/nwg/ - Naval Wargames General

>>53813262
Tiger really was far and away the best BC at Jutland, shame she was scrapped in the 20s and never saw any WW2 service.

>>53814559
>shame she was scrapped in the 20s and never saw any WW2 service

I dunno about that. Modernized BCs did not fair well - Hood and Repulse were both sunk and their foreign counterparts the Kongos didn't do much better.

>>53814926
Just about any ship would've been sunk in Repulse/PoWs place/s, they were a victim of poor decision making more than their own design, and Hood was A) not really a BC B) Used improperly if considered one and C) Very unlucky.

>>53814964
The biggest problem with Hood was that she was never given a proper refit because of her status as Britain's shipfu.

>>53814964

But that's the thing, if they had kept and refitted the Tiger she'd have ended up used as a BB and suffered accordingly - though we can always imagine her cornering the Graf Spee in SA instead.

>>53815015
Nah, she'd likely have been used like Renown, who gave stellar service during the war.

>>53815078
Say whatever you say about Brits but unlike nips they never really developed delusions about their old refitted battlecruisers now being battleships.

>>53815100
They learned that lesson the hard way.

>>53815122
One would think that Hiei getting crippled by treaty cruisers and Kirishima turning into barely floating wreck after a short exchange of fire with Washington would had been enough to drive in that lesson.

>>53815548

Hiei was in a point blank blast-out, but with Guadacanal campaign it all comes down to fuel use and (for the japs) getting out of the air umbrella before daybreak. It was the Kongo class's moment to shine.

>>53815548
Hiei basically had destroyers on top of her, as in so close she couldn't depress her secondary armament to fire back. And even then it took sustained bomber attack until 5:45 the next evening to force Admiral Abe to abandon ship. Kirishima was pummeled by shells much more substantial than she was ever designed to face and took them from inside 6k yards, with six of those going under her belt. Counterflooding settled her and exposed breached sections above the waterline to seawater ingress, causing her to roll over.

The "lessons" are that night-fighting at close range is messy, damage control is complicated, and ground-based air assets are dangerous. Not that the Kongo class were inherently poor ships.

>>53817624
>Not that the Kongo class were inherently poor ships.

That would depend on whether you wanna rate them as battlecruisers or battleships; as battlecruisers they're decent, as battleships their only good point was their speed.

>>53817980

If South Dakota hadn't been there with her life-partner Washington, what everybody would be saying today is how an old and reliable design optimized towards a single specific roll will outperform a new and more ostensibly more capable generalist in its specialty.

>>53818166
And if Bismarck's shells would had landed couple meters to different direction people today wouldn't view her as an unholy love child of iowa and Hotel.

>>53818296

"Couldn't beat *two* ships it had no business trying to take solo" is a more respectable counterfactual, anon.

>>53818166
The IJN was facing two main problems: Kirishima was hitting high when the Type 91 was designed to take advantage of shorts, and she was outnumbered at close range. Even had Washington not snuck in close that exchange would've been disappointing for Kirishima.

The main takeaway for the USN was fuck son, electronics are important.

>>53822248
So which Queen is that?

Can we talk about things before 1914 for once? Like Trafalgar or Lepanto or something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_5_October_1804
One of my favorite small actions. Equal forces, having a straight up fight.

Also, possibly a ficticious junior captain fighting nearby, saving the day, and not getting credit.

Plus the entire hilarity that the prize money system represented, and the legal sleight of hand the Government pulled to not pay the captains and crews.

>>53824565
I would but honestly my knowledge of Age of Sail naval warfare is severely lacking compared to my 1900-45 knowledge.

>>53825941
Pleb desu

>>53824565
Watched De Ruyter/Admiral last year, and since I've been itching to get into Dutch-Anglo wars. I'd also enjoy playing a privateer/pirate/merchant campaign game. Reading Heart of Oak rule set. Beyond that, I can't talk much.

>>53814926
Hood had a decorated war record.

Repulse dodged a shit ton of air attacks, no other ship at the time could have done better.

>>53814559
Indeed, Tiger should have been retained instead of Iron Duke. Now *that* was an obsolete ship.

>>53824565

Battle of Lissa was interesting.

>>53827789
>Battle of Lissa was interesting.

Great choice. The incompetence exhibited by the Italians in the battle was notable even for them. Half the Italian fleet didn't even engage and the crew of the Ancona fired entire broadsides in which they loaded powder BUT NOT SHOT.

>>53824822
>Equal forces, having a straight up fight.

The numbers were the only thing that was equal there.

Spanish ships?
Burdened with loot?
4 on 4?

Yeah, no.
More like 4 on 1.

>>53827963

>Half the Italian fleet didn't even engage

To be fair, that might have been honest intra-service malice, not incompetence.


I like that it occurred in one of those eras where nobody was really sure what worked, much less how.

File: Conqueror.jpg (36KB, 780x439px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 780x439px

LMAO

>>53828138
>To be fair, that might have been honest intra-service malice, not incompetence.

Using intra-service malice as an excuse not to engage the enemy in a battle occurring right in front of you IS incompetence.

>I like that it occurred in one of those eras where nobody was really sure what worked, much less how.

While everyone was groping for proper doctrine, that didn't stop the Austrians from pushing Italy's shit in.

>>53818514
Not to mention Washington just had the devil's own luck in combat. She was never damaged by enemy action. Not once.

>>53828368
what the fuck is this and what is the name of he who deserves to die for it

>>53828635
Designed by russians in 2017, it's a fast battleship designed to go back in time to win Operation Unthinkable for the UK, surely.

>>53828368
>not hms incomparable

You had one job, Ivan.

>>53823609
The name ship herself if I remember correctly.

>>53828660
A post-war fast battleship with great war guns and a displacement 8k tonnes short the Hotel.
HISTORICAL DATA MY FOOT

>>53829978
>expecting historical accuracy out of arcade game about glorious soviet paperships forged out of pure stalinium

>>53824565
glorious expansion engines with coal-fired boilers

oil is for plebs and reprobates

File: DSC02520.jpg (198KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1600x1062px

>>53830886
>oil is for plebs and reprobates


So are engines.

File: DisdainForPlebs.jpg (24KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x462px

>>53831182
>cannons
>not ramming your foe firmly from behind using your rock-hard forward projection

File: Connie v Java NEA.jpg (4MB, 2328x4752px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2328x4752px

>>53831182
>So are engines.

My close comrade of nubian descent.


If you're in to Age of Sail stuff, did you happen to catch the /hwg/ community project a few months back? The challenge was to paint up minis representing a scene from a work of historical fiction.

One of our occasional (not shit) namefags, NEA, did a Connie vs Java diorama, as it appeared in one of the Jack Aubrey novels. He even pulled up the actual battle tracks and corrected the sail and penant positions for the wind described in the logs.

>AoS doesn't get enough love in naval wargaming circles
>lots more interesting than, "detect enemy, sail oppposite direction to open range, launch planes/missiles backwards until you or enemy is dead."

>>53831182
My nigga

>>53831367
AoS is the patrician choice of naval combat eras.

>>53831182
>>53831226

Again fellow negroes, Battle of Lissa. You would not believe that shit.

File: Tegetthoff.jpg (398KB, 1576x2017px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1576x2017px

>>53834077

I know, Austrians. *I know*. But it probably really was that awesome.

>>53838432

I love gaming that war. While everyone fixates on Bismarck, Moltke, & Co. schooling the A-H Empire at Sadowa, meanwhile the Prussians aren't doing too well in western Germany and the A-H are pimp slapping Italy.

The Adriatic is a fun naval wargame theater up through WW1.

>>53843986
Wee Vee a cute.

>>53845962
Thanks for the filename anon, I almost didn't recognise her not on her side exploding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3E80CRKcPg
HMS Rodney shelling the island I grew up on.

File: acxcrystal.jpg (165KB, 950x623px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 950x623px

>>53831226
Hell yes.

>>53850878
Nice. Have some porn involving fire control computers for your trouble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdZZuteFZfo

>>53850878
>leave the destroyer to me

>>53851072

Thanks for that link.

>>53851072
That this arouses me probably does not bode well.

>>53851072
Noise

Anybody got some sweet New York-class pics?

>>53859064
Don't worry about it Anon. I think botes are pretty neat, but it's really thinking about all the systems inside them that keeps me up at night.

>>53868666
>>53870394
>>53871854
Much thanks!

>>53828368
Looks like an upgunned Vanguard, which was on the table for Vanguard. 8x18 was considered for the Lion, but the weight savings and near complete 16 inch mount meant Lion went with 9x16. Vanguard was fitted out with spare turrets (15 inch) since the brits had so many, it made economical sense rather then scrap the hull, or design a new turret.

I still hate Warships and Wargaming though.

>>53876842
Vanguard was a really nice ship design. Has the double-smokestack middle profile which I also love on the Iowa, with the classy old-school four-turret arrangement.

>more jacking off to lifeless grey mechanical shitpiles

Oak and sail forever you disgusting fuckers

>>53880449
you sound like you miss scurvy

Anyone got that pastebin for unlocking all techs in RtW?

>>53877342
Vanguard sacrificed some armor though, 14 inch belt vs the 15 on the KGV.

File: cc 1913.png (58KB, 1000x722px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1000x722px

How decent this design is for 1913?
>5 inch deck is mostly to ensue that it will be at least somewhat future proof

>>53888378
more speed less armor

I like my battle cruisers to be speedy glass cannons not proto-fast battleships

File: [laughs in 21cm].jpg (265KB, 1349x780px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1349x780px

That's what you get for sinking my minelayer with mines, Rooskies.

>>53892358
what ship is this?

>>53882162

She's French, but what's her name?

>>53892429
USS California following her post-Pearl Harbor rebuild.
>>53892660
Armored frigate Colbert.

>>53892429
USS California, BB-44.

>>53892996
>>53893031
ahh, thank you.

was thinking "huh, looks like one of the final-gen battleships, but...wait, is that *four* three-gun turrets? Dafuq ship had *that* arrangement at that time?", hehe

>>53888378
In my experience, adding deck armor won't make your ship future proof because it won't protect you from torpedoes.

The existential threat to Battleships is not plunging fire but rather lucky torpedo hits. Lategame the waters are swarming with them, and that's what kills my early BCs that don't have torpedo protection.

In comparison, I've never lost a ship to plunging fire. The ships that last long enough to see it, get killed by torpedoes first.

>>53893401
Then again, you already have torpedo protection 2. The BCs I always lose never had any torp-pro at all. Make deck armor thick enough to withstand plunging fire from your own guns, and spend the rest on making things go fast. Otherwise this is a bretty gud design.

>>53892996
>Armored frigate Colbert.

Thanks, Anon.

>>53894897
>"you ever think she'll run aground, seaman anon?"
>"nah"

>>53898534

Come on. she didn't run aground. She was deliberately beached.

So who's playing Cold Waters? Anyone? After reading about it and watching game play for days I finally knuckled down and purchased it. Ran through the tutorials, played a practice game against another sub once or twice, then jumped into an 80s campaign. After four days of war, three engagements, and 9 enemies sunk I found myself and my crew abandoning our stricken LA class after drawing a bit too much heat. And, of course, I get captured by Russians.

Have you tried campaign mode? If so how long did/have you lasted?

>>53901997
I'm still in the process of watching playthroughs and whatnot so I don't have literally no idea what I'm doing once I start.

>>53813262
Where should I start with naval wargaming, WWII?

>>53902550
WWII can work, especially if you start with early war.

Alternately, WWI and the other turn-of-the-20th-century wars.

>>53902583
Oh god I'm sorry, posting late and tired.
I meant, where should I start rules-wise with WWII naval gaming?

>>53902595
Naval War, it's free and is pretty accessible/simple.

>>53902832
Ah thanks! Where can I find it?
Googled and saw a few different things.

>>53903196
https://www.naval-war.com/download/category/manuals

>>53903246
That is only the main rulebook. If you register on the site (free) you also get access to all the ship data cards, the required command stations, QRS, Orders of Battle for fleet list construction etc.

>>53903629
Not the original asking anon, but this is actually fairly good shit. Thanks.

Huh, these ban submarine treaties are pretty easy to abuse.
>accept
>get 1 point of prestige, frees up resources that you can use to build up your surface navy + it will stop AI from spamming subs and destroys their already existing submarine arsenal
>once the war starts building a usable submarine fleet takes a year and half at most presuming of course that you kept money in stock just in case of you needing to build something up quickly

>>53884358
https://pastebin.com/4aejqp6z

Here you go, Anon.
Just slap it into the BNat.dat file somewhere under the nation that you want to have all techs unlocked.

File: Type 214 2.jpg (424KB, 1600x1280px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1600x1280px

>>53901997

Follow-up on this.

Started up a new 80s campaign this morning and my first mission was to sink a sub tender in the Barents. I've done these several times now and its almost always the tender, a pair of corvette or frigate escorts and MAYBE a sub.

Today, however, there was a fourth surface contact and after careful maneuvering to determine type I discovered Moskva class heli-cruiser had decided to low life it with this sub tender.

Needless to say I started sweating bullets at the thought of all those ASW helos. But, keeping myself at depth, low speed, and by keeping my fish on passive I managed to sink them all...including the Moskva...without a shot being fired or a helo being launched in retaliation.

Pleased doesn't even come close to what I was feeling afterward.

>>53910729
Clearing the oceans of communism, one russkie ship at a time.

>>53910049
Pre-dreadnoughts and their contemporaries are so fucking classy.

>>53903196

The other anon beat me to the link, so I'll just leave you with this caution: Any WW2 naval rules set which even pretends to have any level of historical accuracy MUST include aircraft.

Yes, early on aircraft weren't fully appreciated and none of the European naval powers had a naval air arm worth a damn. However, once Japan decided to join the wider war and her actions brought in the US, naval warfare WAS ALSO aerial warfare. Even when tactical airstrikes didn't occur, air power had a profound effect on an operational level. ForEx: The thinking behind Japan's operations during the Solomans Campaign constantly adhered to the premise that IJN surface forces would/could not operate during daylight within range of US air bases. Surface engagements happened at night not only because of IJN doctrine and extensive training but also because night time removed air power from the equation.

With even a remotely historical WW2 rules set, you're not going to gaming pure gunline/DD duels in daylight without also imposing a lot of very situational operational contingencies.

If you're looking for games which are purely gunline duels, you'd be better off with a WW1 or pre-dred rules set.

>>53882162
>>53892996

Thanks again for the pic and name.

I've been looking over French pre-dred and I'm again struck by large number of designs and small number of ships. Colbert, forex, was the lead ship in a TWO ship class.

Granted, France had to spend on her army first. However, I've read in several sources that she had so many differing designs in the 1890s that the MN had trouble forming squadrons with similar cruising speeds, ranges, etc. Too many "specials" and not enough "standards" it seems.

File: this.gif (243KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 500x281px

>>53911802
Yeah, this is true. Even when the surface warriors WERE slugging it out during the daytime you better believe that in WW2 the planes were helping to swing the balance to one side or the other.

>>53911901
>Colbert, forex, was the lead ship in a TWO ship class.

That's not too weird; the American navy in the interwar period and WW2 had several classes that only consistered of a pair of ships. ...Hell, USS Wichita (CA-45) was the ONLY ship of her class, though she was functionally a prototype for the Baltimore class.

>>53911957
French had quite a few one ship classes. Emile Bertin, Pluton, Algerie as examples.

>>53911901
One of my favourites is the ships of the Charles Martel-"class".
>Pierre, build 5 battleships!
>Right away, si-
>But let each of them be designed by a different engineer!
>What

To be fair, they were to be designed to the same specifications regarding speed, armor and weaponry, but still.

>>53911957
Not to mention ALL of the IJN battlebotes came in twos.

>>53911957
>That's not too weird; the American navy in the interwar period and WW2 had several classes that only consistered of a pair of ships.

True, but they were designed to operate within a given set of performance parameters. Their cruising speeds were all alike, endurance was within certain percentages of each other, etc., etc.

Except for the so-called Charles Martel class, the pre-dred MN didn't build to any performance standards. I've regularly read that the MN had trouble putting together squadrons which could cruise at the same speed, fight at the same speed, go the about the same distance before coaling, etc. And that doesn't even address all the various weapons and battery arrangements.

>>53911914
>Yeah, this is true. Even when the surface warriors WERE slugging it out during the daytime you better believe that in WW2 the planes were helping to swing the balance to one side or the other.

Exactly. At Savo and other night battles, IJN floatplanes dropped flares to help IJN gunnery. During the Komandorski battle, part of the superior IJN force decision to withdraw was because they thought US bombers were on the way. Even in early war Atlantic/Med stuff, aircraft were part of the equation. I've read a memoir touching on the Graf Spee battle in which the author "apologizes" for that fact that they weren't very "air conscious" early in the war and so hadn't launched their Walrus floatplanes as early as they should have.

Any WW2 naval rules set which doesn't address air craft is about as historically accurate as Bolt Action.

>>53913247
>Not to mention ALL of the IJN battlebotes came in twos.

Came in twos while also being designed to operate with certain fleet performance standards.

ONCE AGAIN for the slower anons of /hwg/, it's not about having lots of classes with small numbers of ships. It's about having lots of classes with small numbers of ship that all perform at varying speeds while carrying varying armament.

Anybody here know how fast the Yamato's turrets could traverse?

>>53914193
Navweapons probably should have that.

>>53913650
The IJN didn't do "standards" with their battleships/cruisers. Heavy cruisers sure, but including the Kongos they had no cohesive battle line.

>>53914193
2deg/sec. All Japanese battleships were a little on the slow side, with all other mounts training at 3deg/sec. Firing intervals however tended to be short, with Nagato able to maintain a comfortable 21.5 seconds.

>>53914402
>>53914859
Thanks, gents.

>>53910729

And now a Kirov has perished to my torpedoes. Sadly I didn't survive the helo dropped torps that caught my already damaged self several minutes later.

File: moreno_david_buell.jpg (85KB, 744x486px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 744x486px

HAY BRAZIL

HAY

FUCK YOU

FUCK YOU BRAZIL

YOU FUCK AROUND IN MY WATERS I SINK YOU SAMBA-DANCING FAGGOTS

FUCK YOU BRAZIL

File: 1940_hms_renown_ark_royal_sheffield.jpg (103KB, 744x575px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 744x575px

>>53914859
>with Nagato able to maintain a comfortable 21.5 seconds.

Most battleships could manage 20 second salvos.
If the guns didn't have to be elevated much.
If the magazine had ready ammunition and powder out of storage cases.
If the men weren't tired from lugging shells.

The only people with a halfway believeable fire rate stat was the British, who actually listed the combat conditions rate, ie, assume your ship has been fighting for five minutes, what is your current fire rate?

Almost every other number I have ever seen posted deals with manufaturer rate / ideal conditions.

>>53918895
This.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTW_xpK-Twc
From gun firing, to breech closed, 1:11 seconds. Now admittedly they were not moving as fast as they could, but I'd be very surprised if even the most seasoned gun crew could manage much better then 30 seconds.

>>53918957
>but I'd be very surprised if even the most seasoned gun crew could manage much better then 30 seconds.

To be fair, this is roughly on par with what you get on the manufacturer stated fire rate. But yeah, in action, due to a variety of factors, all fire rates plummet to shit after the first couple of salvoes.

File: frodo.png (325KB, 560x559px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 560x559px

>>53920548
Why do they have masts with rigging lines and mainbraces when they don't use sails anymore?

>>53917001
The South American dreadnought race is a hilarious and kinda sad tale about tiny nations who wanted to pretend their cocks were as big as the big boys'. Thoroughly kek'd.

>>53813262
When you unzip the folder for Rule the Waves, do you click the installer first or the file that says update?

File: time traveling krauts vs royal navy circa 1901.png (28KB, 932x637px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 932x637px

>>53923843
Install regular RtW first, the updater needs a functioning installation to work.

>>53924367
Thanks.

>>53921608
>Why do they have masts with rigging lines and mainbraces when they don't use sails anymore?

Oh but they did!
See, the idea was this: why don't we save all the coal, and travel by sail like in old days every time the wind's good?

File: IMG_0433.jpg (288KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 600x800px

>>53828518
Tegethoff fell back on good old ramming tactics.

File: German_destroyer_Z_21_Wilhelm_Heidkamp_underway_c1939.jpg (8MB, 5729x4075px) Image search: [Google]

8MB, 5729x4075px

>give destroyers 2 quad torpedo tubes
>build shitload of them
>almost every battle has at least one friendly fire incident where they manage to hit friendly ships with their torpedoes

Guess that they wouldn't be called destroyers if they didn't fuck up every now and then.

>>53933991
>Guess that they wouldn't be called destroyers if they didn't fuck up every now and then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_William_D._Porter_(DD-579)

File: blyat.jpg (37KB, 460x205px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 460x205px

>>53890690

>>53911901
The phrase was a "fleet of samples". No French Naval Minister lasted more than three years in the pre-dread era; many served for less than a year. With that sort of instability, it was hard for the French Navy to be consistent in anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Naval_Ministers_of_France#Naval_Ministers.2C_1893-1947

Oh yeah, and Camille Pelletan, one of the longer served Ministers, was a bad joke -- the bastard child of the Jeune Ecole and socialism.

How was the motion of the ship due to waves accounted for in naval gunnery?

>>53937367
Not sure of the exact mechanism behind it, but I know the Iowa-class' fire control computers were capable of factoring pitch and roll of the ship into their firing solutions. I believe it was done by the Stable Vertical element.

>>53937045
Awesome.

>>53894897
Hmm, wartime censor blot on the radar aerial, somewhat reminiscent of smut. I never knew that was an erogenous zone.

>>53942187
If your forward compartment isn't extra bulbous from looking at these fine ships I don't know what's wrong with you, anon

>>53937367
The USN had a computer for that, the Royal Navy had a forecasting table for that, the IJN relied on constant counteradjustments throughout the largely decentralized system. As noted by the USN Technical Mission JM-100-E(O-30) the Japanese system was "backwards but functional", able to produce tight shot dispersal at range but struggling more with the effects of pronounced roll due to comparatively slower rates of train. The Nagatos and Yamatos weren't prone to rolling, particularly the former after the addition of their bulges, and even for the others it was rarely an issue in the Pacific.

Hull form and roll was previously more important to consider, as the Revenge-class battleships were largely ruined due to their slow roll. This made gunnery easier, but it also made them impossible to modernize.

>>53943227
So were the weapons gyro stabilised, or fired at optimum times, or adjusted to account for the roll?

>>53943564
Technically all three at once in the case of the more advanced systems. You had an electromechanical gyro-based system feeding adjustments to account for the roll while an automatic firing key let the shells fly at the most optimal moment.

>>53943564
The IJN doctrine stressed continual adjustment to account for roll, though if conditions managed to induce a roll of more than 10 degrees with a short period they would have to time their firing. The IJN's battleships historically weren't as prone to rolling as Western architects were convinced before and during the war, and their shooting ability was noted at Leyte in spite of their technical "backwardness", but their cruisers were a bit more of a mess.

In that case quicker traverse and elevation rates would have made it possible to keep on target but it would've been a colossal pain in the ass.

File: 1457560297745.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

I always found this webm to be extremely fascinating. Excuse the watermark, haven't found a version without one yet.

>>53943905
Some days you just have a nice voyage, some days a kamikaze nearly takes your fucking head off.

File: panicked screaming.jpg (1MB, 1920x1041px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1041px

I'M SO SORRY, WILLY

File: phew.jpg (126KB, 946x668px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 946x668px

>>53947429
All in all, a nice sortie. Actually sank one of the ships that were later identified as Birmingham-class CLs at night. Moltke put two 11" rounds into her belt at 3k yards. After bombarding Scarborough and its batteries, one of my subs hit a CA with a torpedo and I decided to swing my BCs down there. Cressy, Hogue and Aboukir got shot up by my BCs and my destroyer G9 sunk because she decided to fucking ram Hogue after I ordered a flotilla attack.

File: airplane_robert_hays_ted_striker_sweating_profusely-e1378390057378.png (2MB, 1238x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1238x1080px

>>53947429
>>53948283
>one of your newer bbs suffers a critical strike that fucks up her electric systems
>she is dead in the water
>your enemy brought in more capital ships than you did

File: Willis_A._Lee;h95009[1].jpg (61KB, 600x741px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x741px

>>53948723
>Stand aside, I'm coming through.
Too bad you don't have this guy accompanying.

>>53901997
I've been playing it. As recent US submarine force veteran I give it 7/10. Torpedo behavior is basic, ship controls are odd (planes don't zero so it's like it's holding an ordered angle, but all the controls are manual, so it's as if you're in this strange point half way between being the helm and OOD) and it's the 1980s where the fuck is my subroc.

It's march 1985 in my campaign and I feel like world war 3 will never end.

>>53949475

Nice! Glad to hear from someone other than those on Youtube that have experience.

As for SubRoc...one would think the nuke warhead might be a bit much for this game...though its still being added to so who knows if we'll get it.

Ive seemingly hit a point I can't get past in my campaign. I'll die or be horribly maimed and limp back to port and, because i'm apparently the only NATO naval force ever, the war will take a horrible turn and we'll lose before I can get back out of port.

>>53949475
Take it you were a helmsman?

So how accurately do you guys like to paint your minibotes? Personally I hate the look of a painted deck, for example Measure 22 battlebotes and latewar IJN carriers, and so I like to leave the wood tone visible. Any metal like islands and turret roof surfaces sure, but a capital ship looks WEIRD with painted wood.

Been reading some reviews on Seekrieg V. Anybody here have experience with it? Should I seek it out?

>>53957357

Prefer the the stamp-and-slash, myself.

>>53947429

There's a special place in hell for the admiral that gets von der Tann killed, anon. It was the most courageous capital ship, participating in the Death Ride without a working gun in order to draw fire from the others.

>>53958287
>It was the most courageous capital ship, participating in the Death Ride without a working gun in order to draw fire from the others.

There seems to be a rule that horrific things happen to German ships that manage to sink British ships off a critical hit.

>>53922956
What botes are these?

>>53960473
Alaska-class battlecru--er, "large cruisers". Six were intended to be built, only two actually got built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-class_cruiser

>>53960600
to be fair, "large cruiser" kinda fits the Alaska class better. design-wise the Yanks scaled up their heavy cruisers, rather than scaling a battleship design *down* like with most other countries' battlecruisers.

>>53958287
I'd never dare let Von Der Tann sink, Anon.
Every single one of those little first-generation German BC cuties holds a special place in my heart.

Although the AI command really loves sending me off to do risky things. Those blue fields are minefields. One of my light cruisers already sank because it got hit by a drifting mine, around 10 miles away from the actual field. The only encouraging thing about this bombardement mission is that I killed off 4 of the British BCs a month earlier (Lion, Queen Mary, Invincible (turret flash fire, poor Invincible just can't catch a break) and New Zealand) in a textbook example of what the HSF was trying to do for the entire war, so I don't have to worry about them meddling in my sorties anymore.

File: sweating.jpg (247KB, 1920x1041px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1920x1041px

>>53961541
Aaaand forgot the pic.

>>53960696
Never understood why some people get so triggered by the large cruiser; you take an armored cruiser and make it less armored and you get a light(ly armored) cruiser, you give light cruiser bigger guns and you get a heavy cruiser, you size up heavy cruiser until it is fuck huge and you get a large(r) cruiser.

>>53961557
I'M NOT TRIGGERED. YOU'RE TRIGGERED. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

In all seriousness, it's mainly because "battlecruiser" sounds better. "Large cruiser" also kinda sounds like something that a disinformation department came up with to make enemy intelligence think they were just laying down a new CA class.

>>53961826
>>53961557

Well - that's a REALLY big cruiser alright!
Any bigger & she'd be a (Fast) Battleship ...
Wait a sec - don't we have a word for a ship like that?
I believe we do!
It's called Derfflinger.

>>53950926
Helm/stern planes operator is a junior at-sea watch station, half the forward crew do it at some point before they qualify a rate specific at sea watch. Yoeman and logistics specialists end up doing it half their enlistment because they have no rate specific watches and only stop doing it when they qualify a more senior ships control watch.

This is of course decreasingly relevant as Virginia class submarines replace Los Angeles class submarines as they don't have a traditional 4 man ships control team and all of the functions are rolled in to pilot and copilot and a computer does 90% of the actual job.

For the record having someone transfer to a 688 first flight from a Virginia and be expected to be a competent Diving Officer of the Watch because Pilot is equivalent is hilarious. An E-3 Helm is a better Dive than a E-7 pilot.

Threadly reminder that the Yamato would have left the Iowa a smoking wreck by dusk if they met in combat.

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

101KB, 1068x753px

So I was just reading through an account of the Battle of Jutland by the 1st Artillery Officer of Seydlitz. Early on he mentions that the ship's motto was written in golden letters on her rearmost turret.
Does anyone here know more about it, or maybe even have a picture? I already tried looking for it in my books, but couldn't find anything about it.

Link to the account in case anyone is interested http://www.gwpda.org/naval/foeseyd.htm

>>53964384
>German terms that are not unique and have simple and direct English translations inexplicably left untranslated.
People who do this should kill themselves. It's not okay when weebs do it and it's not okay when anyone else does it either.

>>53964384
It wouldn't surprise me if it was true, but I've never found any documentation either. There's a lot of the details about ships and their apocryphal stories we just don't know.

For example, USN reports indicate that a 5" HVAR penetrated the unarmored hull aboard Nagato, creased the Admiral's desk, and exited the other side. Nobody's actually sure when or where that could have even happened, just that it was a damn fine piece of furniture.

>>53965565
Ugly french bollocks.

>>53964731
>For example, USN reports indicate that a 5" HVAR penetrated the unarmored hull aboard Nagato, creased the Admiral's desk, and exited the other side. Nobody's actually sure when or where that could have even happened, just that it was a damn fine piece of furniture.

Seems unlikely to me; from what I understand the USN didn't use 5-inch armor piercing rounds aboard ships.

>>53967724
... go look at what HVAR stands for, anon.

>>53967866
D'oh, I got it mixed up with HVAP.

>>53964711
To be fair, German *is* an entertaining language to read snippets from.

File: areyousure.jpg (111KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 400x400px

>>53962279

>>53962279
>>53968651
Yamato
>Big guns, stupidly thick armor, fairly comprehensive protection scheme
>Mediocre performance against hardened armor, questions regarding QC of armor, poorly-built torpedo protection, electronics lagged behind USN

Iowa
>Good in all categories without sacrificing, probably the best electronics in the war, very good quality control
>Shells weren't much better on paper than Yamato's with lighter armor

Verdict
>If Iowa hits a bad batch of armor, damages Yamato's torpedo bulges, or just plain out-shoots her Yamato is in trouble
>If the 18" Type 91 functions as intended or Yamato's shells connect more often, Iowa is in trouble
>If luck doesn't favor anyone they splash around at each other ineffectually with a few dozen straddles between them before one of them retires
>Nagato/Mutsu vs North Carolina/Washington would be much more interesting

>>53969043
Any argument that hinges on something the Japanese built in WWII working as intended is going to fail. I have no idea why people assume the Yamato could hit the Iowa.

>>53969308
When in doubt blame nips and bote game designers wanking up a rather mediocre design.

>>53969043
>Mediocre performance against hardened armor
>questions regarding QC of armor

Largely found to be exaggerated from post-war tests and information digging. Iowa's guns were *massively* outclassed in every respect by the Yamato's. Yamato achieved some of the most tight dispersions and highest hit rates of any battleship in history, 5-6% at 22,000 yards. These hits would have been more devastating but Yamato constantly over-penned the targets she was shooting at.

Likewise, Yamato's armor gave her a *massive* zone of immunity to the Iowa's fire. Her plunging fire vulnerability zone is far too distant for Iowa to be able to hit her, and her direct fire vuln zone is *well* within the range that Yamato will be able to hit her reliably and accurately.

>poorly-built torpedo protection

Would be relevant in any actual battle, admittedly, given neither battleship would be operating entirely alone without the benefits of a fleet group. Not relevant in a direct comparison though, as neither battleship carried torpedoes.

>electronics lagged behind USN

Less than is commonly believed, though. The Type 98 Sokutekiban required manual corrections and updates, but it was still quite capable, when combined with Yamato's god-tier optical systems, of achieving feats like straddling American escort carriers at 30+ kilometers and the aforementioned hit rates. And while her radar lagged behind...again, great optics, spotter planes, and a crew that regularly put all this to excellent effect.

>Good in all categories without sacrificing

No. Hahahaha, no. Iowa had fairly bad sea-keeping and armor that might as well have been tissue paper with regard to Yamato. She was faster than Yamato, but *much* less maneuverable (roughly 880m TTC to Yamato's TTC of about 650m).

(cont...)

>>53969403
>probably the best electronics in the war, very good quality control

Again, not really by much. Iowa blinded itself every time it fired. It was actually LESS precise than Yamato's fire at almost any range. In any engagement, Yamato would have a firing solution first, hit harder and more often than Iowa, and take hits better than Iowa, refusing critical damage up to stupidly short ranges. Yamato wins.

>Nagato/Mutsu vs North Carolina/Washington would be much more interesting

Agreed.

>>53969308
>I have no idea why people assume the Yamato could hit the Iowa.

Yeah, weird how people think the most accurate battleship guns of the war could hit stuff reliably.

>>53969308
Because we all know battleships couldn't hit each other at any range until radar was invented.

Seriously, go read the USN Technical Mission's reports for starters, then go read more recent accounts and research. Then maybe next time you'll be able to discuss the topic without sounding like a moron.

>>53969345
Every single point in >>53969043 regarding Yamato's design and performance was fair. She had the basic distribution down for a boondoggle on par with the other nations' similar designs, but the design was hampered by mediocre quality control throughout the production chain, a total lack of interest in modern fire control (they HAD the chance to get input from Germany but never really bothered), and a little too much lateral thinking when it came to shell design.

>>53969403
>>53969449

Oh look, a overly pedantic douche "correcting" another overly pedantic douche in regards to their shared delusion about a naval battle somehow resembling a mano-a-mano boxing match.

ONCE AGAIN, Yamato isn't going to fight Iowa alone and Iowa isn't going to fight Yamato alone. It's going to be Yamato + consorts + escorts versus Iowa + consorts + escorts.

It's not that you boobs can't see the forest for the trees, you boobs can't even see the forest for the TWIGS.

>>53969638
>a total lack of interest in modern fire control (they HAD the chance to get input from Germany but never really bothered)

Battle of Samar. Escort carriers. Straddled. Over 30 km. Hit rates of 5-6 percent. Japanese fire control was fine. Better than fine.

>>53969710
>ONCE AGAIN, Yamato isn't going to fight Iowa alone and Iowa isn't going to fight Yamato alone

If you could actually read the post you were quoting, you would see that this factor was acknowledged. Take a chill pill and unclench your sphincter a little.

>>53969638
>Because we all know battleships couldn't hit each other at any range until radar was invented.

They could, but not reliably, and not on the first shot. Radar changes this. The step up in fire control technology is incredible during this period. One might even go as far as to say that even without the invention of guided missiles and aircraft, large battleships would make themselves obsolete anyways as plunging fire continues to become more accurate and deadly faster than armor can keep up.

>>53969403
The 16"/50 "Super-Heavy" is generally acknowledged to have comparable penetration abilities to Yamato's guns on paper, where the Type 91 APC were designed as "diving shells". Their caps were less effective at anything BUT diving than any other navy's caps during WWII, severely limiting their ability to penetrate heavy armor. Their effective range is also greater than the designed immune zone for Yamato's decks against 18" shells, which again had comparable penetrating capabilities to the 16"/50 Mk8. And per your own statements, "constantly over-penning" targets is a lousy problem to have in a navy which stressed the value of shorting to take advantage of their diving shells. That suggests Yamato was consistently doing something very wrong.

Yamato's torpedo protection was indeed more of a problem than you seem to think. Recall that it was flooding from six underwater hits that sank Kirishima, and postwar evaluation again suggested that Yamato's torpedo protection wasn't poorly designed: it was flawed construction. This was a serious liability, and although in fairness Iowa's torpedo defenses left something to be desired it wasn't from poor quality of construction.

Postwar evaluation based on technical examinations and interviews suggested that the IJN's ability to shoot at range was hindered by overly-complex and fault-prone designs: their good shooting at Leyte was IN SPITE of their designs, not because of them. Similarly, materials tests conducted in occupied Japan yielded both the BEST and some of the WORST samples of armor per-thickness the US Navy had tested. Unless you have samples from Yamato's wreck all evidence indicates that there was something funky going on there that while impossible to quantify can't be ignored.

Wisconsin's tactical diameter was 814 yards, while if you remember to convert your units Yamato did it slower in 700 yards. And unless both ships are doing donuts for some reason it would hardly matter.

>>53962279
>one has guided missiles, scout uvas or, depending on era, 20 kiloton nuclear artillery
>other one has optical fire control and last time i checked decidedly non-nuclear shells

I think that we all know which one is gonna win here and it is not the Tojo's floating hotel ;^)

Should had specified that you're talking about WW2 Iowa, m8.

>>53970099
The point of this debate is that the Iowa could beat the Yamato without those. Same for arguments about their respective escorts.

The Iowa was the most modern battleship in the world at the time it was Built. The Yamato was an over-engineered paper tiger who rarely preformed to specs in any category. Fussing about details is unnecessary autism that obscures the point. Yamato was obsolete the it set sail, the Iowa was worth modernizing for decades after battleships in general went out of style.

>>53970041
Those sources for penetration of the 406mm' Mark 8 compared to those of the 46cm Type 91 Special are based on math that is outdated. I tell you again. The Iowa's guns do not have anywhere *near* the performance of the Yamato's. Not in kinetic energy, not in bursting charge.

>Yamato's torpedo protection was indeed more of a problem than you seem to think. Recall that it was flooding from six underwater hits that sank Kirishima, and postwar evaluation again suggested that Yamato's torpedo protection wasn't poorly designed: it was flawed construction. This was a serious liability, and although in fairness Iowa's torpedo defenses left something to be desired it wasn't from poor quality of construction.

At plunging fire ranges, you're not going to be getting underwater hits like that. (You're not going to be getting hits at all, most likely, at the ranges where Iowa would need to be able to pen Yamato's armored deck with plunging fire; Iowa had an 800m shot dispersion) At direct fire ranges, Iowa's going to be too busy being a smoking wreck from Yamato's demonstrably superior gunfire to get those kinds of hits.

>Postwar evaluation based on technical examinations and interviews suggested that the IJN's ability to shoot at range was hindered by overly-complex and fault-prone designs: their good shooting at Leyte was IN SPITE of their designs, not because of them.

Having exceptional accuracy in spite of what flaws existed isn't a strength?

>Wisconsin's tactical diameter was 814 yards, while if you remember to convert your units Yamato did it slower in 700 yards. And unless both ships are doing donuts for some reason it would hardly matter.

That figure for the Wisconsin is based on an unproven anecdote, and if true was probably pulled off in extremely calm seas during trial runs.

>>53970099
...Okay, I loled. Well played.

File: IJN_Fleet_Brunei.jpg (153KB, 900x716px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 900x716px

>>53969403
>Yamato achieved some of the most tight dispersions and highest hit rates of any battleship in history, 5-6% at 22,000 yards
>Naval War College's trials recorded 10.5% hit rates at 20,000 yards for Iowa
Posting battlebotes in a line.

>>53970366
>hits on unmoving dummy targets under calm gunnery trial conditions equal hits on moving ship targets in the chaos of live fire combat at (admittedly slightly) longer range

Uh huh.

>>53970312
>based on math that is outdated
So tell me, based anon, what maths are YOU using? Because Garzke-Dulin AND Okun disagree with you. When it comes to contradicting the widely accepted metrics and empirical models, put up or shut up.

>at plunging fire ranges
Which most battlebote duels weren't fought at. Yamato could only really manhandle Iowa if she kept her between 22,000 and 33,000 yards for the whole engagement: any closer or further and it's back on.

>Having exceptional accuracy in spite of what flaws existed isn't a strength?
Combat performance is subject to human error. Byzantine, fault-prone equipment doesn't magically get better. So no, overcoming the odds once doesn't alleviate a clear limitation because it can't be reliably replicated.

>was probably pulled off in extremely calm seas
LIKE ALL TRIALS WERE, the IJN ran their trials in the Bungo strait for a reason. In practice neither one would be making turns that tight and neither one would have a reason: but even if they did Iowa's guns could keep on target during extreme maneuvers, Yamato's guns trained and elevated too slowly to keep up with a roll and lacked the same fire control abilities. So even if Yamato turned quicker Iowa could turn almost as quick while shooting.

Face it, you're overselling Yamato as much as other people have been underselling her.

>>53970552
>Yamato needs to be in a particular range to attack the Iowa with impunity.
>Iowa is more than 5 knots faster than the Yamato
>Iowa can hold target while doing crazy mauvers.
>Yamato can't even keep it's guns trained on a ship that's not moving in a straight line

Idiots still try to sell the Yamato on the fact that the IJN got lucky that one time even though the whole war was them getting unlucky most of the time.

>>53970552
>So tell me, based anon, what maths are YOU using?

Recently calculated ones that much more accurately determine the performance of the shells. Google it. Also, isn't Okun the guy who thought that Yamato's shells were APC rather than the true APCBC-HE-T?

>Which most battlebote duels weren't fought at. Yamato could only really manhandle Iowa if she kept her between 22,000 and 33,000 yards for the whole engagement: any closer or further and it's back on.

Further than that, Iowa doesn't have the shot dispersion tightness to even HIT the Yamato, while Yamato can still hit the Iowa. Closer than that, Yamato easily hits Iowa with devastating effect.

>LIKE ALL TRIALS WERE, the IJN ran their trials in the Bungo strait for a reason. In practice neither one would be making turns that tight and neither one would have a reason: but even if they did Iowa's guns could keep on target during extreme maneuvers, Yamato's guns trained and elevated too slowly to keep up with a roll and lacked the same fire control abilities. So even if Yamato turned quicker Iowa could turn almost as quick while shooting.

The Yamato didn't really roll much, as she had far better seakeeping ability than Iowa. It's true that she couldn't fire and maneuver, but her fire control systems were more than adequate enough to track a moving target and straddle it.

>>53970366
Oh, it should also be mentioned. 22,000 yards was the *minimum* engagement range off Samar.

>>53971129
It's also right around the *maximum* range any battleship actually HIT something. Leyte was all straddles all the time.

>>53890690
how did you get such pretty art for your boat?

>>53971438
I think that that is from Steam and Iron, not RtW.

>>53971268
Didn't one of the Iowas score multiple straddles on a maneuvering Japanese destroyer at some stupid range like 39,000 yards?

>>53969737
>you would see that this factor was acknowledged.

Acknowledged in the previous 3 or 4 thread where you and the other morons took the SAME bait and engaged in the SAME interminable "discussion". What's it going to take for you and the other morons to finally recognize the bait and not respond?

>> unclench your sphincter a little.

I'd rather have a clenched sphincter than my head crammed up my ass. You douchebags have been falling for the same bait and conducting this "discussions" for several threads now.

When are you going to learn not to take the bait? When are you going to agree to disagree and stop this repetitive dick sizing contest?

File: seydo.jpg (134KB, 921x783px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 921x783px

>>53971438
>>53971479
Like the other Anon said, it's Steam and Iron with the campaign extension. Most ship classes have a picture like this

File: distant sounds of ship designers worldwide vomiting furiously.jpg (65KB, 923x324px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 923x324px

>>53971556
Although I found a nice set on the RtW forums recently. Let's you create stuff like pic related.
Sadly the pack's not 100% done from what I've seen.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BybD_azc7VELbzBzMFFxSWhSS1E/view

File: we don't care.jpg (47KB, 625x524px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 625x524px

>>53971536
If you don't like the discussion, you're welcome to shut up and stay out of it. The rest of us will enjoy our armchair admiralty arguments about giant battlebotes with giant guns.

>>53971641
>The rest of us

No. The rest of us are posting RtW designs and posting pics while only a small handful of autists are repeatedly comparing their cocks across several threads.

Your "discussion" has not solved anything and will not solve anything. Your "discussion" has not changed anyone's mind and will not change anyone's mind. Your "discussion" is entirely sterile and, we can only hope, you are sterile too.

Go compare dicks elsewhere.

File: Middle-Finger.gif (498KB, 254x250px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 254x250px

>>53971757
Fuck off. The discussions are valid, interesting, and entirely appropriate for the thread.

>>53971521
Source on that? I find it extremely doubtful, given the Iowa's 800m shot dispersion at ~38,000 yards.

>>53971842
>what is Nowaki
It was 33,000 yards iirc, but the incident is common fucking knowledge for anyone interested in naval gunnery.

>>53971865
>>53971842
Nope, as it turns out it was a 35k straddle on the first salvo.

>>53971901
Was it just one straddle or multiples? That might be more attributable to godly fortune, because I'm damn sure about the Iowa not having the shot dispersion at those ranges to do that reliably.

>>53971924
You know, fuck it. Use the names of the ships to go track down the citations yourself, I'm tired of spoonfeeding you information that if you were SERIOUS about this you'd already know.

>>53971824
At least argue about two different ships? How about Vittorio Veneto versus Jean Bart?

>>53971994
That's the problem, I'm looking at stuff about the destroyer Nowaki, and I can't find anything that talks about her getting straddled at crazy long range by Iowa. Maybe my search-fu is just weak. I'll keep looking.

>>53971999
Gonna admit, the Littorio-class is a sexy, sexy battleship.

>>53972030
>"The range estimation of these gunfire control systems provided a significant accuracy advantage over earlier ships with optical rangefinders; this was demonstrated off Truk Atoll on 16 February 1944, when Iowa engaged the Japanese destroyer Nowaki at a range of 35,700 yards (32.6 km; 17.6 nmi) and straddled her, setting the record for the longest-ranged straddle in history."

Okay, there it is. I'm...still not convinced it was anything more than dumb luck rather than anything reflective of the fire control, though. Of course, dumb luck is a huge aspect of long-range naval gunnery combat anyway, no matter what equipment you bring, so eh. If it happened to a teeny Kagero-class destroyer it could have happened to the Yamato, I'll concede that.

File: 2832908_orig.jpg (70KB, 958x538px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 958x538px

>>53972755
Something else for you to consider, bucko:

The escort carriers Yamato straddled at Samar were moving at around 22 knots, in a straight line, and were decently large targets.

Nowaki was much faster, and granted if she was maneuvering she would not have been going top speed, but her speed would still have been significantly higher than the carriers. And she was a *lot* smaller than an escort carrier.

All this talk about the Yamato has me wondering.

Is the Yamato movie from 2005 /nwg/ approved?

File: 1091px-SMS_Arpad_(1901),_Modell.jpg (222KB, 1091x1024px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1091x1024px

>>53973595
haven't seen it, not sure.

while we wait for somebody who has to weigh in

how about we post pre-dreadnoughts

>>53972355
USN really knew how to make sexy camouflages.

>>53976218
Yeah, I like 'em, and in >>53972876 too. Hilarious zebra paint is great and all but I prefer the more understated look of USN WWII dazzle camo.

>>53967724
>Seems unlikely to me; from what I understand the USN didn't use 5-inch armor piercing rounds aboard ships.

Not quite so; there was Special Common ammunition that had *some* armor-piercing ability. And the Anti-Aircraft Common ammunition that was issued in much greater quantity for the 5''/38s still had enough oomph to fuck up destroyers and some light cruisers if you sent enough shots their way.

>>53934904
Get on my level.

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

Alright Gang, Imma do a RtW run as Austro-Hungary with no destroyers. Will post a report when I finish the run, I don't think it'll go well, but we shall see.

Replies to this post for next nation and class I do without.

>>53979725
Do France while building no CLs.

>>53979725
Great Britain without CAs

>>53979725
Britain without battleships!

>>53977867
Heh. I remember talking to one guy a while back who insisted that the NorCas, SoDaks, and Iowas "had no secondary battery" because the 5 inch guns didn't have a pure, dedicated AP round.

>>53979725
You know what would be interesting? Limiting yourself to a maximum caliber gun. Spend the entire game building capital ships centered around, let's say, 9" or 10" guns.

File: three coffins.png (177KB, 320x462px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 320x462px

>>53970552
>So tell me, based anon, what maths are YOU using? Because Garzke-Dulin AND Okun disagree with you. When it comes to contradicting the widely accepted metrics and empirical models, put up or shut up.

I'm not agreeing with him, but this isn't the first time I've heard somebody claim that some new data has been math'd out for the penetration figures of the 16''/50 Mk. 7 versus the "40cm"/45 Type 94. I've heard it like three or four times now from different people in different places, but never seen the actual new figures properly cited.

>>53981002
Guess that they are one of those calculations that are pulled out of claimer's ass only when necessary and thus can't be posted online.

>>53981076
I guess. It's just bloody weird to see the same uncorroborated claim repeated by multiple people on multiple sites.

>>53981082
It's not, really. You get a lot of the same sorts of claims no matter where you're discussing the topic. New evidence is vanishingly rare and actual tests are economically unfeasible, so despite the fact that our understanding of ballistics and penetration is imperfect nothing is likely to change in any dramatic way.

The 18" Type 91 was slightly better on paper than the 16" superheavy, but based on postwar dissections of shells, interviews, and after-action reports it is understood that the Type 91 ballistic caps and fuses prevented the IJN's heavy shells from functioning as well in practice as they should have. So unless someone finds a perfectly-preserved Type 91 shells or plate armor from Yamato's wreck to cut up and test the shit out of, all evidence suggests the Type 91 was something of a disappointment in practice. The only time one ever worked as-advertised was against USS Boise, and that didn't even produce the sort of internal explosion the IJN was looking for.

>>53980608

HTF *did* the Austrians get (or at least, pay for) all their high-end naval artillery? IIRC that was a serious bottleneck for their army.

File: wettin-600.jpg (99KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x400px

>>53975009

Ah, who needs porn?

>>53982252
Maybe that's why the army suffered, the navy got the budget?

have about 20 hours in RTW, hows this for a list of research?
>necessary tier
ship design
>really good tier
fire control
turret/gun mountings
naval guns
>nice if you have the surplus budget to buy tier
subdivision and damage control
machinery development
fleet tactics
submarines
>not bad but shouldn't really invest into tier
rest of the technologies

>>53982746
Tbh naval guns become a rather pointless research subject once you have decent quality 15/16 inch guns.

>>53982746

Cute.
Here's my list: (with 1000+ hours more)
>absolutely necessary tier
ship design (obviously)
fire control (again, obviously)
>usually useful tier
fleet tactics (up to 1910 - to clear up all the communication errors - drop it to Low afterwards)
AP Projectiles (to wreck stuff)
Light Forces (for better DD's)
Torpedoes (as above)
ASW Tech (if enemy starts sub-spamming)
Naval Guns (only if you're still at 13" & enemy has 16")
>sometimes useful tier
everything else

For better High bonuses, drop some of the research down to Low.

>>53982314
But anon, that is porn.

File: 30,5_cm_geschützturm[1].jpg (70KB, 700x556px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 700x556px

>>53982252
Skoda. They produced both the 12" guns for the Tegethoff-class and the 14" guns intended for the Ersatz-Monarchs, although the latter were used as siege cannons in the end as the Ersatz-Monarchs got cancelled. Shame about that, really.

>>53982746
Personally I tend to prioritize
>ship design
>fire control
>turret&gun mountings
>naval guns (only until I get my first 0 or better quality +14 inch gun)
>ap projectiles
>light forces and torpedo warfare
>torpedo technology (I like to have shitload of destroyers armed to teeth with torpedoes so this might not be for those who aren't into torpedoes)
>submarines (will become a low priority once medium range subs become available)

File: hmsinflexible.jpg (167KB, 518x396px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 518x396px

Greetings! I don't usually check these threads, but recent developments have piqued my interest. I'm currently designing a fantasy campaign that's set in the vein of the latter end of the 19th century alongside a setting full of magic and fictitious creatures. Right now I'm consuming a ton of media about the advancement of technologies such as artillery, firearms, military tactics, and naval fleets. Given the sort of kitchen sink setting I'm working with, I think ironclad turret ships would be the most advanced ships of the period. However I also want to draw up some designs that sort of combine the traditional looks of wooden masted ships that evoke the same feeling as the Age of Sail with the big guns of the up and coming dreadnoughts. Do you think such a design is possible?

File: HMS_Monarch_(1868)_William_Frederick_Mitchell.jpg (2MB, 4950x3394px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4950x3394px

>>53984850
So something like HMS Monarch or HMS Captain?

>>53985697
Yeah, but with a bigger hull size and some 14 45s.

>>53981183
Doesn't help that the one time the Navy actually did test a bit of Yamato-equivalent armor against a 16 inch shell, they didn't orient it in the proper position to simulate a realistic angle of impact.

>>53986009
You should be fine there, I think. You might also want to look into the Devastation-class turret ironclads.

>>53986247
Actually, neat thing about those tests, they had one penetration, but then the next two test shots, the armor held up 100%, no penetration against an Iowa's 16 inch shell.

But you only ever hear about the one that penetrated (at point blank range, 90 degree impact angle)

>>53986721
Heh. I hadn't heard about follow-up tests; do you know from what range those were conducted?

Granted, your turrets being immune to penetrations doesn't necessarily make them immune to being disabled. Such I believe happened to Bismarck.

>>53986643
Thanks for the tip Anon! I'll be sure to check out these threads again. They're pretty interesting.

>>53979829
>Britain without battleships!
Fisher, is that you?

>>53986874
Frankly, if anything would kill an Iowa in a clash with Yamato, it's intelligence. I dunno for how long the Navy fell for the "lol Yamato's guns are equivalent to 16''/45 guns" trick but it might well have been long enough for the Iowa's skipper to park himself in that immunity zone, and then get fucked when he finds himself easily penned by Yamato and unable to pen her back with her own guns.

>>53988841
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-084.htm

They suspected the true size of the guns by February '44 and confirmed it in June of the same year.

>>53988841
The equivalence thing was actually determined after the Americans knew the caliber and confirmed after the war. The Yamato's guns were bigger, but the Americans had better shells with better penetration.

>>53990052
Y'know, I kind of wonder how the Yamato's guns and shells compared to the experimental 18 inch guns the British were developing (and in one case put into service aboard HMS Furious). I know the British 18 inch shell was actually heavier than Yamato's 460mm shell.

>>53990311
At that size, I'm not sure the diameter has as much of an effect. Even 16 inch shells can put holes in pretty much anything still capable of floating. Battleship combat would have gotten pretty crazy if airplanes hadn't shown up to make them obsolete.

Or at least that's what late game RTW tells me. Once you get +1 guns over 14 inches and improved directors, big ships sort of become a liability. You're going to get hit, and no amount of armor will save you.

Since we're getting close to the end of the thread, and Extra History just put out the start of the series on the Bronze Age collapse...

...how does /nwg/ feel about quinquiremes?

>>53983867
I'm sorry, they put the 3-gun turrets ABOVE the doubles?

>>53992566
Nobody knows why.

>>53992566
More room for ammo?

>>53992566
>>53992827
The first design for the Lexington-class battlecruisers would have had a similar arrangement with 14-inch guns.

>>53992566

Is there a reason not to, other than aesthetics?

>>53993294
More guns means more weight and the higher up on the ship that weight is the less stable the vessel will be in heavy seas.

>>53838236
...Des Moines?

>>53993400
USS Alabama based on the hull code.

>>53991949
>Since we're getting close to the end of the thread, and Extra History just put out the start of the series on the Bronze Age collapse...

Got put off by their WWI origins episode, Serbia was as guilty as sin and the Russian ambassador to Serbia was functionally a minister in its government (and his adjudication in the coalition after the 1st Balkan War cynically in its favor directly lead to the 2nd Balkan War). Basic boundary between scholarship and apocrypha stuff, that.

>...how does /nwg/ feel about quinquiremes?

I remember that they aren't actually 5-deckers, otherwise "meh".

>>53993719
>Got put off by their WWI origins episode, Serbia was as guilty as sin and the Russian ambassador to Serbia was functionally a minister in its government (and his adjudication in the coalition after the 1st Balkan War cynically in its favor directly lead to the 2nd Balkan War). Basic boundary between scholarship and apocrypha stuff, that.

Wonder if they touched on any of that in the Lies episode for that series.

>>53993400
>mistaking a south dakota for a des moines
>when they have completely different looking superstructures, different number of 5-inch secondaries mounted in almost completely different arrangements, and differently shaped turrets

>>53993294
I think it was to keep the hull form as slender as possible by installing the wider 3-gun barbette behind the slimmer 2-gun barbette to avoid widening the hull and reduce drag. Something something hydrodynamics.

all hands to new thread stations

>>53995206
>>53995206