/nwg/ - Naval Wargames General

File: Type VII.jpg (336KB, 1900x1340px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1900x1340px

1st for sub-spamming AI

File: 18 MISSOURI juillet 1944 0163042.jpg (199KB, 1600x1245px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1600x1245px

>>53996079
Y'know, I always found submarine deck guns really interesting. Did they have to tilt the barrels down to run water out of them before they could be used, or did they have some kind of self-draining vent system?

>>53996179
>tilt the barrels down to run water out

Tilt barrel up & open the breech.
After the first round is fired, any remaining problems will be solved.
The only catch, IMHO, would be the low service life of the barrel.
You'd need a new one every couple of patrols ...

>>53996179
>>53996223
Pretty sure subs had stuff like plugs to make their guns at least partially watertight. I recall there being a YouTube video about the operation of submarine deck guns in the USN, I'll try to find it later.

>>53996179
It's a shame X1 was such a mess and got scrapped before the war, a well executed version might have been pretty nasty for the ASW work RN subs often did.

>>53996399
>>53996223
>>53996179
Well, it doesn't mention anything about waterproofing it, but the video is interesting anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzSPFoFcsSg

>>53996399
German ones at least had a plug that would be screwed into the barrel to make it watertight. And if you forgot to remove it before firing, the ammunition would explode inside the barrel, destroying the gun and probably killing the people firing and loading it.

Threadly reminder that Hotel would have lost in a one on one battle with Iowa.

>>53995206
which botes game from the OP would you guys recommend i could play without needing a huge investment. Modern or ww1-2 era

Could i just print out overhead pics of ships and play like that?

>>53998897
Silent Victory, the rules are available for free and VASSAL has a module for it. That is of course if you're fine playing it on a computer, physical copies of it are only slightly less expensive than crack wrapped in gold leaf.

>>53998517
...the submarine class?

File: 20170401104439_1.jpg (357KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1920x1080px

I'm too sexy for my own good.

File: 20170625135302_1.jpg (388KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1920x1080px

I do love never built designs

>>54001428
Yamato.

>>54002542
Ah. Carry on.

Though really, we need to figure out two new ships to compare to death. How about H39 vs. Sovetsky Soyuz? Battle of the paper tigers.

>>54002059
>"Okay so, we're going to make sure those fucking pilots approach the landing deck correctly from now on..."

>>54002751
I think we've made a rookie error by comparing BBs all this time anyway. How about some DD or CL/CA matchups? Hipper vs Pensacola, Town vs Myoko, Tribal vs any other DD of the war etc.

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

70KB, 958x538px

>>54004559
I do love me some CAs.

>>54004559
Problem is that the American cruisers and tin cans were far and away the best, barring the Akizuki class which I'd honestly rate the best. That's what you get when you can throw money at it hand over fist.

>>54004927
Not really, they were probably the best destroyers in the role of the DD as an escort focused on AA or ASW (and in ASW I'd probably give the Brits the edge) but in DD on DD gunfights, stuff like the Fletcher starts to be outmatched by Tribals, Ls and Ms, J,K and Ns, Akizuki, even Kageros and Yugumos give it a run for its money. Really the only US destroyer that's particularly impressive in the gunnery department's the Gearing.

>>54005036
Also, American cruisers don't have that great a performance record. Primarily due to the fact that they didn't carry torpedoes, whereas their opponents did.

Mind, they did hurt things bad when they had the chance, but that lack of torpedoes really sucked for them.

>>54005452
At least the USN never lost any of their heavy cruisers to their own torpedoes blowing up, or had to plate over holes where their paper-thin turrets got blown the fuck out.

>>54005623
No, but dear god the New Orleans class had horrific casualty rates.

>>54005728
>horrific casualty rates
>new orleans

Lets see how many heavy cruisers were lost during WW2 and how high New Orleans place when you list them.

Aoba class 2 out of 2 (100%)
Algerie class 1 out of 1 (100%)
Bolzano class 1 out of 1 (100%)
Deutschland class 3 out of 3 (100%)
Furutaka class 2 out of 2 (100%)
Mogami class 4 out of 4 (100%)
Tone class 2 out of 2 (100%)
Trento class 2 out of 2 (100%)
York class 2 out of 2 (100%)
Myouko class 3 out of 4 (75%)
Takao class 3 out of 4 (75%)
Suffren class 3 out of 4 (75%)
Zara class 3 out of 4 (75%)
Admiral Hipper class 2 out of 3 (67%)
Northampton class 3 out of 6 (50%)
Portland class 1 out of 2 (50%)
New Orleans class 3 out of 7 (43%)
County class 3 out of 13 (23%)
Pensacola class 0 out of 2 (0%)
Baltimore class 0 out of 14 (0%)
Duquesne class 0 out of 2 (0%).

43% not really that good percentage but still far from being horrible considering how many of classes were completely wiped out during the war, hell even without including Axis or French CAs they still come after Yorks and Northamptons&Portlands.

>>54006362
Well, you also have to remember that even the New Orleans ships that weren't *lost* all took massive damage during the war and had significant loss of life aboard.

File: Ganbatte.jpg (34KB, 540x264px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 540x264px

>>54006362
Poor Yorks, they just wanted to be real CAs like their County onee-samas.

>>54004559
Alaska vs. O-class?

>>54007517
Renown vs O would be a better pairing.

>>54007659
Mm, true. Alaska vs. O is another Iowa vs. Yamato situation again, I think.

>>54006620
At Tassafaronga 395 Americans were killed total. Astoria was lost with 219 men, Quincy with 370, Vincennes with 332.

Kinugasa went down with 511 of her crew. Nachi went down with 807 killed. Haguro was lost with 900 dead. Ashigara had some 2000 troops aboard when she sank, of those 1200 died along with 100 of her own crew.

Need me to go on?

>>54007853
It's even worse than that; the O class would've had an even narrower immunity zone to Alaska's shells than Yamato had to Iowa's.

>>54002259
>>54002059
What game is this?

File: Cropped_View_of_the_H._M._S._Renown,_the_ship_that_carried_King_George_VI_of_England_to_his_shipboard_meeting_with_President...jpg (2MB, 2783x1565px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2783x1565px

>>54007659
Renown a qt

>>54009097
Best looking BC ever made.

File: 20170625135412_1.jpg (385KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1920x1080px

>>54008634
Steel Ocean, free on steam.

>>54002972
Damn straight we will! Americans were on to something with Ranger.

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

469KB, 1920x1080px

>>54009668
One of these threads recommended the game to me, I gotta say thanks, it's amazing. Blows WoWs out of the water in terms of gameplay.

>>54010681
It reminds me a bit of Battlestations Pacific in terms of UI, which was a game I loved back in the day even though it was simplified as all hell.

...Also, at least Steel Ocean remembered that Iowa's gun covers were BLACK, not WHITE.

>>54010776
It is wows, extreme historical inaccuracy and fans that think that they are the Admiral Nelson reborn are to be expected.

File: m1941-klewang-blueing-1-small.jpg (49KB, 772x218px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 772x218px

Anybody else wish RtW also had a shell/gun design component?

>>54006793
Really just no comparison there, is it? Counties were just too beautiful.

>>54012091
Sometimes, but in my opinion the gun quality system does a good enough job. Maybe RtW2 will have advanced design menus for stuff like guns, shells, torpedoes and subs.

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

465KB, 4000x1907px

>>54017608

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

619KB, 1920x1080px

>>54011380
Uh, no, WoWs gets a lot more wrong about ship combat then SO.

For example, going bow on is encouraged in WOWS despite that being the DUMBEST way to fight.

>>54017830

I'm old enough to have played Navy Field years ago. Everything that people wanted to armor didn't have rear turrets to have X Tons of more armor.

>>54018543
It may be because I just woke up here, but I can't parse this; are you agreeing or disagreeing with >>54017830

>>54017830

No it's not, you are encouraged to angle your armour. Fighting parallel to your enemy is retarded because it exposes your citadel. Angle the ship and you have a better chance at bouncing shells. Bow on bow works even less when you have rear turrets, which the vast majority of ships do.

>>54017643

I love Dunkirk. I'd love to get her and Tirpitz.

>>54019774
I think the issue in WoWs is that there's less of a diminishing return for armor angle than there is in real life. IIRC War Thunder also has this issue.

>>54007659
I feel like Renown vs. the O class, looking at the gun figures and armor values on hand for both, would be something like the naval version of rocket tag or an iaijutsu duel. They're both really vulnerable to each other's guns at a lot of ranges. And I'm not sure if the Admiralty Fire Control Table would be as swingy a factor as, say, the USN's insane radar fire control computers. Somebody with better knowledge of RN equipment can correct me on this if need be.

>>54012091
I do. I also wish the "Gradual improvement" and "Increased penitration" technologies actualy required some degree of refit.

Not as bad as changing your whole guns or FC systems. Some refits should be possible without any downtime. Also you should be able to refit during repairs.

File: USS_California_(BB-44)_-_NH_82114.jpg (8MB, 5056x2948px) Image search: [Google]

8MB, 5056x2948px

CALIFORNIA

KNOWS HOW TO PARTY

File: Disgusting.jpg (33KB, 600x581px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x581px

>>54023139
> latice mast

File: 132603392917-Waynes-World-Get-A-L.jpg (47KB, 776x602px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 776x602px

>>54023189
>he doesn't appreciate lattice masts

>>54020988
It's really a matter of what happens in the early stages of the engagement, the longer it goes on the more it favours the Renown, because German FCS and Radar had a way of disabling/disassembling themselves when the main batteries fired. Renown also has the slightly superior protection scheme of the two.

File: orlando.png (91KB, 911x293px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 911x293px

Some anon posted a RtW graphic set last thread, it's pretty nice but supposedly incomplete
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BybD_azc7VELbzBzMFFxSWhSS1E/view

Got a question for the gun power guys here.

When you read Navweapons' armor pen figures, should the amount of armor penetrated by the gun at various ranges and angles be taken as the absolute armor penetration or the effective armor penetration.

Like say a gun at X range penetrates 383mm of armor at a fall angle of 23 degrees. Should this be read as "the gun can punch through a plate of armor 383mm thick at X range with that striking angle", or should it be read as "the gun will punch through 383mm effective armor protection at X range, due to that striking angle"?

>>54019521

Sorry, I meant that I felt it was dumb that game encouraged people to always to nose in at someone.

Shells only really spread horizontally, rather than 'vertically' with differences in range.

>>54023189
Next thing you'll be insulting pagodas and saying you hate turret farms.

>>54023780
That just goes in the ship parts folder I suppose since there's already a "Set 1, 2 and 3" in there

Does it just autogenerate the graphic based on the ship design?

>>54025859
It auto-generates the hull and the turrets, and places the funnels based on the ship's top view graphic.

Everything else is hand placed decals.

>>54024911
Anyone?

>>54027451

It should be read as "the gun will punch through 383mm of the defined-below-steel type armor protection at X range, with that striking angle"

Remember: material (i.e. the type of stuff the armor's made of) is what counts here, too.
Some types of stuff are better than others, and the type WILL be given for the Chart.

>>54027623
Ah, so it is absolute penetration, for the given type of armor being assumed in the test? Okay, thanks. That'd been bugging me today.

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

364KB, 1992x888px

>>54028407
I notice that in some pictures of the Iowa class in WW2 their conning towers have a structure on the front of it that's absent from other pictures. Was that a wartime structure that got removed over time?

>>54028453
I *think* that was removed sometime in mid-1944, and to my knowledge only appeared on Iowa and New Jersey. I've never seen a picture of Missouri or Wisconsin with that extra armored bit on the conning tower.

File: USS Los Angeles.jpg (135KB, 740x605px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 740x605px

>>54023139
IN THE CITAAAAAAAAY

OF L.A.

File: Kai Gunto IJN Officer Sword.jpg (74KB, 1161x498px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1161x498px

americans are asleep

post beautiful ships from the DAI-NIPPON TEIKOKU KAIGUN

kancolle shit not needed because I already have a ton of those pics

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

780KB, 1280x960px

>>54030240
>Applicants must be 41cm or bigger to be considered.

File: IJN Nachi deck.jpg (200KB, 924x1280px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 924x1280px

>>54030240

File: IJN_battleship_Nagato_and_her_all_crewmembers.jpg (387KB, 1417x1066px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1417x1066px

>>54030966

>>54030654
>>54030966
>>54030978
Gotta admit, them nips built pretty ships. Even if the armor quality was...variable.

>>54031165
To be fair, the armored ships they built before the Depression were quite good. It's partly their reconstructions which added some variability. Nagato and Mutsu probably fared the best for it.

Yamato's torpedo bulges were so poorly constructed the US Navy didn't even consider them basically effective.

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

112KB, 1280x666px

>>54030654

>>54032503

>secret pre-dreadnought

>>54030654

>when I said "Castles of Steel" you weren't supposed to take it literally, you damned nips

File: oSfm2q7.jpg (790KB, 1900x2561px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 1900x2561px

Post unique.

File: 74e2c2bbcab2103d12de94bbb4d8763b.jpg (69KB, 959x568px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 959x568px

>>54035193
Mate, Nagato's not even that bad.

>>54035259

Vessel name and maker?

File: 1484510856027.jpg (3MB, 3000x1974px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x1974px

>>54035410
SMS Siegfried

>>54031629
>Yamato's torpedo bulges were so poorly constructed the US Navy didn't even consider them basically effective.

Wasn't this also true of the SoDak's and Iowa's torpedo defenses? Something about the outer bulge being too rigid and prone to permitting leakage?

File: thedick.jpg (37KB, 400x436px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x436px

>>54035262
>we need to build HIGHER

>>54036474
It's what's known as "joint efficiency", which has to do with the way the various components are riveted together and their resulting points of failure (it's pretty fucking complicated). 50-60% efficiency was regarded as adequate to get the full rated resistance: Colorado was rated for 400kg of pitric acid with joint efficiency estimated at 70%, Nagato was rated for 500kg with ~65% efficiency, which are both respectable. Bismarck was considered rather overboard, rated for 900kg with an estimated 85% joint efficiency.

Yamato was rated for 520kg, a little more than Nagato's, but with an estimated joint efficiency of 45%. Basically, you had a risk that even if Yamato's defenses could withstand a certain warhead on paper in practice her seams would pop open where they shouldn't. Meaning you might not get fatal penetration, but the flooding would be dangerous.

>>54036783
>Basically, you had a risk that even if Yamato's defenses could withstand a certain warhead on paper in practice her seams would pop open where they shouldn't. Meaning you might not get fatal penetration, but the flooding would be dangerous.

Kinda reminds me of how Bismarck's belt armor was designed in such a way that even Yamato's guns would have basically needed to be pressed up against the hull to fully penetrate it into the vital spaces, because of a 68 degree sloped 4.33'' armored deck positioned such that after penning the main belt a shell would need to penetrate it as well...but this deck is by necessity so low on the ship that holing the main belt is likely to result in flooding, the arrangement forms a few dangerous "shot traps" up above, and it lacks much ability to shatter or decap enemy projectiles.

Anybody got figures for WW2-era Iowa-class shot dispersions? I can only find ones for the post-refit Iowas.

>>54002542
How would yamato be squashed?

Yamato would detect the Iowa hundreds of miles away while Iowa can't fire at ships that are already within her gun range.
Yamato can entirely dictate the engagement and choose her fight, while Iowa would sail around obliviously with its pathetic 40k yards maximum sighting range. it literally cannot fire at ships that are already within the range of her guns. just like what happened with the Nowaki at Truk, which was lost track of at 35k yards

yamato would literally play with Iowa like a puppet, she's slap the Iowa around without the Iowa even realizing where the shells are coming from, because Yamato has a large immunity GUNFIRE zone, and this Immunity zone is even further extended with Iowa's 40k yard detecting radius.

SK MK8 mod.3 can detect 40k yards max, while E-27 Mod.3 can detect radar & Radio wavelength 300km away while emitting very low KW and wavelength while Iowa's crude FCs system and MK8 emits large amounts of radar wavelength, operates at high Voltage, is sensitive and would be the first thing to go out of action under attack, and yet can only detect BATTLESHIP sized targets at 40k yards.

as for American gunnary, it was significantly inferior, 16"/50 cal dispersion was inferior to IJN 18.1" dispersion, two worthy examples are samar & Truk lagoon.

Truk lagoon on its own serves as a huge example of Iowa's overrated gun accuracy being put to shame.

6 main gun hits and 5 secondary hits from 46 16" rounds and 125 5" rounds on a static bismarck-sized target at ONLY 14,500 yards.

6 hits figure is even disputed by a recon pilot who reported TWO large main calibre hits in the hull.

(cont...)

>>54039187
compare that to yamato at samar, fired on USS Johnston, a DD, at a range in excess of 20km, scoring 3 main battery and 3 secondary hits with only one or two salvoes, and before anyone flips for sources, BuShips report on Johnstons 3 large calibre and 3 6" hits that puts Yamato as the ONLY BB that could've fired those 6 rounds...BuShips estimated the Angle of Fall of 3 maingun hits @ 18* which implies 21-22,000yrds, this puts Yamato as the only ship capeble of firing this salvo, she was at 21,000yds at that time, Kongo was 28k yds and her rangefinder was out of action, Nagato and Haruna checked fire at 717.

>>54035262
I hate it when people act like Kongo pagodas are absurd and then just Ignore shit like this.

>>54039749
>kongo - pagoda is just ugly as fuck, turns the whole vessel from somewhat decent looking into high grade eye cancer
>fuso - pagoda is so fucking ridiculously ugly that it becomes beautiful again

>>54039203
The three large caliber hits on Johnston were 36cm. Credit for the 6" hits is disputed.

File: Iowa-class Salute.jpg (420KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1600x900px

>>54039187
Somebody's gonna have to pop in here with greater knowledge, but I'm really damned sure you're comparing *track* range for Iowa to Yamato's *search* range.

>>54040708
I'm fairly sure you're right, the Iowa had much better radar, both for search and fire control. It was also faster. If anybody is going to play with the other, it's going to be the faster ship with superior Radar, and that's definitely not the Yamato.

>>54040987
A funny thing about Yamato's guns is that they were tuned for actually really tight dispersals at long range. ...TOO tight. As in, if you had your range exact, you'd have a good chance of hitting really hard, but if you had your figures even slightly wrong your big derpcluster of shells was actually more likely to miss than a somewhat wider spread of shells.

>>54041042
In that case It would be really nice if the Yamato's radar was as good as the fanboys seem to think it was. But it looks to me like another example of Imperial Japanese autism and over-engineering.

>>54041162
Can agree with that; Yamato with proper tracking radar, better fuses for the diving Type 91 shells, and armor that was better up to common WW2 specs would have been the most terrifying BB ever to sail into action.

which warbote is best warbote

>>54036474
At least they didn't actively make a torpedo hit worse, like the poor Italian BB's that incorporated the Pugliese system.

File: HMS_Legion.jpg (55KB, 800x592px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x592px

>>54042219
I'm just a sucker for the British twin-mount DDs in general, it's a shame they never made a weatherproof mount for the 4-inchers though.

File: Battleship_Roma.jpg (667KB, 3072x1827px) Image search: [Google]

667KB, 3072x1827px

>>54042559
At least they were fine-looking ships.

>>54041162
Speaking of this, can't the Iowa's guns train and fire independently? Making shell dispersion at long range something entirely up to fire control's settings?

Yamato had big scary numbers, but Iowa was made of Yankee space magic.

>>54043240
Yeah, Iowa's turrets are three-gun, not triple. Each gun can elevate independently and any combination/order of guns can be fired, up to the full nine-shot broadside.

>>54043259
Would this also imply that the spread of each turret can be adjusted depending on the range and how confident gunnery is on the accuracy of the firing solution?

>>54043240
Possibly, though I'd still like to find some figures on average shell dispersions from Iowa in WW2. As I said at >>54037978 the only figures I found on Navweapons were for a test in the 1980s using powder compounds and a radar system that wasn't available in WW2.

>>54043296
I imagine so. Certainly would allow for a good bit of flexibility in any case.

File: 2WwXlFD[1].gif (20KB, 938x575px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 938x575px

>>54043302
>the only figures I found on Navweapons were for a test in the 1980s using powder compounds and a radar system that wasn't available in WW2.
Is this the image you're talking about?

>>54043466
I've seen that image before, and I'm not sure if this is exactly the one being referred to, but the quote I found was:

>"As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvements made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made. For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range."

>>54043302
>>54037978
Average shell dispersion on the Iowa was 1% of range with a 3 gun salvo and 1.9% of range with a full salvo circa 1944.

Source: http://www.navweaps.com//index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm
See table in note 26.

It is mentioned that "current" accuracy is much better, but I don't have any statistics for that.

>>54043531
Well, there we go. It's not a one to one comparison, but the enhancements seem to have roughly halved dispersion (the statistics I just posted are ideal numbers, in real world accuracy would be significantly reduced)

>>54043555
>>54043637
Hrm. Using those figures then, the dispersion on the Iowa in WW2 at a range of 38,000 yards would be 722 yards for a full salvo. Dropping to a much better 380 yards if she fires in three-shot ripples rather than letting the entire broadside go all at once. As you say, these are somewhat idealized figures and can probably be bumped up by about 100-150 yards, give or take for various factors, for a practical combat spread. But a spread of ~530 yards with ripple fire ain't bad for 38k yards, I don't think?

>>54043712
>But a spread of ~530 yards with ripple fire ain't bad for 38k yards, I don't think?

It certainly isn't. The source doesn't give any real world figures for the Iowas, but do mention that in a 1941 test using the 16"/45 a seven gun salvo had a dispersion of 2.2%. The source then goes on to mention that the ballistics on the 16"/50 guns used on the Iowas was so similar that ranging tables often combined the two, so 2.2% is a fairly good real world estimation for 1941.

They also mention that "today" accuracy at short ranges is 1.5% and "slightly less" at longer ranges. The statistics you posted might actually be worse than the modern Iowa's true capability, firing the outermost guns on a turret singly throws off the accuracy due to "turret whip". The Navy had to relearn this in the 80s when they recommissioned the Iowas.

>>54043816
>The source then goes on to mention that the ballistics on the 16"/50 guns used on the Iowas was so similar that ranging tables often combined the two, so 2.2% is a fairly good real world estimation for 1941.

That is pretty interesting. I remember seeing somewhere that the 16''/50s could shoot shells at reduced powder load for the express purpose of making them behave like they were shot out of a 16''/45, because the latter gun actually had better deck armor penetrating power. Not sure where I heard that, though.

>>54043712
>>54043816
Yamato's pattern size is given at Navweapons as being around 500-600 yards "at her maximum range", but does not say whether this is for the whole broadside or for careful rippling fire.

File: jUXw6eF[1].jpg (463KB, 1023x684px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1023x684px

>>54043908
Interesting...

Although it's important to note that dispersion=/=accuracy. You can have a very tight dispersion and still miss by a mile of your rangefinding is off. That's where the Iowas really shine, the Yamato couldn't even use its radar to direct fire at useful ranges while the Iowas could fire and maneuver while tracking targets via radar exclusively.

>>54043952
>You can have a very tight dispersion and still miss by a mile of your rangefinding is off

Yep. The Japanese essentially were relying really hard on tight clusters of their diving shells either penetrating the target's deck or hitting the water close enough to cause underwater contacts. Devastating if you got a hit (and if the fuses worked like they were supposed to...), but bloody useless if you didn't range in correctly. Essentially a strategy that exaggerated the flaws in their own fire control systems.

>>54043952
What's this pic from?

>>54044010
In the IJN's defense, when they build and designed those ships optical rangefinding was all there was. Up until 1943 or so the IGN had better accuracy than the USN in most encounters, especially at night.

And the USA invented a completely revolutionary new fire control technology that rendered everything before it obsolete, and retrofitted it onto all of their ships before Japan could even figure out WTF was happening. That's pretty much the entire story of the pacific war, Japan spends 15 years scraping together every penny to build a fleet that can take on the USA's peacetime navy, and then when the war starts the USA near instantly builds a brand new fleet that is over a decade more technologically advanced because the USA is OP.

>>54044162
World of Warships. Fun game, but don't expect a shred of historical accuracy.

>>54044186
To be totally fair, the USN fire control systems did have a few teething problems, though none of them were too terrible. A lot get overblown though. There's this one persistent claim about the Iowa-class always blinding its FCS for 20 minutes after it fired. In truth this was an issue caused by the firing jolt knocking loose some fuses. It didn't happen every time the ship fired, and was a known problem to the point where there was a sailor whose specific job was to park his ass in front of the circuit board and pop any knocked-loose fuses back into place. Usually didn't take longer than 20 seconds to fix the FCS if this happened.

>>54044269
Yeah, although occasionally blowing a few fuses in your radar assisted, computerized fire control system isn't really a big deal when you consider neither radar or computers had existed 8 years prior.

>>54044010
This is Imperial Japan we're talking about, they were quite prone to doing self-defeating stuff.
>ija&ijn's landbased aviation units using same aircrafts? that is fucking crazy talk, m8
>we've seen what uboats did to britain during ww1 and even helped them to combat them on the mediterranean, should we spent even the most token of effort to figure out how to protect our own shipping from enemy submarines? nope
>our new codes have flaws that will make it easy for the allied powers to break them, should we share this info with the navy? fuck those boathomos, we ain't sharing anything with them

Honestly it is a small miracle that they managed to last out as long as they did.

File: uss-iowa-1944-camo.jpg (474KB, 3000x1681px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 3000x1681px

>>54044537
Well, let's not be over-critical. The IJN did have a lot of good ships, their performance in early war battles was quite good, and the Yamato class was an excellent battleship design with some fatal flaws. Consider how many hits it took to put Musashi down for the count.

They did indeed make several boneheaded mistakes, and I definitely agree that under most engagement conditions, the Iowa class would have had a significant advantage over the Yamatos, but you gotta admit, the ol' Kaigun was a worthy adversary.

>>54039187
>on a static bismarck-sized target

I'm gonna stop you there senpai. You're talking about Katori, I'm assuming. Katori was not *static* during that action. She'd been hit by a torpedo earlier but it hadn't done a massive amount of damage; she was still underway and able to maneuver freely. Also, Katori was a fucking CL. She was not even close to "Bismarck-sized"; she was damn near 400 feet shorter and around half the beam.

>>54044653
>Consider how many hits it took to put Musashi down
Fewer than she actually received, if we're being honest. Carrier pilots were never going to say "that looks like enough, let's pack it in boys" and stop raining ordnance on a target that's still under steam, and four torpedo hits had her down nearly two meters by the bow. By the time she was up to seven torpedoes she was down four meters by the bow.

My guess is that by this point she was set to go the same way as Kirishima, where her own counterflooding exposed damage above the waterline to seawater ingress and doomed the ship to a slow death.

>>54044653
Plus, it's not like other navies didn't sometimes make similar mistakes in their operations or doctrine. Britain had...*comically* misguided ideas about anti-aircraft defense going into World War II.

Does anyone know why some ships/subs are painted a red on the bottom half?

>>54048644
Red seems to be the standard colour of anti-barnacle paint. Probably just the cheapest color available.

>>54046874
I would be interested in reading or hearing more about Brit AA going into WW2. I always thought their AA defenses were lacking.

File: Andrea Doria Caio Duilio.jpg (724KB, 1200x787px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 1200x787px

>>54042645
I'm definitely not going to argue otherwise.

>>54042605
Tribals were some good looking boats, and hard used throughout the war.

>>54048644
It's anti-fouling paint intended to resist corrosion and fouling from biological sources like barnacles, algae and plants. It's not always red, just most of the time.

>>54048644
Anti-fouling.

>>54049684
>>54048644
Italians used green.

>>54044537
>Honestly it is a small miracle that they managed to last out as long as they did.

They were pretty much Italy, island instead of peninsula, filled with Japanese instead of Italians.

The one extended campaign between the USN and IJN, over a long enough duration to even out performance spikes, with parity on both sides in forces and position (fleet bases about the same distance from the area of interest, carefully counting every drop of fuel) was Guadacanal, and the loses were almost literally 1-1.

So that's edge mania and maniacal focus gets you, parity until a whole bunch of things erode and numbers tell.

File: Frasier BB56.jpg (91KB, 664x472px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 664x472px

>>54052362
We listen to Frasier for background noise a lot, and in the first season (and I think some of the other episodes that use the same set) I noticed a painting of a warship hanging in the background that I'm pretty sure is Washington. Thought it was a neat touch for a show that was supposed to be set in Seattle.

>>54048791
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-066.htm

Here's a delicious article on the subject.

>>54052822
Hah, nice find.

>>54052822
>I think some of the other episodes that use the same set

Which set? Someone's office?

>>54054788
Well, that's when he was nominated for the annual broadcaster awards, and the painting was hanging in the banquet hall. I honestly can't remember if the other awards episodes are on that same set or not.

File: 1436193246618.gif (538KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 245x320px

>>54053232

Jesus...the thought processes used just hurts. And yet I know at the time it seemed logical.

>>54055446
Gotta give the Britbongs this, they pursued their ideas with aplomb, be they well thought through or tragically misguided.

>>54055285

Thank you. It's on a heavy re-run schedule where I am so I'll look for it.

File: laughingdrills.gif (3MB, 250x255px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 250x255px

>>54055707
>>54055446
>>54053232
>5) Hamer, 1998, p. 44-45, Brown, 2000, p. 209. In what is perhaps the best-known example of the state of Britain's pre-war anti-aircraft capability, in a 1937 firing exercise, a radio-controlled Queen Bee drone, a converted Tiger Moth, was able to fly straight and level at 85 knots around the entire Mediterranean Fleet for over an hour without being hit by a single shell. Brown, 2000, p. 209.

File: 1382147578627.gif (488KB, 500x211px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 500x211px

>>54056061

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avaSdC0QOUM

>>54056061
Normal people would see this happen and go "We've done something terribly, dangerously wrong, this needs to be corrected immediately." but not the royal navy!

>>54057811
Well, they *did* try; they made incremental improvements to the HACS over time, and some of these were decently effective. They just didn't have enough people truly realize until after the war that the very foundational premise of their AA defense strategy was fatally flawed.

>>54057935
>Well, they *did* try

No, they didn't "try" because they did nothing until after men and ships died.

While part of the blame goes to the morons who gave the RAF control over anything remotely associated with aircraft, the RN was guilty of systemic lying on the issue all the way up the chain of command. They knew the system didn't work, their own tests proved the system didn't work, the tactics, doctine, and aircraft being used by other navies showed that the RAF's thinking was faulty, and the RN still did NOTHING.

When the FC system purposely built to defend against the only type of attack the fuckwits at the RAF insists can occur repeatedly fails to defend against that attack, you haven't "tried" at all.

>>54058603
>No, they didn't "try" because they did nothing until after men and ships died.

Well yeah, you're not going to find out if your ideas are going to go well or not until you actually see them perform.

>and the RN still did NOTHING.

They added radar to the system, they improved the speeds which the system could operate with, they added automatic fusing machinery to try and speed things up, etc... These aren't "nothing", they *did* improve the system's effectiveness, but not to the degree they wanted.

>>54058743
>Well yeah, you're not going to find out if your ideas are going to go well or not until you actually see them perform.

They knew the system didn't work well before the shooting war began. Their own tests proved as much and their flag officers said as much. They just didn't care enough to make the effort.

>>These aren't "nothing", they *did* improve the system's effectiveness, but not to the degree they wanted.

Apart from radar, those improvements are NOTHING because they KNEW before the war that those improvement had to be made and STILL DID NOT DO IT. They could have started the war with all of it and CHOSE NOT TO.

They let men and ships DIE because they didn't want to admit they'd knowingly been engaged in systemic lying for decades. The UK and RN weren't the only combatant and service which did that either.

>>54058971
Actually you're wrong about that--improvements and enhancements to the systems were taking place well before the war started. They weren't enough to save Prince of Wales and Repulse, but then again that was as much a strategic blunder as a tactical one. But the way you're telling it it's like they left the HACS at Mk 1 all the way into WWII.

>>54059047
>They weren't enough to save Prince of Wales and Repulse,

Frankly, those ships did as well as any ship could have in 1941. I highly doubt that any of the Standards would have done better.

>>54059436
True enough. The IJN was just dynamite early in the war.

mods are asleep

post county class cruisers

File: CA Kent 1944.png (24KB, 1370x385px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 1370x385px

>>54060338

>>54060460
man, RN may not have been able to shoot planes worth a god damn but fuckkk they made their ships gorgeous.

File: HMS London.jpg (30KB, 905x376px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 905x376px

>>54061743
I actually like London the best of the Counties, at least once her '43 refit fixed her hull issues.

>>54057367
I raise you JPJ.
https://youtu.be/6fKOmQgJaVo

File: British_battleship_HMS_Vanguard_(23)_underway_c1947.jpg (187KB, 1280x956px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1280x956px

So, thought experiment. If HMS Vanguard had been able to serve in WW2, how well do you gentlemen think she would have performed?

>>54064501
She had okay armor and the ability to do most of Iowa's gunnery tricks while being almost as fast as her. Her biggest weakness would probably be her guns; the 15 inchers were perfectly good in the early war, but for late war they were relatively anemic. Still would've been plenty suited to things like shore bombardment, though. And IIRC she had a *proper* anti-aircraft system that would have avoided all the HACS nonsense. Overall, she would've made a fine accounting of herself so long as she didn't eat a square-on broadside from anything firing shells her own size or bigger.

>>54064582
Presuming that it would had taken to build her about as long as did to take build KGV Vanguard would had been finished in late 1944/early 1945 so her only having 15 inch guns would not had been that big of a problem: by that point Italy had surrendered, Tirpitz was crippled/sunk by RAF, Gneisenau was an useless hulk, and only capital ship that Japanese had that could had kept up with her was a pre-WW1 vintage battlecruiser.

>>54065449
All pretty fair points I'd say.

>>54071612
>my bote is best warbote because stripes

File: 1445738716515.jpg (44KB, 383x700px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 383x700px

>>54075026
>central battery ships

>>54075026
Is she about to give birth to a destroyer?

File: 20170409182259_1.jpg (486KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1920x1080px

>>54064582
>but for late war they were relatively anemic

Sorry what?

The BL15 was fucking great. With 6crH Greenboys, probably the best 15 inch gun ever made.

Holds the record for longest hit on a maneuvering ship. Devastatingly effective against heavy armour.

Aside from Yamato, no ship had enough armor to conceivably defend against the BL15, with maybe the KGV just being able to.

Perfectly serviceable weapon.

>>54077684
They were good guns, certainly, but they were still essentially a 30-year-old weapon design by that point. Their original penetration tables were done up with the assumption of a perfect hit at 0 degrees to the normal; in practice they had somewhat less hitting power than that (roughly 15,000 yards range or less to penetrate 353mm of KC armor), which was further aggravated by the shell design being prone to shattering ineffectually on high obliquity hits (that said, when it DID penetrate, the shells got through in a fit state to burst even more often than USN shells did). They also couldn't penetrate much more than 5 inches of deck armor at plunging.

>>54075026

...is that the Redoubtable?

>>54077896
>Their original penetration tables were done up with the assumption of a perfect hit at 0 degrees to the normal

Negative, the Royal navy did practical tests more then any other navy. Their shoot data in the Royal Archives is second to none, they certainly weren't relying on maths alone.

They may have been 30 years old, but when they were first built, they were 10 years ahead of time. They were also constantly updated with new shells, propellant, and elevation tracks, allowing them to keep pace with the guns of every other navy afloat.

Let's compare the deck pen to other ships of the time.
The Italians lied about their gun data, so we can throw all that out.
German data questionable, but arguably much better then the Italian data, shows at 25k yards, a deck pen of about 4.15 inches.
The French are probably the most reliable, and the 15 inch guns on their ships were good for about 4 inches at 25,000 yards (the longest practical gun range)
The American 16 inch/45 did 4.7 inches at 25k yards. (The Japanese 40cm/45 or 16.1 did around the same, but the Japs burned all their data)
The USA 16/45 Mark 6 firing mk8 shells, 5.7 inches at 25k yards

The BL15 did 4.3 inches at 25,000 yards. Entirely respectable, more then any other European ship, being only outclassed by 16 inch guns.

Again, the only ship that could stand up to her guns would be Yamato. In a broadside engagement at 15~20k yards, which is where the bulk of the fighting would occur, whomever hit first would probably decide the battle, more then the type of gun used would.

>>54078810
>Negative, the Royal navy did practical tests more then any other navy

All the figures I can find on Navweapons except for the ones partially based on the USN Empirical Armor Penetration formula state they are for 90 degree inclination--i.e., a perfect hit at 0 degrees obliquity.

>They were also constantly updated with new shells, propellant, and elevation tracks, allowing them to keep pace with the guns of every other navy afloat.

To my knowledge, however, the shattering issue at obliquities over 20 degrees was never satisfactorily resolved on this gun.

>The BL15 did 4.3 inches at 25,000 yards. Entirely respectable, more then any other European ship, being only outclassed by 16 inch guns.

Will agree there; 4.3 at 25k yards is perfectly good.

>Again, the only ship that could stand up to her guns would be Yamato. In a broadside engagement at 15~20k yards, which is where the bulk of the fighting would occur, whomever hit first would probably decide the battle, more then the type of gun used would.

Strictly speaking, she wouldn't have been able to penetrate the Bismarck or Tirpitz's citadel side-on, but this is just due to the ingenious belt design of the Bismarck class that forces any shell wanting to get into there to go through both the main belt and a 68 degree sloped armored deck. Even the Yamato wouldn't have been able to do it unless her guns were pressed right up against Bismarck's side, and even then it'd be a maybe.

Still, her deck pen is at least her best asset. In side pen the BL15 is soundly thrashed by the 38cm SK C/34.

>>54043302 >>54043712 >>54043908 >>54043816 >>54043952
> topic of Iowa/Yamato's accuracy

To really compare the Yamato's accuracy and the Iowa's accuracy, you have to standardize the formula used to compare them.
Yamato's known error ('spread', the wider of ranging error and deflection error) is a 'Standard Error', as recorded in the US Technical Mission to Japan.
The US did not list Artillery accuracy by Standard Errors until well after the war, the US gave range/deflection errors in maximums.
Therefore, you have to convert the two into the other to understand what you are looking at.

For those 2% of you who don't know, let me give the old rule of thumb for Artillery Standard Deviation:
"65% of shells will hit within one standard error, 95% will hit within two standard errors, 99.68% will hit within 2.5 standard errors, and the remainder was needed by God."
Essentially, ignore the .32% as outliers.

Assuming the Japanese were being truthful in their claims (benefit to the Yamato here), and we will go with the smallest number given (438 meters/ 479 yards) and multiply by 2.5, which gives the Yamato a Maximum Dispersion of a (seemingly) whopping 1197.5 yards (2.6% of range); but roughly 65% of those shells will land within a much more comfortable 479 yards (1.04% of range), which was honestly remarkably good shooting for what they had to work with.
This was actually considered excellent the world over... for World War One, the standards of which the Japanese were still using.
To make this worse, according to the US Technical Mission to Japan (immediately post war), this error (479 yards) was while the Yamato was anchored, shooting at land based targets that she knew the exact geographical location of on the map, in perfect weather for shooting - one gun firing at a time. Essentially, everything was as perfect as they could make it, and entirely unrealistic for battle conditions.

(cont below for Iowa's)

File: 16-inch50accuracy.jpg (50KB, 692x214px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 692x214px

>>54079529
Now let's look at the Iowa, the Maximum Dispersion of which we already know (804.55 yards, or 1.9% of range).
Reduce by 60%, and you have a standard error of 321.82 yards (0.75% of range).
Now understand the situation these figures were taken in. The US ship based Gun Trials happened at sea, against targets on rafts (also at sea), and they happened at X date and X time, (light) rain or shine; the testing ships were also expected to be moving at battle speed while firing; and this was from a full salvo, where every shot was throwing off the other shots.
Three round Ripple Fire (which gave the same effect as only firing single shots, and is the closest comparison data we have between the Iowa and Yamato's tests), gave the Iowa a 1% Maximum Ranging Error, or 423.45 yards. That is 169.38 yards at maximum range, and was how the Iowas were drilled for shooting (after data from the Washington - Kirishima battle had come back).
This, by the by, meshes nicely with the after action reports from the Iowa-class' shore bombardments during the War, where their deviation was 'about 150 yards'.
Although unknown for the Yamato, the Deflection Error for the Iowa in WW2 was 'roughly 53 yards at maximum range' (the source did not list degrees/mils), which was also considered exceptional.
This was improved drastically in the 1980s, see pic related, it's from an official report on the Iowas' gunnery, and it's for salvo fire.
There is a reason Iowa's nickname was the 'Sniper of the Seas' in Korea.

You really cannot compare the Iowa and the Yamato's accuracies, they were worlds apart.

And, yes, >>54043868 , the 'Reduced Service Load' existed to give the 16"/50s better Deck Penetration, but they actually ended up performing better than the 16"/45s in that role due to being able to throw the shells farther (which meant more penetration.

>>54079541
>That is 169.38 yards at maximum range
*That is a standard error of 169.38 yards at maximum range

>>54079529
>>54079541
Huh, remarkable. What's your source on the Yamato's best recorded numbers being from anchored firing at static targets? Not that I utterly disbelieve, but it's not a statement I've seen before.

>>54079641
> according to the US Technical Mission to Japan
It was actually a criticism from the above mentioned document, my memory tells me.
Honestly, that particular point could be left out, assuming the tests were done at sea under the same conditions as the Iowas', and the numbers would still paint a bad picture for the Yamato in this comparison.

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

222KB, 1091x1024px

>>54079815
Fair. Is the text of those technical mission documents available online anywhere?

>>54079862
Sure.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200F-0384-0445%20Report%20O-45%20N.pdf

This is the specific report on the 18.1in guns, but the whole thing can be accessed here:
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ_toc.htm
Mind the small systematic errors in the document (you get some strange numbers when the writers converted to or from metric because mutual misunderstandings on that between the Americans and the Japs), but otherwise it's quite revealing on most things IJN.

However, having checked, it (the 18in gun document) says nothing in particular about the conditions of the test firing besides that they were 'dour to five gun salvos' and that 'when firing broadsides, the spread was larger than this', which does not paint pretty images for the Yamato. (You want page 61 in the viewer, 6a on that page.)
Willing to eat my mis-remembrance there.

File: Absolutely Halal.jpg (8KB, 248x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 248x250px

>>54080157
Very interesting stuff, thank you!

>>54078533
The one and only.

File: uboat-courierpost.jpg (379KB, 1500x1100px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1500x1100px

Awful lot of surface tonnage in this thread.

Would be a right shame if anything were to happen to it.

There's been some mumblings of getting a naval wargame group going at my FLGS. Our desires are

>WW2
>A point-buy system or similar that lets us write up our own orders of battle rather than just reusing historical ones (We like our 'what if' scenarios and outright alternate history
>Probably relatively low on the autism scale, prioritizing fun and balance more than historical accuracy

Are there any systems that fit this?

>>54082434
Naval War: https://www.naval-war.com/

>>54082454
Nice, thanks, this is what I want.

>>54078810
>The Italians lied about their gun data

For real?

>>54082563
Yeah, I think Navweaps talks about it. The Regina Marina let the shell-producing firms provide the ammo for the tests rather than selecting shells themselves. This often resulted in getting shells that were of greatly above-average quality for tests, so you could end up with a situation not unlike having a master sharpshooter firing a match-barreled version of a rifle with match ammo, and expecting the results of that to reflect what Joe Grunt could do with the normal version of that rifle.

Still, if you got a good batch of shells, the Italian 381mm guns could hit more like 406mm guns against side armor, with surprisingly good accuracy. However they often had pretty rough dispersions, more poorly made shells didn't hit nearly so hard, and even with *good* ammo the guns wore out like twice as fast as other 15 inch guns.

>>54082349
>U-85 no survivors
>U-157 no survivors
>U-158 no survivors
>U-215 no survivors
>U-576 no survivors
>U-166 no survivors
>U-754 no survivors
>U-176 no survivors
>U-869 no survivors
>U-866 no survivors
>U-857 no survivors
>U-548 no survivors
>U-879 no survivors
>U-853 no survivors

I can't think of a worse fate than being a submariner.

>>54082888
Took serious balls of brass to sign on for that duty, it did.

>>54082963
It paid super well, didn't it?

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

299KB, 1280x995px

>>54083010
Far as I know it did.

Unrelated: Man, the more I look at the ol' Nelsol-class the more it grows on me.

>>54083703
Ships like this always make me think of Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai.

File: Askold1901Kiel.jpg (500KB, 2400x1698px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 2400x1698px

>>54083703
>>54083811
we need to go STACKIER

File: CL 12 at speed.jpg (217KB, 1448x1060px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1448x1060px

>>54082349
I've gotten pretty fond of her and Rodnol too.

>>54084372
FIVE stacks? That way lies madness anon!

>>54084473
That's USS Marblehead in your pic, right?

>>54083703
>>54083811
>>54084372

Man, I hope Fredrik will (at least provide an option to) have RtW2 start in 1870's ...

>>54084904
> Tech all the way from 1870s to 1950s
Please, my penis can only become so erect.

File: USS Marblehead Alongside Glasgow At Simonstown.jpg (34KB, 591x571px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 591x571px

>>54084686
Yep!

>>54084904
>sooner or later some lunatic would try to keep his starting casemate ships in service through the whole game

>>54085280
>But think of the glory if he had won

>>54085280
> Pre-badnoughts
My god, how blind were we not to see the opportunities, the brilliance!

>>54085280

>tfw a 12" gun's RoF is 10 shots per hour.

All-day battles coming through.

>>54083010
Good pay was probably enough to get people to sign up in the beginning when the odds were still on their side (only 10 - 20 % chanse of horrible death each time you set to sea!), but at the end of the war four out of five submarines that set out would never return. Of the 40 000 men who served aboard German submarines during the war, about 30 000 died at sea.
And yet the morale of the submarine corps never faltered. That takes some balls to keep fighting like that, knowing full well that the odds are you will not return from the mission.

>>54085976
I mean, when does it stop being balls and just become madness?

>>54086021
When you get stuff like DC throwers and hedgehogs that drastically increase the area dds can project ASW in.

I'm looking at playing a small game of Naval War this evening and liveposting the progress of the battle here.

Would you lads be interested in seeing that?

If so, what kind of battle?

On offer:
>Denmark Strait
>USS Wasp vs IJN Shoukaku (plus small surface escort each), at fairly close range.
>ABDA vs IJN cruiser battle
>IJN vs (RN or USN) surface battle, involving BB/BC scale vessels.
>IJN vs (RN or USN) surface battle, involving CA/CL + DD scale vessels.

File: Deployment.jpg (417KB, 864x648px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 864x648px

>>54088158
Definitely.

I'd prefer the RN vs IJN surface, then maybe Wasp vs Shoukaku.

One of these days, I'll have a Saturday free again, and get to do the Battle of Norway game I've been wanting to do for a while, and post another writeup.

>>54079529
>>54079541
The whole thing is: one lucky hit can decide a battle, see Bismarck vs. Hood.
Both Iowa and Yamato had such big guns that a single lucky hit or salvo could easily have crippled or even destroyed the other ship.

>>54088623
To "get lucky" you first have to be dropping tight groupings on target.

>>54088158
wasp and shokaku

>>54088158
>>54088323
>>54090625
Failed to find my tokens, so I'll probs be playing the battle itself tomorrow.
Could make the lists before going to sleep, tho.

So far, one vote for Brits vs Japs and two votes (one on the /tg/ FoW Discord) for Wasp vs Shoukaku.

For the case of the carrier battle, I'm thinking small escorts, like 3-4 destroyers and maybe a cruiser.
Otherwise, there probs wouldn't be enough focus on the carriers themselves.

>>54089040
Though depending on range, not too tight lest your shells start arriving too clustered together to allow for some error.

>>54091026
Are you going by an OOB or just going to do points?

If just point buy, I'd say pick a flotilla leader like a Nagara or Sendai for IJN, and maybe an Atlanta for USN.

>>54091182
Planning to do something Solomons-era ish.

>>54091182
>Atlanta

Aw yiss. Smite your foe with all the 5 inch guns.

>all the stuff above about British derpiness in anti-aircraft warfare
>ctrl-f "7 inch Unrotated Projectile"
>0 results

I am disappoint, /nwg/. The UP is probably the best example of goofy British shit in the AA department.

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

>>54092964
I had forgotten about those things.
Totally need a ship armed with those for AA, with the enormous recoilless rockets the Russians tried for surface weapons.

>>54094747
>with the enormous recoilless rockets the Russians tried for surface weapons.

Oh man. Might you know where more info about that can be read? That sounds hilarious.

>>54094826
https://www.shapeways.com/product/3NSSSSTS3/engels-1-1800?optionId=61697273
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orfey-class_destroyer
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/5vfv59/soviet_orfeyclass_destroyer_engels_armed_with_a/

I feel like I had found an actual write up somewhere before, but it's eluding me now.

File: 1366787396807.jpg (83KB, 762x668px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 762x668px

>>54095340
>they mounted it to a destroyer

/nwg/, your thread needs more model pictures. They're such pretty minis, please post them :(

File: image.jpg (82KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x533px

>>54096030
David Manley's ACW collection.

File: image.jpg (90KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x533px

>>>54096560

File: image.jpg (101KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x533px

>>54096572

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4032x2272px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x2272px

>>54096586
Some of NEA's Dogger Bank stuff he's posted before (I think, it looks like his basing)

File: image.jpg (120KB, 720x537px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 720x537px

>>54096607
Some really sexy RM stuff from a FB group I'm a member of.

File: image.jpg (138KB, 720x481px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 720x481px

>>54096641

File: image.jpg (205KB, 597x720px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 597x720px

>>54096652

>>54096607
>Dogger Bank stuff

For a second, I thought somebody had actually wargamed the Dogger Bank Incident.

>>54096898
>the fishing fleet has to stay alive a certain number of turns
>the Russians have to either sink the fishing fleet or not sink each other

>>54098581
Fishing fleet must get the Russians to sink each other.

Russians have to not sink too many fishing trawlers, or the Royal Navy will come say hello.

The Russian player will obviously only have somewhat indirect control of his ships. Perhaps just a specific number of orders per turn to represent Rozhestvensky screaming at that person in specific to do what he's supposed to, while everything else goes on a random behaviour table since Rozhestvensky isn't overseeing that in person right then.

File: victory.jpg (28KB, 390x310px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 390x310px

>>54099120
Yes. Yessss.

File: TigerXTurretRoofSP1597.png (817KB, 1035x1190px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 1035x1190px

>>54100090
>"Oi, skipper, is Jutland over yet?"

File: The Stage is Set.jpg (5MB, 3096x4128px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3096x4128px

Early December, 1941, somewhere near Singapore.

After the strikes on Pearl Harbour, the Japanese have launched a lightning offensive against Britain's colonial holdings in southeast asia.
Now, a Japanese invasion force has been spotted approaching Singapore.

The choice is made to attempt interception.
After a number of furious arguments, it is decided that all available air assets will be used to protect Force Z from air attack on the way in.

The plan seems to be working, at a heavy price to ABDA airpower, until large enemy vessels are detected between Force Z and the projected location of the landing force.
The Imperial Japanese Navy's escort force has intercepted the British.

File: RN Force.jpg (4MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4128x3096px

>>54100308
Force Z is led by the brand-new battleship Prince of Wales.
With her teething problems fixed since her fight against Bismarck, she is among the most effective battleships in the world at this time.

Supporting her is the battlecruiser HMS Repulse, adding a considerable amount of 15-inch firepower.

As a screening force, the destroyers HMS Express, HMS Electra and HMAS Vampire are joining the capital ships.

A significant force.
But will it be enough? The fate of Singapore hangs in the balance.

File: IJN Force.jpg (5MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4128x3096px

>>54100434
Opposing them is part of the IJN cover force.

Fast battleships Kirishima and Hiei were in position to respond.
Though neither is a match for a battleship like PoW solo, they do posess significant firepower.

Kagerou-class destroyers Amatsukaze and Yukikaze have also rushed in, ready to support the grand old ladies of the IJN and hopefully introduce some capital ships to the merits of the Long Lance torpedo.

File: Turn 1.jpg (4MB, 3096x4128px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3096x4128px

>>54100458
Turn 1 initiative goes to the Royal Navy, who decide that the IJN will have to move first.

The Japanese vessels charge forward, with the destroyer screen turning straight towards the Brits and going to flank speed.

The British force also goes to flank speed and turns hard to port, hoping to cross the T of the Japanese force.
This also means their destroyers are now essentially leading the capital ships in a column.

All ships are still outside effective range, though that should change any minute now.

File: Turn 2.jpg (5MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4128x3096px

>>54100538
In turn 2, the IJN win initiative and decide to go first.

Both destroyer screen attempt to rush forward at flank speed, but in both cases things go wrong.
Amatsukaze and HMAS Vampire both strain their propulsion too much, damaging it and forcing their squadronmates to slow down so they can stay together.

The IJN battlecruisers also move forward, into firing range of HMS Prince of Wales.

The British destroyers open fire at Yukikaze, dealing minor damage but causing casualties and chaos among the engineering sections. However, their attempts at a higher rate of fire disregarding safety procedures results in some guns on Express and Encounter out of action.
Return fire from the front guns on the IJN destroyers scores some hits, but to no effect.

Prince of Wales turns further to port, preparing to face the IJN battlecruisers broadside on.
Repulse can't complete the turn in time and remains out of range.

Then, Hiei's foreward guns open fire at Prince of Wales and find their range almost instantly.
Minor damage is dealt and a fire is started.
Kirishima follows up with a full broadside, also finding the range thanks to a stroke of luck. All her fire bounces off PoW's thick armour, though.
Her secondary weapons also range in on HMS Express, though they deal no damage.

Prince of Wales returns fire, also ranging in and damaging Kirishima's A turret.
Effective damage control manages to keep the turret in action, though.
Similarly, Amatsukaze's engines are restored to full functionality.

On the other end, damage control crews on PoW also manage to put out the fire.

Problems on Yukikaze's engineering and Vampire's priopulsion are not so easily fixed, though.

>>54079529
>>54079541
For what it's worth, there is one known case of Yamato undertaking gunnery trials against something like a mobile target. She tested her guns against the hulk of the pre-dreadnought ship Nisshin, and sank it. The hulk was towed by another battleship, Mutsu. I don't know what the speed or the range of that test was, though.

File: Turn 3 overview.jpg (4MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4128x3096px

>>54100755
Turn 3.
Royal Navy win the initiative and elect to go first.

Both capital ship squadrons turn to almost-parallel course, allowing them to engage broadside on.

Then the Brits open up, disregarding safety for fire rate.
Unfortunately for the Brits, the broadside mostly misses, with the sole hit actually deflected by Kirishima's armour.
Repulse is much more fortunate. Her ranging volleys are almost immediately on target and score multiple hits focused around Kirishima's secondary armaments, which are knocked out. Fires also start raging around them.

Kirishima's return fire is rather limited, scoring some hits but very little damage, only disabling some secondary guns.
Hiei's fire, on the other hand, is devastating. She manages to score plunging hits down into PoW's engineering spaces, dealing heavy damage, starting fires and reducing her effective speed. Her captain decides to keep her in the fight, though.
Hiei's tertiary guns also deal light damage to Express, setting her aflame.

The British destroyers charge towards the IJN battlecruisers, determined to deliver their torpedoes or sink trying.
Instead of trying to stop the Brits, the IJN destroyers speed past them, one launching a spread at the destroyers, the other at HMS Repulse...

The destroyers exchange fire, with only Yukikaze dealing some damage to HMS Express.

Damage control is mostly effective on both sides, with Prince of Wales extinguishing almost all her fires and restoring normal propulsion.
However, fire continues to rage on HMS Express, so her captain decides to vacate the battlefield.

Then, the torpedoes start hitting...

File: Turn 3 IJN capitals.jpg (4MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4128x3096px

>>54101040
The already-battered Kirishima takes 4 more hits, leaving her barely afloat, crippled and breaking off from the battle.
Hiei also takes several hits.
Although they are mostly deflected by her armour, some fires and heavy flooding are caused.

Vampire's torpedoes were launched too eagerly and ended up out of range.
Amatsukaze's volley was dodged by the British destroyers.

However, three of Yukikaze's torpedoes manage to hit HMS Repulse.
These deal heavy damage, though Repulse's flooding-prevention efforts prove quite effective.

Our next turn will probably be the last.

File: Turn 4.jpg (4MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4128x3096px

>>54101044
The IJN win initiative on turn 4 and elect to move first.

Their first move is to send their destroyers into torpedo range for the British battlewagons.

The Brits respond by opening up against Hiei with maximum rate of fire.
However, some things go awry.
Prince of Wales's main battery turned out to be not quite fixed enough for this fire rate, leaving her quad 'A' turret non-functional and causing her other fire to miss in the confusion.
Her secondaries do manage to deal minor damage to Yukikaze, but not enought to stop a torpedo launch.

Repulse is much more effective, scoing multiple hits on Hiei's X and Y turrets, knocking them both out of action.

Yukikaze and Amatsukaze launch their remaining torpedoes, causing PoW and Repulse to turn into them to reduce their odds of being struck.

Hiei's A and B turrets continue pounding Prince of Wales, finding more gaps in her deck armour and doing enough damage that her captain decides he must break off to preserve the ship.
Her secondary armament also manages to finish off HMS Express.

Further firing between the destroyers forces Yukikaze to break off and causes slight damage to HMS Electra.

Repulse and Prince of Wales mostly succeed at their damage control, but PoW fails to rally and continues fleeing the battlefield.

Hiei has less luck with her damage control and gets crippled by the flooding damage.
Her captain refuses to break off, however.

Repulse and goes evasive as the torpedoes come speeding in.
Still, one hits home, dealing serious damage and causing some flooding, but nothing critical.

PoW gets lucky and avoids all four torpedoes heading her way.

With that, both sides have at least half of their force´s fighting strength broken off or destroyed, so both disengage to lick their wounds.

File: Forces.jpg (5MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4128x3096px

>>54101199
So, how must we judge the results of this battle?

The IJN have had two of their old fast battleships heavily damaged, to the point where they will need major repair.
Fortunately, aerial dominance in the region means that they should be able to return the vessels to a friendly port slowly but safely.
This might not work for Kirishima, though, if damage control had taken too long shoring up the flooding she had when fleeing the battlefield.
One of their two destroyers had also taken some damage, but Yukikaze should be fit for duty again relatively soon.

Having both Prince of Wales and Repulse heavily damaged is rather bad, but there is also the question of these nigh-crippled vessels would be able to make it back to a friendly port safely considering the amount of Japanese airpower around.
Losing a perfectly good destroyer is another loss, though at least Electra and Vampire should be fine.

While this might have been a draw (or slight British win) in a tactical sense, the strategic picture is a lot more dire for the Allies.

With the amount of damage sustained, a strike against IJN invasion forces is no longer possible, probably dooming Singapore.
While the temporary loss of a pair of fast battleships would be impractical for the IJN, fuel constraints mean this is less of an issue than one would think.

Overall, I'd say this result is better for the British than the historical one, though the historical outcome was pretty close to worst-case.

>>54101304
>>54101199
>>54101044
>>54101040
>>54100755
>>54100538
>>54100434
>>54100308
Nice read as always! Thanks! Your brits seem to fare about as well as my IJN typically do.

>>53998517
the iowa is a relatively better battleship, but the Yamato could take more punishment.

that said, either one would be toast if the other got in a few good hits.

>>54101304
What's your take on Naval War in general, as a gaming system?

>>54106937
I might be a bit biased, as one of the more active playtesters, but here we go.

I quite like it for striking a balance between complexity and playability, with the command stations adding nice national character touches.
I do feel that era-specific command stations might be in order for some navies, though.

I understand people wanting simpler rulesets (like Axis&Allies) and more simulationist ones (most other ones on the market), but this is a level I enjoy.

Another thing I like is the level of community involvement in the development; the order in which stuff is added to the ruleset is based on what players ask, with a focus on fleshing out the early-war stuff first.

>>54107030
Good to know. Thank you.

>>54079049
>Strictly speaking, she wouldn't have been able to penetrate the Bismarck or Tirpitz's citadel side-on, but this is just due to the ingenious belt design of the Bismarck class that forces any shell wanting to get into there to go through both the main belt and a 68 degree sloped armored deck

Don't believe Nazi propaganda. The 15 inch gun was perfectly serviceable against Bismark.

>>54108821
>Don't believe Nazi propaganda

That's not from Nazi propaganda, it's from Nathan Okun's dissertations on the subject.

>>54108821
>The 15 inch gun was perfectly serviceable against Bismark.

Not mutually exclusive with that fact. While Bismarck's citadel was largely impenetrable side-on, she had other design flaws in the belt design that meant that hits that holed the belt without penning the citadel were likely to cause bad flooding of the struck side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSy9D3He6q0

Any Euroanons about to say whether or not this movie was good?

>>54109008
>Impenetrable citadel

Yeah, the fractured conning tower, destroyed turrets, and non-stop flooding on her final action certainly speaks to the 'impenetrability' of the bismark's armor.

The Bismark was a WW2 boat with a WW1 design. Her armor layout was outdated, roughly as good as that on the Revenge class.

>>54110223
>Yeah, the fractured conning tower, destroyed turrets, and non-stop flooding on her final action certainly speaks to the 'impenetrability' of the bismark's armor.

I'm talking about her citadel specifically; none of those things fell under that. It's really WHY Bismarck took the sheer mauling she did in her final engagement.

>>54108943
The relevant article; the section that discusses this is towards the bottom and can be found easily by ctrl-fing "I am repeating some of my discussion that I did for the BISMARCK's deck armor previously to prevent you, the reader, from having to hunt for the details needed in these computations."

>>54110454
and I forgot to post the link because I am apparently fucking drunk or something: http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

File: PhotoWW1-40QShipsWonganella1PS.jpg (71KB, 900x552px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 900x552px

>WHO LOVES Q-SHIPS

I LOVE Q-SHIPS

>>54113940
HMS Warspite looked so damned good after her refit.

Are there any good alternate history/build-your-own-surface ship tabletop naval wargames out there?

>>54115367
I think that /hwg/ was once messed around with concept, not sure if anything ever came out of it though.

>>54115842
Occasional reminder that the US Navy BuShips kept tossing around Montana-class Designs until 1952.
The more absurd ones came in late 1943-1945, based on the Scheme 8 hull plans, with twelve 18" guns, two Des Moines type 8" turrets, and a full run of 20 Worcester type 6"DP turrets in place of the 5in guns, and were over 1200' long.
The US actually did have H-44likes, apparently, but unlike the German navy, the US actually considered building this monster.
In other news, the USN of the time was insane.
But I repeat myself.

>>54115996
>twelve 18" guns, two Des Moines type 8" turrets, and a full run of 20 Worcester type 6"DP turrets in place of the 5in guns, and were over 1200' long.

So basically, the USN was seriously considering building basically a gigantic, modernized pre-dreadnought type of battleship.

>>54115996
Fits in with other weird shit they're thinking about building back then.

>>54114036
Valiant looked better.

>>54117256
>this cruiser is ~20 meters longer than a Nagato-class battleship

>>54110401
>It's really WHY Bismarck took the sheer mauling she did in her final engagement

All battleships could do that. Bismark lost all her fighting inside of fifteen minutes.

>>54121505
Most battleships would have at least been at some risk for direct damage into critical inner spaces which would speed up the process. At the ranges she was engaged at, Bismarck wasn't, which meant that she was instead doomed to die a slow death of a thousand cuts.

>>54121623
Not from the naval guns at least. The torpedoes on the other hand~

>>54121623
>direct damage into critical inner spaces

You mean her conning tower (wrecked) turrets (wrecked) machinery spaces (wrecked) superstructure (wrecked)

>>54121691
Most of those aren't located deep inside the citadel, and her machinery was mostly indirectly wrecked over time due to the flooding rather than directly blown up by a bursting penetrator.

>Bismark *would* sink the thread...

What a waste of steel, artillery, mean, and dock time.

>>54122171
Eh, Tirpitz was even more so. At least Bismarck actually cut a notch on her coup stick.

>>54122340
New thread on deck: >>54122848