/nwg/ naval wargames general

>>53123090
Oh my, I can see her torpedo bulges.

>>53124371
lewd

File: nva246.jpg (942KB, 1287x950px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 1287x950px

British Destroyers 1939–45 (1) Pre-war classes (Osprey New Vanguard 246)

The Royal Navy entered World War II with a large but eclectic fleet of destroyers. Some of these were veterans of World War I, fit only for escort duties. Most though, had been built during the inter-war period, and were regarded as both reliable and versatile. Danger though lurked across the seas as new destroyers being built in Germany, Italy and Japan were larger and better armoured. So, until the new, larger Tribal-class destroyers could enter service, these vessels would have to hold the line. Used mainly to hunt submarines, protect convoys from aerial attack, and take out other destroyers, these ships served across the globe during the war. This fully illustrated study is the first in a two-part series on the real workhorses of the wartime Royal Navy, focusing on how these ageing ships took on the formidable navies of the Axis powers.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/0msidubym5i3y3k/Osprey+-+NVA+246+-+British+Destroyers+1939-45+%281%29+Pre-war+Classes.pdf

File: HMS_Electra.jpg (30KB, 800x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 800x480px

>>53126783
Nice find! Thanks for sharing!

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

92KB, 800x791px

I'm sad that there are very few models of gunboats, at least in the scale I use. I really want an Insect class and the Terrible Twins.

File: Turn 3.jpg (409KB, 864x648px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 864x648px

Naval War update:

The Guadalcanal OOB just released.

Are there any U-boat themed games about?

>>53135234
The Hunters, for controlling a U-Boat. Steel Wolves, for controlling all the U-Boats. Avalon Hill had a U-Boat game, but I haven't looked at it.

>>53135234

Look in the folder posted in the OP.

>>53135234
There is also a U-boat Leader in the same series as Apache Leader, but apparently it's nowhere near as good as The Hunters.

File: Submarine - Rulebook.pdf (1MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1x1px

>>53135554
>Avalon Hill had a U-Boat game, but I haven't looked at it.
Here's the rulebook!

Would it be too much for people to post what ship they're posting? Not all of us know every ship by sight.

>>53135554
>Steel Wolves
Never played that, but I played a chunk of Silent War once.

I still have torpedo-related nightmares. You launch them and launch them and nothing ever happens...

File: damage to PoW from Bismarck.jpg (81KB, 615x800px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 615x800px

post battle damage

>>53141586
I hope it was promptly towed out of the environment.

File: exeterbig.jpg (78KB, 976x610px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 976x610px

>>53141630
Nah, she sailed back to port on her own. It actually isn't battle damage, but instead storm damage from a typhoon. Either way, I just want pics of damage in general to ships.

File: USS_Minneapolis_after_Tassafaronga.jpg (68KB, 740x587px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 740x587px

btw for this guy, >>53140143, the bote in >>53141586 is USS Pittsburg.

File: WNFR_15-45_m1935_Richelieu_NY_pic.jpg (34KB, 404x565px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 404x565px

particularly damage to turrets and waterlines would be appreciated.

File: warspite.jpg (101KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x509px

By waterline I also mean side btw. I just want to see holes in the hull, so I can see how the metal bends and all

>>53142907
>two Iowas but not two Oregons
It's not bloody fair.

>>53144573
Oregon just doesn't have what it takes to be a good boat name.

>>53147524

Why not? We're wet enough!

>>53144573
>It's not bloody fair.

The trouble was that USS Oregon was a designated historical relic per the WNT for decades after her active service life. While demilitarized, she was sort of in commission, that is she was listed as a warship in the WNT documents. She was still afloat as a quasi-warships until they decided to partially scrap her and turn her hull into an ammo barge in her 1942.

The 1st Iowa, OTOH, was expended in a sinkex in 1923 so her name was thus available.

Don't fret though. There's a Virginia-class SSN named Oregon building at EB in Groton.

>>53151766

You just gotta love a coal burning, paddle wheeled, Great Lakes, training carrier.

>>53147524
Bulldog of the Navy, man. It's got tradition. Your bitch-ass state didn't sail all the way around the Americas and then run down a fleeing cruiser at Santiago de Cuba. Can't run from Oregon.

>>53153141

You know? I fucking hate being able to look at a picture taken in nineteen-fucking-thirteen and KNOWING straight away that it was taken at the head of drydock two...

Motherfucking PSNS hasn't changed, EVER.

>>53157710
Why bother changing something that works just fine?

>>53157871
>implying it works

Boats go there to DIE, man.

>>53158041
A boat slaughterhouse is still a perfectly valid function for a place to have.

>>53158041
My boat went in there with 10 working missile tubes and came out with 3 working missile tubes.

>>53154158

Teddy's Bulldog steaming 'round the Horn with a bone in her teeth. The young squids who will man that newly commissioned SSN hull in 2023 will have a proud name to live up to.

>>53157710
>Motherfucking PSNS hasn't changed, EVER.

Same with NNS and PNS, anon. Norfolk is still using the using the fucking drydock where they rebuilt the Merrimac into the Virginia. Portsmouth's #1 drydock was used in the 1880s and the yard's commander lives in a house dating to the 1820s in which Farragut died.

The yards are fucking museums.

File: 0602d9c08337f05da1b9bdf3084dcf86.jpg (591KB, 2384x1734px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 2384x1734px

>drydock photos

File: Artigliere_AWM-305865.jpg (24KB, 451x226px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 451x226px

More battle damage for anon.

File: BB-27 major malfunction.jpg (2MB, 5729x4442px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5729x4442px

>>53160269

File: CA 72 Typhoon Cobra aftermath.jpg (751KB, 3211x2300px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 3211x2300px

>>53160285

File: Exeter'sDamage1939.jpg (72KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x599px

>>53160296

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

2MB, 2985x2048px

>>53160309

File: Ugolino Vivaldi on fire.jpg (45KB, 700x443px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 700x443px

>>53160329

File: U-185 sinking after being depth charged by TBFs.jpg (566KB, 2628x2158px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 2628x2158px

>>53160339

File: deruyter construction.jpg (61KB, 476x639px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 476x639px

>>53159838

File: 1024px-USS_Marblehead_(CL-12).jpg (134KB, 1024x813px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1024x813px

>>53160349

File: a157fe94d3b2c654052ed554f9266dc1.jpg (250KB, 1000x766px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1000x766px

Kinda new here - does anyone know where to get some naval PBEM games running ? Can't manage to find any players in my area and would love to play some Close Action or Frigate.
There's youplay.it with a nice interface, but it only offers Wooden Ships and Iron Men.

File: image.jpg (123KB, 883x497px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 883x497px

I was thinking about doing an alt-history Kaiserreich inspired navy for my brother and figured I'd need to see my hand and converting 1/3000 ships beforehand.

IJN Chitose (or possibly Chiyoda) and a wip hypothetical carrier mogami in 1/3000

C&C appreciated.

>>53165338
Looks pretty nice overall. The only thing I'd comment on is the White and red striping. You might see if you can find a red fine felt-tip pen, paint the whole section to be striped white, and block your white stripes with the pen, and then fill with paint. I'm guessing it's probably not noticeable at TT level though. Camo looks really nice. Makes me wish I could get my painting mojo back, but I've got the same five Fubukis staring me in the face, and I just don't want to finish them for some reason.

>>53165989
Thanks man, appreciate the feedback, probably going to be starting my Communist French Navy soon, will post pictures of that if I ever do do it.

Finish the Fubukis, or alternatively buy a ship and promise yourself you'll paint it only after the Fubukis are done, maybe something exciting like a US ship with camoflage or a Japanese carrier.

File: 1904 bb without superfiring or main wing turrets.png (58KB, 1013x725px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1013x725px

Honestly I feel pretty bad for building some of these early dreadnoughts; they're these ungainly horrible cripples that will be almost instantly scrapped/sent to reinforce some distant naval stations that see action once in a blue moon once something better is available in decent numbers.

What is the smallest you guys typically make cruisers in RtWs? I'm temptedto tinker with Tenryu style cruisers that are basically just cruisers in name only. Anyone else done this and if so how did it go?

File: pinkdeck.jpg (228KB, 1006x718px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1006x718px

>>53168932
Mostly about 5000 tons+, up to the maximum. I tend to lean heavy for light cruisers to get the most main guns on it I can, with the idea of being able to reasonably expect to fight and beat other nation's smaller light cruisers and seriously bully destroyers.

>>53168481
I feel the same about most of my 20k~ish tonnage ships, especially when their main guns are not even that great. Yet they're very much needed to dominate the old Bs (I tend to refit my Bs into ACs or scrap them because they just become a liability) during that window where a single decent early BC or BB can really mess with shit.

>>53169112

2100t is the lowest CLs can go and with 1906 tech I was able to get one up to 30knots carrying seven 5in guns with nothing but 1.5in belt and 1in turrets. I'd say thats pretty capable of deterring or running down DDs. Don't think they'd do well against other CLs though...especially since they have no torps.

File: pinkpills.jpg (63KB, 907x280px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 907x280px

>>53169202
No torps is a no-go for me. Gotta have dem tubes.

File: f_toys_1_2000_kancolle_yamato_by_rlkitterman-daf8yga.jpg (94KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 600x800px

Does anyone know a place that sells 1/2000 f-toys kancolle series in a reasonable price?
They seem to be the best models for ship combat, surpassing the detail and quality of even other f-toys series and various 1/1800 models.

>>53169533
>1:2000
reeeeeeee
1:1800 or 1:2400 only pls

>>53169533
On a sorta related note, does anyone know of a model for that other Yamato that would fit with 1/1800 or 1/3000 stuff?

>>53169657

But ghq and shapeways sell them at Gamesworkshop tier prices. And 3d printed models dont look good.

>>53169283
Personally I've never really felt the need to mount secondaries on CLs and have found 2 inch belts to make them way too fragile for my taste.

>>53170044
I've been playing a slow research game so wall of shells was somewhat needed early on just connect with something, and I've hung onto it because my enemies have held on to a LOT of destroyers.

>>53169657
1:1250, the one true scale

>>53175600

Man up and try to fight in 1:700 than.
Good luck in hiring a tennis field and covering it with blue sheet.

>>53175811
My oldfag eyes cannot distinguish between 1:2400 and cardboard counters.

>>53169889
Shapeways isn't that bad pricewise unless you're buying FUD, and you an always get a discount by opting for the slower processing option if you're not in a hurry. Properly prepared, even WSF looks good.

File: Marine Nationale.jpg (391KB, 1200x433px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1200x433px

>>53179483
>>53169889
More to the point, can you pick your the printed minis from the non?

>>53182418
Pretty sure they might all be 3D printed.

>>53184436
Notsureifinsult.png

A significant portion of them are traditional sculpts.

File: Nelson 2.jpg (5MB, 6231x3786px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 6231x3786px

Should I be worried that my most of my late game BBs end up being Nelrods while my late game CCs tend to be Richelieu knock offs?

>>53185416
Nelson-like designs seem to crop up pretty often in RtW here. I suppose it makes sense since the reason the class looks so...unconventional was to get maximum performance with the treaty limitations and, since RtW technology doesn't quite reach WW2 era levels, your late-game ships can easily end up resembling WW2 era ships with gimped guns and armour.

>>53184985
I was just saying that because it's uncertain, no harm was meant

File: 34624582456.jpg (87KB, 800x454px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x454px

You know what this thread needs?

FLUSH
DECK

File: image.jpg (17KB, 740x339px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 740x339px

>>53186305
Damn straight.

File: oh buoy.jpg (131KB, 933x656px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 933x656px

>tfw your enemy, who has far larger, more modern battleships and cruisers than your own ends up fighting a major battle late at night, in the rain, and you've got a shit-ton of destroyers and light cruisers.

I saw one battleship hit by at least 7 torpedoes in quick succession as a conga-line of destroyers ran a train on it's ass.

>>53190028
There's something cathartic about watching a ship eat scads of torpedoes and just vanish, as long as it isn't yours.
And also as long as we aren't talking real life. That footage of Barham is fucking hard to watch even after having seen it multiple times.

>>53191169
>when you fore-and-aft a capship in 44 with a Gato and shove like 6 torps into their jap ass
Torps are love, torps are life.

File: 9665917e07fac3339a306fd9afbb49f8.jpg (52KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 736x552px

If ever there was a ship that suffered for the IJN's incoherent design philosophies and limited facilities it was this one.

File: Mama Goose USS Marblehead and consorts.jpg (367KB, 1200x411px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1200x411px

>>53195273
Was that before or after she took a bomb or two in the ass at Makassar?

>>53186305
I don't know if you know it or not fellow four pipe lover, but quite a few were converted into various auxiliaries that were used during the war. Check out the links, some pretty interesting reading.

http://destroyerhistory.org/flushdeck/avd/
http://destroyerhistory.org/flushdeck/apd_operations/
http://destroyerhistory.org/flushdeck/dm/

>>53197302
Goddamn, why you gonna go post such a depressing picture?

>>53196199
The Type 91 APC was fucking weird. The Germans and Italians went in for horizontal penetration over all else, the RN and USN went conventional, but the Japanese just had to be different and go all in with heavy diving shells. Which at long range maybe would have worked for them if they'd ever committed to it.

File: SH5Img@2010-03-24_22.07.55.png (360KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1680x1050px

Are the ship data cards for Naval Thunder not included in the MediaFire folder or am I just blind/retarded?

>>53197416
Japanese had some pretty, lets say, interesting ideas.
>fuck having scout aircraft on our aircraft carriers, lets build a pair of heavy cruisers to carry them instead
>invest some time and money to figure out how to protect our commerce from enemy submarines? fuck that, the great nipponese race does not need to secure its supply lines
>the treaties allow 1cm larger guns on heavy cruisers than they did before? fuck, time to upgrade all of our heavy cruisers and factories that produce shells for them
>our enemies fleets outnumber ours by significant margin, should we perhaps try to focus on training our crews on damage control techniques so that they'll hopefully be able to keep our ships in fight as long as possible? nah fuck that, i'm sure that they'll be just fine with only bare minimum

>>53198186
There's some internal logic to some of these. The Type 91 shells were fairly slow and heavy, so plunging and diving at 15km+ range were valid concepts especially against modern inclined armor schemes which made it easier to go under or over the belt entirely. This also plays into the armor scheme of their old capital ships, since vertical armor is actually marginally better at greater range in terms of its relative coverage. The scouting cruisers were meant to accompany an already concentrated carrier force, which could then focus on the single goal of getting as many attack and escort squadrons in the air as was possible for them to carry. The IJN's goal of engaging the US surface fleet in Japanese home waters also made long supply lines a nonissue, and when they began to realize that they'd made a miscalculation they were already in the shit to a degree that their shipyards were struggling: the result was a simple and rugged first-class destroyer design that was almost solely designed for AA and ASW but which could not be produced in the numbers required and which would not have changed the course of the war at that point.

So a lot of what people slag the IJN off for a bit were decisions that made a certain degree of sense in context. The only real strategic mistake they made was allowing their militant nationalists to dictate political policy and get them into a war with the biggest economy in the world.

File: Ah0gAgj.jpg (68KB, 620x414px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 620x414px

>>53199042
Counterpoint: The yamato battleships. Commissioned well after Taranto, Bismark, and force Z showed what aircraft could do.

The entire decisive battle concept was never going to work either.

>>53199220
Yamato was laid down in 1937. The battle of Taranto was in 1940, the First Air Fleet wasn't consolidated until April of 1941, and Bismarck didn't sink until May of that year.

>>53199289
Laid down, yes. But not commissioned until December '41

File: A9WZVf3[1].jpg (80KB, 800x747px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x747px

>>53199334
>but muh sanshiki

>>53199042
>So a lot of what people slag the IJN off for a bit were decisions that made a certain degree of sense in context. The only real strategic mistake they made was allowing their militant nationalists to dictate political policy and get them into a war with the biggest economy in the world.
That and having no concept of logistics. Not that that alone would've helped them much (they were way undersupplied and -gunned to take on USA in a staight fight), but basic grasp of logistics would've told them from the get-go that trying to go to war with USA was a terrible idea. According to extremely optimistic predictions, their navy at the start of the war had enough fuel to operate at full combat capcity for less than a year.
The Imperial Japanese military was pretty much led by shounen hero logic. Anything is possible as long as you have determination and warrior spirit! Bringing up realities of warfare like supply lines and the difference in production capacity was considered to be defeatist and un-patriotic talk, since glorious Japanese fighting spirit allows superior Japanese warriors to overcome filthy gaijin regardless of the odds. Unfortunately for them, real life does no operate in Gurren Lagann logic and you can't power your battleships with willpower alone.

>>53199369
Did they ever even fire those?

File: OyodoJun43[1].jpg (29KB, 840x280px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 840x280px

>>53198186
>Build cruiser for coordinating wolf packs of subs
>never use cruiser or subs in this manner

>>53199380
Apparently, I feel like I've seen anecdotes about Allied pilots stating they were ineffective, but pretty to watch.

>>53199413
I'm fairly sure I've read that firing the main guns disabled all the light AA guns too.

Ineffective but pretty does rather sum up the IJN, to be honest.

>>53199334
She was launched in August of 1940, Taranto was in November. And even had she not been fitting-out by the time all these things happened she'd have still been three years into construction. What are they going to do, halt the project just because some Italian botes got torpedoed in harbor? Shinano only got converted because she wasn't expected to sail until 1945, Yamato and Musashi were too far along by 1940 to be converted even if all the navies in the world had decided that battleships were utterly worthless.

>>53199464
Leaving them in a corner of the port to do nothing at all would have been a better use for them than anything the IJN actually did.

>>53199380
>>53199413
Yes. Particularly in 1944 the TROM documents from BatDiv 1 report that there were some long-range successes, but I doubt the concept was adequately validated. Especially not compared to their decision to abandon the 2pdr for the 25mm Hotchkiss design rather than simply... you know. Update the pom-pom like everyone else did.

>>53199441
Fairly sure that's not a thing, pal. Same way people continue repeating the line that Nelsol and Rodnol's guns caused structural damage. Lightbulbs weren't safe anywhere in the mansion, and they tried to cheap out with the timbers for her deck and had to go back and put down proper wood, but never anything significant.

>>53199554
Maybe not significant to the guns, but the crews not being able to operate them was a thing, wasn't it?

File: Heavy_Cruiser_Aoba.jpg (65KB, 740x583px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 740x583px

>>53199494
>not using a thing you've basically already finished is better than using that thing as it was designed
>based on the loss of a few capital ships without air escort
Okay, sure thing.

>>53199584
Never heard word one of that, though realistically? Even if it was true nothing of value was lost.

File: horizontal fusou.jpg (557KB, 3419x504px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 3419x504px

>>53199554
>2pdr for the 25mm Hotchkiss design rather than simply

Tbh it is pretty impressive that they did manage to pretty much be the only even somewhat major navy during WW2 that didn't have 40mm-ish AA-guns in their arsenal.

>>53200315
>fuso-class
>not fuuuuuuuuso-class

>>53200520
I'm imagining this in an obnoxious Japanese TV host voice, and it is glorious.

>>53200315
Oh, they DID have 40mm guns. They just refused to use them.

>>53199042
>The IJN's goal of engaging the US surface fleet in Japanese home waters also made long supply lines a nonissue

Sorry, but no. As explained in Evans & Peattie's "Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the IJN 1887-1941", the location of the "decisive battle" with the US moved as IJN capabilities changed. At first, 1910-ish, it was in home waters ala Tsushima. It then moved south and eventually east every time it was studied. The battle first was in home water, then near then Ryukus, then in the vicinity of the Philippines, and finally in the Marianas.

>So a lot of what people slag the IJN off for a bit were decisions that made a certain degree of sense in context.

Again, no. Most IJN decsions make no sense whatsoever in the context of the decades of strategic thinking which allegedly informed them. (Pearl was a very late addition to the "Lunge South" which had been in the works since the RJW.)

They'd planned on grabbing and defending territories thousands of km away from the Home Islands and yet completely ignored the long term logistics required. They planned on imposing a one-side campaign of attrition the USN and yet, when such a campaign began in the Solomans, from Yamamoto on down they completely failed to recognize it or fight as they'd planned.

>>53199220
>Counterpoint: The yamato battleships. Commissioned well after Taranto, Bismark, and force Z showed what aircraft could do.

Completely wrong on several levels. 1st, commissioning dates mean nothing. Even laying the keels mean nothing. The dates contracts were let for armor, propulsion machinery like turbines and reduction gear, and main armament are far more important. The important dates for the Hotel Twins are 1937 & 1938 respectively.

2nd, unlike force Z, Bismarck and Taranto didn't "prove" shit. In Bismark's case, you had a single fluke hit on a poorly designed stern and rudder lay out after several previous strikes which caused no damage. In Taranto's case you had a night raid against an incompetent enemy who, despite being at war, had no fully deployed torpedo nets, hadn't properly arranged those nets they did deploy, hadn't raised existing barrage balloons, and who didn't bring all their AA batteries on line nor get a single fight aloft despite the two waves being 90 minutes apart. The only thing Taranto proved was that using air-dropped torpedoes in relatively shallow waters could work.

>The entire decisive battle concept was never going to work either.

Very true. Of course the IJN also failed to implement any the precursor operations to the decisive battle they'd been planning for decades.

>>53200933
Okay, I know you can read so I'll repeat myself and hope you actually do it this time:
>when they began to realize that they'd made a miscalculation they were already in the shit to a degree that their shipyards were struggling

By the time the Japanese invaded China they couldn't consider any of their battleships "modern" by their 16-year definition. They were more concerned with building modern destroyers, cruisers, and carriers, and refitting their existing battleships all through the 1930's, so kaibokan production and conversion of second class and aging first class destroyers to ASW and escort duty was a secondary concern from 1937 onward. And as the war ground on they were trying to replace their losses, leading to simplification of escort class designs and a gradual shift in focus.

Long story short the IJN was politically fractured, slow to adapt, and flat-out lacked the resources to compete. But while the result of this was rarely optimal, it was hardly random.

>>53201510
>Okay, I know you can read so I'll repeat myself and hope you actually do it this time:

I know you can read too, so hopefully you'll do so again: The IJN's "decisions" don't make sense in any context other than that of institutional lunacy.

Significant parts of the upper echelon KNEW they couldn't win against the USN and, instead of informing the government of that fact, engaged in decades of lies. The only "context' behind that was continual magical thinking.

Even the fire eaters in the Kwantung Army eventually managed to tell Tokyo the truth. After getting their shit pushed in at Nomohan, they presented Tokyo with a list pf prerequisites for another attack on the USSR which had been deliberately crafted as being beyond Japan's ability to achieve. The IJN, on the other hand, NEVER even approached that level of backhanded honesty.

If, as the Kwantung had done in relation to the USSR, the IJN had told Tokyo that they couldn't defend the "Lunge to the South" against the US without an impossible set of prerequisites, Tokyo may have paused and been more open to other options.

The IJN did not because they'd been lying to themselves for so long that such duplicity had become institutional. Many of the IJN's prewar and wartime decisions are so bad that they almost reach the level of subconscious self sabotage.

We both can round and round about what the IJN should have or could have built, but that doesn't matter. The IJN knew they couldn't win and couldn't admit that to their masters. That isn't a "miscalculation", that's magical thinking.

>>53201916
>Tokyo may have paused
Lolno. The Diet was just as shot through with ultranationalists as the Navy and Army were, so the question "should we" wasn't permitted. The question was only ever "how should we", with the goal shifting towards delay as the war went worse and worse.

Those who knew things were going poorly had little realistic choice but to try and steer the sinking ship of state in a useful direction.

>>53199554
> Fairly sure that's not a thing, pal.

It was a thing, having been whipped by the small 5in guns of today, I can attest that volleys of 6in guns or a few shots from 8in guns would do a number on any exposed crewmen, leaving them disoriented and basically unable to perform fine motor control.
16in or 18in? Weaker persons would literally die from being exposed to the blast overpressure.

>>53202843
Again, that's not a thing. Taking Nagato as an example (since her layout is fresh in my mind after building a model of her) the AA was concentrated between the tops of the #2 and #3 turrets, with only three mounts falling outside that area as of Leyte. The only cases of lost sailors aboard that ship were from bombs, and a few gunners washed overboard during a particularly vigorous turn, and the Sanshiki shells were used during the anti-air actions both going to and returning from Leyte. Likewise the only injuries I know of aboard American ships of the period caused by larger-caliber blasts were from 5"/38 DP mounts where either the safeties were overridden or the weapon was being fired directly ahead leading to flash burns.

Your experience and conjecture simply don't align with the available historical evidence, and don't seem to factor in how the ships and weapons in question were designed and used.

File: boats.jpg (112KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1000x1000px

hello boa/tguys. regular boat porn lurker here, your fine threads reminded i had small collection of axis and allies ships in my hobbystash wich i can use for some stop motion fun. i did a test with some pirates of the spanish mains ships last night (only 12 seconds) and those small boats moving and firing their guns by themselfs looked cool enough to put some more work into it

pic is the american fleet with two random destroyers added for looks

>>53202490
>Lolno. The Diet was just as shot through with ultranationalists as the Navy and Army

The ultra-nationalists in the Kwatung Army, the same men who had repeatedly sparked border fights with the USSR, the same men who had engineered the Marco Polo Bridge incident and began the 2nd, endless war with China, were also the same men who, after getting their asses kicked at Nomohan, presented Tokyo with a list of prerequisites for any future attack on the USSR which were impossible to achieve.

There were options even if some in Japan at the time couldn't/wouldn't see them and whether some currently can't/won't see them.

>>53205268
Cute botes anon.

>>53205268
>pby
Comfy/10

Can anyone suggest a good source of scenarios (even hypotheticals) for the Marine Nationale in WW2?

>>53209562
French don't surrender, MN hits the Duisburg convoy. French lack the radar and night fighting skills of the British so give them more ships.

>>53200798

They were actually copies of the UK 2pdr pom-pom. Both single and twin versions were built in small numbers; MIKUMA and MOGAMI were each fitted with 4 singles but when the ships were rebuilt they were replaced with twin 25mm. The 40mm was only installed in small ships or in shore mounts - a few on warships could have helped but wouldn't have changed the outcome...

>>53212109
None of this is news to me, you know.

>>53141586
FUCK HYDRODYNAMICS!

>>53214661

Not really, the US autisically designed all of the 2nd Vinson Era warships to be hydrodynamically sound with just the 'citadel' sections.
The extreme end of this is the Iowas, which were intended to still make 33 knots speed with the entire bow blown clean off.
This no longer holds when the forward bulkhead is penetrated, but otherwise, all of those ships were stable.

>>53214990
I highly doubt an Iowa could make 33 without the bow. Otherwise there would be no point to having a bow.

>>53209562
MN took part in a few different sorties before the armistice. Notably, Force de Raid was sent hunting the Graf Spee.
Group Z, composed of Emile Bertin and a number of destroyers escorted auxiliary cruisers that were carrying French troops to fight in Norway. In the Med, there were a number of small actions in which RM and MN squadrons sorties to go shell one port or another. After the armistice, you've got Mers el Kebir and Dakar, and an uneasy tacit agreement that there wouldn't be any engagements between RN and Vichy naval forces if it wasn't something that could be decided quickly. You also have the battle of Ko Chang over in Indochina.

As for ideas, I was reading about one campaign somebody was running where MN assets had been divvied up between KM and RM and you had Italian and French ships escorting convoys to Africa.

You could have something provoke the Indochina Station to go Free French and get those forces involved in the Pacific.

If you can hang on till Monday, when I get back to my files I'll post a disposition of all of their ships at the start of the war, which might give you some more ideas.

File: hms_terror.jpg (10KB, 500x287px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 500x287px

>>53123090
News from your local group of Naval enthusiasts!

Battlefleet Rex is currently shooting up a Russian protected cruiser, and preparing to go after bigger fish.

We are 12 minutes into our engagement, and the enemy is already feeling the power and fury of our guns.

Interested in joining? We are looking for one player to join our group currently. It is a play by post game, and super easy to get into. Let us know here, and we'll kit you out in a sweet Armoured Cruiser.

File: Seydlitz top.jpg (101KB, 1068x753px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1068x753px

>>53215092
>An entire battlefleet shooting up a single Russian cruiser.
Oh blyad, the poor thing.
Tell me more about the game, though.

Forum-based naval rpg/wargame using a homebrew ruleset on the Planes and Mercs boards. There may also be a Connecticut Class Pre-dread available depending on a tenative purchase.

>>53215049

The Iowa's standard hull speed is actually 48.2 knots. The required installed power for that (over 1 million horsepower) is practically impossible, however.
The Iowa was the epitome of the US designers' 'Fast Battleship' design, which to them dictated that the hull design must be able to make speed regardless of 'secondary' damage (any damage outside of the Citadel), otherwise the enemy was just going to put a few 5in holes in the bow and suddenly that 'fast' battleship, which gave up so much for speed, is a SLOW battleship..
That is the logic, anyway.
That being said, the extremities are there and shaped the way they are to allow the main battery to function while at high speed. Without that uniquely shaped bow, the vibrations from making speed would have made accurate shooting impossible above 27 knots.
Without a Bow in general, the forward pair of turrets would be awash and inoperable.
Every odd design about the Iowas (original form) is geared around high speed operation, and the lessons from their hullforms are still the go-to in designing high speed deep displacement ships.

t. naval engineer

>>53216291
The Russian cruiser is supported by 2 armored cruiser, another protected cruiser, and a Pre-Dread.

>>53217191
I had always wondered about that particular hull shape, good to finally know!

File: seydlitz postcard.jpg (145KB, 900x547px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 900x547px

>>53216398
>>53217212
Well, I'm certainly interested. How active is the game? I work rotating shifts so I might not be able to participate every day.
Also, what's the timespan of the game? Judging from the current setup of classes, it's the early 1900s?
I'd take a look myself, but the forum seems closed off to visitors. Have another Seydlitz for your troubles.

The timeline is actually mid 40's I believe. We have a bunch out-dated botes as this is our first contract and we are just getting our feet wet. Another, more established fleet has a KGV in close quarters brawl with an Ise.

We don't expect posts every day, but posting with in 2-3 of an update is what we are hoping for.

>>53207216
ty anon.

>>53208870
i just clipped her of the flying stand and made some modifications. first scene i'm going to try is flybote take off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOpFTT6s8o here's the test short i made, done whit my phone cam. it's a bit shaky but i have a better camera and a stand for the final product. anything you guys want to see?

File: Matsushima's Italian cousin.jpg (210KB, 1024x760px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1024x760px

Holy shit, this thing is actually a legal design. As long as you don't add a second centerline turret or turn it into a twin turret, the gun can go up to 13".

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

67KB, 901x281px

Currently contemplating if I actually want to build this... this thing.

>>53218166
Gonna have to try that.

>>53218337
>what if we, like, took the agincourt
>yeah, man?
>and gave it, like, quad fucking turrets, dude
I want your drugs.

File: image.jpg (640KB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 4032x3024px

>>53218337
Do eet.

>>53218337

Please build it. PLEASE BUILD IT!

File: large light cruiser 1899.png (57KB, 1014x758px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1014x758px

>>53218166
>tfw 1.33 only allows 10 inch guns max on CLs

>>53218564
>>53218458
>>53218373

First one is commissioned and 2 more on the way. Figured I might as well get a squadron going, and well, you know, 84 12" gun broadside.

I'm at a point where a 12" gun is gonna go through a ton of armour anyway, and rain happens often enough to make the range loss over heavier guns not that important I feel.

File: Fuckwall's first battle.jpg (635KB, 1872x805px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 1872x805px

>>53218795
Ok, war happened with Italy whilst waiting on the other two to built, first battle was a coastal bombardment raid... and She was right there, like the game knew this needed to happen. Support was a light cruiser and a few destroyers.

In the fight she through sheer weight of fire (managing to hit at considerable distance probably just through weight of shells thrown down range) drove off two battlecruisers (39k and 40k tonnage with 14" main armament), bombard the target and retreat mostly intact.

>>53217451
You can make a quick account and it will be unblocked. See what you are getting into and all that.

>>53219291

935 rounds... I think I just came a little...

Imagine what it's going to be like after her sisters are launched. Please name one AP Tsunami and another HE Diarrhea.

File: Fweatbuttlwe.jpg (243KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1920x1080px

Fleet battle happened...

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

538KB, 1914x677px

>>53222281
>>53223039

She did pretty well I'd say.

File: Gunfires.jpg (475KB, 1909x672px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1909x672px

Then she was caught with just another BC (different class, only x17 13" guns on that one) by a group of five BBs and BCs all over 40k tons and packing a broadside of x10 14" guns.

She fired 1603 rounds from her main guns in that fight hitting 103 times.

The two BCs of mine sank 3 of their ships almost purely through gunfire, rather than wearing the targets down to get hit by torpedoes.

It's a shame the game is near ending on 1950 soon, would have loved to have gotten a fleet of these things. I wonder if there's a mod or thing to hit maximum or at least 1925 tech from the game start. Would love to see how a fleet built around this idea would work, I've only managed to get three of the class built and am working on some cruisers built to the same idea with 10" guns that won't be ready in time to see action.

>>53224050
> I wonder if there's a mod or thing to hit maximum or at least 1925 tech from the game start.

You can edit your nationdata file to do just that. I have a test-nation that starts the game with every tech for when I just want to fuck around. If you start that thing with an automatic legacy fleet you get some hilarious shit like 22k ton BCs with 16" guns in an A H I Y layout.

>>53224050
>>53224178

https://pastebin.com/4aejqp6z

Just squeeze this inbetween the lines of any nation in BNat.dat and you're good to go.

>>53224178
>>53224274

Well I know what I am trying next.

>>53223039
>>53223100
>>53224050

Fuckcunters, Cockfukcer, Hotassfuck, Fuckwall, Kuntofuckamatic, Fuckpumping, Fido...

I like the way you think, Anon.

>>53218721
Now that I have had couple fights with these it turns out that relatively fast speed+primitive fire controls+single oversized gun=great when used as a fast monitor but not really effective as a light cruiser.

>tfw you play RtW while waiting for something to show up on patrol in SH3:GWX on 1:64 time compression

life is suffering.

>>53218337
>4 inch deck

Guess that I've seen one too many explosions following a shell getting through the deck armor to risk giving late game ships' decks less than 5 inches thick.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 300x196px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x196px

>Duguay Trouin

File: Heaviest Cruiser.jpg (241KB, 1003x721px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1003x721px

Well, I've been playing with a maxtech (though only initial gun size/quality and dock sizes just to see what happens) game, as the UK this time. Got into a couple of wars with the USA and whilst my docks have not had the capacity to build full sized BC versions of this stupidity, the heavy cruiser or whatever the hell this thing could be designated version has been working out really, really well. OK, even with all the tech there's 2-3 turrets jammed at any given time, and has been known to just explode occasionally, but it does put so much weight of fire on a target that finishing a battle with less than 20% ammo is really common.

At some point I am thinking of trying a 52k ton (possibly the approximate blast size of all the ammunition and fuel detonating on a turret flash hit) version. It is possible to fit 28x 8", 24x 6" and 24x 3" guns and still have 'some' armour and a goodly amount of speed on such an abomination.
That'd certainly surprise any passing light cruisers since it'd still be only a CA and following the mission profile for such.

>>53218337
>>53239211
Why didn't they do this in real life? Did nobody think putting a billion guns on one ship was a good idea?

>>53242786
They did for a while, then stopped when it became very, very clear that gunnery advances were making it a bad idea.

>>53242786

Historically illiterate anon doesn't know about the "storm of shells" idea France and others promoted for a couple of decades until the results of Tsushima pushed it's shit in.

Check out Battle of the Yalu River in the 1st Sino-Japanese War.

>>53242786
Look up HMS Agincourt.

File: French Naval OOB 1939.pdf (214KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1x1px

>>53209562
>>53215052
Too long for one post, and I didn't feel like chopping it up. France had five naval regions, a number of smaller naval stations scattered around colonial areas, and two principal fleets for projecting power. This list doesn't include auxiliaries and avisos and the like, or air wings in the region and the like. Most of the primary ports for these naval regions were pretty heavily fortified with shore batteries and the like. If I get the chance, I'll thumb through some of my books and see if I can find some of the smaller Med actions. If you want to brainstorm some more, I'd certainly be interested.

File: Bermuda and Euryalus.jpg (512KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 1000x750px

>>53251043
Leanders weren't bad looking boats. I think Crown Colony was my favorite RN CL looks wise though, maybe followed by Towns.

File: Boatsboatsboats!.jpg (6MB, 4004x2444px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 4004x2444px

Post your tiny botes. Need some more tabletop related shit in this thread.

>>53245767
Pretty interesting design desu.
>14 12 inchers instead of more reasonable amount of 14 inch guns because of reasons
>battlecruiser tier armor
>pretty much completely impractical outside of dick waving contests between 2nd rate powers

>>53252841
My complete Jutland set is 1/6000 so it doesn't photograph well.

>>53258495
1/6000, the only scale where you can game with 1:1 accuracy on gun ranges.

>>53252841
Is this victory at sea?

And where did you buy the models from?

>>53258544
It's still about a 4 yard range for the longest of battleship shots.

>>53264864
Beats the hell out of 10+ yards.

>>53258544
> Not playing your naval wargames on a football field with a blue tarp over it.

>>53258544
Why on earth would you want that?

File: DD Flotilla.jpg (503KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1000x750px

>>53264709
They're 1/1800 scale, and are a mix of Axis and Allies: War at Sea repaints and Shapeways models.

And the beauty of historicals is that you're not bound to any one ruleset, so while I could play Victory at Sea, I don't have to.

I wonder how horribly trying to a build and use torpedo heavy cruisers in RtW would end.

Probably pretty badly but isn't building insane and impractical ships part of the fun when it comes to RtW?

File: WW2-British-BB-RODNEY-1939-1948.jpg (272KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1280x1024px

>>53265785
Some people like a grand sense of scale. 1/6000 gives you that.

Sort of like the difference between playing on a table that looks like a tank parking lot (15 mm Flames of War) and playing on a wide battlefield (6mm Microarmor).

>>53270526
Why not build speedy destroyers with lots of torpedoes instead? once they run out of torpedoes to launch just ram them into enemy ships to slow them down so the next wave of torpedoes has an easier time scoring a hit.

File: Fucking Fubukis.jpg (537KB, 1000x614px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1000x614px

>>53166603
Finally finished the assholes. I have no idea what it was about them that made me not want to paint them, but they're done. Two more ships and then I'll be done with the IJN I currently have, and it'll be back to my Marine Nationale for a while.

File: IMG_20170516_131808055.jpg (649KB, 1885x839px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 1885x839px

>>53274035
Looking nice? Is that 1/2400?


>>53252841

My fleet, apologies for shitty picture, it's Leyte Gulf with a bit of a grab bag from Northern and Southern Force thrown in with Center Force (still need one Mogami Class) with an extra hypothetical Escort Carrier for funsies.

>>53273711
Guess that I could try to build a 20 torpedo destroyer.

>>53272019
I like the detail on 1/2400 myself, but I agree that 6mm is way better for armoured warfare then 15mm. 15mm is great for a few squads of infantry.

Can you ever actually command MS class vessels? Is there any point to them other than to protect against mines or patrol for subs?

>>53282208
If they are on the active list you can. sometimes when on foreign station they will show up for coastal raids too. if you are going to set them to asw/coastal patrol its usually best to make them as small as possible and just flood the area. if you are going to use them as colonial gunboats. some splinter armour and guns wouldnt be amiss

>>53282503

I really wish you could design and build AMCs during peace time. I think its the thing that peeves me the most about this game. I can't make a fleet of commerce raiders and position them all over the world pre war.

>>53282503
I've been experimenting with building MS's that can actually fight a destroyer or two, so up in the 1200~ tons level with a lot of guns and maybe an inch of armour just to shrug a few low-calibre gun hits at range.
Has actually come in useful when battling out small coastal raids. Tends to for one; not lose me a ship, and secondly buy more time to get the main group into action. The 200 tonners are great for just spotting subs, sweeping mines and filling requirements, but the heavier ones can be a bit useful if you can spare the budget (still cheaper than building and dedicating destroyers to the task).

>>53283167
>The 200 tonners are great for just spotting subs, sweeping mines and filling requirements,

Personally I prefer 300 ton 24 knot MSes when it comes to cheap&spamable.

>>53274543
Thanks! These are 1/1800.

Yours are Navwar 1/3000, right? They're looking quite nice, especially as a fleet.

>have a pair of cls
>both of them get sunk
>can't end the scenario because the enemy convoy managed to stumble into friendly AI force
>make matters worse the AI seems to be hellbent on making sure that this fight will go on to overtime

>fight a war against uk with japan as my ally
>time choose our war prizes
>one annexed eastern canada and couple isles later
>now it is japan's time to choose what it takes
>fucking egypt

Sometimes I wonder on what principle the AI operates when it comes to choosing war prizes.

>What is the Suez Canal

>>53286406
Thanks mate, I'll try and get a pic of my incomplete Yanks on soon.

Is it even possible to annex Canada, India, Australia, or South Africa? Their value is way over 10.

File: Takao 1939.jpg (140KB, 1600x649px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1600x649px

>>53291284
At least with my Canada annexations it has involved launching invasion to the Canada and taking British territories there over with force. Though so far I've only seen the point value for two Canadian territories; Nova Scotia (5 points) and British Columbia (20 points, I've also never managed to launch an invasion against it so I've no idea whether it is possible to seize it at all or not).

>>53291284
>>53291284
Invasions, IIRC.

>>53291628
>>53292414
Invasions happen by themselves as long as I park a giant fleet near them, right? Usually how large are your colonial fleets?

>>53292997
>Invasions happen by themselves as long as I park a giant fleet near them, right?

That sorta depends on how the fuckwits in the army happen to feel like, sometimes they launch invasions, other times they decide to spend the whole war by sitting in garrisons and playing card.

>>53292997
You have to have near complete naval superiority in a region for invasions to happen I believe. during the invasion you might get a few potential actions that could affect the invasion and if your fleet moves out of the region than the invasion will most likely fail.

Fascinating how in this game the AI seems to sail between CAs and BCs as the game goes on.
>early 00s=CAs
>late 00s+10s=BCs
>mid-20s=8 inch CAs
>early 30s=almost complete disappearance of BCs in AI fleets
>late-30s/40s=BCs are starting to appear again

>>53302187

Hey, I don't mind - more easy meat for my BB's ...
(it's why do they build BC's at all that puzzles me)
(actually, no - I got that - bad programming)

>>53303844
I've genuinely found BCs more useful than BBs.

Stuff dies super fast anyway after a certain point, fast and lightly armoured but with a lot of torpedo protection just works really well for me than hoping that even 18" of belt armour doesn't get shredded because the fight had to happen at less than 10km due to the weather.

What I do find odd is the AI not consistently building light cruisers and destroyers. They're always useful but take the most casualties, and a lack of them can really hurt.

>>53304524

I always find that BB's can take (about) twice as much punishment as BC's for the same amount of tonnage.
And, don't forget, Deck Armor is more important at Longer Ranges than Belt Armor. So, that 18" is useless - 13" is plenty - with 5" Deck.

The only thing a BC has over BB is speed - and after a hit or two, it no longer has even that.

CL and DD, OTOH - yeah, I agree fully, the amount build drops to 0 after a while. Shame.

>>53305027
>Deck Armor is more important at Longer Ranges than Belt Armor.

And yet AI seems to constantly underestimate its value with its ships still having 2-3.5 deck armor well into late game. Not that I really mind, it just makes them easier to sink.

>>53305027
But AI BBs seem to be more vulnerable to massed torpedo charges than BCs.

>>53309105
>massed torpedo charges

That's what the 24 5" secondaries with director are for ...

>>53309206
When secondary directors become available. There is a danger zone in the early 20s where torpedoes are more effective than secondaries. I always end the game in the 1925-8 time frame, so this is late game for me.

>>53309389
I usually get them late 10s/early 20s.

>>53294998
And even then there is luck involved, I've seen my fleet to dominate a region for months on end without army deciding that it could use that as an opportunity to launch an invasion.

>mfw British Columbia once bought two submarines without Canadian Government approval because they were scared of German raiders
>said submarines had to sneak out of Seattle harbor at 10 PM the night before the British ultimatum expired because they didn't have the papers to leave and if they waited they'd be stopped because of muh neutrality
CC-class are mai shipfus

>>53314650
And I forgot the best bit. For about a day before the Government of Canada took over the boats, BC had a stronger navy than Canada itself.

>>53314650
How effective were u-boats for catching other u-boats? You'd think a patrol boat would be better.

>>53317028
Not very, but the CC-class were meant for dealing with surface raiders. And submarine vs cruiser usually ended with the latter dead *cough cough live bait squadron*

>mfw people advocate stopping for the crew of ships sunk by subs

>>53305027
>CL and DD, OTOH - yeah, I agree fully, the amount build drops to 0 after a while. Shame.

Presumably all the money that could be used on building CLs and DDs went to building billion submarines.

>>53302187
I find that, to some extent, the AI builds in response to what you build. I like to build DDs and subs in droves in most of my games and whenever I do I see a marked increase in MS and CL building by my opponents. So the bouncing between CAs and BCs may, in part, be based on what you design and build.

>>53322553
Only thing that comes to mind that could explain the reappearance of BCs in AI fleets during late 30s was that I got 1 27 knot British battleship as a war prize during mid-30s. Other than that I had no capital ships faster than 23 knots and since early 20s most of my CAs were either heavy light cruisers armed with 6 x 4 6 inch guns and torpedoes or older 10 inch armored cruisers refitted for colonial duty.

Just spent all day painting a light carrier

Then realized I painted it the wrong style of Measure 33.

Why does the boatpainting never end?

The Vermont opens fire, the mixed battery reaching out towards the Donskoi armoured cruiser. Splashes land around the ship, with the eight inch battery straddling the vessel for several salvoes. The Donskoi takes several hits, including an explosion to the rear of the vessel but the eight inch shells fail to penetrate the layers of armour on the Donskoi.

Shells begin raining down abaft the Essex, and the Port Arthur takes several hits from six inch shells. One of the torpedo mounts on the destroyer explodes in a blaze of fire as the alcohol fuel onboard ignites from the red hot shrapnel, and a blaze begins amidships. The Nadir also suffers hits from one of the protected cruisers, but not before laying fire into the oncoming vessel. Still the hits to the destroyer are severe, laying waste to the ships structure and starting to impact the ship's floatation. Anti-aircraft ammunition catches fire and begins to blaze away, and the gunnery tables for the vessel are severely damaged, reducing the effectiveness of her firing.

The Banshee's heavy shells land on target, straddling the second armoured cruiser for several successive volleys. Two major hits of significance occur, the first is a shell that penetrates into the engine spaces, reducing the cruiser's speed and warpiing the deck, destroying a medium calibre point defense station. The second 12 inch shell slams through the conning tower of the vessel, turning the command deck into hamburger, and also flashing over and knocking down an air intake for the boiler rooms, further reducing the ship's speed to only 7 knots.

The Essex's guns go into rapid fire, and straddle the protected cruiser. Multiple shell's impact the Bogatyr, but to some dismay, several hits are deflected or absorbed by the armor on the ship, including one to the conning tower and one to the forward 6 inch turret. An eight inch shell does crash into a casemate position, smoke begins pouring out of the entry hole moments later, as the casemate gun drops in its mount and the position is effectively destroyed.

The Tsushima's shots land on the protected cruiser, and the vessel appears to be wrecked from the waterline up, with numerous scorch marks and shrapnel holes from the pounding it has taken over the last 12 minutes. It continues to fight on however, as it remains afloat.

The torpedo officers among Battlefleet Rex all shake their heads in frustration as the time to impact passes, with no apparent hits among the enemy vessels.

File: 20170118052245_1.jpg (432KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1920x1080px

>>53326055
>turning the command deck into hamburger

THAT's MY FETISH!

>want to play british
>don't want to have to manage fucking 10 different naval regions at the same time
what do?

>>53327730
It isn't that bad once you get the hang of it.

File: 10k tons and 8 inch guns.png (57KB, 1014x729px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1014x729px

Fucking disarmament treaties, forcing me to design this abomination.

>>53327899
You didn't have to do this, you chose to build that.

File: Nagato 1924.jpg (395KB, 1600x1116px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1600x1116px

Easily the prettiest Japanese capital ship of inter-war and WW2 era.

File: 822a31c62465226e612b5ebeb5f98acf.jpg (780KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

780KB, 1280x960px

>>53330108
Agreed. Too little historical detail about her modernizations.

>>53328473
What if the Kaiser wants his battleships?

>>53330108
Sorry, Yamato was much prettier.

File: t3_4n0hik.jpg (112KB, 1280x666px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1280x666px

>>53330548
It's okay. Not everyone can have patrician taste.

>>53326069
>>53326055
kancolle when

File: world war 2 in a nutshell.jpg (172KB, 1024x700px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1024x700px

You jerking off to boats again, son?

>>53332397
>ww2 in a nutshell
>not the Kidou Butai getting buried in a tide of yank shipgirls

>>53332785
>getting buried in a tide.

The war was over for Japan after Midway and the US was at best on par for experienced flyers and had less carriers there.

The argument flies afterwards maybe but even so the US turned the tide on ground roughly equal.

>>53332853
>The war was over for Japan after Midway

The war was over for Japan as soon as they bombed Pearl Harbor. It was just a question of how long it would take.

>>53332972
if we're looking for the first potential event that lead to collapse of Japanese Empire the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria is pretty good starting point.

>>53332972
A fair point, but I was talking in regards to the military event that decisive shut down japan's ability to take offensive action.

>>53330493
Then Kaiser should stop being a bitch that demands battleships after authorizing a signing of naval disarmament treaty.

>>53334187

Wouldn't the first potential event that lead to the collapse of the Japanese Empire be the big bang?

Nice naval item on the battle of midway in the Beast of War weekender. Good to see some naval gaming exposure between al the historical land, sci-fi space and fantasy battles

>>53326069
Whats this from?

>>53332397
>bullying an old japanese battlecruiser

At least offer her a proper sized burger instead of a pygmy midget sized one.

File: bismark_march.jpg (20KB, 600x373px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x373px

>>53336821
Play by Post Forum game a bunch of /tg/ has started playing.

File: 20170314110348_1.jpg (619KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1920x1080px

Not admitting Tosa superiority, FO SHAME.

New Thread
>>53339043

>>53339056
Guess that the hot pockets are now bit stricter about new threads before page 10 or something, m8.

>>53339080
I deleted the old post and then failed re-uploading it because apparently Name/Title boxes confuse me.

>>53339071

Sorry for the confusion mates.