Naval Wargames General: Royal Navy Battlecruisers Edition

>>52356583
Poor Invincible, she never stood a chance with a name like that.

>>52356854
Think of the bright side, at least she wasn't named HMS Unsinkable.

>>52357254
Or HMS Impenetrable.

File: CLAA Tenryu 1936.png (26KB, 1150x385px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1150x385px

>>52356583
So I posted this last time, and actually upon further investigation I don't agree with the design as represented. This image is based on a technical drawing produced after the war (by a historian, not an architect) which supposed that the superstructures would have to be totally rebuilt in order to fit the required type 94 HA fire directors. In that drawing the torpedo tubes would have to be deleted entirely, while this one seems to maintain the aft torpedo mounts. The description of the proposal makes no mention of the torpedo armament, but given precedent of EVERY OTHER IJN DESIGN it should be presumed that every effort would be made to retain them.

The kicker is that the mast probably wouldn't have had to be rebuilt to include new fire direction atop the roof of the bridge as seems to have been assumed, and as the ring base of the twin 127mm Type 89 mount was similar to the 14cm/50 turret each would be replacing, with weight actually being saved due to the shorter, lighter main armament, the torpedo tubes would likely have stayed right where they were. And the beauty is that the original designs were bombed during the war, so nobody can say I'm wrong. It's all just conjecture anyway.

Forward with the conversion... so long as I can produce a satisfactory trunked funnel BEFORE I start removing metal.

>>52358020
Valiant or QE?

>>52359487
The grand old lady supporting Normandy landings if I remember correctly.

>>52360074
Seems right, especially considering the nonfunctional X turret.

>>52360281
See, I was thinking that, but I thought the guns were removed from X after Fritz hit her.

But I did some RGIS and yes, that is Warspite.

File: Haruna_1934.jpg (777KB, 2976x2012px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 2976x2012px

Have a Grorious Photo of Best Battleship Haruna at speed!

Love the bow wave she is riding on, WoWs gets water physics all wrong, especially for Battleships.

>>52360368
>being into gilf battlecruisers

>>52360368
Does wows even have water physics? Isn't the wake just a particle effect on top of a flat sheet?

File: 4501219314_e223a02d59_z.jpg (62KB, 640x258px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x258px

>>52360531
WoWS does have "water" riding up the bow and sides, but it doesn't sink down towards the back, all movement over the sides is due to the regular waves all over the map, which are small as shit as well.
Doesn't mean it gets anything right at all though, fuck WoWS.
Also, post some fucking bong battlecruisers damnit.

File: 17-3594389-hms-renown-1943.jpg (470KB, 2001x1084px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 2001x1084px

>>52360740

File: 1368223231.jpg (747KB, 4086x2493px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 4086x2493px

>>52360740

File: 1269054383984.png (872KB, 982x658px) Image search: [Google]

872KB, 982x658px

>>52360740
>Doesn't mean it gets anything right at all though, fuck WoWS.

Seriously, WoWs is Cancer. Play Steel Ocean on steam instead, or if you hate PvP, Atlantic Fleet.

File: hms_canada_atsea_grande.jpg (91KB, 800x419px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x419px

>>52361760
I found Steel Ocean underwhelming, really.
Every time I think about all of this, I miss Fighting Steel ;_;

>>52362095
>I found Steel Ocean underwhelming, really
Everyone misses fighting steel. But SO is the best we have at the moment.

>>52363510
GHQ.

>>52363515
Problem is GHQ doesn't do a WWI Japanese line, and the armored cruisers they used were unusual patterns ordered from overseas yards. The only perfect match to a foreign navy's designs that I know of was Italian-built, which is another country GHQ doesn't do in that era.

File: mp180.jpg (84KB, 700x445px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 700x445px

>>52362585
Damnit, why did you make me go past the tutorial.
Now with two 8-kill streaks I'm hooked! Addicted! Curse you /tg/!

File: USSspud.jpg (327KB, 1450x1082px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1450x1082px

>>52365470
It will get a lot tougher when you are not fighting bots, but welcome to Steel Ocean anon.

>tfw can't play Steel Ocean because my laptop is shit

File: 267c68fbede730f86420e14.jpg (82KB, 919x613px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 919x613px

>>52365990
Anon, I...
...am sure I wasn't fighting bots, not after tier I anwyays.

>>52366463
Tier 4 is guaranteed no bots. Tier 3 and below generally has a fair number of bots, in DDs.

>>52366416
>tfw your favorite bote game can be run a potato

>mfw my U-boat is attacked by aircraft at least once in the Bay of Biscay in all three patrols (her first patrol she got attacked twice)
>mfw my U-boat is detected by both convoys she encounters
>first forces aborting the patrol in the first box of an Atlantic patrol, second sinks her

U-88 is unlucky.

File: Yamato_sea_trials_2.jpg (81KB, 744x451px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 744x451px

Gentlemen, I give you the greatest battleship in the world! Observe its massive secondary batteries! Its enormous bulk and thick armor plating! And most of all those 18-inch monsters that will enable it to engage two American battleships at the same time!

This is the best we can build and we shall build it, expenses be damned!

File: Admiral-Graf-Spee.jpg (84KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 900x600px

>>52373561
Gentleman, I give you the smallest battleship in the world! Observe the presence of is secondary batteries! Its modest bulk and paper-thin 3-inch belt armor! And most of all its anemic 11-inc popguns that will enable it to engage two cruisers at once provided we can train both turrets on them!

This is an armored cruiser by another name, literally what are we doing?

>>52373397
>decide to try a VIID next time
>aircraft encounters 8(!) times in one patrol
Once in transit out, three times laying mines, once patrolling, three times in the Bay of Biscay on return. I've certainly gained an appreciation for why U-Boats hated aircraft.

>>52373592
It was the best they could do at the time, given the limitations imposed by the Versailles treaty and the lack of competent naval engineers. Technically it wasn't a battleship either, but an "armoured ship" (panzerschiffe), more equivalent to a battlecruiser. The "pocket battleship" term came from British or Americans.

>>52373685
She was designed specifically to replace one of the six pre-dreadnought battleships that they were left, which reached the age where it could be replaced in 1922.

>>52373685
> It was the best they could do at the time
That says more about the Germans than the Treaty of Versailles, which the Deutschlands flagrantly violated anyway.

>>52374782
As "cruisers" yes, they're clearly not light cruisers by any definition and so they would have been in violation. But it was permitted to replace their six pre-dreadnought ships with newer vessels of (I believe) 10,000-ton displacement and 14-inch guns or smaller once they reached twenty years of age. The allied powers thought the result would be coastal defense ships, not vessels which could be used offensively.

They violated the spirit of the treaty yes, but they were technically acceptable (albeit 600 tons over design weight). And by the mid-30's subsequent treaties allowed for some buildup to occur, allowing for the Scharnhorsts and Bismarcks which left the Deutschlands as a somewhat bizarre case of "what actually IS this?".

>>52374969
>albeit 600 tons over design weight

And 6000 over treaty limit.

Still I always wonder what the Gerrys were thinking with it?
Slow raider is like a sitting duck in modern war.

And it's always funny hearing about 'muh River Platte' - do people even realise Exeter, Ajax & Achilles outmassed it 2-to-1?
Not likely.

>>52374969
The 10'000 long ton displacement is a straight up lie, by design the Deutschland had a 12'400ish ton standard displacement and over 14'000 at full load, while the Graf's Pee was 14'650 and 16'020 respectively, while Scheer was somewhere in the middle.

>>52375018
Not even, going by full load displacements the RN ships were around 1.8 times GS, while standard displacements give you more around 1.5 times.

>>52375018
Did you literally not read the post you quoted? As has been stated twice now they were meant to replace their aging pre-dreadnoughts, which was allowed under treaty after 20 years in service and as long as they displaced less than 10,000 tons.

>>52375141
Except they didn't displace 10000 tons or less, they were vastly over that limit, so if they were going to flagrantly and blatantly ignore the treaty limits anyway, why didn't they do so with something good?

>>52375018
>Still I always wonder what the Gerrys were thinking with it?
>Slow raider is like a sitting duck in modern war.

At the time, she was not slow, she outpaced everything except the British BC fleet, and the Kongos.

>>52375219
Need to make the ship look even somewhat treaty legal mixed with massive need to overcompensate.

File: 20170314110510_1.jpg (412KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1920x1080px

Sexy Japanese never built reporting in!

File: Kaga 1928.jpg1.jpg (200KB, 1600x1083px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1600x1083px

>>52375678

>>52374969
>They violated the spirit of the treaty yes

If by "violated' you mean gang raped, dismembered, and buried in the crawlspace under the house, then, yes, they did "violate" the Treaty. The Panzerschiffes exceeded the treaty tonnage limits by between 50 and 60%.

>>And it's always funny hearing about 'muh River Platte' - do people even realise Exeter, Ajax & Achilles outmassed it 2-to-1?
Not likely.

I do, but I'm also aware of the differing speeds and main battery ranges involved. While Langsdorff didn't have the speed advantage many assume, he still had heavy guns with a longer range. He should have fought the battle in a completely different manner if at all. Instead, he played right into Harwood's plans.

>>52375678
Pyramid gun batteries are not sexy. Somebody needs to teach the Japanese how to triple gun, or settle for a perfectly acceptable 8 gun broadside.

>>52377304
Triple turrets and turret arrangements that don't make HMS Agincourt look like a sensible idea are unnipponese white devil trash.

>>52377304
Nothing inherently wrong with Twin turrets, they were easily the most reliable turret arrangement in both wars.

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

545KB, 1920x1080px

>>52375678
Here is a "So Ugly it's kind of hot" never built from the UK.

File: 20170123192004_1.jpg (355KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1920x1080px

Muh Pagoduh!

>>52379921
>Muh Pagoduh!

Great. Now I'm singing that to the tune of "My Sharona"!

>>52382707
Dammit, now I need to rewrite some lyrics.

>VIIC in The Hunters
>is literally detected every time I encounter a convoy, either trying to get close or after firing
>somehow manages to last a year

She's the luckiest unlucky boat I ever used.

>>52379642
Twin turrets are fine, as long as you don't go crazy with pyramid batteries and midships turrets.

Line battles don't happen nearly often enough to justify turrets that can't fire fore or aft.

>>52389222
It is pretty hilarious how long nips clung to dual turrets even when everyone around them were opting to use triple turrets.

>>52391422
I know they weren't very effective in the surface engagement role, but I've always found the twin 4 inch mounts on RN ships just adorable.

>>52392567

She came THAT close to getting away too...

>>52391489
>Not Effective
>Twin 4in

Pick 1.

>>52390389

Well, that's because nobody built a truly competent navy (had well-built ships, AND used them well once the war actually started) except the US.

>pack of 1/2400 GHQ Matsus arrive
>clear acrylic bases arrive
HAPPY DAY. Now all I'm waiting for is milliput. Pics some time tomorrow once the basing is ready.

File: 1482927298905.jpg (352KB, 1651x1114px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1651x1114px

Does anyone want to join a play by post game of naval warfare? I'm looking to start a fleet after I found out/read about this game run by a forum member.

You basically make a post for your movement, everyone moves, the map is updated, and then you engage / roll dice to hit the enemy. Has some light RPG elements to it as well with ship upgrades.

>>52398048
I'd be down.

File: 9093.jpg (57KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x650px

>>52398551
Cool, I asked the person running the game and they said we need four people to form a fleet.

>>52399398
Those some Italians?

>>52400016

I'm pretty sure they are. Those triple-mount secondaries at the bridge level are rather unique.

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

299KB, 1280x995px

>reading up on armor penetration values
>formulae based on USNI research suggest that the top five in terms of penetration are Yamato (bulky), Iowa, Littorio (superfast), H-Class (never built) and Nagato
>FACEHARD program calibrated with British armor in mind suggests every other navy's guns have 2-3 inches less penetration capacity than USNI results
>same program estimates RN battleships have 2-3 inches greater penetration than the USNI calculations
>Nelson on top, Lion and QEs suddenly in the top 10
>Iowas aren't in the top 10, Colorados are
Gee, I wonder who could be behind this.

File: 43ea18d75b9dd1d458ffa2f9ca0ffcf3.jpg (374KB, 2595x1836px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 2595x1836px

>>52400016
>>52400244
HMS Refit & Repair during the early interwar period.

>>52398652
Where at?

>>52400286
The Littorio penetration might be decent, but the guns had such shit dispersion because of the speed of the shell, they were a waste. Having to be relined every 150 EFC vs the British 15 inch's 300~350 EFC relining schedule meant that they'd be in dock way more often.

German shells were famous for not exploding in WW2.

USN 16 inch 2700 lb was probably about equal to the Yamato 18.1. Ditto the British 16 (for the Lion, not the Rodnols)

British 16 on Rodnol was crap until they increased shell weight and reduced muzzle velocity.

British 15 was good, became great with 33 degree angle + "Greenboy" 6crh shells.

>>52400400
Not just speed, mainly QC with powder. The relining is a bitch, although it's less of a problem for a fleet intended to fight close to home.

>>52400400
Basically, at a certain point penetration capacity is a tossup. British Admiralty's view on the subject is that there are too damn many variables involved, right down to the fact that your target might roll slightly and present a less favorable striking angle. So just shoot good and shoot often, and try not to get hit in exchange.

If the other bastards sink you did it right.

>>52400332

Wow... am I a dope.

The Littorios not only had trip main batteries, their trip secondaries were deck mounted.

File: Riachuelo_1885.jpg (63KB, 1000x716px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1000x716px

>>52398652
Different anon.
Could you post the system rules or direct us to it please?

>>52400839
Not same anon, but sounds like anon is talking about Bloodwake, from the planes and mercs anons.

planesandmercs.org is the forum.

File: Clearcut_turn_13.png (178KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 3000x2000px

>>52400943
To follow on for other Naval friends.
Bloodwake is a little home brewed surface naval game. You Captain a ship in a fleet (or a small group of ships if you are in CA/CL/DD) and work with others to try and win the day over the GM, who runs the enemy Opfor. You have a slight advantage in that you have an ability as a captain to give your ship a boost in combat occasionally. other then that, you need to think and plan with the others in your group to carry the day.

Here is an example map. Each turn takes 6 minutes in 'realtime' so 13 turns would be 1hr 18 mins into the engagement. As you can see, there is an enemy aircraft carrier, emplaced batteries, a battleship, and a heavy cruiser. The PCs have already sunk some ships as well.

Every different color is a diferent player.

>>52401034
Your forum account name is your character name. You can rename your forum account so it is not a big deal, but if you already know who you want to be called, the format is:

Cpt First Last

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

147KB, 680x800px

>>52401034
Asking for a friend, what type of ships can you drive?

Just playing Rule the Waves. I'm working on a treaty cruiser while I can't fix my lack of modern battlecruisers (generous terms for cruiser building, 20,000 and 12"). Being as it is 1914 and I will need to build capital ships these will probably be my last frontline cruiser class for the game. I've got most of the bells and whistles, I seem to have AoN for cruiser hulls, quad turrets, superimposed B, oil.

Anyway I'm wondering whether I go 3 x 4 10", 2 fore 1 aft, or 4 x 3 in a 2 fore 2 aft config. The quads are going to be unreliable at first but it gives me more fore firepower and saves the tonnage of a turret.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3024x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x3024px

>>52400532
>British moral ascendency

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

108KB, 743x489px

>>52401268
Pretty much any ship from 1906-1946.

System is fairly robust. Teams are not limited to one nation for ships, so you can have franken combinations of vessels sailing together. There is a monetary benefit to having ships from the same nation, as it is cheaper to outfit them overall compared to a more eclectic fleet, but then you lose out on the fun of a North Carolina leading a Littorio and a Revenge into battle.

It's freeform enough to not feel constraining, but the system simulates naval combat well enough that it doesn't feel 'fake' if that makes sense?

>>52401629
Are never-built ships allowed? Cause I want to see a fleet of a modernized Tillman, A-150, H-39 and escorts.

>>52401810
One of the fleets currently has a KGV with 3 Quad turrets, and a Hood that had the 1941 Modernization applied.

GM has said that if it had realworld plans/stats, it can be put in the game.

Well I am in, Cpt Josiah Bartlett. Anyone want to make a fleet with me?

>>52402192
John_Doe is go.

Might get in on the action, moving to the bush for work so data light gaming sounds an idea

>>52402394
Barty sent you a PM Doe, welcome aboard!

>>52402422
Two in fleet, looking for a min of 2 more, so if you can connect once every two days or so, we should be good!

>>52402192
Looks pretty neat, might get in on the action, what ships are we thinking?

>>52402533
Doe here, thinking 2x Gridley and a Condottiere as a NEED FOR SPEED group.

>>52402533
It really depends on how much money we get to start off with. Barty

>>52402461
Easy, I'll be living in town, job not far out, it's just I'll be in the outback where internet is expensive. I'll sign up this afternoon.

>>52402608
I'm also considering DDs, though more along the lines of the British twin mount classes (Tribals, J/K/Ns and L/Ms).

>>52402192
Danon volunteering for service.

>>52402873
Hi Danon, sent you a PM on the forums!

Barty

Reading through the mission archive, wow, there is some hisotry there!

Seems pretty cool, for once, /tg/ was not shit in something it recommended!

>>52402782
My preference would be for a single nation fleet, for aesthetics as well as the cash bonus. Out of single nations the Brits or Americans would have the best rosters, particularly with paper vessels taken into account.

>>52403459
Yeah, it's probably the smart way to do things, but at the same time I'm very much partial to the Bongs and wouldn't like to deprive others of a chance to play their favourite ships from other nations by forcing them to toe the line or be myself made to if we went with another nation.

>>52403459
If we're going pure American I'm thinking Omaha and two Clemsons for four-stacker shenanigans. Dunno about bongs.

>>52403724
>>52403532
>>52403459
Look at one of the pinned threads "Shipyard", that is what is available at the moment apparently. I'm open to any nationality, going one nation might limit us initially, we can always migrate to that depending on what everyones preferences are.

>>52403724
If you're looking for rough equivalence then the RN version would be something like an Emerald or Leander and a pair of Admiralty V/W class DDs.

>>52403904
Sure. I'll sign up when I'm home, the captcha doesn't seem to want to play ball on my phone

>>52402740
Most excellent! You would be the fourth to our group, I see most groups have five players, so we would still have room for one more person.

File: RhodeIslandBB.jpg (57KB, 740x470px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 740x470px

Reading the shipyard, I know it would be suicide, but a part of me loves the idea of sailing this old beauty into battle.

We need a fleet name as well.

>>52404638
Maybe "Force T/G" or "Force 4"?

>>52404638
Fightin Fishsticks!

>>52403904
It's also worth noting we don't know how much cash we'll be starting with, nor how much more expensive buying new ships really is. It's possible we could order DDs quite affordably.

>>52405080
Quite true. Maybe flesh out the main battle line first?

>>52405111
I think two captains with DDs and/or Cruisers and a BB/BC captain would be a good core to build on.

>>52405163
So going over the rules, it seems like squadrons are either
3DDs
1 CA/CL 2 DDs
2 CA/CL

I think option 2 is the best, but the power of two cruisers is pretty good as well. They obviously wouldn't last long in a big fight, but they would be great at hunting down other cruisers and destroyers.

>>52405227
In that case, a Screen/Scouting Division (3 DDs or CL+2 DDs) a pair of Cruiser Squadrons (Probably 1 CL and 1 CA each, maybe Kent+Leander and Augusta+Giussano) with a Capital ship of some kind as our flag would be a good start I think.

Again, depends on how our funds pan out though, any clues as to what the standard starting money is? Haven't been able to track it down myself.

Capt. E.W. Brimmage, hit me up, I'll fix it so it fits the correct format, it's my name from LAF

Doesn't seem like we have much choice but there is a leander which could be solid, (Pensacola is taken) and Barham, I assume that '39 is the '39-40 refit so it could be a solid choice

Was WW1 the last war where battleships were not glorified island artillery?

>>52406137
No, they were quite useful in WW2 outside of the Pacific theatre.

Doe here, I'm tempted by the SPEED IS ARMOR that is the Giussano. It would match well with the Premudas (also topping out at 37 knots, according to wiki). Only downside is the bit where for all intents and purposes she's just big a big DD with 6-inchers.

>>52406200
Could be a good capstone for a scout Division, or just as a cheap 8-gunner. I kind of want to go full retard on the idea of a fast fleet, only 1 or 2 BCs, no slow BBs and the main battle line being Cruisers with a robust DD/CL screen. It'll probably be a hell of a challenge to play but it could also be glorious.

Barty here, I was told we need to come up with a fleet name, then we get our own section for discussions. We will have three options for ships, one is a lump sum, the other two are 'mystery bags' of ships. They guarantee we have a good mix of capabilities, and more money overall, but downside is we can't pick what is in them.

So, fleet names, I am open to suggestions.

>>52406245
The Kuma and the Nagara would make a solid 36 knot detachment, or pair one with the Wickess for a 35 knot detachment. Or you could just go with normal 32-knot cruisers.

>>52406310
I'll throw in my vote for 'Force T/G', pay a bit of homage to our origin.

>>52406310
Dunno about the name. Task Group 4? Shortens to TG 4. Seems too meme-y, though.

Maybe some form of Bartlett's [somethings]?

Captain Harold Flashman standing by as an alternate, seeing you guys have the 5 already.

>>52406446
I'd be okay with the former, a little memery never hurt anyone.

>>52406310
If we go with the "fast fleet" idea, we can go with a Jeune Ecole pun. Bertin's Bastards, maybe?

Force Vanguard? Shortens to Force V. Sounds good.

>>52401433

Unless you've got Improved triple/quadruple turrets you're better off with double turrets - otherwise they'll be jammed half the time.

Anyway, have you considered an improved Deutchland class with 12" guns?
Either 3 x 2 or 2 x 3 would give you a ton of firepower at long range & (hopefully) sufficient speed to run away from anything more dangerous.

>>52406589
Seems a bit generic, also we aren't /v/.

We should probably move this discussion to the thread on the planes and mercs forum anyway, be easier to tally votes there and whatnot.

Post AAR please!

File: Four Stacker Stacks.jpg (2MB, 5444x3762px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5444x3762px

>>52403724
>Mama Goose and babies
Yes anon, you must.

File: IMG_20170328_121417113.jpg (893KB, 2592x1456px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 2592x1456px

Posting updated notes, unfortunately the pics of my Matsus are shit. Nagato's center with Hatsuzuki and Yoizuki to starboard, and Tenryu is ahead. Haven't finished her yet since I'm still trying to sculpt a new funnel for her.

File: HMS_Royal_Sovereign_FL18403.jpg (77KB, 800x668px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x668px

Barty reporting in, what is happening?

>>52411733
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mixl3DFVnKE

>>52411150
People interested need to get in the thread ( http://s1.zetaboards.com/PlanesAndMercs/topic/8083615/1/ ) so we can decide whether we go mystery box ships or buy our own, and to argue names.

>>52412258
Barty, Danon, Doe, E.W. Brimmage, and guywhoworksinabush? That is our group right? I just need to know who BushAnon is.

If Bushanon is Brimmage, then Flashman is our fifth.

File: Dunkerque.jpg (465KB, 4000x1907px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 4000x1907px

>>52413389

>>52413419
>and people still give Japanese botes shit

File: 007-battleship-dunkerque Toulon 1939.jpg (196KB, 732x1031px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 732x1031px

>>52413712
>Hating on beautiful French botes

File: 10915057_832192253508207_8730077921404703426_o.png (905KB, 1725x714px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 1725x714px

>>52414091

How do I simulate superstructure weight in Springsharp?

>>52414675
Shameless cross posting because it's relevant.

>>52409996
Can't wait to see your conversion when it's done.

For a pre-dreadnought BB, what about what are the advantages of a 7-8" secondary armament like the Deutchlands and various American BBs, versus QF 6" guns?

>>52416201
Do you want a torpedo boat or a destroyer to disappear when you hit it, or do you want to get a second shot at it if you miss?

>>52416201
Absolutely none.
Can't hit shit = needs lots of shells flying.
QF 6" guns put a lot of shells in the air + you can put a lot more of them on the ship.
Do the math.

>>52416866
As if a 6" shell won't sink a 600 ton destroyer ... get real.
The only difference is do you want it to sink fast or slow.

>>52416909
Thus "disappear" versus "hit".

File: Yubari_1936.jpg (146KB, 1324x680px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1324x680px

>>52414174
I never do, I've always assumed it gets tossed in somewhere at some point, as if SS wasn't conservative enough.
I always add 100-115 t of misc weight in large ships to take into account boats though, less on smaller ones, more if I want to add aircraft, depth charges and the like.

>>52418028
I love Yūbari-san, she's so modest and yet so interesting.

>>52416866
>>52416909
QF 6" guns weren't anti TB guns

That was what the 12-pdrs and 88mm guns were for

>>52416201
I think the main issue with 6 inchers is that you can work the shells manually. AFAIK the 7" was the biggest shell clapistanis thought to be workable by their crews by hand, and 7.5-8" shells are like twice the weight of a 6" one, so the damage is much greater, probably penning any ACR and any non-main belt or turret face armour on a BB, thus contributing to reducing the ship's fighting ability.
And apparently it wasn't till Tsushima that anybody started hitting anything "reliably" with 12" shells, thus finally triggering the all-big-gun path.

People who want in to the shipgame, get over to the forum. We need you.

>>52420292
I thought there were 5 people already? Can you fit more?

>>52420610
I think we're full, with me, Barty, John_Doe, EW Brimmage and Flashman, those are the ones I've seen comment and whatnot on the forums. I think.

>>52421062
Yeah, but they've got to post so we can decide on whether to go mystery box or buy ships.

>>52421430
We can make a topic for that in our new subforum, once we've picked a name.

Please post AARs so I get hyped and join in the fun eventually.

>>52421561
I plan to, but we're a ways from our first sortie still.

One fleet might be full, but who says we cant get two fleets rather then one?

>>52423106
Go for it, man.

Just played some Victory at Sea. Deutschland-class a shit! A shiiiit!

We got our ships!

More details soon.

>>52424532
St Vincent Class BB 1918
Connecticut Class B 1914 w/Boosted Rudder Refit
Rurik Class AC 1918 w/Extra MG AA Refit
Minotaur Class AC 1920 w/Improved Engines Refit

Kent Class CA 1927
Omaha Class CL 1925 w/ Search Radar Refit

2x Clemson DD 1935
2x Kerch DD 1916 w/Improved Armoring

>>52424906
Thats a load of garbage.

>>52425118
Yeah, bit of a shame, but we can probably scrap/sell the ACs and Connecticut pretty soon to get some worthwhile vessels.

>>52425118
The battleline is, but the Omaha and Clemsons make a great scouting squadron (especially with the radar), the Kent is solid enough, and the Kerches have the same armament as the Clemsons at two knots slower but it's all centerline, which lets them ruin the day of any poor bastard in their broadside arcs.

>>52425118
One dread, the most modern pre dread, and two solid ACs is garbage?

Not to mention a strong interwar cruiser detachment.

>>52425286
>battleline is garbage
Emile Bertin pls go

Anons actually got a fleet going? Makes me regret not joining uesterday.

Anyone ever played the Fletcher Pratt rules?

>>52424906
Good to know. I'll respond more coherently in the morning. The pub had a special on longnecks and I also might have had a puff. Listening to King Crimson.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>52427329
Only as Battletech.
>>52428852
I guess since I'm done with the current batch of stuff I had been working on, it's time to paint a destroyer or two. Fubuki's and an odd piece or two will mean finally being done with IJN for a bit.

>>52429053
>Only as Battletech.
What do you mean?

>>52429431
Battletech rules are a derivation Fletcher Pratt.

>>52427329
I don't suppose you've got a copy?

>>52434725
Why did they go with that turret layout?

>>52436349
Same reasons the Nelsol did?

File: literally what happens if a Lexington fucked a Midway.jpg (457KB, 3000x1525px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 3000x1525px

>looking through the Spring Styles preliminary drawings (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/albums/s511.htm)
>oh look it's the Midway early designs
>find this
It's fucking beautiful.

>>52438824

>full gun battery on an aircraft carrier.

Must be American.

>>52436349
Shorter belt armor

>>52427329
Hah. nope. There is a few floating on the net but they kinda appear to be derivatives on the originals.

On a similar note anyone played the original Jane's ruleset? I cant find any early enough scans of janes that include the codes.

I like the idea of the 'tack on a stick' to work out where you hit with size of target being determined by the range.

File: 19320580.jpg (108KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x600px

I always wondered if there was a practical military application of an oil tanker. (Beyond "Target')

>>52450599
The answer is no.

>>52450599
Build a bigass moonpool in one, and use it to sneak a sub into a country's waters? Smallass moonpool for frogmen shenanigans? Mother of all Q-Ships?

File: AYqeIbX.jpg (68KB, 504x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 504x600px

>>52450599
Almost forgot, impromptu carrier.

File: PLANavalartillery.jpg (61KB, 490x327px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 490x327px

>>52450623
Don't be so sure.

Does anyone know how 15 inch german shells and powder were loaded on Tirpitz? I do not understand how the gunhouse loaded ammo. Was it cage like British, or more like US loading?

>>52450919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_cm_SK_C/34_naval_gun

Sounds entirely too complicated. Brass cased charge along with a bagged charge. Why?

>>52451048
>Why?

German overengineering at its finest.

>>52450599

Fill it full of explosives, sail it *close enough* to a port, and detonate. Nation of your choice will be "minus one port" for a goodly length of time.

Nobody inspects actual oil bunkerage areas, even on the rare occasions when ships are inspected prior to actually entering the immediate port area (ships generally don't get inspected until they're docked or just about to dock). Note: it's not *supposed* to be this way, but in practical terms due to overworked and underfunded Port Authorities, this is what happens. Unless there's major reason to suspect your tanker of smuggling undesirable "stuff" into the country, you'll be able to get in, get 500-1000 yards from the dock, and then boom.

Alternate strategy: do it with a nuke. You'll have to shield the hell out of it because are *are* going to get a drive-by with a scanner, but it's certainly possible. An empty oil bunker gives you more than enough space to put in a whole lot of shielding.

>>52451048
>Brass cased charge along with a bagged charge

Isn't that how it was done on most large naval guns of the era?

>>52451211
>Fill it full of explosives, sail it *close enough* to a port, and detonate.

While a Halifax or Port Arthur explosion is nothing to laugh at, you do realize that tankers that size don't enter ports? They load/unload at off-shore terminals due to handling issues, size, etc.

File: Trinity Bay 1.png (613KB, 1882x942px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1882x942px

>>52454264

We may be talking about different-sized tankers. However, I'll point out Trinity Bay, near Houston.

>1/2

File: Trinity Bay 2.png (2MB, 1898x924px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1898x924px

>>52455011
>cont

And I'll point out the visible tankers in this image (which is basically the noted area in the previous post). Certainly, tankers dock at the Exxon facility on the regular, since they're actually visible in this shot.

In any case, a tanker with 30 kilotons of conventional explosives, or a nuke, sailing through any part of Trinity Bay (or even up to this Exxon facility), is going to deal a fair amount of damage to the infrastructure. Potentially even worse would be detonating something between Goat Island and Galveston Island and closing the entire channel into this bay altogether. San Fransisco Bay would be another good target; big enough that large vessels move into there. Or sailing into the Chesapeake; even if you can't get near enough to the Norfolk Naval Station, there's still *plenty* of infrastructure in the area that's vulnerable to a 21st century fire ship.

I'll use one more as an example:

Note the good-sized tankers and container ships moored next to "Dominion Terminal Associates, LLP". That's the sort of ship I'm talking about loading up with boom.

>1/2

File: Tanker1.png (2MB, 1913x937px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1913x937px

>>52455226
Or strip my image. That's OK too, 4chan.

Again,
>I'll use one more as an example:

>Note the good-sized tankers and container ships moored next to "Dominion Terminal Associates, LLP". That's the sort of ship I'm talking about loading up with boom.

>1/2

File: Tanker2.png (2MB, 1909x919px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1909x919px

>>52455251
>ok, it worked this time.

Anyway, to get to those moorings, those ships *had* to pass within about 2 miles of Norfolk Naval Station. They're moored about 1 mile away from Newport News Shipyards. They had to sail over the I-664 and the I-64 tunnels. Use the Dominion Terminal Associates dot for reference.

Imagine getting even a single W87 warhead into one of those ships (W87s are the MIRV'd warhead for MX Peacekeepers). A 300 kt blast, in that proximity to the primary military shipyards for the US *and* one of the two really major East Coast naval bases. Hell, even a ship full of *conventional* explosives would likely do a number on every shoreline within a mile, given the wave that's about to hit once the explosion goes off.

IMO, this has been a tremendous vulnerability for a long time, and there's not a lot the US can do about it, given the titanic volume of traffic going in and out of the Chesapeake.

>>52455011
>We may be talking about different-sized tankers.

We are.

>>However, I'll point out Trinity Bay, near Houston.

Nice autism. You even had maps!

>>52455578

In defense of apparent autism, wargaming these sorts of vulnerabilities used to be part of my job description in the military. I'm not coming at this topic completely cold.

>We are.

Ah, no worries then. When >>52450599 asked about the practical military application of a oil tanker, I didn't feel the question was limited only to the really massive VLCC's and ULCC's (450,000 DWT+), but would also include something all the way down to Panamax-sized (~55,000 DWT). Since they are all technically, "oil tankers".

>>52453498
Most big guns would have the shell and then bagged powder.

https://youtu.be/MTW_xpK-Twc?t=1m18s shows the process on an Iowa class.

>>52455774
>wargaming these sorts of vulnerabilities

Not to greatly derail the thread, but what sorts of stuff did you find out?

>trying to scratch-build 1:2400 Type 89's and 25mm emplacements
Fucking end me, senpai.

>>52460901
Maybe get some of those worthless straw things they pass off as coffee stirrers, cut em down, and use them as splinter shields and then just find something that's shorthand for the 25?

>>52462436
That's actually something I had in mind for Type 89 mounts. 25mm is just silly at scale. I'm actually trying to get someone on Shapeways to give it a try.

>>52462603
If nothing else, take a dot of your highlight color you use for whatever arsenal gray you're doing and dot it in the positions. It will at least convey that there is something there at tabletop height. Sometimes thinking of yourself as an Impressionist helps maintain a little sanity.,

>>52451048
>Brass cased charge along with a bagged charge. >Why?

The brass cased charge was because the germans used a sliding breech block rather then a wellin or interlevered screw. The brass expanded and sealed the gun when it was fired, if it wwasnt there the sliding breech would leak and fry everyone in the turret.

>>52462982
So shell, bag, brass. That actually makes some sense, but what made them choose that style of breech given the way it would complicate ammo handling and storage and logistics?

>>52463030
The Germans like complicated things. Also it's a faster breech style to load.

>>52463030
Sliding Breech block is cheap, simple, and fast. On small guns it makes a lot of sense, for main artillery on a BB, I think the minimal speed increase is not enough a benefit to justify the other liabilities (Brass case logistics)

>>52460814

Fair amount of stuff. The worst stuff wasn't naval-based due to the amount of interior space the US has. To keep it short, it's effectively impossible to defend against a concentrated effort to put truck bombs (think like OK City) underneath major interstate overpasses and next to power stations. You can cripple the nation's ability to transport goods with ~10 of those bombs in the right places (a 15% reduction is bad, a 30% reduction is crippling, 10 bombs can generate up to a 40% reduction for close to 4 months).

With another ~10 bombs you can kill ~60% of the country's power grid by hitting major transfer stations Note that you'll only actually kill like 20% of the power, but you'll kill another large chunk because of the overload when the flow is switched into other lines which can't handle it and therefore collapse.

These locations are essentially unguarded and unguardable due to the amount of civilian traffic which passes near them. For example, the Brent Spence bridge in Cincinnati combines both I-75 and I-71. It's a double-decker bridge with known structural issues that handles by itself something like 90,000 semi trucks per day (0.5% of the number of trucks in the entire country each *day*), a traffic volume that makes it outright impossible to protect. Detonating an OK City-type device on the lower level will collapse the upper level and bring down the entire bridge in 9 of 10 instances. Congrats, with one bomb you've killed something like 6% of the entire country's cargo transport capacity, and screwed another ~4% as traffic has to be rerouted onto routes that can't handle the traffic load. If you pop the I-80 and I-280 bridges over the Mississippi, you'll kill a *third* of all east-west truck traffic and the rest will stop dead due to rerouting traffic backups. Just three bombs and you'll see people actually on the verge of starving in a lot of places.

tl;dr: infrastructure is impossible to protect and easy to kill

>>52468676
Fucking Kawachii.

Nassau style dreadnaughts are cancer.

File: 232bff05ztpup.jpg (177KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1280x851px

>>52468809
>not liking derpy diamond main turret arrangement

File: iceman-volleyball-scene-med.jpg (29KB, 470x324px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 470x324px

Anon Fleet, information for Dice is posted.

ded bred

File: 300px-Momi_II.jpg (8KB, 300x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x184px

>>52482045
So is this what /tg/ would consider a cute bote?

>>52482125
Old interwar destroyer, definitely qualifies as cute.

File: 20170118051918_1.jpg (347KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1920x1080px

Da New thread:

>>52482244

>>52482214
That would be a late-war type, the Matsu. You can tell by the open Type 89 mount aft and the splinterproof torpedo turret amidships.

>>52482478
Gotcha.

Looked at the file name, was think it was one of the Momi class.

File: ce76add473d91a863d7a39543d209013.jpg (36KB, 736x442px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 736x442px

>>52482125

>>52482258
No offense, but why the hell start a new thread when we're nowhere near autosage?

>>52483079
Some men just want to see the world burn.

So a NavWeaps article mentions a Type VIIG U-Boat design, but I can't seem to find anything about it? Anyone know what it is?

>>52470666
>stacked primary and secondary
My shipfu is so stacked.

Sorry for the radio silence lads, replied on the forum. Working out a character bio that fits my existing character in the new setting.

There's a Robert Graves character on the forum that's a "red blooded American". maybe I should call my character Earnest Hemmingway who is a "proud Briton".

>>52490375
Blue-blooded Briton.