/nwg/ Naval Wargames General

Neat! Never saw a triple deck in air pics. Were they any good?

>>54282969
Just started reading the article on it. Apparently no.

I'm surprised they didn't try using catapults for the lower decks since they weren't long enough for heavier aircraft to take off from.

>>54283053
Like hangar cats? Could work, but, how you recover the aircraft? Using the upper deck? That would overwhelm it

>>54283098
They wanted to be able to launch fighters from the lower 2 decks at the same time the upper one was recovering them. Theory being this would give them better utility in combat.
Reality didn't seem to have agreed with the designers as newer planes needed longer decks to take off. It's an interesting idea though.

>That would overwhelm it
They must have thought Kaga capable of recovering them quick enough to try the 3 deck design.
I don't think the addition of catapults would have worsened that, though ultimately it's just speculation.

>>54283276
Well, my bad. If they planned to use the upper to only recover planes, no problem then.

The idea is, ofc, interesting, but hardly effective, I think. You would have to wait for too long to put planes in the air again, as they would need to be lowered, rearmed and refueled. You can do this quickly with few planes, but not so much when you are launching entire squadrons.

File: image.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>54283098
Should have been glorious seaplane tender. At least then wonky lower deck catapults would have worked out, or else you could have upper cats and two lower decks for recovery.

>>54283426
Maybe the lower decks could be equipped with emergency arresting nets, to allow them to recover planes. It would be difficult, but still a possibility.

>>54283426
>upside down

One of the downsides of operating near Australia?

File: USS Gunston Hall IJN Chitose HSK 2 Atlantis.jpg (3MB, 1200x2700px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1200x2700px

>>54284305
>If down is up and up is down, then wouldn't it be an upside of operating near Australia?

All I had on my phone was the old raw pic, and iphone is a dick sometimes about stubbornly insisting that certain pictures cannot ever be oriented right.

As soon as I saw that it did that, I was hoping someone would make the Australia joke.

>>54283276
>>54283360
HMS Furious was originally fitted with something similar, so it's not just the IJN. Nobody really knew what features would be useful or desirable at that point in the game.

File: 1385036646.jpg (3MB, 3398x2719px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3398x2719px

>>54287288
The slightly less derpy twin decks of Furious.

File: Brazilian_battleship_Minas_Geraes_firing_a_broadside.jpg (1MB, 1857x1332px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1857x1332px

GIVE THEM A BROADSIDE

File: AAG_zps045b2727.jpg (136KB, 1024x754px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1024x754px

>>54288565
I dunno how to feel about the Furious

We missed out on an 18" armed battlecruiser but we got this nice carrier

File: iowa class broadside.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>54288574
BOOM BABY BOOM

>>54289129
She would never have continued with the 18" gun. Early firing tests suggested her hull couldn't withstand repeated firing of the gun.

Though a 30kt seaplane cruiser with 5.5" casemates and an aft twin 15" turret would've been neat.

File: YamatoClassBattleships.jpg (140KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1024x768px

posting hotels

File: Hotel, Botel, Horiday Inn.jpg (81KB, 744x451px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 744x451px

>>54293987

>>54293987
>>54294024
I heard somewhere that the Yamatos actually still had voice tubes as the main intra-ship communications system.

>>54294690
They were simple and somewhat reliable. If it works well, why to change it?

Also, multiple-deck carriers are derpy no matter how many they have. Do you think that multiple decks would work in modern day carriers?

Sup, /nwg/

I'm reading Master And Commander, the first one, and someone mentioned "a pair of mortars" as possible weapons for HMS Sophie, the main ship of the book(A sloop)

It's April of 1800, and I've never heard of mortars being used as naval weapons anywhere around that time period. Is this accurate? If so, are these mortars like the arcing guns we think of today or something that just shares the name?

>>54295817
>Is this accurate?

Yup, ships that carried mortars as their primary armament were still very much a thing circa Napoleonic wars.

>>54295817
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_vessel

Long story short, naval mortars are what were launching the "bombs bursting in air" mentioned in The Star-Spangled Banner.

File: Ft._Henry_bombardement_1814[1].jpg (158KB, 1004x735px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1004x735px

>>54295817
>Is this accurate?
Yes, actually. Here's a period engraving of the Battle of Baltimore during the war of 1812, which inspired The Star Spangled Banner. The "bombs bursting in air" were shrapnel shells.

>If so, are these mortars like the arcing guns we think of today or something that just shares the name?

Indeed they were, and for the most part they were built identically to ground based mortars. Much like their terrestrial brethren, naval mortars served primarily to attack forts, shooting projectiles up and over walls. They aren't as accurate at hitting ships however, which is why they weren't commonly carried by most ships of the line.

>>54295935
>>54295919
>>54295910
Cool, thanks all. Had no idea.

>>54295536
Have an airlock door-type arrangement at the forward end of the hangar, catapult fully inside airlock for easy maintenance/reduced weathering..
Keep the angled deck for smaller aircraft, but move the tower so that a C-130 will fit going straight forward

>>54295956
Could you ever land a C-130 on a carrier or would it be limited entirely to Doolittle-style stuff?

File: c130_5[1].jpg (95KB, 640x700px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 640x700px

>>54295988
Considering the USN actually did that shit back in the 60s, that's a big yes there boss.

The tried it with the U-2 too.

>>54296007
>>54295935
>Come into /nwg/
>immediately learn two cool things
I think I'm going to like it here.

>>54295956
Could the aircraft be recovered using emergency nets in this system?

>>54295988
Yes, it can be done. With JATO bottles you can even launch it. The Nimitzs are pretty big, have no doubt about their capabilities.

>>54296038
I came because this OP, and found an enjoyable conversation. My tens, guys.

Also, anyone played the vidya Carrier Deck?

>>54296076
Seems to me they'd be harder to recover just because closer to the water. In rough seas you'd be more likely to lose them.

Maybe if your core deck aircraft were clear weather planes, and your top deck aircraft were all weather?

>>54296103
Maybe, yes. Or you could use that second deck in plain seas. It would allow for faster launch and recovery, but reducing hangar space. Anyway, most A/c are deck-parked, so that wouldn't be a big issue.

File: carrier_02[1].jpg (30KB, 550x357px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 550x357px

>>54296076
>Yes, it can be done. With JATO bottles you can even launch it. The Nimitzs are pretty big, have no doubt about their capabilities.

Just to reiterate, in 1963 the USN test landed and took off a C-130 from the USS Forestall, a carrier over 100 feet shorter than a Nimitz, without the use of nets or JATO rockets. The C-130 is a supremely capable aircraft.

Source: https://theaviationist.com/2014/07/16/c-130-land-on-carrier/

>>54296143
I knew that test were ran in those years, but thought they used JATO Bottles. This is bonus points. So, could C-130s used in carrier replenishment ops?

File: Look-ma-no-hook[1].jpg (91KB, 800x635px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x635px

>>54296263
In theory, yes. The C-130 could flt 2,5000 miles and carry 25,000 lbs to the deck of a carrier. This is far more weight than has ever been put down on a flight deck, before or since, and the C-130 could take off with its max payload and still have over 200 feet of ship length to spare.

In practice, on landing the wingtips passed just 15 feel from the the island so a single unexpected swell could fatally disrupt operations. All other aircraft had to be cleared from the deck for safety, and there was absolutely no way they'd every be able to take that massive hunk of aluminum below deck for maintenance.

It was a neat idea, but building the C-2 Greyhound ended up being far more practical

File: USS_Wisconsin_(BB-64)_in_formation_1952.jpg (227KB, 1280x1020px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1280x1020px

>>54296335
Even with all the prep they had to make that is still hella impressive.

>>54296335
Yes, seems a better idea. But the possibility exists.

>>54296819
Sure

File: Hill_Krisitn_OpFHC64_wbst[1].jpg (182KB, 1279x584px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1279x584px

>>54296819
I would argue that operating the U-2 from a carrier was the greater achievement. We're talking about and aircraft with 5 feet wider wingspan and bicycle landing gear. That's right, the U-2 only has 2 main landing gear which it delicately balances on while landing, a process so dangerous that the USAF mandates it be followed down the runway by chase cars to give the pilot an extra set of eyes.

And then the CIA takes one look at this and thinks "Fuck yeah, lets put this baby on a carrier!". The first time they tried landing one of the wingtips hit the island, causing the aircraft to spin around and make its best attempt to demonstrate the design's suitability for submarine warfare before the flight deck crew managed to the flight deck crew managed to halt its roll.

Seeing this, the CIA decided "fuck yes this is a good idea" and promptly brought the design into operational service. The U-2 actually flew a real reconnaissance mission off the deck off the USS Ranger in 1964, to observe a French nuclear test, and the CIA maintained the capability until at least the mid 70s.

File: Dr. Kekyll.png (251KB, 346x427px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 346x427px

>>54297030
Those crazy spy kids.

>>54297030
WTFF

File: 20170131114229[1].jpg (99KB, 800x561px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 800x561px

>>54297184
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction anon

>>54297218
Certainly

>>54295817
I had been in a used book store this past weekend, and had been thinking about picking up the first in that series. I had no idea it was about a bomb ketch. It's definitely on my list now, I always thought those were pretty neat.

>>54297677
I read two or three and I love them.

>>54295817

Yeah, Bomb Ketches.

File: scansione00534.jpg (87KB, 1005x612px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1005x612px

>>54301377
>Multi spaghetti wagons
You don't know what you're doing to me, anon.

I'm working on a thing:

I feel like it'd be helpful to have a list of manufacturers and rough subject/scale ranges as a pastebin or something. To that end, I compiled the following list, if somebody wants to add more, or host it somewhere for our next OP, and to add to /hwg/ OP as well in case this general ever sinks for good.

In no particular order:

Traditional Naval Miniature Manufacturers (Eras and Scales)

Tumbling Dice:
http://www.tumblingdiceuk.com/product-category/12400-naval

Classical and Ancients 1/2400
Spanish Armada 1/2400
Anglo Dutch Wars 1/2400
Napoleonic 1/2400 and 1/4800
Victorian Period/ACW 1/2400
Age of Battleships/Predread 1/2400
VSF 1/2400

Langton Miniatures:
http://www.rodlangton.com/

Ancients 1/300 and 1/1200
Renaissance Galleys 1/1200
Anglo Dutch 1/1200
Great Lakes 1/1200
Napoleonic 1/1200
18th Century Sail 1/1200
ACW 1/1200
WWI Coastal 1/200

GHQ Models:
http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/ghq-military-models.html

Napoleonic 1/1200
Great War/WW1 1/2400
WWII 1/2400
Modern 1/2400

Panzerschiffe:
http://www.panzerschiffe.com/Catalog.html

ACW 1/2400
WW1 1/2400
Spanish-American/Russo-Japan/Sino-Japan 1/2400
WWII 1/2400
Modern 1/2400

Peter Pig:
http://www.peterpig.co.uk/

Pirates/Age of Sail 1/450
ACW 1/1200?

>>54304130
Navwar:
http://www.navwar.co.uk/nav/

Chinese Junks 1/1200
Renaissance 1/1200 and 1/3000
Napoleonic/AWI 1/1200 and 1/3000
Anglo Dutch/ Seven Year War 1/1200 and 1/3000
Spanish Armada 1/1200
ACW 1/1200
WW1/WWII 1/3000
Modern 1/3000

Pithead/Spitehead:
http://www.pitheadminiatures.com/category-grid.php?cat=Spithead%20Naval%20Miniatures&catid=23&top=23

Anglo Dutch 1/2400
Ironclads/ACW 1/1200
Predreads 1/2000
WWI 1/6000

Bay Area Yards:
http://bayareayards.virtualscratchbuilder.com/

Ironclads 1/600

Thoroughbred Models:
http://www.thoroughbredmodels.com/Products.htm

ACW 1/600
War of 1812 15mm

Mongoose Publishing:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/

Fuckall 0/0
Cantdoshit 0/0


Shapeways and other 3D printed miniatures

WTJ Miniatures:
http://www.wtj.com/store/

Predread 1/1500, 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000

WW1 1/1500, 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000

>>54304149
Maurizio Casella:
http://www.3d-models-games.com/models.html

Predread 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000

Interwar/WWII 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000

Modern 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000

Shapeways Shops:

Direwolf's Depot:
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/dwdepot

WWII 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/4800

Dutch Fleet Naval Miniatures:
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/dutchfleet?li=pb

Modern 1/700, 1/600, 1/550, 1/350, 1/1250, 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000, 1/6000

Tiny Thingamajigs:
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/tinythingamajigs?li=pb

WWII 1/1800, 1/2400 1/4800

Miniatures:
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/miniatures?li=pb

WWII 1/1800

C.O.B. Constructs and Miniatures
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/c.o.b.?li=pb

WWI/Interwar/WWII 1/1800

Masters of Military:
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/mom?li=pb

WWII 1/1800

SNAFU Store
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/snafu?li=pb

WWII/Modern 1/1800

>>54304165
Decapod Models:
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/decapod?section=Ships+1%3A1800&s=0

Cold War 1/1250, 1/1800

Ebard:
https://www.shapeways.com/designer/ebard

WWII/Modern 1/1800

Amateur Wargame Figures
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/amwarfig?li=pb

Modern 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000, 1/6000

>>54304181
I'm sure there's manufacturers I've missed, if anybody has anymore to add, or would like to put it into a pastebin, that'd be great.

>>54298884
Man, Japanese sure did love their swept-back hot-rod smokestacks. Yum.

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

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>54304691
Love the double trunked swept back funnels on the mogamis.

>>54304911
I guess I'm posting from down under again. Fucking iphone.

File: 206-HMS_Chester_damaged.jpg (53KB, 800x471px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x471px

Post ship gore.

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

817KB, 1035x1190px

>>54307191

File: seydlitz battle damage.jpg (67KB, 744x516px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 744x516px

>>54307191

>>54309225
It's a serious miracle that Seydlitz made it back to port after being pummeled like that.

File: seydlitz with pump boats.jpg (54KB, 838x386px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 838x386px

>>54309317
Considering she's my favourite bote, this might just be my personal bias speaking, but I think she's the luckiest ship of the entire war.
Almost destroyed twice by a magazine fire, the sheer amount of hits at Jutland and a mine that hit her right in the forward torpedo room without detonating any of the warheads in there.

>>54309513
The whole German navy was ridiculously lucky in WW1, they just never stopped rolling high, even when they got outplayed, while the British seemingly couldn't catch a break.

File: 1280px-Courbet-Marius_Bar-img_3152.jpg (167KB, 1280x750px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1280x750px

>>54310088
Apparently the British admiralty estimated that if they'd outfitted their ships with shells that had less-sensitive burster charges with more reliable fuzes (like what the Germans had), they probably would have sent six more ships to the bottom at Jutland.

Anyone here play Clear for Action? I'm looking for charts for French ships and the older US battleships (everything before North Carolina).

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J19316,_Norwegen,_Schlachtschiff,_Zerstörer.jpg (52KB, 799x526px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 799x526px

>>54312760
How would the Littorio class have fared against the Bismarck or Tirpitz?

>>54315010
from what I've heard anything involving the littorio largely depends on how lucky the italians get on their draw from the shell lots. with good shells, the littorio's guns hit damn near as hard as a 406mm set. with bad shells, they have hideous spread and are prone to shell shatter.

File: battleship-roma-corazzata-roma-italian-navy-10.jpg (113KB, 1024x660px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x660px

>>54315010
>>54316088
In a lot of the accounts I've read, Italians generally had pretty good shots fired to hits ratios compared to the British they were fighting, but the British typically extended such a massive volume of shells that the absolute number of hits they inflicted were still higher. One of my favorite anecdotes involves RN cruisers Orion, Neptune, and Sydney about 5000 6" rounds to sink destroyer Espero, with only 800 shells remaining in theater at the time. Moral Ascendancy indeed.

I'd be inclined to say that as long as she didn't draw bad shells or happen to run across any torpedoes, I'd think she could be expected to do well.

File: american hegoland.png (15KB, 902x265px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 902x265px

Nothing like messing around with early dreadnoughts in RtW.

>originally I was thinking about having it to have 6 wing turrets but then I ran out of tons to spare

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

8MB, 5056x2948px

>>54323696
>playing USA
>not abusing the hell out of all-centerline superfiring turrets

>>54323800
Easier said than done when your researchers react to the idea of having more than 2 centerline turrets in a similar fashion as a vampire reacts to a crucifix shaped aspergillum.

File: image.jpg (67KB, 740x415px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 740x415px

>>54322853
>>54325379
>>54326194
I'm kind of partial to the New Orleans class more than the newer CA's myself.

File: USS_Louisville_(CA-28)_off_the_Mare_Island_Naval_Shipyard_on_17_December_1943_(19-N-57222).jpg (102KB, 1280x947px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1280x947px

>>54326861
They're all right, but the Baltimore and Wichita just nail it for me.

At least with the New Orleans class (as well as the Portland and Northampton classes) you don't get the fugly turret arrangement you did on the Pensacola class.

File: HMS Cornwall July 1936.jpg (431KB, 1450x982px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1450x982px

>>54326861
>>54326972
We can all agree though that nobody has anything on the County class, right?

>>54323980
Randomized tech games, huh?
I can't play without that option enabled anymore, the resulting abominations and weird designs are just too tempting.
Here's to hoping that they'll improve the AI design algorithms in RtW2 so we start seeing even crazier stuff.

File: USS Laffey (DD-724) battle damaged.jpg (95KB, 1024x691px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x691px

>>54307191
Reminder that they still have no idea how this ship survived more raw damage by weight than it took to sink either the Yamato or Musashi.

>>54329539
I have heard Yank damage control was, bar none, the best of anybody in the war.

>Cleaning out the attic
>Run across a bunch of Pirates of the Spanish Main stuff.

>Remember I also have a bunch of that stored in my own room.

Well, looks like that one might be something to try in the near future.

>>54331287
Always nice to rediscover something.

File: Le Grand Hotel Hoche french pre dreadnought.jpg (287KB, 1242x748px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1242x748px

>>54303540
>Ns5Hedd.gif

What am I looking at here Anon?

I don't understand.

>>54293987
>>54294024

>posting hotels

Have another one.

>>54329617
>I have heard Yank damage control was, bar none, the best of anybody in the war.

If true, how did we manage to do that?

>>54309225
>>54309317
>>54309513

where can I learn more about Seydlitz, written in english, than i can find on wikipedia?

Why is the navy replacing the c-2 with a tiltrotor?

doesn't the osprey have less internal volume in its hold?

File: 51KN+MPTAIL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (27KB, 260x308px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 260x308px

>>54332987
If you're willing to spend money, Gary Staff's book on the German BCs has a shitload of info. From their design history, operations and movements during the war, damage analysis of hits suffered to deck plans and armour diagrams of all the German BCs, excluding Goeben after she was transfered to the Ottomans.

>>54332955
>If true, how did we manage to do that?
Better training, better planning, having new ships, and just plain ol brave motivated sailors.

File: Ten Commandments.jpg (239KB, 631x1121px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 631x1121px

>>54332955
>If true, how did we manage to do that?

One of the basic tenets of longstanding US Naval Doctrine is "Every sailor a damage controlman". Everyone gets trained in damage control at Boot Camp, and you have to qualify in several areas of DC once you get out to the fleet as part of your basic qualifications.

>>54334232

>>54334232
>Better training

I'm not aware of any major efforts to improve the quality of sailor training leading up to America's involvement in the war. Please tell me more about this.

>better planning

how was the planning that effected damage control better?


>just plain ol brave motivated sailors.

Please explain how other navies were lacking in this. Seems like if you are on a boat meant to fight, or go into dangerous seas to support boats meant to fight, you would have to be brave whether you want to be or not.

>>54335236
>Everyone gets trained in damage control at Boot Camp, and you have to qualify in several areas of DC once you get out to the fleet as part of your basic qualifications.

I'm guessing not all navies do that then?

Can you give me examples of other ones do and other ones that don't?

>>54333377

That sounds awesome!

>excluding Goeben after she was transfered to the Ottomans.

At first I read that as "extending to Goeben after she was transferred to the Ottomans" and was even more impressed.

>>54283053
At the time, pointing the CV into the wind and ramping up speed could get your biplanes generating enough lift that they didn't need as long a runway. Wood-and-canvas construction with at most 250lb bombs meant that even carrier bombers were rather light.

The big problem Kaga's 3-deck solution attempted to solve was the delay between launches and recovery, namely that getting planes onto the deck, then clear of the deck to recover more planes, and then back onto the deck fueled and rearmed to launch again, was quite the juggle and rather slow.

During the late-twenties and early thirties when this was conceived of, one has to remember that these planes only have a 2-3 hour endurance time in fuel, so if you want your planes to do anything TOGETHER, you need to get them all into the air as fast as possible. If it takes you 40 minutes to get all the planes off of the deck, that means your effective flight range to and from the target is MAYBE about an hour away, and that's pushing it because they need to have some leeway to find the target AND find the carrier on return AND wait their turn to land.

The 3-deck solution did solve a lot of these problems, however, as engine performance increased, planes could fly faster, but that meant you wanted airframes that could handle more stress from maneuvers, which made them heavier. Faster flying and higher flying meant a need for more fuel at comparable ranges, and flying farther meant more fuel demands anyway. This lead to planes carrying more fuel, which adds even more weight, which results, in total, a higher required airspeed to get airborne, and therefore a longer runway to facilitate acceleration.

As such, Kaga soon could not deploy more modern planes from her lower decks due to their smaller decks.

File: 1497179912197.jpg (593KB, 1201x950px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 1201x950px

>>54335557
>At first I read that as "extending to Goeben after she was transferred to the Ottomans" and was even more impressed.

Yeah, nevermind that, I'm retarded.
I just opened up the book and found that it actually does document Goeben's service with the Ottomans until the end of the war and a small paragraph about refits after the war and her fate.

>The cruiser was preserved by the Turkish and performed ceremonial duties and was offered for sale to the West German government in 1963; they refused, however, to buy her back.

WHY

>>54336043
Why should Krauts had taken back a vessel that had been Turkish for almost 50 years at that point?

File: blQUo9e.jpg (284KB, 1450x862px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1450x862px

>>54336072
Personal reasons, really. I would have loved to visit her had they turned her into a museum ship.
But yeah, it makes sense that they didn't want to buy her back, even as a museum. I imagine she was in pretty bad condition and the economic situation wasn't the best in West Germany back then from what I've read.

>>54335539
Most modern navies have adopted the 'every sailor is DC' lesson from WWII. A good case of a navy whose DC was certainly not at the American level was the IJN, whose doctrine put combat readiness and ability above all other considerations, leaving only small but permanent DC companies aboard ship. These crews however were easily overwelmed and ships sunk because of it.

>>54336478
I've heard that the Japanese relied possibly a bit too heavily on counterflooding, too.

File: 1800996.jpg (138KB, 800x443px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 800x443px

>>54337658
Prune boat spotted

>>54335236
Hell, Seabees have to go through some similar stuff, and most never serve on ship.

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

199KB, 1600x1245px

>>54339784
This thread needs more examples of the Measures.

>>54336043
>Yeah, nevermind that, I'm retarded.
>I just opened up the book and found that it actually does document Goeben's service with the Ottomans until the end of the war and a small paragraph about refits after the war and her fate.

I applaud the completion of the history of the boat.

>>54341738

why did the Ranger have the funnel arrangement that she did?

It seems like it would make recovering from bad landing attempt much more difficult since you've got things to catch your wings on from both sides if you are off laterally.

File: USS_Ranger_(CV-4)_at_sea_on_10_November_1939_worldwartwo.filminspector.com_1.jpg (594KB, 1600x1186px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1600x1186px

>>54341909
Those stacks were hinged and could be lowered when needed (i.e. whenever the flight deck was in use).

>>54342029
what was the point of having them deployed when not picking up and deploying aircraft? To make the deck work space better to work on?

>>54342029
>USS Ranger shifts to battle mode.jpg

>>54338193
Yes and no. Counter-flooding keeps the ship from listing past the point of no return. Dewatering is also a major point so counterflooding is useless without major dewatering effort.

When you compare the crew performance between 1944 Musashi vs 1945 Yamato, you can see the clear difference between skill level. 1944 Musashi was extremely competent. 1945 Yamato was not competent. Counterflooding was used heavily but not enough dewatering was done.

>crappy Russian sonar
>Did you mean: creepy Russian singer

>>54333377
Any other great/must have books that cover ships of some kind during the WWI/WWII era? I want to build a list so I can fill out a bookcase at some point.

File: what is the point of mounting sub radars on these secondary turrets.jpg (69KB, 550x366px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 550x366px

what are these secondary turrets for?

File: shrunk image USS Texas Launched 1892 commisioned 1895 photochrom print circa 1898.png (5MB, 1920x1421px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 1920x1421px

>>54313958
how many metal battleships did the US have that weren't named for states besides the Kearsarge (BB-5)?

>>54344677
Kearsarge was the one and only. She was named after a civil war ship that sank the Confederate raider Alabama.

>>54344883
This, yeah. Aside from that, all proper USN battleships are named for states. (Alaska wasn't a state during, hence why the Alaska class were large cruisers and not battleships.)

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

85KB, 744x486px

>>54344951
*Wasn't a state during WW2, even.

>>54309225

..only to be fucking scuttled at Scapa Flow :C

Can you build a battle ship with superfiering turrets that extend three turrets high instead of the normal 2? (All being main battery guns, I know you can have a supwrfiering lighter or secondary weapon turret above 2 main battery turrets.)

>>54346684
To my knowledge, in theory nothing physically prevents it, but in so doing you're likely raising the ship's center of gravity a lot, which can make its seakeeping notably worse.

>>54328492
Her proportions are a bit...wonky.

>>54347028
I just love anything that has a "we took a cruise ship and mounted heavy artillery on her" look.

>>54335520
>how was the planning that effected damage control better?
Ship Design and Construction.
Americans had been planning for heavy Damage Control efforts like in the 10 Commandments of D.Con above your post for many years before the war. In all post-1936 designs, for example, no sailor was ever more than 50ft walking distance (the distance they had to run) from a D.Con station.
This led to US Destroyers having 12 or more D.Con stations, and US Fast Battleships such as the Iowa pushing 100. Comparatively, the Japanese had maybe 6 D.Con stations on the Yamatos.

>>54346684
Naval Engineer (in training) here.
Yes, you can, but >>54346840 is correct.
It would be a nightmare to balance that ship without either being ~150'+ (45.7m+) wide or giving the hull a 42'+ (12.8m+) draft/draught, and this is for smaller guns ('Lightweight' Mono-Construction 16in Triple Guns at most).
Although, now that I type that, I realize just how absurd the practice of wild planning for 20"+ gun ships is, even as an off the wall exercise.

What mods would you all recommend in RTW?

>>54348488

Coastal Artillery Mod is the only one worth it, IMHO.
It improves Coastal Artillery to the point it's actually capable of sinking something on it's own - and thus worthwhile to build.

>>54348488
Like >>54348632 said, coastal artillery. There aren't really that many mods except for that one, excluding custom nation mods.
I actually have a ton of RtW nations saved, I could zip them all up and upload them later today if someone wants.

>>54344589
They were dual purpose mounts. The little radars attached were to help in independently tracking air targets, if I'm not mistaken. A neat feature about those models of turrets was that they were gyro-stabilised to help balance out the rolling and tossing inherent with being on the ocean. I doubt one mounted on land would need that though.

>>54348127
battleship main turrets are held in by gravity right?

Does this mean if she capsizes and then rolls back upright, or doesn't sink and is towed to port and righted, her main battery turrets would be gone?

Why did warspite have occasional rudder trouble for the rest of her life after the battle of Jutland?

Was her hull left warped even after repairs in such a way that it would sometimes bind part of the steering mechanism?

Why did the soviets build more subs then they could put to sea, maintain, or supply well trained crews for?

>>54352651
For the most part, yes. They basically just slot in, which is why most battleships are found upside-down after shedding their turrets unless they sank in VERY deep water and had a chance to right themselves.

iirc Nagato and Mutsu were unusual in that their turret mounts were designed with a locking ring. Though I might be mis-remembering a primary source.

>>54352792
Because when they planned to build those hulls they could put to sea, maintain, and supply those ships.

Soviet sub crew training was always so-so.

>>54352725
Possibly. Permanent hull warping after battle damage was also a persistent problem with Britain's WW2 aircraft carriers that had armored flight decks and internal hangars.

>>54353550
I kinda wonder how the Sovetsky Soyuz class would have turned out, in that light. They had problems producing face-hardened armor in heavy thicknesses, so the armor stats known for it probably would have been less effective than indicated...

>>54353550
Are you saying the soviets kept over estimating what they could maintain, or that things got crappier after the time the plans were made?

>>54354415
>Possibly

Does anybody actually know?

>>54356962
Things got really bad really fast for the Soviets. The Soviet Union was having economic issues post 1960, and oil prices and decreasing domestic development allowed them to keep up with military spending through the 70s.
As the 1980s came, the economic issues become more and more visible and then the price of oil collapsed.

>>54329617
>I have heard Yank damage control was, bar none, the best of anybody in the war.
Basically true. Early in the war, a carrier was abandoned after taking severe damage, and her captain looked back from the last boat to watch her slip into the deep. Only she didn't. She just kinda floated with a list, so the crew sheepishly went back to their "beyond saving" ship and patched her up and sent her home.

That started a new order. Don't Give Up The Ship. Unless the ship is physically underwater, you can probably still save her. (And sometimes even then, look at WeeVee.)

>>54329617
>I have heard Yank damage control was, bar none, the best of anybody in the war.
Basically true. Early in the war, a carrier was abandoned after taking severe damage, and her captain looked back from the last boat to watch her slip into the deep. Only she didn't. She just kinda floated with a list, so the crew sheepishly went back to their "beyond saving" ship and patched her up and sent her home.

That started a new order. Don't Give Up The Ship. Unless the ship is physically underwater, you can probably still save her. (And sometimes even then, look at WeeVee.)

American ships also tended to be built very tough. There was an Atlanta-class cruiser who made it almost all the way back to Pearl with a *shattered keel.* Only a lucky submarine happening upon her sent her to the bottom.

The IJN focused on hitting really, really, ridiculously hard with their first punch, even if they broke their hand in the process. The USN was more interested in pushing through anything.

>>54332955
>If true, how did we manage to do that?

mostly this >>54335236 In the IJN, damage controllmen were the only people who controlled damage. If you were a gunner and there was a fire the next compartment over, you ignore it because fighting fires wasn't your job, manning your gun was.This helps if you're interested in winning the DECISIVE BATTERU and don't really care if your ships sink after it's decided. But it means your DC teams need to run around the ships, and fires can get out of hand by the time they arrive.

In the USN, damage controllmen were there to direct others in controlling damage, and to bring specialized gear. When a US DC team arrived at a fire, they'd find it already being managed by other seamen, and that'd give them time to setup and organize into a coordinated effort. They also had better gear to play with. USN DC teams had portable gas-powered pumps for their fire-hoses (and the US was industrialized enough that the average sailor was already familiar with gasoline engines). The IJN had to use bucket brigades.

The IJN also had an *uncanny* knack for picking the worst of two options when it came to naval design.

File: h95699k.jpg (76KB, 740x485px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 740x485px

>>54282840
Does anybody here read Conway's?
I'm looking through the 1860-1905 era book (pre dreadnaught basically), it's the most fascinating era IMO. The technical progression and experimentation is wild. In just a few decades you go from wooden masted cruisers to the dreadnought battleship. Pretty fascinating, are there any games for this period?

>>54338193
Counterflooding gives you a more stable gun-platform. Different priorities.

>>54358250
Really the big problem with counterflooding is that there's a real risk that other battle damage may cripple your ability to dewater the ship after doing it, and you might not find this out until after you've started counterflooding.

>>54347412
Oh good lord, imagine how fantastic she'd be with a black hull...would look just like a midsize ocean liner: perfect Q-ship!

>>54358223
Rule the Waves covers the tail end of that period

>>54358588
Which only matters if you expect the DECISIVE BATTLE to not be decisive.

File: Sinking_Cap_Trafalgar.jpg (73KB, 529x355px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 529x355px

>>54347412
Do auxiliaries count?

>>54360620
Yep

File: maxresdefault.jpg (86KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1280x720px

/nwg/,

please tell me you hate Kancolle and that Kancolle is utter shit.

File: Fubuki intensifies.jpg (652KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 1920x1080px

>>54362691
Nah, shipgirls a cute. Game itself's pretty crap though.

>>54362691
Kancolle the game is shit.

Botes having souls in the form of cute girls dates back as far as the first century BC. Pick up some virgil, plebe.

>>54362724
>>54362744
isn't the game basically fire emblem for spastics?

>>54349127

If you come back to the thread, please do.

File: lYGwUm9.jpg (203KB, 1450x750px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1450x750px

>>54363078
https://ufile.io/zvkt0

Here you go. Adds around 15 playable nations, including some alt-history stuff, including
>2 different Chinas, one of which is by the developer of the game
>Argentina, Brazil and Chile
>2 different versions of the Ottomans, one more competitive, one more historical
>a modded USA that faces the CSA

Also included are the coastal artillery mod and some colour schemes and parts sets for the ship picture generator.
Please be aware that some nation mods make changes to the mapdata file, those most likely won't be compatible with eachother.

>>54365469
what's with the high freeboard on the bow? keep the ship from going awash up front when running at high speed?

What system do you recommend for ACW navals?

File: 54942092_p0.png (260KB, 600x483px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 600x483px

>>54362691
I like my boatgirls

>>54365731
Have a look at Anaconda, it covers both oceangoing and riverine actions. Great range of models for this stuff.

>>54366495
And what tactical rules for it? Because it's campaingin framework IRC

>>54354415
How did the brits deal with it?

>>54357424
>and oil prices and decreasing domestic development allowed them to keep up with military spending through the 70s.

This part of the sentence doesn't seem to add up.

Would not the dropping of oil prices and lack of development make it harder to maintain military spending?

>>54359510
Another reason that decisive battle doctrine leaves you fucked if it is wrong.

>>54358206
>The IJN also had an *uncanny* knack for picking the worst of two options when it came to naval design

Tell me more.

Do you mean things like going for more double gun main batteries instead of fewer triple gun batteries on the Fuso class?

>>54367211
Sorry I worded it oddly.

Oil prices spiked started in the beginning of the 1970s, and didn't begin to decrease until 1980.

They emphasized spending what revenue they did have on military rather than domestic needs, some estimates have military spending as high as above 10% of yearly GDP.

>>54358206

In the modern era what would be the best aging nuclear submarine design to convert into an oceanographic research vessel?

(One with labs and that can launch ROVs and possibly deep diving submersibles and doesn't have to cease operations any time there is a storm on the surface.)

>>54365710
Yep. IIRC there used to be 8 chase guns up in there, 4 on each side, but they were later removed and the gunports welded shut due to water entering through them.
...or was that on Von Der Tann or Moltke?
Either way, love me some high forecastles.

>>54365731
I've heard Hammerin Iron by Peter Pig is pretty good, but can't find a sample copy, and PP doesn't sell PDFs, so I haven't just bought a copy because I want a rule set I like before I start adding a whole new range of models to my collection.

>>54367597
>Hammerin Iron
Wasn't it hex based?

>>54367652
It is, but from what I've read it has provisions for playing on a hex less surface using free hex pieces to plot movement. Really shouldn't be hard to house rule a turn gauge for true free movement.

File: IMG_3535.jpg (48KB, 600x278px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x278px

>>54367356
Ok that makes more sense. Thank you for clarifying.

Did they think the good times would roll on?

If not then wouldn't you want your military buildup to be organized around making it sustainable and effective on a more limited budget in the future?

I've read that parts of the reason for investing in the military back then were

- not wanting an invasion like operation Barbarossa to ever happen again (which is also why the USSR was so adamant on having buffer states and more controlling toward them than you would think would be necessary or effective if you were trying to win over their hearts and minds to your political ideology)

- political ideology related to the struggle to advance the movement toward communism [if you were a believer in socialism being an intermediate stage toward working communism or acted like it] meaning needing to be ready to defend yourself and support your allies

- responding to western encirclement and containment doctrine

- the military having great political clout and being a known avenue to political power after WWII meant that those looking to climb who threw their lot in with the military worked to keep the budget favorable toward the military

But what kind of thinking informed the soviet sub fleet planning? (both in general and the nuclear and diesel driven boat arms individually)

>>54367305
While the IJN had access to a triple designed by Vickers they opted for twin turrets out of the thought that a larger number of turrets would be able to split their fire more flexibly, and to fire on more targets at once. They were also selected based on the British preference for twins and to better counter projected American capacity in the New York class, which also used twin turrets. Literally no first-rate navies were doing triple turrets.

Why would they suddenly jump to an untested design, especially when Pastabote, the Austro-Hungrybotes, and the Slavbotes hadn't made a showing of themselves?

>>54368876
Nelson Rodney

>>54368952
to have the ship be not as large a target and have fewer places you could hit and trigger a magazine explosion, and less area to stretch a limited amount of total armor weight over.

>>54369016
Again, literally no first rate navy was doing triple turrets for the same reasons the Japanese concluded that they wanted to keep twins. Eventually the Standards would demonstrate that a triple turret could be functional, but by then the Japanese were on to an increased caliber gun and no navy made both transitions simultaneously unless obliged by treaty. The Germans and Brits stepped up caliber while keeping twin turrets and eventually reducing number to four superfiring, the Japanese did the same with only three classes of two (one of which was an incremental improvement on the first), and the Americans reverted to twin turrets for the Colorados.

The British and American triple 16" mounts were built with a different set of considerations.

you asked "Why would they suddenly jump to an untested design, especially when Pastabote, the Austro-Hungrybotes, and the Slavbotes hadn't made a showing of themselves"
So I gave reasons why they might have done what they ended up not doing.

File: 1495056093328.png (26KB, 1373x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1373x450px

>>54367948
They probably didn't expect the good times to continue, but were caught off-guard by how quickly things changed.

Soviet economic data was always poor, due to a combination of bad methodology and outright false information. As the 70s and then the 80s went on, productivity growth of the Soviets started to slow. As a result, economic growth was always over-estimated.

They probably didn't assume that oil prices and production would allow them to continue to run deficits in basically every other type of good with the "Western" countries, but they had no other option really.
They wanted to continue to increase the standard of living, technological spending, and the effectiveness of their military, even as their economy was slowing. The discovery of rich oil fields in Siberia allowed them to do this starting in 1972-73.
While the Soviets had always exported oil to other socialist countries, and sometimes with capitalist European countries, the mid 70s was the beginning of the rapid increase in production and exports of oil to capitalist countries in order to secure hard currency, which they would then use to buy technology, capital goods, and other commodities (most famously grain).
This was all good as long as the price of oil remained either steady or rising, but starting in the 1980s the price of oil suddenly collapsed. This was the same time they Soviets were forced to trade more with the West for basic goods because of their productivity issues.

Suddenly they couldn't afford all those new weapons they bought.

I can't speak much about why they invested so much in military. Probably a combination of factors, including all the ones you stated, along with the fact that planning for military consumption is a lot easier than consumer spending, and all military spending is "on the books" so to say. This was the period of the rapid expansion of the Soviet black market for consumer goods.

I can't speak about naval doctrine, I only know the economics.

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

73KB, 740x529px

>>54362691

Kancolle is shit, pic related.

Ozawa has performed the last feat of the pre-war Japanese carriers, squaring off against the USN with a hand of nothing and bluffing them off the table. It's just little Zuikaku, all grown up- this is her as she sinks, such mature poise.

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

With material for drama like that, they take the premise and make ditzy boob jokes with a stiff dose of pedophilia. Ah, Japan. I thought you understood me but my autism is too refined for you.

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

2MB, 3288x2536px

>>54329539
>Ship that wouldn't die was a badass
Happy to have gone and seen her twice.

>>54369408
That's neat, but they came to the same conclusions as every other first-rate navy at the time. There's literally no argument for you to make.

>>54307191
>>54370884

>gore, not snuff

File: 1449699045440.jpg (292KB, 1280x816px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1280x816px

>>54307191

File: 1438119651733.jpg (738KB, 1024x788px) Image search: [Google]

738KB, 1024x788px

>>54372279

File: 1444542247253.jpg (324KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1280x720px

>>54372296

File: AmqXJUT.jpg (140KB, 740x620px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 740x620px

>>54372312

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

24KB, 451x226px

>>54372336

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

2MB, 5729x4442px

>>54372354

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

751KB, 3211x2300px

>>54372367

File: CL-62 aids CVL-23 Leyte Gulf.jpg (446KB, 3400x2725px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 3400x2725px

>>54372382

File: CV 15 Kamikaze damage.jpg (2MB, 2924x2358px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2924x2358px

>>54372394

File: DD 412 sinking from CV5.jpg (308KB, 1035x835px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1035x835px

>>54372413

File: Exeter_sinking.jpg (229KB, 800x461px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 800x461px

>>54372422

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

72KB, 800x599px

>>54372437

File: HMAS Perth sinking.jpg (190KB, 640x365px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 640x365px

>>54372453

File: IJN Ise on the bottom in Kure.jpg (140KB, 1033x1280px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1033x1280px

>>54372467

File: IJN Ise.jpg (66KB, 800x669px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x669px

>>54372490

File: qlnRkrX.jpg (83KB, 740x568px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 740x568px

>>54372509

File: Roma on the Fritz.jpg (25KB, 640x469px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x469px

>>54372543

File: Toulon Bretagne or Suffren scuttling.jpg (4MB, 3375x2569px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3375x2569px

>>54372554

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

566KB, 2628x2158px

>>54372579

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

45KB, 700x443px

>>54372598

File: USS_Omaha_(CL-4)_aground_in_the_Bahamas_1937.jpg (4MB, 4976x3735px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4976x3735px

>>54372623

>>54367186
By switching to carriers that were arranged more like American ones.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm

>>54369241
Technically the last sets of American 16'' guns were in three-gun turrets, not triples.

File: Royal Navy has seen better days.jpg (575KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 1000x750px

>>54372697
Sorry, I seemed to have reached the end of my battle damage pics. I could have sworn I had one somewhere of Marblehead's bomb damage during Java Sea, but I can't find it.

File: View_over_Franklins_flight_deck,_Manhattan_skyline_in_background.jpg (286KB, 1280x1007px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1280x1007px

Franklin's damage report has pretty interesting boat gore in it.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-franklin-cv-13-war-damage-report-no-56.html

>>54372731
That entire article is pretty shit.

He uses the Essex as his primary foil to detail why the armored box was a poor choice, but his examples are literally fictitious;

"In 1951 she had a gasoline explosion in her hangar deck. This was actually quite minor (an Essex would have shrugged it off)"

this is entirely incorrect. The USS Franklin was penetrated into her hangar in March '45 to great loss of life and permanent relegation to non-seaborne duties.

Not a single allied armored carrier suffered a fate such as this. Even the illustrious, rightly with her girders fucked beyond repair maintained herself as an ocean going ship until her replacement.

Slade also makes the critical error of ignoring that the Us did adopt the armoured flight deck as they entered the super-carrier age,

"The US Navy learned its lesson the hard way during World War II when all its carriers had only armored hangar decks. All attack carriers built since the Midway class have had armored flight decks".

The article then goes onto into a swathe of what-if scenarios but ultimately ignores the clear proof that the armored flight deck made carriers significantly more survivable. Long-lasting damage means nothing in the context of keeping trained and experienced crew alive and fighting

>>54372771
Well, since Marblehead wasn't actually there during either of the battles of the Java Sea, that might make sense.

>>54373149
You still have to keep in mind that the armored-decked carriers weren't attacked as heavily as the American armored-floor carriers. They would not have withstood a more concentrated attack.

Also, Franklin didn't just suffer a gasoline explosion, she was hit by a pair of 550 kg bombs that significantly aggravated the damage inflicted when the gas pumps blew by damaging other systems needed to fight the fire more effectively. And even though she didn't return to active service after the war, she *was* restored to full seaworthiness. Her British counterpart was not able to manage that.

File: image.jpg (31KB, 300x238px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x238px

>>54373532
Makassar Strait then. Point still stands that I know I've seen pictures of her bomb damage, and I could have sworn I'd saved it at the time. So here you go then: Her bomb damage from Makassar Strait.

>>54373584
>They would not have withstood a more concentrated attack.

but by what logic can that conclusion be reached?

It's impossible to suggest that something flat-out could not survive something if there was no example of it taking place.

>>54373829
>but by what logic can that conclusion be reached?

Biggest reason? The armored decks of the British carriers weren't actually designed to withstand bombs as big as what ended up getting used much of the time. If you put a British armored carrier in Franklin's place, you probably would have had similarly destructive results because the bombs would pen the deck fairly easily.

>>54372760
And the IJN went with triples on Yamato and Musashi. Neither fact has anything at all to do with decisions made from 1912-1920, which was a time when most the Italians, Austrians, and Russians were the only ones even really playing with the idea. And they were getting results that made the other powers shy away from the concept: the Germans took a good long look at Tegetthoff and said nein, danke.

>>54374224
I know, I'm just an autist and always feel compelled to point that out since there is technically a meaningful difference.

>09 05.35 Rammed by enemy (CL Constance)
>09 05.35 Sinking through progressive flooding.
>09 05.35 Rams DD S20-class(DD V28)

It ain't every day that you see a destroyer getting rammed to death by a light cruiser.

File: USS New Jersey BB-62.jpg (459KB, 2200x1550px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 2200x1550px

>>54375096
>It ain't every day that you see a destroyer getting rammed to death by a light cruiser.

lewd

>>54376027
Anon asked for bote wounds, but that's just crossing all boundaries of good taste anon. You should be ashamed.

>>The IJN also had an *uncanny* knack for picking the worst of two options when it came to naval design

>>54358206

I can't find the guy's name without digging through my books, but much of the japanese fleet in ww2 was the brainchild of one of their designers who probably sent more of the japanese fleet to the bottom of the pacific than any allied admiral, and for one very simple and straightforward reason.

So between ww1 and ww2 there was this arms control agreement called the washington naval treaty, which tried (and failed) to keep escalation in warship size, cost, and numbers under control. Everyone cheated on the naval treaty, or found creative loopholes in what the treaty let you legally build. The japanese approach was largely shaped by this one designer who had convinced his coworkers and bosses that he had found a design philosophy that let you cram a lot more armament into a given tonnage of warship without the problems traditionally associated with that, Namely, the ship being dangerously topheavy and prone to rolling over and sinking. It was amazing and wonderful and would let the japanese navy hit so much harder for the same number of ships and this guy had gotten his hands into the design process of an astounding percentage of the japanese fleet.

He had not found a workaround. Most warships built or designed by japan in the interwar period were dangerously topheavy and prone to rollover, or required so much weight to be stripped off the top of the ship to keep them seaworthy that the design was fatally compromised in other ways. Unfortunately he had so many people vouching for him, been involved in so much construction, and the cost of fixing all his screwups was so serious that going into ww2 much of the japanese fleet was just waiting for their unscheduled submersible adventure. If you've ever looked at a ww2 japanese warship and went 'hunh, that thing looks kinda topheavy', it's because IT WAS, and probably sank because of it.

>>54373149
Navweaps tends towards a mild but pervasive pro-USN bias I've found.

>>54377352
Eh, that article quoted even warns against excessive poo-pooing on the RN in particular and points out that there was literally no damn way the British could have foreseen the failure of that carrier design philosophy in WW2. They largely give such praise to the USN because the USN was often (not always, but often) just that good.

File: SMS_Panther_(1901).jpg (3MB, 5710x3932px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5710x3932px

>>54374224
Something semi-related;
I just came across a line in a book that mentions Krupp having experimented with a triple-turret design sometime in 1910, but no further details are stated.

I enjoy the French idea of quadruple half and half turrets. Dunkirk with another 80mm of belt armour and a turret on the back would have been very interesting. I don't see why at least one of the float planes couldn't be moved to the front of the funnel.

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

187KB, 1280x956px

>>54377453
Mm, it's still a little excessive in my opinion. But they do generally go out of their way to cite sources at least.

>>54378155

Wow, the Panther.

The littlest boat that could (almost) start a war.

>>54380299
She did at least do her part in riling up tensions before the war.

>>54382216
every time I see a ship with floatplanes it reminds me of Battlestations Pacific and using spotter planes as ghetto fighters

File: USS Marblehead 5.jpg (87KB, 740x610px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 740x610px

>>54382925
Bastard with your bote mutilation.

>>54376027
Found the one I actually had, versus the one I remembered seeing.

File: 1367210484541.jpg (393KB, 1652x1252px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1652x1252px

Monitors

File: De_Zeven_Provinciën_in_port,_1910[1].jpg (412KB, 1199x762px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1199x762px

>>54384331

File: Photo03monErebus[1].jpg (75KB, 1086x779px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1086x779px

>>54384362

>>54370884
It's true. Personifying boats could have taken such a nice turn. Instead we get trapakaze

>>54384452
Every series needs to have its own shitty b8 girl that draws in new people.
>kc has trapkaze
>fate has saber
>fr had drizzt

>>54385076
What you have to remember is that Japan has shit taste.

>>54382216
Muh Girl.

File: HNLMS-Flores-Gun-Boat[1].jpg (2MB, 4500x2501px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4500x2501px

>>54384377
Gunboats a mini-monitors

File: PhotoWW1-11rgbLadybird1PS[1].jpg (65KB, 900x461px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 900x461px

>>54388869

File: 120905114[1].jpg (277KB, 1500x966px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1500x966px

>>54388908

File: GIOVANNI DALLE BANDE NERE and companion Venice.jpg (122KB, 611x428px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 611x428px

>>54390632
>>54387678

>>54367364
My guess would be an SSBN conversion. Take a look at the four Trident I Ohios.

File: b02.jpg (99KB, 750x315px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 750x315px

>>54369776
Thank you for responding. I didn't realize that the USSR had been dependent on exporting natural resources to stay afloat in the latter decades of it's life.

Even in college, and in classes specifically about the cold war, I don't recall that ever being mentioned. Which is strange because modern Russia's dependence on oil prices was often brought up when students or teachers were talking about current events like the annexation of the Crimea and Russian attempts to cause instability in the Ukraine afterward.


>>54369776
>I can't speak about naval doctrine, I only know the economics.

I understand. Does anybody else have something to contribute on this end.

>>54392317

yeah. Before all but 1 were scrapped I thought a Typhoon could possibly be a good candidate.

I know even less about the Ohio class. I have a harder time seeing the US giving up or selling off an aging SSBN for conversion than the Russians.

>>54384331
That anti torpedo bulge is huge.

>>54372453
Is that damage from the Battle of the River Plate?

>>54372382
>CA 72 Typhoon Cobra aftermath.jpg

Yes there was a storm called Cobra.

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

>>54393451
Monitors are huge boats, after all.
Huge as in fat

>>54396237
Ah, coastal defense ships. The poor man's battleship.

Anyone know of a good tutorial/walkthrough/aid for Fear God & Dread Nought

>>54397471
Isn't it supposed to come with a tutorial scenario or something?

File: tk_scuttling_akagi.jpg (520KB, 1200x1865px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 1200x1865px

>>54370884
If you can ignore the dumb porn and Oliver Stone-style cynicism, the Takotsuboya doujins may suit you. Since we are on the subject of ship gore, I will post some.

>>54393351
No need to sell, the USN has some odd one-offs. I forgot to mention NR-1, Rickover's personal submarine yacht, and the *ahem* special-duty subs Parche and Jimmy Carter.

File: teitoku_no_ketsudan_3_32.jpg (550KB, 1280x1808px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1280x1808px

>>54400917
BTW, I do not read moon, so ymmv.

File: teitoku_no_ketsudan_3_33.jpg (556KB, 1280x1808px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1280x1808px

>>54400917

File: teitoku_no_ketsudan_3_56.jpg (366KB, 1280x1808px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1280x1808px

>>54400917
You are next, Turkey!

File: 1500219055310.jpg (305KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1600x900px

Greetings from /hwg/

Got myself a 1:700 Takao Heavy Cruiser kit today for cheap.

Never painted a ship before though. How do you guys go about making your botes not look so flat and grey?
The wooden parts should be no problem but im worried my ship is going to look flat and grey

Also for some reason they decided to make the aircraft for it out of clear plastic. Why you do this Japan?

>>54388908
...erm, freeboard?

>>54401707
it's a coastal defense ship/monitor; they can get away with having low freeboards because they're not meant for voyaging out to the high seas anyway.

>>54401427
>Never painted a ship before though. How do you guys go about making your botes not look so flat and grey?

Painting them in camouflage is probably the easiest way to do so, this of course depends on how easy/hard it is to find info about camouflage patterns used by said boat class.

>>54304181
>>54304165
>>54304149
>>54304130
https://pastebin.com/LcD16k7s >>54282840

File: image.jpg (167KB, 613x799px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 613x799px

>>54403565
Much appreciated anon. It pleases and amuses me that you left my little dig at MGP in there.

>>54405682
You're welcome.

>>54401427
You can do a lot with careful preshading.

File: Nagara Sendai Jintsu.jpg (805KB, 1200x887px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 1200x887px

>>54401427
Highlighting, drybrushing, weathering, picking out some details to emphasize, washes, pretty much all the sort of things you'd do with any other model. Basecoat in something that's darker than what you intend for your midtone, drybrush your midtone, shade with inks, apply details and highlights, and go back and refine as you need.

File: IMG_3538.jpg (34KB, 340x209px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 340x209px

>>54400917
NR1 is far to small. It lacks the space and electrical generating capacity to act as a submarine version of an oceanographic research mothership.

Also the NR1 was decommissioned.

Neither Carter nor Parche have the space to be gutted and repurposed.

>>54401753
Tbh monitors could get away with all kinds of shit.
>who cares if it is poorly armored&armed, slower than a dead snail in tar, handles like a pregnant whale high on crack, has shit endurance, randomly explodes only couple weeks after her commissioning, etc. so long as it can function even somewhat decently in naval gunfire support role nobody will give a shit

All hands, abandon thread!

>>54409637
>>54409637
>>54409637