Naval Warfare HO! (V@S and other Naval Games)

File: ship0029.jpg (118KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1280x1024px

>>50904603
Welcome to the Fold OP!

Here is a link for other people who might be interested:
https://dropfile.to/HdEUstP

>>50904707
You da real MVP

>>50904603
Ise lost against a Littorio? Game must be broken.

File: 2006-07-12-25730.jpg (153KB, 899x719px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 899x719px

OP, if you want to get these idiots in Naval stuff, you have to tempt them with their Animu bullshit.

File: 1307552288257.jpg (292KB, 1250x775px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1250x775px

>>50905005
You give me a rock hard Pagoda!

File: puppywin.jpg (56KB, 640x410px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x410px

>>50904707
Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

>>50905160
Pagoda towers look cyberpunk af in my opinion

>>50905160
What was the Japanese obsession with building stupid towers like that.

>>50905773

IIRC it was less of an obsession and more a need to refit ships with newer technology and not having the port facilities for a full into-the-hull refit. Adding shit to the exterior of the bridge tower is easier than ripping the bridge tower off to revamp the interior.

File: Gangut-Class Modernization.jpg (722KB, 2990x2055px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 2990x2055px

>>50905773

>>50906330 is fairly close.

The Japanese ships started with British-style tripod masts (being basically copies of British vessels). As technology progressed and the need for more spotting stations, lighting platforms, and other sundries increased, instead of taking down the masts and instituting a major refit, the Japanese more or less just tacked on more and more platforms (they also strengthened the original tripod legs).

The Japanese solution *was* faster and less expensive than the full-on refits undertaken by other navies. Now, every other nation also added things to their bridges and foremasts, but not to the extent the Japanese did, and when brought in for modernization everyone else showed a preference for replacing the foremast and bridge structures entirely. The US replaced its cage masts with sturdier tripods, and then post-Pearl with tower structures similar to the new fast battleships. The Italians put in entire new tower structures. And the British went for those massive block towers.

Also, "pagoda"-style upgrades were certainly not unique to the Japanese. The Colorados during the late war era, for example, show a breadth of additions which come very close to looking like a pagoda mast. And the Soviets outright created pagodas when they modernized the Gangut-class. Pic related.

>>50904988

It's VaS. Par for the course. Plus, what game would let 20-year obsolete biplanes immobilize a modern German battleship? Game must be broken.

>lucky hits happen

>>50904603

VaS is a decent entry-level game. I'd recommend heading over to the Historicals General thread, OP. There's regular navals discussion there. I personally prefer General Quarters as a game, and there's a new ruleset called Naval War that's just a touch more involved than VaS and avoids a lot of that systems issues. Good to see more naval enthusiasts.

File: 110028-10908-87.jpg (43KB, 784x329px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 784x329px

>>50904603
>I had the Littorio
Based.

File: Rulebooks.jpg (251KB, 1017x479px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1017x479px

>>50904603
>Victory at Sea

Wasn't there supposed to be a new edition of this released like 3 years ago? I know Mongoose makes Valve look like hardworking prompt people, but still.

File: 1454103231914.jpg (257KB, 1280x657px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1280x657px

>>50904603
Wonderful to hear, I prefer the Richelieu class myself but I wish european ships didn't have the portholes.

Are there no good WW2 Naval Tabletop Games around?

Even if it's a bit arcadey like SW Armada I wouldn't mind.

>>50906497
>a modern German battleship?

Bismarck's design was basically prehistoric (hardly surprising considering how Germany lost its institutional shipbuilding knowledge after the first great kraut chimpout) so calling her modern is kinda stretching it.

>>50910061
There are about a dozen or so, if go back far enough
Hex and chit wise there are literally hundreds

>>50910291
I love how most nations had plans to break the treaty, wonder how things would have gone had they broke it sooner.

>>50910291
I mean it's a warship and Mars was the god of war, so naturally we calculate displacement based on Martian gravity. Doesn't everyone?

File: __kongou_zhan_jian_shao_nyu_drawn_by_tengxiang_lingnai__6c920c258b9ef8196b52ab07ea6458a3.jpg (809KB, 950x1365px) Image search: [Google]

809KB, 950x1365px

>>50905005
If you're going with that route you probably should had posted one of the Jap battlecruisers that are so popular among weaboos in these days.

File: Tbone3.jpg (241KB, 2464x1648px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 2464x1648px

ship bump

ded thread ded genre

>>50913852
You can occasionally see people that are into naval stuff in /awg/ or /hwg/ so it isn't completely dead, just in critical condition and currently on life support at intensive care unit.

>>50914380

Does anyone even actively produce games for the genre any more? The only game that's even close to navals is Star Wars Armada, and that's only sucessful because of the Star Wars license. Are games about ships just a genre inherently doomed to fail?

File: 319385688_b7e7ae6a45_o.jpg (54KB, 800x575px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x575px

>>50914380
Doesn't help that Kids aren't interested in it either. All want some fast action BS like Ass Creed Black Flag.

File: 2006-05-05-20704.jpg (126KB, 799x602px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 799x602px

>>50910061
Victory at Sea. Like OP said, it is generally easy to pick up and understand, and it feels right.

Or are you looking for something with model support?

>>50915673
And the autists that could be interested in this shit are too busy fapping to their kawaii waifus to care about boats that aren't 20lbs of pussy&ass.

File: HMS_Nelson_Practice_Shoot.jpg (64KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x379px

>>50910308
Have you seen the UK pre-treaty fleet?

18 Inch Gunned N3
16 Inch Gun G3
Super Cruisers weighing in at 'only' 25,000 tons

The UK pre-washington fleet was going to be hilariously OP. The best the US had on the drawing board was the South Dakota (1920) which was an upgunned Colorado.

>>50915778
>brits and yanks figured out triple turrets
>french were messing around with quad turrets
>japs still were going for mashing in as many double turrets they could and hope for the best

Wonder why nips never really adopted triple turrets for their boats.

File: 1473837775921.jpg (1MB, 1600x1211px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1211px

>>50915778
Rule Britannia!
And yet by 1940 they were the only ones without treaty breaking battleship plans.

>>50916008
By 1940s UK was very much a has-been empire on life support.

>>50916008
Probably because they already had a ton of good ships (QE and Revenge + Nelsols) and the KGV was armoured to the teeth, with a better throwweight then the Bismarck series.

>>50916157
Well fighting a world war single handedly will drain resources. People forget that Britain fought the start of WW2 while still trying to recover from the Great War. It's nothing short of a miracle they survived.

File: hms_barham_28191429.jpg (70KB, 728x402px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 728x402px

>>50915959
The Japanese were not very good engineers. They copied the British turret design over and over, including the loading. The first innovation they had was in the Yamato turret, where they managed to get a fast firing cycle, but at a huge weight penalty (which is another reason the Yamato is so massively overweight.) For her tonnage, the Yamato wastes a lot of it. Consider the KGV, or the Nelson, very heavily armoured and armed ships, fast, and both under the treaty limits for weight.

tl;dr: Japanese had bad engineers.

File: 52_bismarck_michel_guyot_1.jpg (108KB, 743x489px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 743x489px

Here is the Victory At Sea rules since we are talking about it:

https://dropfile.to/SAVjjCw

File: 0a47a292c93e23d5be0986ab375cd459.jpg (41KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x335px

>>50916661
True.
>>50916711
Also very true.

File: 1936_07_21_devonport.jpg (88KB, 744x509px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 744x509px

>>50916711
Yeah, whenever people debate Battleships, they always forget that the British actually built treaty battleships. The Italians, Germans, And Japanese just lied about their displacements. The Americans tried, but then abandoned it because it wasn't going to work, plus the war had already started.

In terms of ship building efficiency, the British were always at the top of their game. By the 1940s, no other nation could pack as much onto a weight limited ship as they could. Without the restrictions of the treaty, the Brits had the Lion, which was 3 knots slower then an Iowa, with identical armament and superior armor. The British wisely cancelled it, because they saw the CV was the way of the future, and the drain on resources of the Lion would have cut into the carrier budget. The US didn't have those budget problems, which is why we got the Iowa class.

But yeah, British Naval engineering was damn impressive throughout the 20s-40s. Talk about doing more with less.

File: 1480356307056.jpg (81KB, 483x545px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 483x545px

>>50917791

Too bad their fire control was competing strongly for dead-last place dohoho

>>50917830
>Claims British Gunnery was bad
>Forgets who invented Radar Fire Con
>Forgets who invented the Admiralty Fire Control Table

British gunnery was damn good. Fire Rate, Dispersion, and Accuracy was amazing, thanks to the Mighty BL 15 Mk1 which had truly admirable gunnery characteristics.

German Firecon never worked properly, usually failed on the first salvo when the Kraut electronics died under blast pressure.

Meanwhile the Brits happily shelled stuff in bad weather (Reknown and Duke of York for example)

>>50917941
>dryer tables instead of proper synthetic fire control
>main rangefinders in the turret bases instead of up on the mast
>late implementation of RPC
>never implemented a full-feedback RPC loop like the Americans did

here be the deets my good man

https://dropfile.to/B8A8CAw

your weekend just vanished, but I am not sorry

>>50918044
Is that the big book of naval gunnery by friedman? I've read it. British gunnery bad in WW1, good interwar, great WW2 on ships that had the refits.

>>50918044
Let them be, WW2 was pretty much the last time that Brits could pretend that their navy had any relevance and that they still ruled the waves.

>>50918089
Fair enough, I don't think the UK still claims to rule the waves anyway.

File: 2e6416c7457ec64de6a1a60fa6c1c0f931efa970.jpg (88KB, 900x916px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 900x916px

>>50917365
Nice, reading it now!

>>50918591
This is not nautical.

>>50918620
They fly around in a ship.

File: 2ec643dc4f40dbe3ba4c016e5ab98405.jpg (50KB, 369x600px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 369x600px

>>50918651
A space ship, and I'm still disappointed there weren't more space battles.

>>50904603
Nice OP, how many people in your campaign? And I am assuming you are using the campaign rules from the book?

>>50910061
If you go full grognard and such, Admiralty Trilogy has the WW2 Component Command at Sea.

Harpoon's rules adapted to the environs of WW2.

I'm waiting for the WW1 set's (Fear God and Dread Nought) update and release on PDF.

>>50918077
>Is that the big book of naval gunnery by friedman? I've read it.

Oh, so you know the story then. Carry on~

But for everyone else, snag that. Best book on fire control I've ever seen.

File: Graf-Spee.jpg (60KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x1024px

Loving the V@S rules so far, but the errata in the second book is ridiculous, may as well just go back and cross out passages in the orginial stats.

>>50923033
She looks better on the bottom of the Ocean.

>>50918764
A boat is a boat even if it goes around in space.

>>50909997
Beautiful ship.

File: 3sjg.jpg (39KB, 496x281px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 496x281px

Ok, reading it now, how do the points work for balancing forces?

>>50924644
Ah, the magic of 'priority levels'.

Ok, so every battle has a Priority Level, there are five levels. Lowest to highest is Patrol, Skirmish, Raid, Battle, War

Each battle has a number of points, rated to the battle level. Let's say we have Raid 3, so you have 3 pts in a raid level battle. You can buy 1 raid ship with each point. Or you could buy two Skirmish ships for one point. You could also buy three patrol ships for one point. You can combine points, to bring in a higher class vessel, so 2 points of Raid and you can have a Battle class vessel. Points can be split, a bit as well, 1 Raid point can get you 1 skirmish vessel and two patrol vessels. (You can't split a point more then that though.)

It seems confusing, but it is actually really easy to add up once you get the hang of it.

Most players run Raid 5 or Battle 4 as standard.

It's not perfect for balancing, but it is quick and easy to 'mostly' end up with fair fights.

File: hms_hood_engaging.jpg (53KB, 672x460px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 672x460px

>>50924866
Also, people who try to game the system (like maxing out lower tier ships) tend to lose games. Your average patrol level destroyer can get wiped the fuck out by the secondary armament on a Battle level Battlecruiser in one turn, the primary armament will finish off a Skirmish level light cruiser with 1 or 2 hits. And they outrange you. So trying to zerg to win just results in miserable failure.

The best strategy is to try and have 50% of your force or more at the priority level of the battle, and then give yourself some tactical flexibility with one tier step downs.

>>50924909
I was going to say, it seemed open to abuse, but that makes sense that each tier is pretty significant in difference.

File: Franceball.png (23KB, 229x152px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 229x152px

>>50916711
>Yeah, whenever people debate Battleships, they always forget that the British actually built treaty battleships. The Italians, Germans, And Japanese just lied about their displacements. The Americans tried, but then abandoned it because it wasn't going to work, plus the war had already started.
Y-you're forgetting someone.

File: slice and dice.jpg (58KB, 704x480px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 704x480px

>>50926973
>15 inch guns in muh glorious 14-inch max treaty
>quad turrets that didn't randomly jam

>>50917791
I would disqualify the KGV as best "all-around." No one had perfect quad turrets, and the damn things are complex as fuck. KGV's also had an abysmal cruising range compared to their contemporaries.

I really hate to go all 'Murrica, but the North Carolinas were probably the best all-around, (especially since the South Dakotas were designed better, and probably would rule most 1v1 engagements, but were absolute shite in other areas that made them a poor all-around BB).

Richeliu would probably be just behind the NorCars. If the French would have stopped experimenting all the damn time...

>>50915724
That would be nice, unless there just happens to be a suitable range of 3pp stuff that fits the bill.

File: German CLs.jpg (782KB, 2016x1136px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 2016x1136px

>>50928829

Your best bet is likely to be to get models and then look for a system, since pretty much every naval wargame is flexible when it comes to scale.

If you're in the UK, 1/3000 and 1/6000 scale are the common ones. 1/3000 are best serviced by NavWar and Skytrex. 1/6000 is best serviced by Magister Militum.

If you're in the US, the primary scales are 1/2400 and 1/6000. The big dog in 1/2400 is GHQ, but their ships are *expensive* (gorgeous, tho). A lot of people buy their capital ships from GHQ and then go to Panzerschiffe for lighter ships in 1/2400. Pic related illustrates the difference: Straslund is from GHQ, the others are Panzerschiffe. 1/6000 is best serviced by Scale Creep Miniatures.

Note that attempting to order across the Atlantic is problematic in many cases. The Ur-example is NavWar: they have a web catalog with no order system. You have to download their catalog, draw a check from a British bank in pounds sterling (and only that - have fun with that), and send the check across the pond to them, and they'll get your order to you in 1-3 months. Their store is open 4 hours/week on Saturday afternoons only, so good luck calling them to clarify things. And if you mess up your order at any point you'll have to start the entire process over again.

The other common scale for WW1/WW2 stuff is Axis&Allies: War at Sea miniatures (prepainted minis at 1/1800), and the Victory at Sea stuff (which is also 1/1800). These don't see much service outside that arena - 1/1800 gets a little big for the tabletop once you use pretty much any other rules sets aside for the games they're designed for. Note that 1/2400 can play VaS just fine; you even get some more maneuvering room and it looks OK on the table.

>>50929276
Magister Militum's range looks pretty nice. No 1/6000 Taihou though, wtf.

>>50928804
North Carolina was not a treaty battleship.

>>50929276
1/6000 in North America is actually done by "Last Square Miniatures" who own the license to produce the 1/6000 hallmark ships.

http://www.lastsquare.com/zen-cart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=103_109&zenid=fldfhdqpr9a2audap8p3m05lr2

1/6000 is my preferred scale for big fleet engagements, ranges feel right, and it is generally cheap to field a big force.

And 1/2400 isn't that expensive either, well, relatively.
Battle 4 Force (Tournament Level)
GHQ HMS Hood 16.95
GHQ HMS Vanguard 16.95
GHQ HMS Ark Royal 19.95
GHQ HMS Yorkshire 11.95
GHQ HMS Belfast x2 23.90

>Total: ~90$

>>50930641
>had been designed to follow same standard displacement limitations as KGVs
>upgunned thanks to the escalator clause that had been baked into the treaty
>not a treaty battleship

Really the only reason why KGVs didn't carry 3 x 3 in either 15 or 16-inchers was out of sheer British stubbornness.

>>50930894
The reason the KGV had 14 inch guns was because the British hoped everyone would go to 14 inch clause in the treaty. They didn't.

9x15 put the ship overweight
9x16 was not possible
12x14 required a stretched hull (not possible)
10x14 was the best throw weight they could mount.

KGV also had tons more armour then a North Carolina, almost 15 inches to the NoCals 12.

North Carolina was not really a treaty BB, given her displacements. She may have started out as one, but by the end she was way out of the weight requirement.

From a protection standpoint, the KGV had a chance of shrugging off a hit from the NoCal, the NoCal didn't have that chance when taking fire from the KGV.

>>50931146
Holy shit, I thought you were lying about the armour.

They put 15 inches of battle steel and still managed to stay under treaty weight? Not compromised to hell (American) or lying through their teeth (Japan/Germany/Italy)

File: 1315773962001.png (21KB, 445x638px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 445x638px

>>50931421
>Holy shit, I thought you were lying about the armour.
>tfw you're so perfidious that you loop right back round to being legit

>>50931421
>They put 15 inches of battle steel and still managed to stay under treaty weight?

To achieve that KGVs' were lacking in endurance (thanks 3.7k tons of oil stored aboard, for comparison North Carolinas' had 6.2k tons) and had extremely lightly armored conning tower.

>>50931642
>To achieve that KGVs' were lacking in endurance (thanks 3.7k tons of oil stored aboard, for comparison North Carolinas' had 6.2k tons) and had extremely lightly armored conning tower.

Wrong again on the fuel. Fuel was not part of treaty calculations, only full armament stores. So you had Max Zero Fuel weight limit of 35K tons, if you decided to load up with more fuel, that was fine by the treaty. The reason that the Brits had low fuel numbers is they designed their ships to operate in the Atlantic, and they had support bases everywhere in the world. The US did not have that luxury, so devoted more space to oil tanks. But Fuel is not part of the treaty considerations.

As to the Conning Tower, the british studied the weight with it, and did away with it since they found no captain actually used the damn thing in battle, and that protecting the bridge from shrapnel with lighter 3 in armor was a more effective use of weight.

It's funny, because in every operation I've read about, the US never used those armoured conning towers in their ships, preferring to stay on the bridge during battle. So more wasted space.

>>50930727
>And 1/2400 isn't that expensive either, well, relatively.

In my defense, I'm collecting the entire British Grand Fleet and the entire German High Seas Fleet (1914-1918). That somewhat colors my collecting perspective of 1/2400 stuff.

>>50931757
Oh for sure.

You can get the entire fleets in 1/6000 for about 400 bucks together, 200 each. In 1/2400 you are crossing into the 1000s easily.

>>50930641
Under the revisions of 1936 which allowed all nations to increase the ratios and increased the gun size to 16". This was specifically because the Japanese and Italians were getting all "fuck dat treaty shit."

1938 saw an addendum that increased displacement to 45,000t.

North Carolinas were designed and laid down prior to the escalator clause and the only change done afterwards was in armament. Hence, why they have 16" and only 14" gun protection.

>>50932790
12 inch armor is not 14 inch gun protection.

>>50932790
Sorry displacement wasn't a change, guns were.

I agree the NorCar's were obviously overweight by the end of it, but within the escalation clause.

KGV is best original treaty BB
NorCar is best expanded treaty BB
SoDak's would probably displace the NorCar if they weren't so crap.

>>50932946
Lion is the best Expanded Treaty Battleship.

Identical armament to an Iowa
Massively superior Armor
Similar Speed.

>>50933260
>never built

I would call that a pretty major flaw when it comes to the Lions-class.

>>50933306
It was layed down, which is better then most paper ships can claim. I don't think the Montana (which was way outside of treaty) even got to that stage.

File: 2006-09-15-32368.jpg (147KB, 680x800px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 680x800px

Admiral Hipper in yo threads!

>yfw the USN fucked over Japanese shipping with torpedo that couldn't kill anything for half the war

>>50935479
Torpedo was fine, detonator was crap. Most American Captains figured this out, replaced mag caps with impact caps the moment they left port.

File: Montana_Class.jpg (84KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1000x750px

>>50933421
It hurts.
At least we still have a lot of our old ships turned into museums.

>>50917365
File expired, can you repost?

>>50938153

Here you go:

https://dropfile.to/eu61wMa

>>50938146
>At least we still have a lot of our old ships turned into museums.

Yeah, we should have kept Warspite at least, bloody good ship she was.

File: 1473818611290.jpg (189KB, 1280x907px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1280x907px

>>50939738
And a bute.

>>50940670
That quad+double turret combo will never stop looking ugly to me.

File: USSNevada.jpg (102KB, 744x544px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 744x544px

>>50940681
I like it myself.

Do you also hate the Nevada class, and Doria Class?

File: 0402523.jpg (179KB, 1399x1677px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1399x1677px

>>50940713
With 3 + 2 it works (unless it is something utterly retarded looking like Pensacola-class), but with 4 + 2 the difference between turret width is just too large.

File: Photo01bbVanguard2NP.jpg (96KB, 1065x840px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1065x840px

>>50940768
The only ship that has turrets that look like the wrong size is Vanguard in my opinion.

The KGV Quads look like a goddamn bunker, and the elevated one fits in. The Vanguard just looks underarmed, even though it could smash a Bismark or Tirpitz so hard the Krauts would still have Tinnitis by the time they surrendered the war.

>>50940670
Different anon, but Quad Turrets are the literal devil.

PITA to design, make work, armor, build, and work-in. And the Brits wanted to have a KGV with 3 quad turrets.

>my sides

>>50940849
> KGV with 3 quad turrets

Stop. I can only get so erect.

>>50940813
The casemates are rather small.

>>50940849
Personally I would had gone with KGVs armed with 3 x 3 14-inch guns. Sacrificing 1 gun for more reliable turrets and less eye cancer inducing looks sounds pretty decent trade off to me.

>>50940970
Vanguard was armed with vintage guns from Fisher's follies so she looking strange is to be expected.

>>50940813
>The only ship that has turrets that look like the wrong size is Vanguard in my opinion.

Really now?

>>50904603

File: 9f65e1519edb6a438b96d5ebfc738cc3.jpg (364KB, 1992x888px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1992x888px

You have 10 seconds to prove that she and her sisters weren't the most beautiful class of battleships ever put on the sea.

Pro-tip: you can't

File: HMSGeneral_craufurd.jpg (7KB, 300x176px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x176px

>>50941360
>hating on based monitors

File: 1476355216080.jpg (22KB, 600x335px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x335px

>>50941406
Monitors a cute, CUTE!

File: dystopian-wars-french-fleet.jpg (270KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1200x800px

Does Dystopian Wars count?

>>50942899
Yeah sure, why not.

File: Richelieu.jpg (337KB, 2400x1481px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 2400x1481px

>>50941381
>she and her sisters weren't the most beautiful class of battleships

They're American, so they're disqualified by default. No American ship is "good", they just have so many of them they can win through sheer attrition.

In any case, here's my counter-argument. Objectively superior in every way.

>>50944735
>quad turrets
argument discarded

>>50944735
Richielieu was a treaty battleship, not really up to standards with the Iowa.

Still a great treaty ship though, tied for first place with the KGV.

File: BB-62.jpg (906KB, 2837x1720px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 2837x1720px

Best battleship coming through

>>50947474
Bad in rough seas, poorly armoured.

Try again.

>>50948350

OK, what's better?

Certainly none of the British ones (worse guns, worse fire control). None of the Japanese ones (terrible fire control, overweight). None of the Italian (lol what's armor?) or French (several generations too old to compete) or Russian (lol what's a battleship?).

So, O Fisher Reborn, what's the better ship?

>>50948887
Clearly this means that the Espana-class reigns supreme.

>>50948887
20 bucks that it is something like muh old as fuck Japanese battlecruisers, err I mean fast battleships, or some other stupid shit like that.

>>50948350
>What is sloped belt.
>What is STS.

>>50948887

>what is asking to prove a negative

>>50948350
>Bad in rough seas
Nigga what?
>Poorly armored
Debatable, it's part of a manufacturing philosophy.

>>50942899

fucking cute minis.

File: King_George_V_Flagship-px800.jpg (247KB, 800x632px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 800x632px

>>50952458
Iowa class was underarmoured. Sloping the belt means nothing when a KGV has more armour AND it is sloped.

The roll and pitch of the Iowa was horrible, almost 40% worse then KGV/Nelson/QE in rough seas. Not a huge problem since the Iowa's were expected to fight in the relatively calm pacific, not the North Atlantic.

Iowa was a good ship, but she had big design compromises to enable her to play her role as carrier escort. Sacrificing armor and stability in the name of speed. It was a dedicated choice, not bad engineering, but the Iowa had a lot of Characteristics that would make her unpopular in a full on stand up fight against the Yamato class. The Montana was a reversion to a slower, but more heavily protected ship. Easily a good match for a Yamato.

I don't think you can truly argue that there was a 'best' battleship, every ship built had flaws. Montana, Lion, and Yamato are probably the pinnacle of battleship technology, and adhered to the balance of speed/armour/firepower the best. For smaller vessels, the North Carolina and especially the SoDak were very good. Among the treaty classes, the KGV and Richilieu are standouts.

Bad Battleships, well, the Bismark was a poor allocation of tonnage for performance. Littorio to an extent, but not as bad as Bizzy or Tirpitz. Fuso was a joke.

QE class gets an honorable mention as being a kick-ass battleship in 2 wars and a huge time span.

Does anyone have a site with carrier air wing sizes and compositions for WW2 carriers? I've found some things, but half the answers are contradictory.

>>50953959
Navypedia has at least some data related to that.

>>50953724
>Among the treaty classes, the KGV and Richilieu are standouts.

So it is either jamming turrets or ammo prone to premature explosions then.

File: voyage of the damned.png (886KB, 1837x2153px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 1837x2153px

>no pre-dreadnought naval wargames that aren't Age of Sail

>>50955618

I now understand what >>50948887 meant in regards to Russians. That story couldn't be filmed; nobody would believe it.

>>50955618
http://www.wargamevault.com/product/187131/Dawn-of-the-Battleship?term=Dawn+of+the+Battleshi

File: DVDRnGx.jpg (394KB, 1807x1384px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1807x1384px

>>50955618
Pretty sure this more comedy-angled version was probably culled from that book/post.

>>50955821
What makes it even funnier is that despite all the abuse it suffered, the Aurora was one of the few survivors.

File: Guess how many hit here.jpg (275KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1536x2048px

Ooh, a naval wargaming thread.

As mentioned before, Naval War is a new living ruleset that was basically created because the writer was fed up with the continued delays for new VaS stuff.
It's available for free at https://www.naval-war.com/

Personally, I mostly have 1/1800 stuff since I got started with Axis & Allies Naval stuff.
Since then, I've mostly supplemented that with stuff from Shapeways, where you can get pretty decent-looking ships at reasonable prices. Warships are one of those model types where the 3d printing methods work.

To start some discussion: what's everyone's favourite pre-WW2 cruiser design?

File: Surcouf.jpg (145KB, 2000x775px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 2000x775px

>>50957332
>favourite pre-WW2 cruiser design

Hon hon hon...

File: 4fee4277c5b2376966849b8ca64e83d1.jpg (46KB, 736x386px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 736x386px

>>50957381
Oversea or undersea, the French cruisers are great.

>>50955618
There is always Ship Blows Up for russo-japanese wars.

I'm sure there are a few Russo-Japanese wars naval games about.

File: Ship Blows Up_2.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50955618
And here it is

>>50958694
>>50958680
>ship blows up
>not for the Battle of "there is something wrong with our bloody ships today" Jutland

File: MASBU.jpg (503KB, 929x1057px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 929x1057px

>>50959270
Russo-Japanese wars son. it was a different time. Although that title would suit jutland for the brits

>>50958680
>>50958694
Thanks!.

File: FirstSwagLord.gif (274KB, 269x400px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 269x400px

>>50959441
Of course I would.

File: ThrowItAllInTheCitadel.jpg (207KB, 1278x821px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1278x821px

>>50960137

>>50960192
Fisher was an idiot-savant.

>>50957332
>https://www.naval-war.com/
Looks more like they stole liberally from The Admiralty's game.

>>50960461
Outside of HMS Dreadnought's use of steam turbines he was more of an idiot that just acted on general trends that were floating around that time.

>>50960498
What game would that be?

>>50960552
He gave us all big gun ships, fast battleships, he did a lot for the royal navy to put them into a supremacy role going into WW1.

>>50962609
What the hell am looking at?
Battleship without guns or fucked up carrier?

>>50962716
Both.

Lots of early carriers were built off of retrofitted battleships or from partially completed battleship hulls.

>>50963413

Aside from that one battleship where the back half was also a carrier. Not a turret-mounted catapult, mind. An actual flat flight deck, terminating into the back of the stack if you fuck up your landing.

File: qS4jltJ.jpg (300KB, 1225x790px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1225x790px

>>50965329
The Ise conversion?

>>50904707

Can we get another link?

File expired.

>>50904603
Campaign sounds interesting, might have to look into it.

>>50966398
I'd be keen too. Looking to start with 1/2400 pacific stuff, and VaS looks like a decent way to wade in.

>>50962716
HMS Spurious after Brits second attempt to fix her,

>>50968929
Ugly boats are ugly.

File: armtxIS.jpg (134KB, 550x608px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 550x608px

>>50968929
>>50969934

naval bump

>>50970041
Early armoured ships look weird as hell with the kind of oddly-shaped hull.

File: 03_hms_nelson.jpg (218KB, 744x1436px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 744x1436px

>>50966398
Here you go anon

https://dropfile.to/Fdu2JcY

>>50972885
you chatting shit about tumblehome?

>>50972978
Nelrods probably were the ugliest class of ships that Brits ever build.

ded genre, ded bred

File: 80.jpg (26KB, 400x263px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x263px

>>50975881
Lols, Ded Genre, sure buddy, whatever you say.

>>50972978
>Gridleys have the same torpedo firepower in one side as a PT boat despite having four times the torps
PT boat bias pls buff Gridley

>>50972885
Tumblehome is best home.

File: HMS Sheffield 1942.jpg (350KB, 1450x1015px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1450x1015px

>>50957332
I mean, there's really only one choice, isn't there?

Also, I feel like there's an untapped market for Vassal based Naval Wargaming, the client would actually work fine for it and it would help get around the trouble of finding/forming a group for such a niche segment of wargaming.

>>50977167
>I feel like there's an untapped market for Vassal based Naval Wargaming

Who's going to make a vassal client for a genre with like, 2 dozen players who aren't actual serving naval officers?

Too the guys that want something a little more fanciful I really wanna give a shout out to dystopian wars and blood and plunder

>>50978822

Leviathans was far, far better than Dystopian Wars could have dreamed of being.

It's too bad the Chinese killed the game.

>>50979474
>too bad the Chinese killed the game.
As is tradition.

>>50979474
???

>>50979474

Too bad it's a dead game. The only ship battle games that matter anyway number around 5.

V@S, Dystopian Wars, Dropfleet commander, Halo fleet battles, and star wars armada.

>>50980543
No firestorm armada?

>>50980420

The fluff guide for the Leviathans game had taiwan colored differently than mainland China. This is a violation of the "1 China" policy that states that Taiwan/Formosa is and always has been part of China...even during pre-WW1 when it was actually owned by Japan (it was colored identically to Japan in the booklet since the game depicts those years).

The Chinese government embargoed the game, and all the mass copies that were supposed to have been released were confiscated and destroyed. Only a few hundred advance copies that were air-freighted out of China ever made it into circulation.


>>50980543

Star Wars Armada is the only one anybody could even remotely claim is "popular". V@S isn't published anymore, and the 2e is 4 years overdue and nobody at Mongoose is pushing for it. Dystopian wars doesn't get releases anymore and the company is dropping it. Halo was DOA. Nobody plays Dropfleet or Firestorm:Armada, and it's only a matter of time until Disney sues Firestorm into oblivion for having the same name as Star Wars: Armada anyway. Oh, and Full Thrust, Silent Death, and BFG are all long dead.

So, no. The number of ship battle games which matter numbers precisely "1".

>>50980844

Fuck you're right I forgot. Small but dedicated community.

>>50981184

Never claimed anyone of them were "popular" just the only games in the "mainstream" for this hobby.

>Dystopian Wars is getting dropped
Mind explaining the fully funded kickstarter then to revitalize the game by spartan games itself?

>Halo was DOA. Nobody plays Dropfleet or Firestorm:Armada
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Halo has a good community and firestorm is getting by not nearly as well as it should if it got releases. Dropfleet is probably the fastest growing ship battle game outside of armada.

>it's only a matter of time until Disney sues Firestorm into oblivion for having the same name as Star Wars: Armada anyway.
Will never happen.

>BFG
Until GW decides to resurrect it's corpse in the name of more revenue and pawns the models off to FW.

>So, no. The number of ship battle games which matter numbers precisely "1"
Nah actually now it's about six.

>>50981359
>>Dystopian Wars is getting dropped
>Mind explaining the fully funded kickstarter then to revitalize the game by spartan games itself?

I genuinely didn't realize that had happened. Totally slipped under my radar, given I'd stopped playing DW two years ago. Good to know. Local club might start back up again, then.

However, I stand by every other point. Dropfleet and Firestorm are 98% dead. Halo made a splash, people played it for 6 months, and then the gencon tables for it this year were completely empty. BFG is all dead, and there's been zero news on its revival, unlike all the other specialist games.

So, we'll compromise. There are two (2) ship battle games which matter.

With that said, DW is still crap, because the Victorian quasi-steampunk aesthetic is crap. You should never see rivets on a 1/1200-scale model. And steam-powered ships don't start looking good until the dreadnought revolution era at best.

>>50981507

Ok I'm going to put it this way and after this we can agree to disagree.

Dropfleet just launched it hasnt even had time to get on it's legs yet. Halo is floundering because no support but that's spartan for ya, same goes for firestorm.

And lastly your opinion on DW is opinion alone.

However I will say this there only about two "popular" ship games.

>>50981614
>>50981614

Chiming in, you make a good point about DropFleet Commander. Have you played it at all? It's something I've been looking to get in to.

Regardless, there's the matter of anon's point here:

>You should never see rivets on a 1/1200-scale model.

That's not opinion. Well, it is technically an opinion, but it's one which is objectively correct. Rivets should only barely be visible on a 1/100th scale model, and to have them be visible on a 1/1200 scale model is simply ludicrous. Whether you *like* them or not is something totally different, but the fact remains that if rivets on Dystopian Wars models are visible at 1/1200 scale, then those rivets are comically, impossibly, oversized. A 1/2-mm wide rivet at that scale would be two feet wide at full scale.

>>50980543
>The only ship battle games that matter anyway number around 5.

Well, the only naval games that 40k players might play.

Your list missed Harpoon, which is easily the most played naval game ever. Go to any historical game meet up, dollars to donuts Harpoon is the naval game being played. Probably double blind.

File: ScourgeStarter02.jpg (698KB, 1337x1721px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 1337x1721px

>>50981785
Not him, but I've played a couple of starter-fleet Dropfleet battles.

It's a very nice ruleset with some interesting tactical intricacies.
The fact that missions are based around capturing surface areas and/or space stations rather than just destroying enemy fleet is a real game-changer.

Gorgeous minis as well.

>>50983974
>The fact that missions are based around capturing surface areas and/or space stations rather than just destroying enemy fleet is a real game-changer.


Don't like that actually. Naval Warfare was objective based, but you achieved that objective through sea control, ie, pushing the enemy out of the waters you were meant to control.

Also, most naval games already had an element of objectives, since you had blockade runs, escorts, patrols, etc. It wasn't always just fleet on fleet.

File: UCMStarter02.jpg (581KB, 1773x1191px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 1773x1191px

>>50984817
Well, Dropfleet is mostly about critical locations in orbit; a typical battlefield covers about 1000x1000 km of surface area.
Typical mission objectives include capturing ground clusters and/or space stations by landing troops on them and controlling low orbit above critical locations.

Also, it's not as if I dislike traditional naval objectives. It's just that I like the different priorities a battle like this presents.
It also matches the view that while certain naval parallels are appropriate, space battles shouldn't just be naval battles but sci-fi.

>reading V@S OoB
>brits get N3, G3, Lion, and Malta
>krauts get all their cancelled fleet plans (including H39)
>russians get design only carriers and the SovSoys

>tfw no Montana
mai shipfu

>>50986356

Amerifats shouldn't get nice things.

>>50986356
RN, IJN, Kriegsmarine, and especially the Red Fleet were so shit that they need all the paperships that they can get.

>>50986356
US already has Sodak/NorthCarolina/Iowa.

>>50986990
RN didn't need boosts, KGV / Nelson / QE was a great mix.

>>50986356
The US Navy is already ungodly OP by sheer virtue of the fact that in the latewar period the US navy was ungodly OP (except perhaps England, who are a bit behind in some cases but are probably playable without paper ships)

Everyone else needs stuff just to keep up and things like superior damcon and airbursting shells aren't even included.

File: 020914.jpg (138KB, 740x610px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 740x610px

>>50991128
It is pretty embarrassing that the RN needs paper boats to able to match this qt3.14.

>>50972978
Can I get a refresh on that?

>>50991250
Nobody did aircraft carriers like the U.S.

>>50991250
>>50991293

I'd argue the paper boats are needed to meet even the prewar Yorktowns. Though the Impacables that entered service the better part of a decade later came fairly close.

>>50991578
The British Carriers had a different role then the US Carriers.

Keep in mind, Britain built the bulk of its carrier force while under siege, where as the US really didn't have that problem.

File: 1308027950420.jpg (358KB, 1584x1600px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1584x1600px

>>50991274
>Can I get a refresh on that?

Sure
https://dropfile.to/SfWhaZJ

>>50991696

Unf, that is a beautiful HMS Hood right there, and those are some of the most convincing seawater effects I've ever seen.

>>50991578
>>50991250
Sorry but what are paperboats?

>>50992093
Boats that either never made it past the drawing board or were cancelled/converted into something else while in construction.

>>50992132
Thank you.

File: chibi boats.jpg (2MB, 2500x1912px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2500x1912px

>>50992150
No problem.

File: dLJy9mz.jpg (2MB, 5083x4020px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5083x4020px

>>50986785
But Montana is so sexy.

>>50997340
>28 knots slow boat
>sexy

File: Iowa_Turret.jpg (68KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1280x720px

>>51001832
Sexy! Sexy!

>>51001832
Not every Battleship can be 33 knots fast like HMS Hood.

File: FusoPagoda.jpg (104KB, 1000x621px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1000x621px

All you other battleships are losing the race to have the biggest and thickest mast. You WISH you were on my level.

>>51002549
Is there a better example of Japan's need to overcompensate than Fusous?

>>51003198
The Yamatos come to mind.

>>51002549
Japanese ships had a huge tendency to capsize.

>>51008267
>jap boats were prone to capsizing because all the shit they stuffed them with in an attempt to improve their fighting prowess
>japanese naval forces were sorely lacking in dedicated escort and minewarfare vessels because they felt that such things were beneath them

Fucking pottery.

>>51008422
The IJN's Naval staff insisted that each new class be superior to anything else in its category, which placed an enormous burden on Japanese naval constructors and the difficulties with these ships have to be seen in this light.

The initial construction was extremely light in order to comply with the naval treaties and had to be remedied. When the Royal Navy's Director of Naval Construction (DNC) was told about these ships by British Naval Intelligence, quoting the public displacement figure, he replied that the capabilities quoted could not be achieved on this displacement and that "they must be building their ships out of cardboard or lying".

Fucking Brits, telling it like it is.

File: img_369.jpg (56KB, 595x483px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 595x483px

Jesus, 7 days and this thread is still around?

Fucking Naval Legend son!

>>51009215
One should not underestimate the power of 40 or so boat autists.

>>51009215
I'm just glad the Weaboos and Wehraboos didn't shit up the thread.

>>51009982
https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2015/08/25/the-ratte-of-the-seas-500-000-ton-japanese-dreadnought-project/

JAPAN STRONK

File: WHITE FLEET USS Alabama.jpg (1MB, 1600x1292px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1292px

>>51009982

What are you talking about? There were people in here unironically posting that they liked German or Japanese ships when US and UK ships existed. That makes them Wehraboos or Weaboos by default.

>>51010607
Tbh liking RN boats is only acceptable if you're talking about battlecruisers and even then it is only because yanks never really partook in that silliness.

>>51010673
Lexington Battlecruiser was kind of a cool idea, but not as good as Hood.

>>51010673
It must be liberating to be that wrong about something.

>>51011666
NO U

File: 800px-HMS_Agamemnon_(1908)_profile_drawing.png (196KB, 800x587px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 800x587px

>>51014544
Sexy!

>>51010607

Jesus christ that's a gorgeous paint scheme. I've never actually seen minis painted up like that. Is there a game which would support a US fleet done up in those colors?

>>51001409
I'm a bit of a novice so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I'm wondering why they put the gun on that raised platform. If memory serves, there was initially some hesitation about super-firing turrets because of problems with raised turrets putting too much mass too high creating a risk of capsizing. And that was on battleships. On a comparatively tiny ship like that one with a massively oversized gun, I'd have thought the risk would be even higher and they would want to mount the gun lower in order to not capsize.

>>51016916
The Great White Fleet? Anything in the 1890s, I believe Naval Thunder has a series of rules for them, haven't played it but their World War II game Battleship Row is solid.

>>51017032
Excellent question, on battleships there is already an immense supperstructure, HMS Terror's only significant superstructure is the gun and a small mast, the comparative weight ratio of below deck (where the magazine and crew quarters are, along with most other stations) and above (where only the gun and sparse other stations exist) offset each other enough to create stability.

Is there a good modern naval game that's crunchy enough for different sensors and missiles to be meaningful but not on the level of Harpoon's complexity

File: Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg.png (445KB, 1280x717px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1280x717px

>>51017032

That's not really a raised platform. That's essentially the entire turret stack from the Queen Elizabeth-class BB that they more or less dropped into a cruiser hull.

The inside of a heavy gun turret is extremely complex and requires a minimum amount of space, much of it vertical (due to lift hoists and anti-flash requirements). Pic related isn't the same turret, but it should get the principle across. What you're seeing sticking up over the hull of the Erebus-class is almost all normally contained within the much deeper BB hull. It would have been next to impossible to redesign a twin 15-IN gun turret to fit near-flush with the weather deck, so the British didn't bother to try. They just more or less dropped a standard turret assembly (already designed and "easy" to build since they'd done lots of them) into the Erebus hull.

It's also important to remember that the Erebus is actually REALLY steady. It's got a 90-foot beam on a 400-foot long ship. A normal RN armored cruiser (the closest relative to its hullform and displacement) had roughly 75-foot beam on a 500 foot long hull. The Erebus was very squat, which would give it a resistance to rolling in the manner you describe.

Essentially, all this was the only cost-effective way to get a 15-IN gun monitor design, especially on short notice during WW1. The Brits could build cruiser-sized hulls fairly cheaply and quickly, and they could build BB turret assemblies faster than they could build BB hulls in which to put them. Mating the two was "good enough", and it's worth remembering that both the Erebus-class ships actually survived into the Second World War. ~28 years in service isn't bad for something so kludged together, and it clearly worked well *enough* not to unduly endanger itself.

>>51011666
Of course, Satan!

>>51016435
Looks like one of my interim heavy cruiser classes while waiting for triple turrets in Rule the Waves.

>>51017416
Fucking love that game.

The fact that I fit 15 18" guns on a Battleship still tickles me.

File: Tribal-class.png (15KB, 912x296px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 912x296px

>>51017416
Making ridiculously stronk late game DDs in that game really excites me for some reason.

>>50981785

Was responding to the anons point on the aesthetic being crap not about the rivets. He was right about the rivets.

>>51017209
Why wouldn't you want Harpoon's complexity?

(Try Shipwreck)

>>51017607
Personally I tend to go with torpedo spam strategy for my late game (and early game, and mid-game) DDs.

>>50991696
>https://dropfile.to/SfWhaZJ
Refresh, mah nigga?

>>51018646
I specifically build my DDs to counter that, and with a quad tube centreline launcher I generally find I have enough to get the job done once I've reduced any hostile screen ships that would otherwise get in the way to smouldering hulks. 8 5 inch guns on a DD is pretty brutal, especially against the 500-800 tonners the AI usually cranks out.

File: 1327598778904.jpg (143KB, 532x800px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 532x800px

>>51018709
https://dropfile.to/UZad6u3

File: 006_-_HMS_Howe_in_Suez_Canal_1944.jpg (186KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1200x800px

>>51019406
Aww yeah!

>>51019406
While pleasing this is no ship I know of.

>>51020180
>he doesn't know kancole

>>50997340
Vyyuuyuyuyyuyyyyyyyhyyhyuyygg

>>51021922
She's 3D. She ain't no bote grille

>>51021922
>mfw killing the IJN in submarine simulators
remove boteslut

File: spot the war crimes.jpg (79KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 768x1024px

>>51023266

File: a6e84cf1f3935a9539e5cc6dfeba1ce5.jpg (2MB, 2783x1565px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2783x1565px

>give excellent service for over 30 years
>engage 2 modern battleships and force them to retreat
>sister ship dodge jap torpedoes like she was in matrix
>still get forgotten in favor of a boat that's only achievements were that it was the longest military boat in the world for couple decades and that it got jutland'd by some kraut battleship

>>51024581
Reknown is pure infiltered sex.

Get that filth off my screen heathen!

File: iowabattlelinewaynescar.jpg (337KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1600x900px

Dat feeling when you posting in a 8 day thread...

So where can I get miniatures for this game? Mongoose has some, but not a lot. Suggestions, or should Ijust use cutouts from the book?

>>51026187

Your question has already been answered in this very thread, at length and in detail, my friend. See here: >>50929276

>>51028074
dazzlecamo is love dazzlecamo is life

>>50918123

52% don't even believe they run their own country right now.

>>51028859
One would had thought that centuries under the rule of French and German monarchs would had immunized them against that feeling.

>>50959270

There was nothing wrong with the ships, there was quite a bit fucking wrong between the ears of bloody Beatty though.

Quite a few less Battlecruisers would have blown up that day had Beatty not fucking forgot which century he was in and ordered all of the fucking firedoors wedged open for increased reloading speed and general ROF.

>>51028859
Bit of an extrapolation don't you think?

>>51029020
>ordered all of the fucking firedoors wedged open for increased reloading speed and general ROF

That was standard practice in the RN at the time.

Anyone play "Rule the Waves"

File: Suprise attack on RN.png (233KB, 1919x1042px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1919x1042px

>>51031108
Yes, why do you ask?

>>51031165
I ask since I play it more then any other wargame. Still learning the ropes.

>>51031464
I also play a metric shitload of it, the ship design system is endlessly fun to muck around in and the semi-random research means just about every playthrough feels sufficiently different as to stay fresh.

>>51031585
Also what other nations build is very dynamic. Sometimes it a huge amounts of BBs, sometimes it is BCs. Sometimes CA are unknown after 1914, sometimes the CA's are backbones of navies.

>>51031000
>That was standard practice in the RN at the time.

Beatty still could have ordered it stopped. Therefore, what happened at Jutland was entirely his fault.

>>51031464
Remember, raiding is love raiding is life.

File: HMS Illustrious.jpg (45KB, 1200x531px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1200x531px

>>50904603

Do any of you fine gentlemen have the Victory at Sea expansion books as a PDF?

I can't seem to get a hold of them anywhere.

May your flight-decks be always armoured.

>>51031000

As was falsifying your sailing route to disguise the fact that you tried to run off in the middle of a pitched naval battle? You can still see the fucking eraser marks on his charts at the royal museum.

Meanwhile he fucking does all he can to pillory Jellicoe despite the fact that the man successfully crossed the T for the first time in a hundred years and forced the German fleet back to port for the rest of the war.
But somehow, since he didn't deliver a "crushing victory" or somesuch nonesense Beatty is able to replace him.

>>51035859
>covering up your tracks and stabbing more capable people in the back in an attempt to advance/protect your career

Sounds like typical Royal Navy behavior to me.

File: U-47.jpg (27KB, 430x245px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 430x245px

>>51040223
That's a nice battleship. Shame is something were to happen to it.

>>51035434
Check the /hwg/ thread, it's linked there.

>>51023266
What subsims? Share plox

>>51033767
>what happened at Jutland was entirely his fault.

You mean the crushing strategic defeat that the RN handed germany?

I'd say Jellicoe more then Beatty was responsible for that.

>>51042404
>Lost more ships than the enemy
>Thousands of casualties
>It's okay tho, it was still a strategic victory

The British vastly outnumbered the Germans, and basically just won through attrition. Better admirals could have accomplished the same thing with less loss of life. Jutland, like the rest of the great war, was a travesty.

>>51042404
>You mean the crushing strategic defeat that the RN handed german

No, I mean having 3 of your ships fucking explode for no good reason. Beatty was an admiral - he could have stopped the cult of gunnery which infested the RN of the time (at least in the ships under his command). Since he chose not to do it, all of the ships which exploded due to flash was on his head. IIRC, then, except for the HMS Defense, 90% of the RN loss of life was from ships under his command, and their deaths are entirely his fault for not stopping those safety-cutting procedures.

Keeping the Germans bottled up in Kiel would have happened with or without his BC's exploding. He gains nothing for the ultimate strategic result. But he is singlehandedly almost entirely at fault for the RN loss of life during the battle. And all because he wouldn't actually make sailors adhere to the powder-handling rules actually in the rulebooks, just so his guns could fire 2% faster.

Hope 6,000 lives were worth a 2% fire increase, BeattyApologistAnon.

>>51042670
Not apologist anon but is there anywhere I could read up on this? It sounds interesting.

>>51042670
>inglehandedly almost entirely at fault for the RN loss of life during the battle.

No, he was doing what every other member of the RN did during that time period, laying as much firepower down on the enemy as possible.

Does everyone forget Heligoland Bight?

>>51042670
>Hope 6,000 lives were worth a 2% fire increase

Let's see, average load time for a BL 13.5 was around 45 seconds or so. With all the safety features gone, it was around 20.

Your math is a bit off, British BCs had huge firepower increases for the decrease in safety.

And every ship in Jutland on the RN side was doing it. It's just that the BCs were more vulnerable then the BBs which did the exact same thing, stacking ammo and powder in the turrets and corridors for maximum ROF.

>>51043049
yep, it was a bold move to increase fire power. It could easily have been that we where talking about how British fast firing ended the German fleet.

>>51042773

I'll chime in here to say that the single "best" book on WW1 naval operations is Robert Massie's "Castles of Steel." There are more detailed books about various aspects of WW1 naval ops and specific battles, but Massie does a good job of covering *everything* in a reasonable depth, and why that thing happened. If you have to have a single WW1 naval reference book, it's probably that one.

And yes, anon, it does go into some depth about the British disregard for anti-flash procedures (and the German disregard for it as well; the experiences of the Seydlitz during the Battle of Dogger Bank brought home the danger of flash, while the RN never *really* realized how serious it was until post-Jutland) and how and why Beatty lost several of this Great Cats.

Also, you'll finish the book wanting to piss on the grave of Beatty's flag lieutenant Ralph Seymour. If you wrote a movie about his character and stayed true to the level of sheer incompetence he displayed historically, the audiences would never believe it and would accuse you of making it up to slander him.

File: 1480226740056.jpg (425KB, 923x662px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 923x662px

bump

>>51023398
got the Nagato with a lucky torp damage roll, japs can eat shit

File: hmas-whyalla.jpg (3MB, 4288x3216px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4288x3216px

Any of you nerds been to see the HMAS Whyalla?

File: HMAS Diamantina.jpg (145KB, 940x360px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 940x360px

>>51052814
No, but I have been to the HMAS Diamantina a couple of times.

File: French Pre Dread 3.jpg (112KB, 1169x650px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1169x650px

>Best nation's pre-dread's coming through

File: sh_us01.gif (37KB, 637x902px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 637x902px

bump

>>51057083
Lols, that thing is so top heavy.

One more bump, but then I am out of bumps

>>51061915
>+290 posts
>week and half old

Might as well let this bread die desu, it has served well and there is very little point to keep it alive anymore.

File: warhammer_40k_deff_skwadron_gn_(wapazoid_dcp)_13.jpg (916KB, 1024x1602px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 1024x1602px

OI!!! WOTS DIS ERE TREAD ABOUT DESE OOMIE SHIPS AND VESSELS AN AINT NO ONE MENTIONING

DA GRIMLUG

DA SHOOTYEST OF DA SHOOTY SHIPS EVER TA FLOAT ON WATAH

ZOGGIN OOMIES NEVER ERD' OF REAL DAKKA, WE'LL SHOW YOU LOT WE WILL

Want to get into Napoleonics, Langton looks pretty good, is that a common opinion?

>>51065115
Lads?

>>51066458
try the /hwg/?

File: Anglo-Dutch ships 12.jpg (497KB, 1024x763px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1024x763px

>>51065115
Langton's ships are of superlative quality. A bit on the expensive side, but they are very detailed.

If you have a little bit of modelling skill, get the etched sails instead of the white metal ones, and use some thread to rig it a bit.

>>51065115
Go GHQ instead. Amazing quality.

Well, Beatty drove Seymour to suicide after the war, so in a way, Seymour was indeed pissed upon.