Naval Wargames Thread

File: mad.png (150KB, 700x615px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 700x615px

>>52123124

>>52114007

For the anon that was looking for an AA conversion Maya:

On mobile, wasn't gonna retype it.

>>52123280
Still waiting for someone to do a 1/1800 model of her so I can work on the planned conversion the Dutch had for her.

File: USS_Northhampton_(CA-26)_August_23_1935.jpg (229KB, 1436x1071px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1436x1071px

So how come everyone complained about medium caliber fixed rounds, the bongs fucking up twice with the 5.1" and then with the 4.5" but burgerclaps never bitched about the 5"/25? Apparently, the wet mount wasn't even power operated.
Was it the heavy calorie ice cream diet or did they just deal with it?

File: mq2vkZB.jpg (871KB, 4611x1942px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 4611x1942px

>>52123871
Who knows, maybe rum ration caused made it harder for Brits to operate their systems than it would had been had they made their boats dry earlier.

>>52123871
For some reason I really like like the look of the Northampton class. It looks like GHQ, makes them at 1:2400. I am trying to find another manufacture.

File: image.jpg (45KB, 613x204px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 613x204px

>>52124481
CA-26 by GHQ at 1:2400

File: image.jpg (10KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 320x240px

>>52124481
It looks like Panzerchiffe has them, quality looks low.
Also looks like NavWar has them, with no image, and I know there quality is almost worse.

I can't seem to get CinC's website to load. Am I the only one?

File: USS_Northampton_(CA-26)_entering_Pearl_Harbor_8_Dec_1941.jpg (5MB, 5568x4311px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 5568x4311px

>>52124481
>>52124522
Northamptons are stupid sexy. Pepsican looks lanky and unbalanced and NOrleans just plain stubby in comparison. Indy, I dunno.
I really dislike the late war looks on them though, specially Louisville with the huge AA deck on the back.

>>52124481
There's some on Shapeways. The 1/2400 are only available in FUD though, so if price was your reason for not going GHQ, then that's out. I've got USS Houston in 1/1800 in WSF, and even in something other than a detail material, it's a sexy sculpt.

>>52125073
The reason I go with 1:2400 is so I can play them as a table top game, an not a gymnasium game.
I don't mind the lead in the class and most capital ships to be GHQ, there quality is excellent, but there price is mildly high. For the 'cannon fodder' I don't mind if they are of lesser quality.

File: herd u were talking shit m8.jpg (55KB, 800x541px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x541px

>>52125369
>cruisers and smaller are cannon fodder

I don't like you.

>>52124461
If I was stuck on a ship on the north Atlantic or arctic sea I'd want rum just to get out of bed in the morning

File: BELFAST6.jpg (121KB, 1000x670px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1000x670px

>>52125569
>British sailor
>WW2
>thinking he'll get a bed

File: 0402817.jpg (254KB, 1050x852px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1050x852px

>>52124890
Can you really blame a girl for not taking care of her looks during a world war?

File: USS_Louisville_(CA-28).jpg (67KB, 590x582px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 590x582px

>>52125694
I guess I can't blame Lulu, she needed the flak after all. I can blame BuShips for making increasingly ugly things over time though.

File: __uss_houston_original_drawn_by_dakku_ogitsune__dff2b2907502f6eda240e1fd3943b4d7.jpg (440KB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 707x1000px

>>52125491
Cruisers are love, cruisers are life.

>>52125491
>CL and smaller are cannon fodder

In the games I have played they don't last long, plus usually there are many in that class on the table at once.

File: image.jpg (17KB, 220x156px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 220x156px

>>52126141
Not all CL's are created equal. Some are way, way tougher than others. I'm looking at Town class in specific.

>>52126257
I am not that familiar with it, are we talking WW1 or WW2?
It seems the British reused the name of that class.

>>52126048
>ship girl is elf
What is happening?

>>52126331
WW2. The ship in that picture is HMS Edinburgh. She took a lot of killing before she went down.

>>52123186
At the same time it'd be so much more SATISFYING to convert it. I just read over the forum thread on GHQ's website about their Micronauts line and someone tried a kitbash that I... honestly didn't like that well. So I'm considering using one of the small reproduction kits at my local hobby shop to cast copies of the GHQ Takao's triple 25mm mounts and twin 127mm AA mounts, then fixing them to the forward superstructure made from plasticard.

File: __original_drawn_by_dakku_ogitsune__f27ca130384693cb9899ae8359a5ec91.jpg (324KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1200x848px

>>52126462
Everything is better with elf ears.

>>52126462
Elf = Fairy
Fairy= Spirit
Spirit = Kami
Shipgirl = Kami
Shipgirl = Elf

It all checks out.

>>52126555
I just got done reading the history on that ship, it sounds like they should have tried to just continued towing here rather than sink her.

>>52126652
>>52126897
>They lost the only war that ever really mattered
Go figure.

File: 39996317_p0.jpg (129KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 600x600px

>>52127656
Can you really blame them? It is quite a leap to go from fighting against fellow 2nd & 3rd rate powers like Russia or China to face off against 1st class powers like USA & British Empire.

>>52126462
It's a Dakku thing.

>>52127849
It's entirely possible for a second-rate power to beat the US. The Japs just fucked up qt everything.

File: image.jpg (137KB, 636x668px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 636x668px

USS New Jersey

>>52125632
Those hammocks are actually pretty damn comfy.

File: HMS Thunder Child.jpg (40KB, 526x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 526x400px

Semi-unrelated but what WW2-era ship/s would you most like to see battle it out with Martian Fighting Machines in a Quest focused on naval warfare after a 1939 Martian invasion (think the radio play timeline).

>>52129717
Thunderchild II

File: Naptime BB62.gif (105KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 540x540px

>>52129415

>>52129717
Dreadnought era would be better DESU. Also, remember to include options for retrofitting martian technology.

File: Polyphemus 5.jpg (345KB, 1192x837px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1192x837px

>>52129717

Mini Rant Time

The continually incorrect illustrations of HMS Thunder Child as a pre-dread battleship or cruiser PISS ME OFF. No illustrator has bothered to get her right for over a fucking century.

Thunder Child is explicitly described in the text as a torpedo ram and her name is a literary pun on the RN's one and only torpedo ram HMS Polyphemus.

THIS is the ship which fought and destroyed two Tripods. Her smaller draft allowed her to be stationed closer to shore than the rest of the fleet so she was closer to the refugee flotilla when it came under attack.

>>52128180
>It's entirely possible for a second-rate power to beat the US. The Japs just fucked up qt everything.

Educate yourself.

combinedfleet <dot> com/economic.htm

File: Tordenskjold.jpg (83KB, 800x494px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x494px

>>52131119
It iritates me too actually, though I've heard she may also have been inspired by the Danish Tordenskjold torpedo ram/coastal defence ship, seeing as HMS Polyphemus lacked any large guns while the Thunder Child is described as using them. I'm planning to have her be a Museum ship rushed into service in the days following the invasion, barely functioning and undermanned by a reserve crew at the time of her sacrifice.

>>52130991
I just prefer the WW2-era ships, particularly because of my fondness for twin mounts on DDs and twin or triple mounts on CLs/CAs.

As for retrofitting Martian tech. No, at least not for a long time, generally if anything gets captured intact it'll be going back to the boffins to do classified experiments, not stuck immediately on some ship which likely has no conceivable way of operating or integrating it. Tech advances will be more along the lines of countering Martian technology with what we have on hand, like 'Mist Screens' that pump sea water up into a spray around the ship to reduce the effectiveness of heat rays at long range (masers don't have great efficiency when passing through water) and neutralise black smoke (which is rendered inert on contact with water). Ironically, the martians will be the ones more likely to do retrofits of human tech as they try to fast forward developing naval warfare technology and tactics after having never had to fight at sea before.

>>52131119
mah nigga

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-reAahY1GCE

>>52131253
>large guns while the Thunder Child is described as using them.

No, Absolutely not.

The Narrator's brother reports: "The Thunder Child fired no gun, but simply drove full speed towards them. It was probably her not firing that enabled her to get so near the enemy as she did."

After ramming and destroying the 1st Tripod, the remaining Tripods discharge Black Smoke at Thunder Child which glanced off while the ship drove clear. As Thunder Child continued her approach, the 2nd Tripod fired it's heat ray. Thunder Child is swathed in steam with flames flickering throgh, but the Tripod is seen to first stagger then fall. It than that Thunder Child's guns are finally mentioned:

"The guns of the Thunder Child sounded through the reek, going off one after the other, and one shot splashed the water high close by the steamer, ricocheted towards the other flying ships to the north, and smashed a smack to matchwood."

It's obvious the fire and heat aboard are causing the guns to "cook off". No one is aiming them, they're not under any control. In fact the refugee ships are in more danger from the guns than the remaining Tripod. HMS Polyphemus carried six 1" Nordenfelts which neatly fit the descriptions in the text.

After the her guns cook off, the Thunder Child then becomes a legend: " For, surging out beyond the white tumult, drove something long and black, the flames streaming from its middle parts, its ventilators and funnels spouting fire.

She was alive still; the steering gear, it seems, was intact and her engines working. She headed straight for a second Martian, and was within a hundred yards of him when the Heat-Ray came to bear. Then with a violent thud, a blinding flash, her decks, her funnels, leaped upward. The Martian staggered with the violence of her explosion, and in another moment the flaming wreckage, still driving forward with the impetus of its pace, had struck him and crumpled him up like a thing of cardboard."

>>52131253
>No, at least not for a long time, generally if anything gets captured intact it'll be going back to the boffins to do classified experiments, not stuck immediately on some ship which likely has no conceivable way of operating or integrating it

Exactly. At the end of the book, Wells writes about experiments with captured Heat -Rays resulting in nothing but death for the experimenters. Experiments with Martian aircraft - like the one they used to destroy the fleet AFTER the Thunder Child battle - are more successful.

Along with the countermeasures you mentioned, Earth will have aircraft when/if the Martians return.

>>52131590
Huh, never thought of it that way, fair enough.

>>52131640
Well, for this the invasion would only start in 1939, so aircraft are already a thing on Earth anyway, and aviation continues to play a role post invasion, though given the nigh instant transmission of heat-rays, pilots have horrendous attrition rates. At the same time Martian aviation is of limited effectiveness due to the development of AA capabilities, and I'm also taking some liberties by splitting the flying machine into two types, one large and slow type, almost like a dirigible, which carries and services the smaller machines but is obviously vulnerable to fire from large calibre AA or even main batteries fired from long range at maximum elevation, and then the bomber-sized flying machines that are more akin to the one described in the novel and that "Report on Martian Technology" that showed up a while back. Supersonic capable for short bursts and with high manoeuvrablility at low speed but fragile as a result of being designed for Mars' thin atmosphere.

>>52131890
>Well, for this the invasion would only start in 1939, so aircraft are already a thing on Earth anyway, and aviation continues to play a role post invasion,

Yes, but does our historical aviation development still occur? Or is the path laid out by Martian aircraft followed instead? The latter is far more likely.

Wells is definitely describing the "Big Fucking Complicated Machine" school of thought which was the most plausible way to achieve HTA flight in the 1890s. He's thinking about the machines Bell, Maxim, Langley, and others were building and he uses such machines in his other works.

The "Fragile Powered Glider" school of thought which the Wrights and later Santos-Dumont used to actually achieve HTA wasn't part of Well's thinking or that of anyone else in the 1890s.

Having your alt-1939 include both Spitfires and huge Martian-derived flying machines is rather implausible. Is there even going to be a WW1 analogue to spur the huge increase in aircraft development that occurred in reality?

>>52132598
You misunderstand, in this setting, there was no 1890s invasion, the Martians delayed, decided against or chose to further prepare etc. for 40 years, maybe to develop antibiotics or at least fully seal their machines.

The first contact mankind has with them is on October 30th, 1939, when a cylinder lands near Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia. The only change to history prior to this point is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact fell apart less than a week after being signed over some territorial disputes regarding the splitting of Poland, so the German invasion was delayed a month while another round of negotiations was held. This is the start date for the Orson Welles radio drama version, incidentally.

>>52131119
A battleship/armored cruiser makes for more striking image than an accurate weird ramboat.

So everyone knows what were the most overrated boats of WW2 but what about WW1? There is bound to be boats from that era that also are overrated as fuck.

>>52137872
Battlecruisers. Any armored cruiser that was re-rated as a battlecruiser was doubly overrated.

All this Martian alt timely me talk reminds me of the excellent thread (or maybe pair, can't recall) that we had probably about six months ago about an anon wanting to run a campaign with his players as crew on a ship in that sort of setting. Lots of good discussion ensued.

>>52138041
If BC's were actually employed as intended, rather than as pocket battleships slugging it out against guns of an equal size to their own, then they were pretty useful. This is coming from someone who used to make fun of BC's all the time and didn't understand the doctrine they were conceived under, just their typical awful use.

>>52129679
Yeah, my Grandad said they were better than any bed he'd ever slept on.

>>52138733
Seems like it'd be a lot harder to get thrown out of a hammock than a bunk in heavy seas. At least if you were rolling, pitching maybe still.

>>52138041
German grosser kreuzers were pretty decent, but then again it is probably because Krauts, outside of grossidiot Tirpitz, didn't fall for the whole speed=armor meme.

Rate my formation:
>BB Nagato, CA Maya (AA refit), CL Tenryu, DD Hatsuzuki, DD Yoizuki
>CV Jun'yo, DE Ume, DE Momo, DE Kaede as distant cover

>>52138633
In Rule the waves my early BCs tend to be my most successful ships. Starting as the first dreadnaughts, and getting upgraded several times until the point where they get sunk by lucky torpedo hits during the extended game.

Then again, I make sure to give them armor, and focus on fewer, more intelligently placed turrets. Twin mounts Fore, Aft, and Aft center-line superimposed give a 6 gun broadside and allow the ship to defend itself while running away. The lack of forward firepower is made up by the fact that they can usually run circles around any CL or CA, provided I keep upgrading the engines. If I approach along the diagonal I can use my full broadside against them while still keeping them in range, then I just zig zag across their wake to avoid catching any torpedoes.

Latter on the distinction between BC and Fast Battleship becomes very vague, but I never sacrifice protection for speed.

>>52140992
Why poor ancient Tenryu, and not one of the Aganos?

>>52142360
Three reasons:
>Smaller target with a similar turning circle and top speed to the destroyers she's stuck in with but with a much heavier shell
>Can be used as a WWI era destroyer leader
and perhaps most importantly,
>I got her in a three-pack instead of a latewar Akizuki

They don't make a bad unit, and larger destroyer leaders are kind of orphans anyway in my view.

>>52142552
>>Can be used as a WWI era destroyer leader

Well, she was designed for that role. Whether she can still do it in the 1930s/40s is another question.

>>52142835
To be fair in the role next to Akizukis she's got heavier armor and offsets the low weight of shell. It's probably the only place she's not strictly a burden.

File: tenryu36.jpg (78KB, 1599x628px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1599x628px

>>52142990
Tenryuu-chan is cute and never a burden!

Ok, she might be a bit slow, but her job is to help DesDivs repel other destroyers and add bulk to torpedo attacks, not fight other cruisers.

>>52144192
I need to model her single heavy AA mount, GHQ just has her with the 25mm mountings.

File: IJN_Tatsuta_at_Kure_in_1928.jpg (52KB, 1299x488px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1299x488px

>>52144492
Let me scan you a profile tomorrow at work.
In the meantime, have Tatsuta in pre-war guise. The 8cm AA is just aft of the Y main mount, pointing upwards, barrel barely visible.

>>52140992

It would look great on the table top, but is it a formation the IJN would have ever deployed?

However, while I tend to favor "historical" over "cool", that doesn't mean anyone else must too.

>>52145879
Probably needs more DDs. IIRC Japanese DesDivs were almost always kept together.

Speaking of historicalness, does anyone have any of the DD-related stuff that's not available here (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/index.html)?

>>52146149
>Probably needs more DDs. IIRC Japanese DesDivs were almost always kept together.

There's is that. There's also the single BB and single CA too.

Except for very late in the war, when did the IJN ever deploy a single BB? They were always in at least two ship divisions. (Kirishima was alone because Hiei has been sunk the day before.) Ditto CAs.

Before someone quibbles, deployments aren't transits.

How much faster were the RN able to fire by ignoring their safety procedures in WW1?

>>52148339
Not fast enough.

>>52145879
Yoizuki wasn't in the war until after Tenryu and Hatsuzuki had both been sunk, and Maya tended to operate with her sisters. But Hatsuzuki and Yoizuki both belonged to DesDiv 61 at different times, and DesDiv 61 was one of the few formations left with any degree of presence at the end of the war alongside Nagato as the IJN's last capital ship. Yoizuki is also among a very short list of destroyers who ever wore camouflage, making her visually interesting. She'd have to just stand in for any other Akizuki in a strict reenactment.

It's more meant to be a counter for similarly small task forces of British and German ships in the North Sea and Atlantic, made up of interesting and distinctive ships.

>>52146955
They operated them as sisters, which is why larger scenarios would feature Nagato and Mutsu with heavier screening. But Nagato in particular sailed with whoever was available at the time after Mutsu blew up.

>>52151167
>It's more meant to be a counter for similarly small task forces of British and German ships

So it's a point value thing? You needn't worry about historical accuracy at all then. Just paint 'em up, place 'em down, and have fun!

>>52152006
North Carolina is definitely worth a visit if one finds themselves near Wilmington.

>>52152722

If anyone does get a chance to visit, there's a nice exhibit on the I-9 torpedo hit.

>>52151256
I must admit though, bringing IJN hurts sometimes. What I wouldn't give to have a light carrier loaded with Hellcats instead of Zeros.

>>52153514
>I must admit though, bringing IJN hurts sometimes

That's the downside of point value battles. If you fought within historical periods instead of vague point totals, sometimes those Zeros would be just the ticket.

Anyway, you're still playing!

File: 49664661_p0.png (603KB, 777x992px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 777x992px

>>52153514
Playing as the side that spent 90% of the war by getting their asses kicked to hell and back has its downsides.

>>52153592
For about 36 months (fewer if you factor in Midway), the Zero was the top bully on the playground. I'd argue it would still serve well against the RN and any European air power even after that.

>>52154419
To be fair, even in peacetime Naval building was something like a third of the Japanese GDP. Combined with attacks on their supply lines and the cost of consolidating and maintaining their own territorial gains, replacing lost ships and aircrews was an impossible task. Basically the first major loss they suffered would have been the beginning of the end for them.

And THEN they made tactical blunders and adhered slavishly to questionable strategies on top of that.

File: Kiso 1937.jpg (291KB, 1600x1263px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1600x1263px

>>52155332
It is rather sad really
>basically always border on going bankrupt due to your naval programs
>still get your ass kicked even when your opponents are busy fighting a war against another nation on a wholly different hemisphere from you and only dedicate the bare minimum resources against you

File: Teaser.jpg (218KB, 864x305px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 864x305px

I posted a Java Sea battle report for Naval War. It's a good system, and it's definitely worth checking out.

https://www.naval-war.com/navalforum/battlereports/59-java-sea-night-clash

>>52156530
It's worse than that. Try and imagine the situation:
>Sink an American battleship: they raise it, repair it, and sink one of yours in exchange
>Sink an American carrier: they sink two of yours and build two more of their own
>Blow the bow off a cruiser: they fix it and send it back with two more cruisers just like it
>Build ten more destroyers: the Americans sink them all and float twenty new Fletchers
>Tell your soldiers to fight to the last man: they do so, and you lose the island anyway
>Strap your pilots in and tell them to ram into American ships: the Americans still keep coming
>Sacrifice all your carriers to bait the American fleet: they take the bait and come back for your main fleet
>Your fleet runs out of fuel: the Americans use them as target practice
>Conscript school children and other civilians: the Americans still outnumber you more than ten to one
>Prepare to expend your entire population in defense of the home islands: the Americans start blowing up and burning down cities without setting a foot on the soil
>And you can't effectively bomb them back

The entire Pacific Theater was an exercise in buying time for something that was never going to happen.

>>52134312
Yeah but taking on three tripods in a ram is ballsier than taking on three tripods in a pre-dread.

File: Tenryu 1919.png (57KB, 625x275px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x275px

>>52144492
>>52145125
Well, these turned out worse than I expected, but it's still clear enough I think.

File: Tenryu 1930-1941.png (70KB, 620x370px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 620x370px

>>52144492
>>52145125
>>52160042
And 2nd.

>>52160042
>>52160060
Thanks, those will be really useful.

File: IJN_Tatsuta_in_Inland_Sea_1920s.jpg (81KB, 1800x651px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1800x651px

>>52160278
I'm glad.
Make sure to post your Tenryuu when you're done.

>>52160042
>>52160060
Where do you work where you can get scans of that sort of thing?

Jesus christ you weebs disgust me

>>52161590
>putting zero effort into your shitposting
Bitch you are RUINING this for me.

File: Tenryuu as comissioned 1919.png (586KB, 888x1177px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 888x1177px

>>52161413
The scans are from a book I bought over the internet called Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, vol 13, which includes Tenryu, Kuma and Yubari classes.
I scanned it at work cause I have better shit to buy than a scanner, that's all.

>>52161590
You'll only stay mad if you think about it!

>>52146149
Divisions were indeed often kept together as a matter of course, though composition frequently changed and units were shifted around with various losses and replacements: each of which possessed at least slightly different capabilities. Ad hoc formations were increasingly common later in the war as some Divisions flat out ran out of suitable ships.

>>52157872

Thanks for the AAR. I'm painting up NavWar minis because all the Anons like you who kindly shared their experiences with the game!

>>52158174

Bingo. That's why I rant whenever Thunder Child is re-skiined as a pre-dread. At ~2500 tons, she was basically a period light cruiser or protected torpedo boat and still had the balls to take on three Tripods.

>>52160042
>>52160060

Thanks for those. Looks like I'll be adding another book to my already lengthy wish list.

>>52158002
>It's worse than that. Try and imagine the situation

It was even worse than that and we needn't imagine either. Paul Kennedy ran the numbers in his "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". First, the numbers. While STILL in an economic doldrums, the US in 1941 had:

>Nearly twice the population of Japan.
>Seventeen time's Japan's national income.
>Five times more steel production.
>Seven times more coal production.
>Eighty (80) times the automobile production.

Then there are these other factors:

>US economy capacity utilization is lowest among the fighting powers.
>In 1939 US had 10 million either unemployed of under employed.
>US factories in 1941 more modern & automated
>US per capita productivity the highest
>US can and did employ women

In 1941 the US had a huge amount of slack, or unused capacity, already existing in it's the economy. A capacity that could be "turned on" simply by hiring workers. Japan, OTOH, had been spending ~30% of her GNI on arms for decades and her economy was already working at full capacity.

Kennedy estimates that in 1937 the US had 41.7% of the world's war making potential and Japan had 3.5%. Absent a miracle like a meteor strike or Yellowstone erupting, Japan never had a chance.

Yet a miracle was just what Japan was planning on.

>>52163615
Or, you know, not bogging down in a war of attrition while disabling the US ability to project power and defend her territories, even momentarily, so as to make war unpopular with the public opinion, to which a democratic government is more receptive to.
So basically what mahanian doctrine had been talking about for decades.

It was still a load of bullshit and backed up by an idiotic structure, just not a miracle.

>>52163844
>Or, you know, not bogging down in a war of attrition while disabling the US ability to project power and defend her territories, even momentarily, so as to make war unpopular with the public opinion, to which a democratic government is more receptive to.

Unpopular with public opinion? You're confusing the US of 1941 with the current day US. They're two very different nations with two very different peoples.

No SJWs, no Tumblrinas, no Pajama Boy, no decades of Alinsky-derived "The US is always wrong" propaganda. Mostly white too. Hart-Cellar is decades in the future and the tidal wave of 3rd immigration won't begin until 1965.

If Japan hadn't hit Pearl, if they'd "only" hit the PI, Guam, and Wake as they'd been planning for decades, it still would have have been "Game On, Motherfuckers". Lindbergh, American First, and the rest were making a lot of noise, but the Silent Majority knew it was only a matter of time before Hitler or Tojo dragged us in. I had a greatuncle who watched USS Rueben James sink.

I've uncles and granduncles who fought in the ETO and PTO. Navy, Marines, B-29s, Army, Tunis, the Bulge, Saipan, the Aleutians, you name it. My father missed it by a year only to see Korea instead. Aunts, greataunts, and grandmothers weren't Rosie the Riveter but they did work in war industries.

Forty, 50, 60 years on and they ALL were still PISSED. Pissed that those "foreign cocksuckers" dragged us into their shit again and determined it was going to be stopped once and for all.

"Disabling the US ability to project power" still means killing Americans and, for the people of 1941, that was all the "reason" they'd need to put Japan DOWN.

Different people, different times.

>>52163844
>So basically what mahanian doctrine had been talking about for decades.
Hardly. The essence of Mahan is "use overseas coaling stations to allow you to bring your battlefleet to your enemies and defeat them decisively."

Japan simply lacked the colonial presence to project power enough. (They were at the end of their rope just bringing the Kido Butai out to hit Pearl, and they couldn't even afford to bring the Yamatos out for their decisive battle at Midway.)

>>52165117
>They were at the end of their rope just bringing the Kido Butai out to hit Pearl

Some DDs in the Pearl strike force did deploy bunker oil in drums on their decks.

>> and they couldn't even afford to bring the Yamatos out for their decisive battle at Midway.

No. Yamato with Yamamoto aboard was part of Operation MI's Main Body acting as operation's flag ship. As such she and the rest of the Main Body was ~600 knm behind the 1st Air Fleet.

Musashi at the time was still going through her acceptance trials and thus wasn't available.

Need a Midway "What If?" that doesn't involve that certain crusier's delayed float plane launch?

On May 30th, the IJN's 6th HQ on Kwajalein radioed Yamamoto that they'd been monitoring radio traffic between two US task forces and RDF indicated they were NE of Midway heading west. Yamamoto decided NOT to forward the intel to the 1st Air Fleet in order to maintain radio silence.

>>52165482
Four days before the battle? Gee, Main Body could have passed the message along via floatplane.

>>52166430
Idiot. Savants.

>>52166559

Exactly. The entire MI operation with forces scattered from the Aleutians to the Central Pacific was designed to lure the enemy's fleet into a battle which would destroy it.

Accordingly it make perfect sense NOT TO INFORM your force's main strike arm of the intel that the enemy fleet has been lured into place.

Perfect sense if you're an idiot savant, that is.

>>52166559
>>52166695
I think we might have our first Edition title, now we just need an Idiot Savants image macro of some kind to go with it.

>>52166695
We're talking about same people here whose reaction to being outnumbered and fighting against an opponent with ridiculously superior shipbuilding capability was not to adopt borderline religious focus on damage control in an attempt to keep their boats in fight as long as humanly possible, but to continue on the path of "if she is gonna sink then she is gonna sink and it can't be helped".

File: Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Taiho_02.jpg (94KB, 1200x351px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1200x351px

>>52167749

Yup. ONE torpedo. All it took was ONE torpedo.

Like we've been saying for a couple threads now:

Idiot. Savants.

New to naval wargaming, mostly played Napoleonic naval games. Which miniatures company makes good WW2 ships? Is GHQ the only game in town?

File: __original_drawn_by_dakku_ogitsune__21573baf942d9b2d64ddfd00ec7bbea6.jpg (348KB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 707x1000px

>>52161590
>2017
>not being a weaboo boatfucker

>>52164475
>Ignoring that back then it was the right wingers who were against going to war.

Many Americans were either isolationist, or in favor of the Axis powers until Pearl Harbor happened. Your conception of pre-war america is distorted.

>>52169071
>Your conception of pre-war america is distorted.

My PERCEPTION, you illiterate asshole, was shaped by the people who actually LIVED during the period in question. The German American Bund existed, as did a US Nazi party, but to suggest even a significant minority of people supported the Axis - which included Japan - is absolutely asinine.

No one wanted to go to war, that is no one wanted to US to choose to declare war, but most people were resigned to the fact that sooner or later the Axis powers were going to do something which would drag us in.

When you look at stuff like the peacetime draft, the Two Ocean Navy Bill of '40, Lend Lease, various rearmament & development programs, the creation of the OAS and outreach to Central & South America, you see a nation readying itself for war while hoping it wouldn't happen.

None of my relatives wanted to start it, but if it were forced in them they sure as hell were going to finish it.

>>52169405
"Your relatives" make up a very small percentage of the population. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

>>52168657
>2017
>being a weeaboo boatfucker
Harpoon missiles launched. Please stand by, smile and wait for the flash

>>52169405
>>52169544
"his relatives" were also affected by the Pearl debacle, then by the massive propaganda campaign.

There's no way we or he can know if "his relatives" would give a fuck about some godforsaken islands on the other side of the world, if that is all Japan demanded, and if it turns out the Battlefleet had been mauled and was unable to defend hawaii, which of course means that the IJN could take all of the west coast hostage.

File: e093a2837800a192eb5278935591271c.jpg (587KB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 707x1000px

>>52169681
You seem upset.
Worry not, there's a ship for every one of us after all.

File: giving faces to ships decades before kc.jpg (80KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x1067px

>>52169681
>implying being a boatfucker is anything new

>>52169713
>take a undergunned glorified destroyer from late 1910's
>give it battleship tier upperworks

What did japs mean by this?

>>52169944
They were tits men.

File: FN Campaign - Google Docs.pdf (85KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1x1px

Got a rough draft of the Fear Naught narrative campaign, let me know what you think.

>>52167921
There's plenty that make good models, it's just GHQ's are really good.

File: __lexington_and_uss_lexington_zhan_jian_shao_nyu_drawn_by_zi_se__bac9effcdbf568644b4002bd0f7f6855.png (6MB, 2033x2954px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 2033x2954px

>>52169728
The younger sister was better desu.

File: 20170123191306_1.jpg (361KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1920x1080px

Good morning gents, off to sink some Jerries today?

>>52172118
Where's that screenshot from?

File: U_V flotilla.jpg (590KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1000x750px

>>52172118
Lead on, sir.

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

886KB, 1837x2153px

>>52158002
Try being the IRN in 1904.

>>52170656
Looks pretty cool anon, I'll have to give it a closer look when I get some more free time but it's definitely promising.

File: 20170118051802_1.jpg (469KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1920x1080px

>>52172147
Steel Ocean.

Free game on Steam

File: 20170121072609_1.jpg (329KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1920x1080px

Here we see a G3, a J3, and an H39. Because Steel Ocean is cool like that, and let's you play with never built designs.

File: 20170314110526_1.jpg (224KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1920x1080px

Here's one for all you Weaboos out there. Can you figure out what it is?

>>52173591
It's not Amagi, and it's definitely not the derped as fuck Hiragi or Fujimoto. Also puzzled by why it looks like it's flying a Union Jack.

>>52173704
>UnionJack
Because in my world, every day is Royal Navy Day.

>>52141238
So you're making fast battleships?

>>52162515
Out of curiosity, is the horrifying order system worth the minis? I was thinking of placing an Order for the ships I needed that Davco didn't make (John C. Butlers.) but to be honest I might just convert them.

>>52173966
>1 smokestack
>5 x 2
>casemates on 2 levels

Either per-conversion sea eagle grill or her older sister.

>>52173966
Dig some more digging. Is it supposed to be Tosa?

>>52172118
Tribal Class?

File: HMAS Warramunga starboard.jpg (231KB, 1024x668px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1024x668px

>>52174816
Looks more like S/T or U/V. Tribals are pretty distintive, particularly with the twin mounts.

Does anyone use any other rulesets besides naval war?

>>52175983
Yes, it's just that the ones of us that play Naval War are plugging it heavily in an attempt to grow that community.

What are you looking for out of a system?

>>52169728
Which ship is this?

>>52176034
Nothing too simulation oriented, something that doesn't require too many charts. Points based army construction if I don't want to do historical scenarios.

>>52174376
Yes in fact I am, but the game calls them BCs if they are faster than 23knots (this number goes up as time progresses)

File: __admiral_lexington_and_saratoga_zhan_jian_shao_nyu_drawn_by_y_ssanoha__41d0e38f941a7d8a65ca1e8d576f91bf.jpg (2MB, 800x6581px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x6581px

>>52176055
USS Constant Repairs

>>52176070
Well if you want points and little to no charts, it's down to Naval War, Victory at Sea* or AA: War at Sea. Now there might be some other systems as well, but these are the ones I'm most familiar with. GQ3 is a good system, but it's probably beyond the level of complexity you're looking for.

>>52174621
It is a Tosa class.

>>52174816
Ca Class I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-class_destroyer_(1943)#.22Ca.22_.28or_11th_Emergency.29_Flotilla

File: 20170121071944_1.jpg (449KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1920x1080px

>>52176070
Here is Victory at Sea
https://dropfile.to/MdExO6Y
https://dropfile.to/T1pCrgM

>>52176070
You can give Fear Naught a try. It's a bit Work in Progress at the minute but its rules-lite and pretty fun.

File: Farragut_(DD348)._Aerial,_starboard_stern,_underway,_09-27-1939_-_NARA_-_520586.jpg (1MB, 3000x2327px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2327px

Anyone here can tell me or point me out to where to find out how the seas around the Pacific northwest are like? I'm trying to figure out if it's as rough/rougher than the Atlantic and how much ice to expect.

>>52181551
Aside from the Bering Sea and some bays, it's just rough enough to keep sea ice from being a serious problem. Not as rough as the North Atlantic.

Most arctic paint schemes, particularly the improvised IJN ones, were designed to break up the silhouette of the ship against an island with ice and snow on it, not because they were expected to be near ice while at sea.

File: Hall_PHs_over_Farragut_class_DDs_1936.jpg (358KB, 2064x1659px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 2064x1659px

>>52182054
Thanks a lot. If I'm designing ships for that theater, I won't have to put icebreaker bows on everything then.

File: KanColle Enterprise.jpg (375KB, 1567x2401px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1567x2401px

>>52165482

You really have to get into Shattered Sword to get the Japanese psychology at Midway. They really thought they were going to have to bait the US to fight. The IJN had been wanting Tsushima II for thirty years, and was resulting to wishcasting to make it happen.

Pearl was Port Arthur II, Midway was supposed to be the execution of the USN the way Tsushima had been for the Imperial Russians.

Of course look how that shit worked out.

>>52183195
>The IJN had been wanting Tsushima II for thirty years, and was resulting to wishcasting to make it happen.

Exactly. Wishful thinking. Magical thinking. Idiot. Savants.

>>52182121
>icebreaker bows
>on warships
Was this a thing? Why?

>>52181551
It's funny, everyone always shits on the British, but they built their ships to be as stable as a goddamn rock. They served in the North Sea, and the North Atlantic. Short of the Bering, or the Drake Passage, I don't think there are rougher seas. And the British ships could cruise them like a champ. Despite the advantage the Scharnhorst class had over the Reknown, the Reknown still fought them both off, in a storm, while the two german battleships shipped so much water they put their own guns out of action.

Sure the British KGV wasn't as fast as an Iowa, or a NoCal. But in strong seas (North Atlantic) she rolled far less (15 vs 30) compared to the americans.

I respect the american ships, but they were built to fight in the pacific, in relatively calm waters. The British ships were true all weather brawlers, and their record reflects that.

And then there is the Japanese, where some mild waves capsized one of their top heavy piece of shits and broke another's spine.

So let's say the WNT is weaker or something and the US gets to keep some battlecruisers. Would they keep the battle line at 23 knots like the 1920 SoDaks or go for a fast BB fleet?

File: 20170122172350_1.jpg (475KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1920x1080px

>>52124461
No British Warship has ever been dry.

That's a stupid Yank tradition.

The rum ration disappeared, but sailors were/have been allowed to buy alcohol (beer) in place of the rum ration ever since the latter was ended in 1970.

>>52183734
Except the British reliance on turret-mounted rangefinders fucked them over because they couldn't see shit if they had to steam into the wind, let alone fight in bad weather. They were designed to serve in the North Sea, but not fight in it.

>>52183944
The turret mounted rangefinders in WW2? You mean the backups?

>>52183801
Lexington class battlecruiser did 33 knots on paper.

US standard was 21 knots, not 23.

>>52183944
I'm trying to find examples of RN ships in foul navy not performing well.

If we exclude the K-Class submarine (which we totally should) I think there are no examples to be found.

>>52183942
God HMS Tiger was a stunning ship. Looks arrogant and graceful at the same time.

>>52184008
>>52183965
The big rangefinders on the KGVs were turret-mounted (40.5 feet on turrets, 15 on the director control towers), and said turret-mounted rangefinders were inoperable in the opening stages at Denmark Strait. Contrast to the Bismarck, which had the same size rangefinders on the turrets and director control towers (10.5 m).

>>52183987
1920 SoDaks were 23 knots, and I'd assume any BBs after that would go at least as fast as them.

>>52183801
>Would they keep the battle line at 23 knots like the 1920 SoDaks or go for a fast BB fleet?

Carriers and their "need for speed" would still come to predominate, perhaps more even quickly under a weaker WNT which allows more of them to be built.

Friedman's books explain that the USN's choice of slower battleline speeds was driven in part by the need for greater cruising endurance in the Pacific. Fighting in the Pacific also required relatively more scouting assets. With it's carrier numbers limited by WNT, the US tried developing other methods like planes aboard dirigibles.

Weakening the WNT means more carriers, carriers which are faster, carriers which needs faster surface escorts, and faster BBs are the result. The IJN was already tying BB speeds to CV requirements, so the US wouldn't be too far behind if a weaker WNT allowed more building.

>>52184280
What if it's a WNT that doesn't kill all the ships in construction but still keeps the construction moratorium?

>>52184526
>What if it's a WNT that doesn't kill all the ships in construction but still keeps the construction moratorium?

Then how do the (in)famous tonnage ratios still work? And just what counts as "construction"? Rolling armor plate, forging guns, and the like all take place well before any "keel" is laid down.

>>52184654
Higher tonnage numbers, same ratio. Some ships in construction killed but others survive. Cutoff at keel laid at start of negotiations or some shit like that to prevent suddenly starting on new ships to get around the treaty.

>>52184280
But Lex and Sara were products of WNT. A weak WNT may have produced six Rangers: <30 knot ships with a smaller airwing and inadequate armor. That was the initial USN plan before Lex and Sara proved themselves.

The large carrier always had its detractors, and always will. Ironically, John S McCain, Sr., called for a reversion to the Ranger/Wasp type after commanding Ranger. He led Task Force 38 at the end of the war.

>>52184227
Denmark strait is a bad example, POW was still fitting out. Also, KGV radar rangefinding made a mounted rangefinder less ikmportant. Contrast with Hood where the fd rangefinder was huge, lessons learned from jutland etc. UK saw the writing on the wall for optical rangefinding and scrapped the weight accordingly.

>>52184900
So instead of 33 knot fast BBs for fleet escort it's 30 knot ones?

>>52184698

So more niggling details that needed to be negotiated for a longer period of time thus raising the odds that the conference collapses before any treaty is agreed upon? Sure, why not?

There were many goods reasons why the WNT was negotiated the way it was and written the way it was. If you want to change it, you need equally good reasons aside from "because".

Check out alternatehistory DOT com They've many WNT threads and timelines.

>>52184900
>But Lex and Sara were products of WNT.

Byproducts of the WNT which "used up" most of the US' allotted carrier tonnage.

>>A weak WNT may have produced six Rangers

The US wouldn't have built six before the concept was tested and Ranger was meant from the first to test that concept.

>>52184987
>Check out alternatehistory DOT com They've many WNT threads and timelines.
>can't display results as threads
I suppose I've been spoiled by other sites, but having the search results come out as threads rather than individual posts is so incredibly useful on normal forums.

>>52185072
>I suppose I've been spoiled by other sites

Spoiled or simply lazy.

Seeing as most of the threads there are collaborative efforts in which the give and take between various posters produces the final results, a TL;DR focus on individual posts means you miss the conversations explaining just WHY certain results are seen as more plausible than others.

TL;DR - Suck it up, read the fucking threads, and learn something, you Ritalin Ranger.

>>52184984
More like 27 knots. North Carolina, South Dakota and Montana would not have looked like slowpokes.

>>52184987
>The US wouldn't have built six before the concept was tested and Ranger was meant from the first to test that concept.
Ranger was an improvement over Langley, and only appeared inadequate in comparison to Lexington. Assuming the Great Depression still occurs, a large carrier would be hard to justify.

File: confused manchurian agent.jpg (688KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 1680x1050px

>>52185179
But isn't he saying that it'd be great if they DID display as threads instead of posts?

>>52185179
> Lacks basic reading comprehension and doesn't take the time to actually understand a post.
> Responds by sperging out over a (nonexistent) slight against his favourite shitty althistory forum.
> Tells other anon they need to read threads and learn.

You're not very good at this anon.

>>52185179
The whole reason I want search by threads is that I don't have to trawl through thread derail posts from threads not related to the WNT in my search results and can just ignore those threads in the results by thread. I want to find threads about a topic rather than posts about a topic, then read those threads.

File: Kirishima 1915.jpg (398KB, 1600x973px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1600x973px

>>52184082
Probably only actually good looking boat out of her lineage.
>lion&princess royal + queen mary had those awkward midshsip turrets
>her japanese kin had worse casemate placements and their superstructures looked pretty shit even before nips started to turn them into pagodas

>>52185186
There were designs for +30 knot Montana floating around before that class got cancelled, for some reason they never get used when people decide to include Montana-class in their stuff.

File: s511-13.jpg (451KB, 3000x1425px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 3000x1425px

>>52185878

>>52185878
I think that's because the slower Montana design is the one people decided to officially go with. The slower design is more distinct too, with its greater focus on armor and firepower. The faster Montana would've essentially just been an up-gunned Iowa, instead of the "beat the Yamatos at their own game" deal the slower Montanas had going for them

>>52185992
To be fair, the only reason the Iowas get hype is that they were the biggest we ever built and are still around, despite design-wise being basically stretched, upengined, SoDaks.

File: still_better_than_a_bongo.jpg (78KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x550px

>>52188092

>>52187117
No Cals, but yes.

Iowa had armor, but not a lot of it. Almost a battlecruiser, big guns and speed, lacking armor.

>>52183195
What is Shattered Sword?

>>52189736
Iowas had literally the same armor as SoDaks except a bit more on the turret faces and conning towers.

>>52190003
A book about Midway by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, you'll hear about it a lot in Naval Wargaming circles. I'd definitely recommend it if you're interested in the era, offers some real insight into both sides of the battle which you might not be aware of.

>>52190003

It's a fairly recent book about Midway by Anthony Tully, the owner of combinedfleet <dot> com

Here's a link: shatteredswordbook <dot> com

>>52190096
>>52190101
Well I think I know what I'm doing this weekend. thanks!

>>52190008
Exactly, weekly armoured.

>>52183413
Yes, look at WWI german battlecruisers. They're not like dedicated icebreakers, but it seems the compromise was worth it.

File: 20161202080107_1.jpg (303KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1920x1080px

I think german BCs had scooped bows for speed, not for ice breaking.

>>52183413
Have you seen what happens to the Baltic in winter?

Alright my fellow boatnerds, I'm looking for a system to run the Battle Off Samar in. I have a good idea regardless of system of how I'd like to help balance it, but I would like to have a system where unlike V@S destroyers can do fun things.

>>52194979
Have you looked at Naval War?

IIRC the ships needed for Samar are pretty much all in.
Also, destroyers can be devastating if used well in the ruleset.

>>52194979
Destroyers really can't fight in a line of battle, unless it is at night, and they are launching torps. For all the crap V@S gets, it does get that right.

>>52196790
we /shipbucket/ nao?

So, IYHO, which would win in a fight?

Bismark, Colorado, Nagato?

>>52198470
Based on a variety of sources on armor schemes, design speed, and naval rifles:
>Rate of Fire:
Nagato>Bismarck>Colorado
>Weight of Shell:
Nagato=Colorado>Bismarck
>Muzzle Velocity:
Bismarck>Nagato=Colorado
>Effective Range:
Bismarck (questionable)>Nagato>Colorado
>Armor:
Nagato (narrowly)>Colorado>Bismarck
>Maximum Speed:
Bismarck>Nagato>Colorado
>Sensors:
Latewar Colorado>Bismarck>Latewar Nagato>Any WWI Vintage Ship

That's all on paper. In 1941 I'd give Nagato the edge in speed and rate of fire with a slight edge in armor, and Colorado would be the close second. Bismarck's rounds lacked the weight and penetration, and her armor was relatively thin. Both Nagato and Colorado would have a fairly easy time penetrating her armor with AP shells. Bismarck's real advantages are the speed she could bug out at and her fire direction.

By the end of the war Nagato's fire control was obsolete next to Colorado's, and her AP shells had never been improved since after Mutsu blew up she was the only IJN ship that used 16" ammo. So I'd give the edge to Colorado in terms of clearly better gunnery.

>>52198470

It wouldn't be Bismarck, that's for certain. Her armor layout was a copy of the obsolete arrangement on the WW1 Bayern-class. She may not sink right away, but she's going to be mission killed fairly quickly as the KGV/Rodney fight showed. Preston's "World's Worst Warships" explains this in more details.

I'd say Colorado vs. Nagato is a pick 'em with an slight edge for Nagato because she's 5 knots faster.

The 41cm/45 3rd Year rifle and the 16inch/45 are very close in specs and shell weights are almost the same.

Armor differences are either a push or a flaw for Nagato. Thicknesses are roughly the same but quality could be an issue. Okun reports that post-war tests by the USN revealed both the best armor plate they'd ever tested and some of the worst within the same production batches.

Depending on the year, Colorado could have radar directed fire control while Nagato had the same FC from ~1935 onward.

Like I said, a push between the two.

>>52198899
>In 1941 I'd give Nagato the edge in speed and rate of fire with a slight edge in armor, and Colorado would be the close second.

Agreed.

>Bismarck's real advantages are the speed she could bug out at and her fire direction.

Again agreed.

>By the end of the war Nagato's fire control was obsolete next to Colorado's

Which could tip the closely balanced scales to Colorado.

File: ussWestVirgin.jpg (120KB, 1134x845px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1134x845px

How come every game ever makes the Colorado suck then?

If it could take on a Bismark so easily, why does it always blow in nearly any simulation of naval combat, including tabletop?

>>52200322
>If it could take on a Bismark so easily, why does it always blow in nearly any simulation of naval combat, including tabletop?

Which table top rule sets? I'm not interested in video game because they generally trade accuracy for "kewl", but which rule sets?

>>52200322
Brit revisionist influence to make themselves look better despite their ineptitude at dealing with the Bismarcks. Britannia can't rule the waves if their best couldn't deal with a ship built to last war's standards.

>>52201276
Funny how blowing up one old as fuck battlecruiser in dire need of a refit will make you a some kind of lovechild between Iowa and Yamato in the eyes of Brits.

>>52200322
Slow, fat and not sexy, desire to shill up 23 knot South Dakotas, muh Tennoheika Banzai/Rule Britannia bias. Pick your poison.

>>52203009
The C turrrets on Jap cruisers always trigger my fucking autism.

>>52204166
What else can you do when you want the heaviest broadside possible for your cruisers but are too stupid to figure out how triple turrets work?

>>52204166
They're not THAT egregious, and in that class there's an option to model them with extra AA instead of the C turret.

File: 10242471t2.jpg (114KB, 1200x820px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1200x820px

>>52204354
>try to turn a heavy cruiser into a heavy aa cruiser by removing a turret and adding in more aa
>she still has less aa than her american counterparts

>>52204440
Except she had more? Her TROM specifies that she ended her service with 12 heavy AA (same as a Baltimore, constructed DURING the war), 66 25mm guns in 13 triple mounts and the balance in single mounts (more than a Baltimore's 12 quad Bofors), and 36 13.2mm emplacements (more than Baltimore's 24 Oerlikons). She also carried torpedoes and depth charges and had 2 knots and change on the Baltimores.

If you're dead set on finding a way to shit on anything Japanese, the Takaos were lightly-built for heavy cruisers. But they were armed to the fucking teeth.

>>52203009
Call me a pleb, but I like the mini-capital ship aesthetic.

>>52204595
>no medium aa-guns (both krauts and allies used 40mm aa-guns on their boats so lacking an equivalent weapon system is worth of pointing out)
>no proximity fuses
>15 round magazines for 25mms
>13mm guns that were basically completely useless against late war aircrafts
>inferior radar and fire control systems when compared to american and british boats

Bad AA-conversion is bad no matter how you try to sugarcoat it.

>>52204595
>But they were armed to the fucking teeth.

Armed to the fucking teeth with worthless outmoded AA weapons. More doesn't always equate better, especially when you're talking about more shit. Those 13mm were nearly obsolete when the war began. By '45 you'd have better luck using slingshots.

Edit: Ninja'd by >>52204741

File: 77ad987bjw1epuq54kir5j20sg0fv41e.jpg (114KB, 1024x571px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x571px

>>52204166
>what if we took all of our nonsensical turret placements and put them into one class of ships?

>western allies used 40mm aa-guns
>nazis used 40mm aa-guns
>soviets used 37mm aa-guns alongside with 40mm aa-guns they got via landlease
>italians used 37mm aa-guns
>french used 37mm aa-guns

Come to think of it, Japs probably have the dubious honor of being only major WW2 era navy that didn't have 40mm-ish aa-guns in their arsenal.

>>52204741
>>52204789
The statement was LESS AA, posted with lineart that excluded much of the light and intermediate armament. That the IJN invested so heavily in an inferior weapon is both well-known and irrelevant to the question of which ship had more guns.

In terms of what the IJN actually had available, Maya's AA refit was making the most of a poor situation.

>>52206332
The thing is, even though Maya might have had more barrels for AA use she still threw significantly less flak per minute than a Baltimore-class cruiser would.

>Maya = 9092.16kg of AA-fire per minute
>Baltimore = 12728.64kg of AA-fire per minute

>>52206672
Thing is, compare their ages and displacements, then consider her sisters and the IJN in general.

Maya was a step in the right direction.

>>52200467
Victory at Sea comes to mind.

File: 54651930_p0.png (2MB, 1100x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1100x1600px

Honestly after doing some calculations about Japanese flak weight it is rather surprising by the time that the war end there were still nip boats left afloat.

For comparison:

Yamato - 16 475.2kg of flak/minute
USS South Dakota - 19 135.36kg of flak/minute
Haruna - 7 160kg of flak/minute
HMS Renown - 11 846.688kg of flak/minute
USS Alaska - 13 986.24kg of flak/minute
Hanazuki - 5 819.2kg of flak/minute
USS Laffey (DD-724) - 5 028.96kg of flak/minute

>>52208022
Did you include the stupid SanShiki shell in those calculations for the Japanese?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)

>>52208084
I assume he only included weapons that can hit and damage aircraft.

File: USS Laffey DD724 full.jpg (2MB, 3288x2536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3288x2536px

>>52208022
>The Ship That Would Not Die"
That was a badass little boat. Good taste anon.

File: Lowering_the_flag_on_Zuikaku.jpg (73KB, 740x529px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 740x529px

>>52127849
>>52158002

>Sacrifice all your carriers to bait the American fleet: they take the bait and come back for your main fleet

But Kaga-san, if only you had seen her on that day, dancing in the mists of the horizon line- elegant and tragic, lonely and wise. Zuikaku made Bull Halsey believe in the Kido Butai all over again, if only for a day. Our little girl grew up.

>tfw Naval War's Lexs don't have the 8-inchers
I just want to be able to blast any DDs who think jumping my carriers is a good idea.

>>52209072
The 8" battery was removed in 1942. I'll ask for HJS to make you up a card and point total with them though. He's been pretty good so far about getting people stuff that they request. He'll probably not include it in the USN folder though, just post it as an image in the thread.

>>52209072
>>52209220
https://www.naval-war.com/navalforum/ship-roster/60-pre-war-lexington-cv-s

Although in hindsight, if you've seen the cards, you ought to have a forum account and have been capable of the same thing, but yeah.

>>52208022
Weight is kind of a weird way to compare AA when weight of shell is a question of diminishing returns anyway. It's more a question of saturation of fire and coverage, which is why the IJN hoped to compensate with half again the count of barrels.

And to be fair the USN didn't really anticipate needing the number of 40mm and 20mm they really needed either. The saving grace there was the ability to absorb losses while conducting new building AND modernizing. Fact of the matter is that the US had the most men, the most ships, and it had the most money and raw resources. The other militaries of the world had to make things work as best they could.

>>52208084
>The blast of the main guns turned out to disrupt the fire of the smaller antiaircraft guns, so the 46 cm rounds were not successful. The copper drive bands of the rounds were poorly machined, and constant firing was damaging the gun rifling.

Not only were they a dumb idea, they were poorly implemented as well.


>>52204440
Even if it's inferior to it's american counterparts, it still looks a lot less dumb

>>52209072
>>52209220
>>52209287

A set of 1930s cards might be interesting...

File: 20170316131731_1.jpg (366KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1920x1080px

Ah cool, some other people here love the Colorado! Gets pissed on in every video game of her, I still love her. Easily the best battleship of WW1.

>>52210485
>WW1

Maybe interwar, but I think the Nelson beats her out for the title of best interwar design.

>>52209287
>>52209072
He's got it up already.

>>52209609
I think it'd definitely be a fun direction for him to expand after WWII has been bulked out. I love all the crazy interwar experimentation.

>>52210535
>crazy interwar experimentation

Do you really want to see 8-8 fleets? Because the ludicrousness of the Japanese/US fleets is overshadowed by the sheer fucking magnitude of the British N3/G3/K2/J3 and Super Cruisers they considered building.

A 13.5 inch "Heavy Cruiser" that looked like a mini nelson.
The G3, an Iowa in 1925.
The N3, a Yamato in 1925.
The J3, Basically a Littorio.
The K2, because why not put 20 inch guns on a battlecruiser?

>>52210596
The good old "lets bankrupt our empire" fleet.

>>52210596
Gotta be able to actually play with stuff like:

https://www.shapeways.com/product/GB6MZXETG/1-1800-tillman-iv-2-bb?optionId=57858673

https://www.shapeways.com/product/M4J5WT3S8/ijn-hiraga-1-1800-hiraga-s-treaty-battleship?optionId=61388339

https://www.shapeways.com/product/Y8YNCF4HK/tanigawa-b-64-1-1800?optionId=43713532

https://www.shapeways.com/product/M54QSU3HE/tosa-1-1800?optionId=43653461

https://www.shapeways.com/product/2JJMUU22J/ijn-fujimoto-1-1800-fujimoto-s-treaty-battleship?optionId=61662225

https://www.shapeways.com/product/3NSSSSTS3/engels-1-1800?optionId=61697273

Although in all seriousness, I had meant the sort of crazy treaty stuff that actually happened and was mostly obsolete by the time the war rolled around. Except, you know, when it was top of the line and would be fighting equally janky stuff.

>>52204251
Than what's the excuse of the Rodney? It already had tripples.

>>52212330
Muh weight savings brah.

>>52212330
Weight savings to honor treaty limit s

>>52212330
Rodney/Richielieu/Dunquerke were treaty cruisers. They didn't have to armor as much of the ship by placing all the turrets together, so they saved weight. It's why Rodney could mount tons of armor, move at a decent clip, and still have 9x16in guns, on a 35,000 ton vessel.

>>52209287
>>52210535
I just was looking a the navypedia, but wow, nice. You don't see the 8-inchers on the Lexs very often.

>>52213871
Oh, looks like he fucked up the cost on the image.

So with Naval War's OOBs, do you have to take at least one ship for close and distant cover options that are, say, 1-3 ships, or can you simply build a list from just core fleet units and ignore close and distant cover?

>>52214419
If you decide to field something from a certain slot, you have to field at least what's stated.
If you're not fielding a slot, no need to worry.

Only cases where it's really relevant are groups of 1-n destroyers with 0-1 destroyer leaders.

>>52214419
You could build a list entirely from the core fleet with no support, if that's what you're asking.
>>52214030
The 3 on the card is Victory points the ship is worth, not points to field. Those have never appeared on the cards.

File: hms_kent_900x700.jpg (257KB, 900x700px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 900x700px

I can't take OOB lists seriously. They just make things too restrictive.

>>52215327
It's too bad we never got to see a County vs a Hipper.

>>52215327
Nicely, Naval War offers Orders of Battle for when you wanna make forces roughly based on historical campaigns but also offers the point values normally if you just wanna throw together whatever you feel like.

Personally, I do like the orders of battle.
Being restricted to what was available historically in a certain area has you make interesting force composition choices and sometimes use vessels you wouldn't normally think of.

>>52215380
It probably would've been a simple matter of who landed the first hits, as neither ship was particularly well protected.

>>52215549
Well county did have an extra 1.5 inches on the Hipper, but when talking about 8 inch shells, doubt that would have made the difference.

I do find it hilarious that given all the extra technology, the germans still ended up only equalling the county class with their heavy cruisers, and came in 5000 tons heavier.

Germans can't into boats.

>>52215811
Well they lost most of their shipbuilding knowledge base after WW1, so they were kind of trying to play catch up, really the only reason they got as good a ships as they did was because everyone essentially put Naval development on the backburner post WNT.

>>52215442
>Naval War
I can't take any Naval game seriously that gives the Bismark armor parity with a KGV or Iowa class. Guy needs to do more homework

>>52215442
Where are the point values? They're not on the statblocks, and I don't see a point value chart in the statblock folders.

>>52215917
>lost shipbuilding knowledge

Not really.
http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-044.htm

>>52176180
What exactly am i looking at?

>>52216018
If I skimmed that article correctly, perhaps I should have worded it "discarded or disregarded much of their shipbuilding knowledge".

>>52216085
And not letting new people put forward new ideas.

>>52215327
Hnngggh, such a good looking ship.

Baltimore looks modern good, but County looks classic.

Silent Victory/The Hunters anon here, time for another game. This time I'm choosing hard mode and going with a Porpoise-class, the worst-armed sub in the game (Narwhals and the Argonaut have bitching twin 6" deck guns, and the Salmons have two more aft tubes). This will be USS Perch.

December 39 Patrol: Marshalls

Perch leaves Pearl Harbor on her first combat patrol. Transit is uneventful.

After several days of uneventful searching, she encounters the CL Oi (how the fuck do I type the O with bar thing?) during the night of December 15. She successfully closes the range undetected, and fires her four tubes. However, three miss. The fourth, however, hits, and deals significant damage, sinking Oi. Perch is detected and attacked by Oi's escorts, but manages to escape after the first round of depth charges damages one of her diesels, which is repaired the next day.

The remainder of the patrol and transit home is uneventful.

>>52218310
Ah shit, that should be December 41. Got confused with the start from The Hunters.

February 42 Patrol: Empire.

Perch transits peacefully.

Arriving near Japan, on February 9 Perch approaches two escorted transports. However, she is detected and depth charged before she can attack, seriously wounding several crewmen and causing some flooding.

On February 16, she encounters a minefield, but is able to safely navigate it.

Her transit home was uneventful.

April 42: China Sea

During transit, Perch is attacked by a Japanese bomber, but is able to crash dive in time.

On the night of April 10, she approaches two escorted transports and successfully closes the range undetected. She fires four torpedoes at the 8800 ton Asosan Maru. Three hit and, miraculously, all explode, sending her to the bottom. Perch is able to escape undetected, but loses the ships the following day.

On the night of April 12, she encounters the passenger ship Seikai Maru (3100 t) alone on the surface. She surfaces and attacks with her deck gun. However, due to poor visibility Perch is forced to expend all of her ammunition sinking her.

On the night of April 14, she encounters the freighter Noshiro Maru (2300 t) alone on the surface. With no remaining deck gun ammunition, Perch attacks with two torpedoes from her aft tubes. Both hit, but one is a dud. However, the single hit sinks Noshiro Maru.

During the day on April 15, she encounters the passenger ship Meisei Maru (1900 t) alone on the surface. She attacks with her aft tubes again. Both hit, and one is a dud. However, the single hit fails to sink her so Perch fires a single torpedo from her fore tubes, which is also a dud. So is the next one. The third torpedo from the fore tubes sinks her.

Her transit home is uneventful. For his success, LtCdr Anon receives the Silver Star.

>>52218520
June 42: China Sea

Transit is uneventful.

On June 12, she spots and attacks a convoy. Slipping in, she fires four torpedoes at the tanker Ryuei Maru (5100 t). Three hit, but all are duds. Perch manages to escape successfully to come back the following day. Again she attacks Ryuei Maru. Three hit, but this time two explode, sinking her. However, Perch is detected and attacked, only managing to escape after taking severe damage. Her dive planes and hydrophones are out, batteries significantly damages (mechanically inoperable), and three of four diesels are out, forcing her to abort the patrol early.

Transit home is thankfully uneventful. Perch crew have become more talented at keeping her running (crew skill up). She'll be in repairs for four months, though.

November 42: Marianas

The newly repaired Perch is back in action, and heads out to the Marianas. Her transit is safe.

On November 13, she spots a single escorted transport. While waiting for night to fall, she loses track of it.

On November 16, she spots two ships with escort. She is able to follow them until after night falls. She closes the range and fires three torpedoes at Iwashiro Maru (3600 t) and one at Shuko Maru (900 t). All hit, but only one aimed at each ship explodes. However, those hits are enough to sink both. Perch is able to slip away safely.

Her transit home is uneventful.

>>52218749
Forgot to mention, LCDR Anon got promoted to CDR.

Jan 42: Empire

Transit was uneventful.

Jan 10, Perch spots an escorted transport but loses it waiting for nightfall.

Jan 14, same but two escorted transports.

Jan 17, successfully navigates a minefield.

Jan 20, encounters armed merchant Sagara Maru with escorts. [idiot savant intensifies] Perch is detected closing the range, and her fuel tanks are ruptured as well as minor hull damage, forcing an abort.

Transit home is uneventful.

>>52218942
Shit, that's Jan 43. I am really fucking this up tonight.

April 43: Marshalls

Transit was uneventful.

Shortly after she arrived, Perch recieved an ULTRA intercept directing her to the CV Zuikaku. However, she is detected while trying to close for a good shot, and although she is able to escape, her fuel tanks are ruptured again, forcing another abort.

Her transit home is uneventful.


Poor Perch, can't even get a shot off.


June 43: Philippines

Transit is uneventful.

On June 9, encounters the freighter Iwaki Maru with escorts. However, she is detected while closing, but escapes with only repairable damage.

On June 18, encounters the tanker Yamamizu Maru with escorts. She closes the range and fires four torpedoes. Two hit, one explodes, and Perch is able to escape safely. The escorts abandon Yamamizu Maru for no explainable reason, allowing Perch to finish her off with the deck gun.

Transit home is uneventful.

>>52215982
Yeah, that would be a turn off for me. There is no such thing as invulnerability, but Nelson and KGV had an edge over Bismark in terms of protection, and that is often ignored.

The QE/Revenge all had similar protection to the Hood, and were vulnerable to plunging fire. But Nelson and KGV were massively armoured compared to almost anything in WW2. Yamato was more heavily armoured, but that is about it.

In terms of realism, is World of Warships relevant /tg/? I've been told both things, one that it is realistic with slow turn speeds, losing momentum in turns, etc. But I have also been told that it is unrealistic with gunnery.

>>52219091
August 43: Marianas

Transit is uneventful.

On August 10, she encounters the transports Sanka Maru (2500 t) and Miyako Maru (1000 t). She closes successfully and fires a 2-2 split. One misses Miyako, and only one explodes, leaving Sanka damaged but afloat. Perch is able to escape undetected, and the escorts abandon Sanka to her fate of deck gun target practice.

On August 12, she spots two freighters with escort, but is detected and attacked. Although she managed to escape, her fuel tanks are punctured again, forcing yet another abort.

Transit home is uneventful.


Kancolle!Perch is probably hemophiliac or something, considering she's bleeding oil all over.

>>52219189
It's wholly unrealistic, do not use it to inform your view of ships or naval warfare. Doesn't mean it can't be fun to play, it's just very much an arcade game.

>>52219189
The only realistic thing about that game is the ship models are visually accurate.

Armor makes no sense, since angling your bow towards an enemy in the game is the best choice, but would be suicide in a real fight. HE is massively overpowered, most fires were set by AP penetrating magazines or bunkers. Shell trajectories are all wrong, with dives at the last second. Citadel hits are an invention of the game, not even close to the way gunfire would affect a ship (a 14 inch shell on a DD would obliterate it/end its battle effectiveness, not cause minimal damage)

Basically don't play that game if you want naval realism.

>>52219215
October 43: Marshalls:

Uneventful transit

October 10, attacked convoy, only caused damage, escorts stayed with damaged ship, lost convoy while following

October 18, sunk Nichinan Maru #2 although expended all deck gun ammo.

Transit home uneventful

>>52219350
December 43: Philippines - Transport

Transit uneventful

When trying to land the passenger, Perch attakced by aircraft, knocking out the periscope and half the fore torpedoes, as well as causing light hull damage and wounding the pharmacist's mate. The second try was successful.

Unable to make submerged attacks with no periscope, Perch still patrolled in an attempt to find something she could attack on the surface, but all her encounters were escorted.

Her transit home was uneventful.

>>52219480
March 44: Empire

Transit was uneventful

On 12 March, spotted CL Tama but was detected while tryinf to close the range and sunk after several barrages.


RIP

>>52215327
I tend to agree, though it's also nice to keep ships who operated together as a unit.

File: Yunagi 1936.jpg (372KB, 1600x1185px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1600x1185px

>>52219230
>do not use it to inform your view of ships or naval warfare.

It is pretty hilarious how often people forget this and act like wows is 100% accurate simulation game instead of being just Call of Duty but with boats.

>>52219189
>In terms of realism, is World of Warships relevant /tg/?

One thing I learned form watching a few videos of it is that crossing the T is a fatal noob mistake.

>>52219330
>a 14 inch shell on a DD would obliterate it/end its battle effectiveness, not cause minimal damage
Didn't the DDs at Samar actually last longer because the battleship shells would overpenetrate and detonate in the water instead?

>>52215327
>I can't take OOB lists seriously.
>historical wargaming

>>52219189
>In terms of realism, is World of Warships relevant /tg/?

World of Waships is to naval combat as Super Mario Bros. is FBI hostage rescue tactics.

>>52218310

Woo hoo! He's back with the further adventures of fightin' Anon family of naval officers!

Thanks for the AARs. :)

>>52216045
The sad story of a siscon boatslut from the lands of rising burger and her repeated dockings&repairs.

>>52216045

The explanation is involved, so stick with me.

Everyone likes to anthropomorphize concepts, nations, etc. and the resulting figures then stand in for the subject in question. Look at Uncle Sam, John Bull, Marianne, etc. The Japs, being Japs, dialed the idea up to 11.

They started in the 30s with "pin ups" of IJN warships as lovely women. Then, being Japs, the practice morphed into genre of "tans" in which softcore "kiddy pron" figures represent ships, tanks, planes, DOS types, and even video game systems.

In the strip you're asking about, we see a 'cute little tan" dressed up as CV-3 USS Saratoga. She cries when her "sister", CV-4 USS Lexington is sunk. She herself is damaged & repaired several times, just as the real Saratoga was during the war. She also is initially happy when she learns a new Lexington, the Essex-class CV-16 is launched, only to be shocked when CV-16 isn't her sister but a better carrier with the same name.

The strip lists the two dates CV-3 was torpedoed, plus the damage she sustained off Iwo Jima as a night fighter carrier. There's even a panel referencing CV-3's assignment to the British Eastern Fleet in operations against Java and Sumatra.

The strip end with CV-3 listening to admirals discussing her fate only to end up chained and about to be nuked.

TL;DR - It's a faintly disturbing Japanese cultural behavior which the internet has adopted.

I might have some time to test out the campaign system for Fear Naught this weekend, anyone got any particular preference for what nations I use?

Gonna have to stat up a fuck tonne of ships anyway so I can just tack them on as a quick-start campaign, so it's up to you guys as to what you'd like to see.

>>52222096
Germans&Austro-Hungarians vs Italians&French

>>52222162

Excellent suggestion.

>>52222162
Austro-Hungarians and Italians sounds pretty doable. We can have an intrepid Italian captain roaming the waves in search of plunder.

>>52222096
Australian led commonwealth/British Squadron vs Argentine-Chilean Coalition.

>>52215994
naval-war.com/navalforum/ordersofbattle/52-ship-points-list-1-3-5
naval-war.com/navalforum/ordersofbattle/53-aircraft-points-list-and-carrier-airgroups-1-3-5

They haven't been put into a file yet, but are available on the forum.

An anon in another thread posted the WW2 career of the USS Salt Lake City, the old "Swayback Maru". Folks in this thread will find it interesting.

>>52215649

>>52221956
Hardly surprising given that everything can be made better by adding cute grills.

File: Lutzow_pocket_battleship.jpg (123KB, 1494x1005px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1494x1005px

I know the Deutchslands were not the greatest ships ever, but I think they were definitely the best battlecruisers ever built. Long range, enough firepower to engage cruisers, and enough speed to outrun battleships.

>>52223202
And with so little armor that Lord Fisher himself would had called them underarmored.

>>52223202
I think if we go for best battlecruiser, it would go:

Scharnhorst
Repulse/Reknown
Tiger
Pocket Battleship
Seydlitz/Lion

I did not include Hood, since in her era, she was protected to the same levels of a battleship. If I put her in, she'd be with Scharnhorst at the top.

I put the Scharn there as she was a better balanced ship compared to Repulse, despite lacking firepower. Had Scharn been completed with 6x15 instead of 9x11, I think she definitely would have been the best BC ever made (alongside Hood).

Tiger gets a nod, as for WW1, she was well built. Seydlitz gets a nod for many of the same reasons Scharn does. Lion class is always maligned due to ammunition handling explosions at Jutland, but everyone forgets that Beatty's flag, Lion, took a shell to a turret in the same way Invincible and Queen Mary did, but did not explode, because Beatty's flag captain refused to relax ammo handling rules in the turrets and magazines, unlike Inv and QM.

>>52223270
I would put Derfflingers above Seydlitz.

>>52223250
Armored like a Cruiser, that's not a bad thing.

A battlecruiser was supposed to crush enemy cruisers, and run away from everything else. The PB followed that design theory to a T. No other cruiser in the world could boast of as heavy an armament as the Lutzow, on 15,000 tons.

At the battle of River Plate, Graff Spee wrecked a British Heavy cruiser, and worked over a light cruiser. The Brits had to commit three ships to ending the commerce raider, and she was scuttled in harbor due more to crafty British spies then to a lack of fighting power remaining.

>>52223299
Better turret arrangement for sure, but I think Seydlitz represented, at the time, the best battlecruiser ethos. By the time the flinger of Derfs came around, the Brits had a flotilla of much more heavily armed BCs, and I think Derff was just falling behind the times too much.

>>52223202
Nope, they were just basically the only battlecruisers that actually got an opportunity to work as such. If one had run into one of its opposite numbers like Hood or Renown, its sum contribution to the engagement would've likely been exploding, being outmatched in speed, armour and armament.

>>52223270
Scharn and Gneis were kind of overloaded messes though, and ran so wet that in high seas couldn't even deal with Renown, a ship 20 years their senior. Seriously, between the two of them they fired a grand total of 6 more main battery shells than the Renown in that fight, and they were slinging 11 inchers compared the bongs' 15.

Hood had a similar problem if I remember, and was so wet forward that submarine jokes were made.

>>52223202

The thing about the panzershiffs that keeps getting overlooked is that they were direct replacements for Germany's *pre-dreadnoughts*, retained after WWI. That was their design.

>>52177947

Again! Again!

>>52223319
>At the battle of River Plate, Graff Spee wrecked a British Heavy cruiser, and worked over a light cruiser. The Brits had to commit three ships to ending the commerce raider, and she was scuttled in harbor due more to crafty British spies then to a lack of fighting power remaining.

Her fuel system was crippled by one of Exeter's shells. She wasn't seaworthy anymore and had to put in at a neutral port and hope the British just forgot she existed.

Ultimately the large and expensive GS was put out of action by a trio of basically bargain bin interwar cruisers, for the cost of one severely damaged and two moderately. If she'd been less lucky and ran into Force G at full strength she probably wouldn't have even made it to port.

>>52223319
>No other cruiser in the world could boast of as heavy an armament as the Lutzow, on 15,000 tons.

Closer to 17,000 tons and she had plenty of design flaws. Diesels were a poor choice for propulsion and gave her problems from the first. Her armor layout - not the armor itself - also antiquated in the same way the Bismarck-class layout was.

>At the battle of River Plate, Graff Spee wrecked a British Heavy cruiser, and worked over a light cruiser. The Brits had to commit three ships to ending the commerce raider...

They committed 3 ships because they had 3 ships. It would have been 4 if Cumberland hadn't pulled into the Falklands for a refit. It's war, it's not supposed to be "fair". If you have enough force to push the other guy's shit in, use bring it all.

>> and she was scuttled in harbor due more to crafty British spies then to a lack of fighting power remaining.

Only partially true. The Brits gamed the neutrality rules by to keep Spee in port for the full 72 hours. They also broadcast fake radio signals they knew the Germans could/would intercept saying Force H was close to hand.

Battle damage played an equally important role however. Spee's fuel purifiers were destroyed meaning her diesels would run even worse handicapping her in any chase. Her evaps were destroyed too, meaning no drinking water apart from that loaded in port, and the galley was destroyed, meaning iron rations for the crew. Her bow was damaged, further hampering her speed & seaworthiness. Most importantly, she'd used up nearly all of her main battery ammunition.

She couldn't run as well as she used too, she had little ammo left, she'd been trapped in port by British merchant ship departures, and she thought Force H was arriving soon. When the 72 hours was up, Langsdorff had the choice to steam out and watch his crew die or scuttle and watch his crew live.

>>52209023

Huh. That actually happened. Has kancolle done anything with it?

File: Regia Maina.pdf (37KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1x1px

Knocked together a collection of Italian ships for the campaign!

Let me know what you think.

>>52223383
>Hood had a similar problem if I remember, and was so wet forward that submarine jokes were made.

Hood was wet aft. Extra weight of armor put the rear gun deck ludicrously low to the water. Front of Hood was fine in seas, much like reknown/repulse.

File: 20161203191712_1.jpg (545KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 1920x1080px

>>52223678
Ok, but only if you promise to run a campaign or at least play a game.

Hardmode is playing as the Italians.

https://dropfile.to/atfmFLL
https://dropfile.to/GogHVOq

File: bismarck_sejar_bekirow.jpg (97KB, 744x561px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 744x561px

Don't care what the haters say, Bismark is a great ship, as was Tirpitz.

>>52219105
I think it's maybe more of just not quite enough granularity to represent it. If you get to looking, Most all of the modern BB's are armor 8, which tells me that it's an abstraction.

>>52224947
But then the KGV loses the edge it had (since it did have slightly weaker guns then the 15s on the Bizzy, but much better armour)

>>52224993
No, I get that. I will tell you that within the system that KGV will outthrow Bismarck, especially when the Command Stations and country specific orders come into play. I know that's small consolation, because I like granularity too, but it's difficult to express things without making the odds very long within a 2d6 system. See Battletech.

However the best thing about Naval War is that the guy developing welcomes feedback and generally does his best to incorporate it. If it bothers you enough, bring it up there in the Ship Corrections section.

>>52225290
Another option in the NW system is to maybe reduce its hull points instead of armour rating.

That could decently represent the effects of less resilience as well.