ship-of-the-line at Lissa (SMS Kaiser, I love you!) the Italians set out to build the best most modern ship ever and end up building an impractical monster, the Duilio (ironically this was the Armstrong Companies' fault. Things started out with having a pretty competent Italian naval architect design something well-armed and fast using British guns, and Armstrong kept selling the Italian government on bigger and bigger guns as the contract progressed- TWICE, and forcing the hapless architect to adjust the design on the fly). The end result was a mess that was a floundering hazard that couldn't shoot without tearing itself to pieces.

But perhaps inevitably once launched the British public panics and demand a response to this new super-ship, and it's a hapless British architect's turn to come up with Inflexible- a muzzle-loading abortion that has the distinction of taking more damage from firing her own guns in combat than the actual 10-inch shell hit it took.

>>54989047
Public is, has, and always been prone to such hysteria.
>muh terrifying nazi pocket battleships
>muh cruiser gap

Why is the caliber of German guns given in cm rather than mm?

>>54989583

It was more the "directly appease it NOW, or the government falls NOW" dynamic. And being freakishly big on global terms for having a moderately-sized domestic democratic electorate, big things happened world-wide.

Usually that sort of thing just results in a silly law or infrastructure boondoggle.

>fuck they lost the House of Lords that way

>>54989632

cm and mm are the same system, anon. I think you mean cm instead of inches?

>>54989711
I understand that, I'm just confused about why they're using a different unit for measurements. For example, the Bretagne's guns are usually listed as 340mm but the Bayern's are listed as 38cm. Why are they never listed as 34cm or 380mm?

>>54990135
Different nations have their own preferences when it comes to designating their weapons.

Was the Imperial German Navy actually capable of fighting/defeating the royal navy in a direct war or was it mostly for Fleet in Being effect?

File: German_submarine_activities_on_the_Atlantic_coast_of_the_United_States_and_Canada_(1920)_(14596181448)[1].jpg (659KB, 2784x1370px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 2784x1370px

>>54992703
Originally, the plan was to take on the Royal Navy by destroying isolated squadrons using the entire High Seas Fleet to even out the odds.
They never really succeeded and one of their attempts ended up as Jutland, but one time they actually came really close during the raid on Scarborough.

>Ingenohl had already exceeded the strict limit of his standing orders from the Kaiser by involving the main German fleet in the operation, without informing the Kaiser.[15] At 05:30, mindful of the orders not to place the fleet in jeopardy and fearing he had encountered the advance guard of the British Grand Fleet, he reversed course towards Germany. Had he continued, he would shortly have engaged the four British battlecruisers and six battleships with his much larger force, which included 22 battleships. This was the opportunity that German strategy had been seeking, to even the odds in the war. The ten British capital ships would have been outnumbered and outgunned, with significant losses likely. Their loss would have equalised the power of the two navies.

After the battle of Jutland, it was basically over for them. They had no chance to catch up to the Royal Navy's 15" dreads anymore and focused on commerce warfare instead.

>>54989047
>the distinction of taking more damage from firing her own guns in combat than the actual 10-inch shell hit it took.
Another step on the road to Enuff Dakka

>>54994033
Does that mean that Pluton and HMS Khartoum achieved ultimate dakka then?

>>54960581
>>54960559
>>54960538
>>54960515

How is so much of her paint still intact?

>>54983010
Our navy has let standars slip a lot since the cold war ended. especially after 9/11 since they had to drop standards and didn't want to pay for instilling good enough training and discipline in all the warm bodies they needed and those fuckers are now out NCOs.

>>54996156
She is resting over 5kms beneath the waves, in such depths not only are oxygen levels lower but also the water is colder and thus the vessel's degradation is slower than it would be in shallower waters.

>>54996234
>Our navy has let standars slip a lot since the cold war ended.

No. Training standards went in the shitter when "diversity" instead of competency became Job #1. The rush to qualify cunts as SWOs and keep them qualified is the problem.

>>54998996
>in b4 all the SWOs on all the ships that crashed were all men

>>54999190
>>in b4 all the SWOs on all the ships that crashed were all men

I knew one of you stupid fucks wouldn't be able to understand.

In order to reach diversity targets as quickly as possible, ALL standards for ALL prospective SWOs were lowered. Training and qualification became easier for EVERYONE.

If they'd accepted the fact that enough women would qualify in time, there would be no problem. Instead, diversity had to be achieved as rapidly as possible and training took a big hit.

Do you understand now?

>>55000426
>I knew one of you stupid fucks wouldn't be able to understand.

the only thing that needs to be understood is that /pol/ is that way, friend

>>55000465
>the only thing that needs to be understood is that /pol/ is that way, friend

Ah, yes. "/pol/ is that way". The knee jerk response of the butt hurt douche nozzle.

The fact remains that training has taken a hit fleet wide in the rush to qualify more diverse applicants to hit target. Training wasn't made easier because diverse applicants are allegedly stupid or incapable, they aren't and they're just as smart and capable. Training was made easier to get the numbers Congress wanted faster.

Training got watered down for everyone and the fleet is paying the price.

>>55000589
well, your mistake really is in assuming i actually give much of a damn whether or not what you're saying is true or not. coming into here screeching about "muh diversity" like an autistic right-wing howler monkey is just setting yourself up to be trolled and disregarded, sonny.

File: HMS_Swiftsure_LOC_ggbain_16800.jpg (1MB, 3300x1980px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3300x1980px

Will Britannia ever rule the waves again?

>>55001935
Yes.
After it officially becomes a part of the US of A.

>>55001935
No, the sun has set upon our Empire and all the constituent parts hate each other too much to ever reunite into something truly great.

>>54998996
Not sure if bait, or if you are giving your actual opinion.

Nobody I've talked to who is active duty or retired has named that among the reasons they blame for the drop in training standards.

>>55001935

I kind of doubt it.

I do have a question though.

What does the British economy run on nowadays?

>>55004821
Exports to the EU and the US, being the financial center of Europe,

The future doesn't look bright.

File: HMS Dreadnought.jpg (70KB, 740x558px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 740x558px

>>55004821
The city tossing money about, services, and still being about the 8th biggest manufacturer in the world

>>55001327>>55006239

Why were all the big British botes so inefficient? Apart from the main guns, all the superdreads before the KGV-class had tons of wasted deck space and next to no secondaries or AA:
the ship's launches aft of the funnels (which should have been combined like Japan's for a reduced profile) over the engine room could easily have been a hangar and a bunch of AA guns on top while keeping the boats stacked on deck, or the forward funnel could have been moved forward with the hangar+AA between the spaced-out funnels...

>>55007180
>expecting heavy aa batteries on ships launched during 1910s
>when aviation was still in its baby shoes and carriers were at best curiosities

>>55007454
Sadly the British didn't really predict the rise of naval air power or the direction it would take. The RN still believed primary air threat in the years up to WWII would be from heavy level bombers rather than dive bombers.

>>55007454
>superdreads=late WWI+Interwar
The US's contemporary "Standard-type" battleships were more compact even pre-refit: compare the original configurations of the Warspite and Nevada

>>55008184
The standards were slower than RN contemporaries. A more reasonable comparison would be Revenge vs. Nevada.

>>55008698
Sometimes I really wonder how the hell we started the all-big-guns era with the slowest dreadnoughts ever and ended WWII with the fastest battleships of all time.

Do any of you have pics of actual gameplay?

>>55012166
There's two of us that play Naval War that have posted battle reports here in the past, and people also post third party stuff occasionally. Unfortunately I'm on mobile, and my collection of pics original or otherwise isn't. I'll post some in the morning.

>>55015644
It'd be horrifying to see what spalling would look like at that scale. I mean, if by some miracle the 12"+ projectile didn't pierce your protection completely. Were there ever any accounts of spalling from hits by naval guns?

>>55015730
I'd certainly imagine so.

>>55008698
Displacement wise the best comparison would probably be Revenge vs Pennsylvania, in which case American ship somewhat shorter but beamier when compared to the British vessel.

>>55004821
The housing market.

>>55007872
Which is why it created carriers, the steam catapault, conducted the first effective carrier-launched air raid on ships in harbour, etc.

>>55018822
yeah, but these things were all kind of expected to be largely relegated to a support or ancillary role. nobody expected the aircraft carrier to usurp the battleship as the ur-capital ship.

>>55018954
Kinda like how the guys who created the Internet never expected anybody but networking nerds and computer experts to find much use for it.

>>55008846
By WW2 BBs speeds were rising all across the world so Iowas weren't really all that special in that regard.
>lions 30kt (planned)
>vanguard 31kt
>richelieu 32kt
>iowa 33kt
>bismarck 30kt
>scharnhorst 32kt
>littorio 31kt

>>55018822
>conducted the first effective carrier-launched air raid on ships in harbour, etc.

I thought that was the post-Tsar/pre-Bolshevik Russian Black Sea Fleet, desu

File: SMS_Kaiser_turrets_aft[1].jpg (159KB, 973x699px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 973x699px

>>55023895
Those main guns look awfully long for the time period. Like something I'd expect to see on a 1910 dreadnought.

>>55023972
Hardly surprising considering that those were 340mm/42 guns in an era of 300mm-ish/30 or 35 guns.

File: Turn 5 climax.jpg (446KB, 864x648px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 864x648px

>>55013673
>>55012166
Not gonna do a dump of all the battle report pics, but they're all available here:

https://www.naval-war.com/navalforum/battlereports

File: 18920172_1555661244468303_1051068624277513185_n.jpg (20KB, 426x240px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 426x240px

>>55025528
I will dump some pics from other peoples games I've saved.

File: 1438138093047.jpg (315KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1600x1200px

>>55025552

File: 1436043353619.jpg (806KB, 1317x987px) Image search: [Google]

806KB, 1317x987px

>>55025569

File: 1436043287685.jpg (948KB, 1317x987px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 1317x987px

>>55025581

File: 1436043419062.jpg (891KB, 1317x987px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 1317x987px

>>55025605

>>55019866
I've heard 33 was the official top speed but the actual top speed could vary from as low as 32.5 knots to as high as 35 knots depending on sea conditions and which Iowa you were talking about at which time.

File: 1487018746503.jpg (2MB, 2918x2188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2918x2188px

>>55025625

File: 1503150527435.jpg (341KB, 1600x978px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1600x978px

>>55025659

File: 1452091166295.jpg (354KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1600x1600px

>>55025720

File: 1453364136811.jpg (138KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1024x768px

>>55025735

File: Turn 3 overview.jpg (1MB, 2064x1548px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2064x1548px

>>55012166
I have a few, tho most of them are of older games.

Here's a shot from a fairly recent solo game I played where Force Z took on a pair of the Kongou sisters in a hypothetical bout.

>>55011452

That's the next one Allen should find. She's in the Caribbean somewhere near Panama. Best guess is she was run down by a freighter.

>>55025640
>I've heard 33 was the official top speed but the actual top speed could vary

Missouri's top speed was limited after her grounding in 1950.

>>55025735

Interesting. That looks like a RN & CSN versus USN match-up.

>>55026625
>Best guess is she was run down by a freighter.

That or yanks mistook her for an u-boat and blew her up.

>>55026625
>Missouri's top speed was limited after her grounding in 1950.

Yeah. And apparently New Jersey's skipper once reported getting her up to 35 knots in clean seas. At least I'm pretty sure it was NJ.

>>55026625
I think it might have been, that kind of tickles the back of my brain like that might be true. Couldn't tell you for sure though, or what system. ACW/Ironclads is something I would like to get into, but I've got way too much WWII stuff to work on still before I can justify more metal/resin/plastic from an entirely different era.

>>55026688
>That or yanks mistook her for an u-boat and blew her up.

Could be. She was traveling to the Canal and the Canal Zone was one of the more heavily defended bits of US property at the time. It got the US' the second ever air warning radar for example. Not Pearl, not San Diego, the Canal Zone.

>>55026760
>I think it might have been, that kind of tickles the back of my brain like that might be true.

Just looking at the ships suggested that to me.

The flotilla at the bottom of the pic includes 3 casemate ironclads along with what looks like the Warrior, a twin-turret frigate, a bunch of river steamers, and other stuff.

The flotilla at the top has what appears to be the New Ironsides along with some large steam frigates and what might the Keokuk. Most telling, there's a line of 4 monitors from various classes steaming 'round the island. The lead looks like the Passaic class and the rear two seem to be twin-turret designs.

The fort is apparently on the Union side seeing as USN ships are anchored near.

I don't know how balanced that scenario is, but I'm sure it was a helluva lot of fun to play.

>>55025735
Are there rules for such a game? That era is all over the place. I imagine it would be very hard to make workable.

>>55027600
>That era is all over the place.

WTF? All those ships are contemporaries, Anon. Hell, HMS Warrior was built BEFORE the Monitor or Virginia.

You could easily play the scenario that pic presents with Yaquinto's hex&chit "Ironclads" and "Ironclads Expansion" games.

>>55027744
Not saying they aren't contemporaries...I know they are. Its just the tech is all over the place in that pic.

I guess i'm saying it must be difficult to make a game for that era that can take all the variances of tech into account and not be a nightmare of special rules and such.

>>55028442
>Its just the tech is all over the place in that pic.

No, it isn't.

>I guess i'm saying it must be difficult to make a game...

Which is why the Yaquinto game has been around for 40 years or so.

The tech difference aren't what what you think they are, so the design hurdles aren't as difficult as you want to believe.

>>55028541
Yaquinto's Ironclads huh? Good to know. Thank you.

>>55028905

Get the expansion. It covers ironclads and other ships beyond the ACW USN/CSN designs.

>>55029101
If I can even find it for a half decent price. The original is older than I am.

>>55025581
>>55025605
>>55025625

Is that Narvik?

>>55022846

Huh. I thought Argus was just a stop-gap for WWII Mediterranean operations after they managed to get the real carriers bombed/torpedoed/run down by krauts.

>god they kept that civie-hulled bucket around an indecently long time

>>55029468
Yes, I'm pretty sure, but not 100% I think someone posted those maybe from Salute a couple of years back in /hwg/.

>>55030597

Whatever it is it's beautiful. Thanks for posting them.

Many years back I saw a table dressed for the Ranger's D-Day Pointe du Hoc fight. The guys involved actually BUILT THE CLIFF. They had the beach/shingle on the floor and then this 4 foot cliff with spots where you could place minis leading to the table where the German battery was laid out.

File: sovietprojects.jpg (117KB, 1000x931px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1000x931px

Am I the only one with a hard-on for the Soviet big ships that sadly never were?

>>55031104
I'm a bit biased against the Red Fleet for dirtying up beautiful pasta and RN botes. That said, they would have been some good looking boats. Look like they're trying to ape several different countries though. I guess after reading about her, it's no wonder I was drawn to Sovetskiy Soyuz . Apparently the original proposal was fielded by Ansaldo of Italy, and she was to be similar in appearance and build to the Littorios, which are some of my personal favorites.

>>55029501
Tbf the treaties allowed her to be kept without affecting RN's total allowed CV tonnage and they mostly used her as a training vessel during the interwar period.

>>55031104
I've heard that the Sovetsky Soyuz woulda been damn near as big as the Montana class, but with firepower slightly less than an Iowa and with kind of a glass jaw because the Soviets couldn't make cemented armor plates thicker than like 8 inches.

>>55033361
>US: Two Quadfors ass-castles
>USSR: Two dual 100 mm ass-barbettes

>>55031379
>Apparently the original proposal was fielded by Ansaldo of Italy,

No wonder they look so good. Say what you want to say, but the Italians built some beautiful ships.

>>55033425
I definitely do in fact say that. Also that I like most of their botes, and RN propaganda otherwise is kind of shite.

>>55033361
Oof. As good as she looks, that wide bow would've murdered her speed.

>>55033361
>float plane ramps in the rear
>cranes in the front
I'm no naval engineer, but... what?

File: HMS-Rodney[1].jpg (174KB, 1204x767px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1204x767px

>>55033586
Nelrods had cranes and botes up front. Also could have been for ammo loading or other stuff.

File: Rodshell[1].jpg (64KB, 744x552px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 744x552px

>>55033711

File: sovetsky-iowa.jpg (181KB, 822x973px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 822x973px

>>55033361

File: britbong.jpg (101KB, 1200x659px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1200x659px

>>55033711
Oh god, I had just a stupid idea....

>>55034260
My disgust knows no bounds.

>>55034260
> "You see if we rule all of the waves, we won't need to turn."
> "Sir I'm not sure that's how-"
> "RULE BRITANNIA"

>>55034486
Yeah Rodney is ugly isn't she :^)

File: you motherfucker.jpg (37KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x600px

>>55035146

>>55035055
Colonize the globe without the ship leaving Portsmouth...

>>55035640
> Preemptively dig canals in straight lines along its course, through such meddlesome minor regions as France, Spain, Half of Africa and the Antarctic.

>>55035681
>course
>implying the stern isn't still at the berth and the bow already at the destination

>>55035738
waves status
[ ] ruled
[ ] not ruled
[X] FUCKING RULED

>>55037137
> Not "Jolly well ruled. Pip pip"

File: SMS_Wacht_1899.jpg (7MB, 5696x3616px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 5696x3616px

/nwg/ tell me about avisos

>>55039114
Isn't it what French called their colonial scoops?

>>55039114
Useful vessel for patrol duty in your own colonial waters and for showing the flag near those waters. The largest of them could almost be called light cruisers in a pinch.

>>55039114
Speaking of small vessels...does anyone here bother making larger MS vessels in RtW or do you stick with the small 200-300t auto generated boats?

I've been interested in making larger colonial sloops to help with overseas tonnage and was wondering if it was worth it.

>>55039477
I was thinking about doing a test run to see if the 500t MS are better at ASW than the 200t, but haven't had the time yet.

>>55039383
Yes.
>>55039114
Several of the French ones saw action in the Med, I think under Vichy flags, as did the ones in the Indochina station.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ko_Chang

>>55039580
A pair of them fought each other, one under each flag. The FF vessel kicked the crap out of the Vichy vessel.

>>55040779
Nice!

I wonder what that converted vessel to the floating docks immediate left is. Looks like something from the 1880s or 90s.

File: Forward Firepower Intesifies (Dunkerque Algerie).jpg (359KB, 1000x389px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1000x389px

Speaking of Marine Nationale, I finally got out of my painting rut and did something again. Next on the table are just shy of a dozen destroyers and three subs, and that will put me finished with what I have, MN wise.

If War Plan Red (or Red-Orange, though that would probably change things dramatically) had happened/went into effect, what do you suppose the outcome would be in terms of the naval campaign? Has anyone here done alt history games based on this?

>>55041020

There's a Plan Orange board game, anon.

Going to be an /hwg/ community project next month hopefully. Go and vote and participate!
>>55041190
>>55041190
>>55041190

>>55041020
I don't want to speculate on Red-Orange, too many variables.

War Plan Red: Brits advantage early war, US Atlantic fleet BTFO until Pacific fleet reinforces. Brits use Canadian ports to stage raids, US invades to cut them off. Succeeds in taking the Eastern ports, not so much the Western due to harsh overland conditions. Pacific fleet eases pressure on the Eastern Seaboard until US industrial production kicks into overdrive. With a material advantage, the initiative in the Atlantic shifts to America. However, winning the Battle of the Atlantic leaves the Western Seaboard undermanned. British colonial forces (Indian and Australian troops, the Pacific squadrons, etc) stage an invasion of the Western Seaboard, likely taking the Northern port cities due to their proximity to Canadian reinforcements but fail to capture anything south of Sacramento. The remainder of the US Pacific fleet is relegated to guarding merchant convoys, defending port cities, and submarine commerce raiding.

Assuming France doesn't get involved, the US blockades the UK and attempts an amphibious invasion. UK forces repulse the invasion, Fortress Britain holds until naval reinforcements break the blockade. At this point the US holds the advantage in the Atlantic and the British have the Pacific. The US, holding the advantage in production, is able to keep their numbers in the Atlantic stable while rebuilding the Pacific fleet. Eventually American industrial capacity allows for an invasion of Hawaii. With Hawaii reclaimed, America now has a stronghold in the Pacific.

Honestly the deciding factor are the British holdings in Australia. You can't invade it without committing millions of troops, even though the population is relatively small the landmass is immense. The UK will always be able to use it as a staging ground and prevent a decisive American victory in the Pacific. However, the overwhelming American numbers puts the home islands in grave danger. The war ends in stalemate.

>>55041447

It'd be the height of irresponsibility to write off Australia as flipping neutral... but Australia would flip neutral.
>ground war in Canada that isn't decided quickly (too easy to defend some places, too much space to attack in others, and where not that there is the matter of the canadians) but hope you didn't much like vancouver
>indian army maybe threatens/takes the philippines if they can get there and win the local naval campaign
>avalanche of US newbuilds blockades the british islands, war ends

>>55040818
>I wonder what that converted vessel to the floating docks immediate left is.

Naval history & heritage command seems to believe that she might be HMS Algiers (ex-Triumph), a broadside ironclad from 1870s.

>>55040824
Nice, dude.

>>55025640
>I've heard 33 was the official top speed but the actual top speed could vary from as low as 32.5 knots to as high as 35 knots depending on sea conditions and which Iowa you were talking about at which time.

33 knots was the 'design speed', all of them ended up testing for higher, which brought the class wide 'Flank Speed' to 35 knots.
Iowa herself ended up with boiler damage from WW2, and would never make higher than 32.5 knots afterwards; all three of the others have been recorded as breaking the 35 knot line, Missouri reporting 36 when responding to the Korean war, and New Jersey reporting 38 on the dial under emergency power during her solo mad dash across the Atlantic during the 80s.
Wisconsin was the one that broke 35 during a race with a CV, because why the hell not; apparently speed thrills are important enough to risk billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

>>55026625
>>55026760
>Missouri's top speed was limited after her grounding in 1950.
This is actually a commonly distributed myth, even within the service at the time; but the guy in charge of repairing her, R.A. Landgraff of the Long Beach Naval Yard, let her go with a clean bill of health noting that her hydrodynamic flow hadn't been damaged at all.
Remember, these four ships had a lot more reserve hull speed than they did the engine power to push them. They could take A LOT of damage before their speed started dropping.

>>55043963
>Iowa herself ended up with boiler damage from WW2

Combat damage, or just overcooked engines?

>>55042500
Nice. I appreciate the info digging.

>>55043973
Overcooked engines, the Iowa apparently was racing around between islands and partially melted a boiler trying to get steam far too quickly.
Even back then, people tended to forget that getting big ships like that to accelerate was not just pulling a lever or flooring the gas, but a multi-step process where even one thing going wrong can lead to catastrophic results.

File: 1200px-Rigault_de_Genouilly_SLV_Green_1938.jpg (124KB, 1200x658px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1200x658px

>>55039477

Well i've built a few 1100t MS now and dispatched them overseas. 6x1 5in guns and a pair of 3in guns with some skimpy armor, colonial quarters, a 16kn speed, and extreme range reliable engines.

Not sure how they'll do since I can build DDs just as large now for around the same price. We shall see.

>>55045070
Did some comparison to a 1100t DD.

The MS:
>200k more expensive.
>One more main gun.
>1 month shorter construction time.
>1k less per month to maintain.
>Actually armored.

The DD:
>11kns faster.
>2x2 torp tubes.
>Long but not extreme range.

I think the DD may be the better bet but i'm not sure.

You can't command MS as far as i've seen so they'll never officially join a battle unless its near your coast and then they'll just be bots. But then I'm not sure i'd want a 26kn DD in this time period. Its slightly slower than my best CLs right now.

Shrug

File: SMS_Panther_(1901).jpg (3MB, 5710x3932px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5710x3932px

>>55045193
I sometimes build a few 500t-800t MS with 4" or 5" guns and set them to coastal patrol. One of them once blew up an enemy CL via turret flash fire during a costal raid scenario when they ran into eachother at night.
But I tend to lose a lot of MS to "spirited gun duel" events against enemy subs, so I mostly stick with 200t variants armed with a single 3" popgun mounted aft. I just wish they wouldn't get automatically scrapped after a few years.

>>55045301
>I just wish they wouldn't get automatically scrapped after a few years.

That gets pretty annoying.
>perfectly fine 500t ms with decade of service life behind her
>better autoscrap that sucker
>500t dd granny
>easily lasts 50 years even if you never even bother to think about refitting her

>>55045334
Yeah I tend to build a boat load of DDs early on and then never update them. I just bring em out during wartime as ASW/Coastal defense. Otherwise they sit in reserve or mothballs. Saves me from making many MS that get autoscrapped after 10 years.

File: RIP subs.jpg (356KB, 1593x701px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1593x701px

>>55045391
I'll never understand why some people scrap their old DDs.

>>55044951
>partially melted a boiler

Bullshit. Boiler are repaired all the time. I helped rebuild one aboard the Bowen when some clown decided to relight off the back wall with ventilating first. That boiler looked like a Jiffypop pan when we started and operated in spec when we finished with no reduction in speed.

Now, if the attempt to accelerate somehow effected her turbines and reduction gears causing them to be down graded with regards to the allowable top RPM, I could buy your story.

But a melted boiler? Fuck no.

File: whynotboth.jpg (19KB, 400x389px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x389px

>>55045571

>>55045617

Because, little girl, you can fix a boiler and do so economically while replacing a turbine-reduction gear set is much more involved and far more expensive. So much more expensive that the few knots gained for normal operatinal steaming rather than wartime emergency steaming may not be worth the price tag.

Grown ups tend to make decisions based on what's known as a "Cost-Benefit" analysis. It's a way of asking if doing something worth what you'll get in return. You'll better understand the concept when you grow up, stop doing ads for flat bottom taco shells, and then have to decide whether fucking that producer is worth furthering your acting career.

>>55045571
In the end, it's just the what I was told on the subject by the involved engineers.
It's quite possible that they were simplifying things just to get their points across - I was a rivets and sledgehammers guy, not a boiler technician or sparktrician.

>>55045690
Well I mean more, is it not possible that Iowa both partially melted her boiler *and* fucked up her turbines and gearing in the same incident?

>>55045733
>Well I mean more, is it not possible that Iowa both partially melted her boiler *and* fucked up her turbines and gearing in the same incident?

While both could easily have occurred, a "melted" boiler would not be the reason her top speed was still capped decades later.

As >>55045726 admits, he was most likely told a story. A story deliberately simplified. Simplified NOT because the listener was too stupid to understand, but because the speaker couldn't or didn't want to take the time to explain more fully.

A damaged boiler can be repaired "in situ", relatively cheaply, and without hull cuts. An over stressed turbine-reduction gear set is something else entirely. Capping the allowable top RPM for the set during normal operations was something the Navy could live with while ignoring that cap during rarely if ever emergencies was something the Navy was prepared to risk.

File: Capture.png (44KB, 644x492px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 644x492px

>>54922309

What do.

>>55048186
I don't play RtW, but bumping for your sake so somebody here who does can see this.

>>55048186
Feed in name and registration code.

>>55031104
>>55033906
She would've been one big gal, but between the lack of a bulbous bow and that constant beam I can't imagine she'd have made 30 knots even with an Iowa's powerplant...not very sturdy either, given how crap >>55032994 says Russkie armor was: hell, the Soyuz would just have sucked ass until the Soviets inevitably gave her a shoddily juryrigged nuke powerplant and swapped turret 2 for missiles

>>55049260

She was designed for 28 knots.

>>55049333
That was the design estimate, yeah. Honestly, with that hull form, I'd call that slightly optimistic.

>>55053062
I don't get why it took so long for the teardrop hull to catch on: it existed in the very beginning with the Holland boats, it's simpler to build, it's not much slower than a surface ship-style hull on the surface (better seakeeping probably makes up for it) and considerably faster submerged-engineers CLEARLY knew about streamlining but only did it for weird stuff like Surcouf's gun...why didn't WWI/II subs look like the XXI and Nautilus?

>>55053422
>why didn't WWI/II subs look like the XXI and Nautilus?

Because WW1 & 2 subs were torpedo boats which could safely submerge, knucklehead, and not true submarines. They needed good surface handling characteristics because they spent the vast majority of their time on the surface.

>>55053597
>seakeeping
And a streamlined, rounded hull presents less of a vertical surface for waves to act against, reducing roll/general motion: whalebacks were a thing for a reason, and while they weren't ideal for cargo vessels due to small/vulnerable hatches the form factor is a perfect match for subs...

>>55053817
>And a streamlined, rounded hull presents less of a vertical surface for waves to act against, reducing roll/general motion:

Reducing roll/general motion? I take it you've never been aboard a SSN or SSBN then. They roll like pigs.

Whalebacks were a thing. They were a thing on top of a normal hull.. The entire ship wasn't teardrop shaped.

>>55053928
I spent a good amount of time on a SWATH dive ship, and while I know most of the stability comes from the twin hulls it felt like the hydrodynamics significantly reduced how much the sea affected us...
When we switched to a sportfisher to go into the shallows, it felt like most of the hull's motion (when not hydroplaning) was from waves/swells "slapping" the flat side of the hull.

>>55054054

WW1 & WW2 sub hulls were optimized for surface travel. While some nods were made towards streamlining for better submerged operations, the requirements for surface handling trumped all.

The late war Type XXI hulls emphasized submerged performance over surface performance for two specific reasons. 1st, WAllie airpower & radars meant that U-boats now spent most of their time submerged. 2nd, the design was intended to snorkel instead of surfacing.

Despite that the Type XXI still didn't have a teardrop or Albacore hull.

File: USS_Bowfin_submarine_-_full_view_side.jpg (1MB, 4022x1152px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4022x1152px

>>55054716
Nothing like pausing to admire the fine lines of a vessel before you send her to the bottom in a mangled heap with a big spread of fish.

File: 47567127[1].jpg (104KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x682px

>>55054814
Man, there's a bunch of Balaos still kicking around as museums. I've been on Clamagore before, and I knew about Becuna, but I didn't realize there were six others too. Wonder if that's the ship class with the most surviving as museums, or if another one holds that distinction?

File: Torpedoed_Japanese_destroyer_HD-SN-99-02974.jpg (2MB, 2985x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2985x2048px

>>55054814
>>55054716

>>55054814

Oh Bowfin you beautiful old bitch. I lost track of the number of times I visited you growing up there.

>>55055082
Oberon-class apparently has 8 ships completely preserved with another 3 being partially preserved.

>>55043126
Such a sexy camo pattern.

So does anyone put main battery guns in casemates in RtW?

I've started experimenting with the idea but haven't gotten into combat with any
vessels of this design yet. I've got a 7in CA class with 14 main guns(all casemate)
in 1901 and a 10in B class with 10 main guns(4 in turrets the rest in casemates) in 1904.

>>55058972

I've never bothered- and I've done at least 5 historical/very large Austria-Hungaries. The early stuff just isn't worth getting cute with.

>>55059695 is right.

For 2000t more you get both 14 7in guns AND 4 10in guns + increased survivability.

File: L'Adroit_Bourrasque.jpg (378KB, 800x492px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 800x492px

>>55043763
Thanks!

>>55040824
Knocked out six of the eleven destroyers. These are all L'Adroit class. They good thing about them is they also double as Bourrasques. I've got five Aigles up next, but they need to be deflashed and worked over with a pin vise before I can think about painting them.

>>55055082
percentage-wise the Iowas are 100% safe, and there's gotta be a thousand fucking Foxtrots lying around...

>>55060799
Was just wondering, actually, if the Iowas were the only case of an entire completed ship class being preserved for posterity.

>>55060835
I presume that single ship classes would be count as cheating.

>>55062824

Brit propaganda aside, the Italians built some beautiful ships.

>>55065542
Brit propaganda?

>>55065826

The usual stuff, the RM was shit, their kit was shit, etc.

>>55066211
Huh. I just heard they had a problem with shell manufacturers producing batches of shells of highly variable quality. So long as the shells were in spec the Littorio's guns hit damn near as hard as an Iowa's 16'' guns.

>>55066548
>So long as the shells were in spec the Littorio's guns hit damn near as hard as an Iowa's 16'' guns.
The comical thing is, the US Navy of the day actually specced their guns around the middling quality shells (due to the ease of manufacturing with looser tolerances), and those are the shells we see the data for in public resources; so that discrepancy actually existed for all sides.
Using 'very good' quality shells, the 16"/50 Mk7s got better, with Nathan Okun noting that such shells would probably cleanly penetrate all Naval Armors used in that day but the Yamato's turret face plate if the Iowas were actually carrying any of them (they weren't).

>>55067384
Source for that? Not disbelieving, but always eager to read more Okun data.

>>55066548
>>55067384

I often wonder what might have happened if the RN had heeded Jellicoe's pre-war memo regarding shell testing. As it stood they had no idea their design was flawed until well after Jutland, something like late '16 or early '17. A visiting group of Swedish naval officers mentioned in passing that during a recent visit to Germany the Germans had let slip that RN shells broke apart instead of penetrating.

What with the need for testing, R&D, prototypes, more testing, and the needs of the Western Front, the fleet didn't get the first of the redesigned "green boys"(?) until late '17.

Anyway, you can read about it in Massie's Castles of Steel.

>>55067766
Apparently the RN estimated that with properly functioning shells, they would have sent six more German ships to the bottom than they did.

>>55065542
I've never been a fan of 3x3 turret layouts from a purely aesthetic perspective, but I can admit that the pastabotes are fairly handsome.

File: British_battleship_HMS_Vanguard_(23)_underway_c1947.jpg (187KB, 1280x956px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1280x956px

>>55068113
How do you feel about 4x2s?

>>55068143
Four turrets is just better balanced, it shouldn't be hard to see why that would seem more graceful.

>>55068296

While I agree that 4 turrets is more symmetrical, there's something about 3x3 that seems more rakish. Especially with a clipper bow.

In the end, it's a matter of personal taste. We could be having a similar never ending discussion about boobs!

>>55067821
>Apparently the RN estimated that with properly functioning shells, they would have sent six more German ships to the bottom than they did.

Which makes it all the more odd they didn't test their shells pre-war despite being in a decades long capital ship naval race. "We gotta build more & bigger ships with more & bigger guns, but we don't need to worry about the shells the guns throw..."

Then again, there's the example of the US and it's torpedoes in early WW2. Yikes!

>>55068340
The correct answer to that one is "the pair that belong to the one you love most".

Maybe same with ships if you think about it that way.

>>55068412

Wise Anon is wise.

>>55068113
>>55068143
>>55068296
>>55068340

4x2 before Improved Triple Turrets is researched.
3x3 after Improved Triple Turrets gets researched.
2x4 after Improved Quadruple Turrets get researched.

Case closed.
Next!

>>55069345
>not 3x4 in a nelrod arrangement

>>55069452
>3x4 16" guns with 8" T & 4" TT armor.

Enjoy your flash fires, buddy.

New thread: >>55069650