/nwg/ Naval Wargames

>>54409637
Gotta love that dazzle.

>>54410291
q-ships~

>>54414142
Dazzle actually works pretty well on that PT boat. Looks like it ran headfirst into a Japanese DD and crumpled, rather than the other way around.

how effective was the old razzle dazzle anyway? i would think it makes the ship stand out more than plain grey.

Actually i remember reading that solid blocks of colour are much better for hiding MOVING objects (ie the Israel Defence Force Olive Green or the Austrian Armies current service outfits) while camoflage patterns were much better for hiding stationary targets.

>>54415110
The objective of dazzle isn't to hide, but to make it really hard to effectively identify or range the target because the pattern makes discerning its exact size/silhouette a nightmare.

File: USS_Pittsburgh_(CA-72)-Tarn.jpg (154KB, 740x581px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 740x581px

>>54415110
The idea is to obscure the direction the ship is moving for rangefinding purposes moreso than to make it stand out less in general. It does so by breaking up the outline of the ship.

It's...variably effective. Different forms of naval camouflage were tried at different points in history.

>>54414142
Jesus christ my eyes.

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

199KB, 1600x1245px

>>54415531
Here, have a beautiful one.

Wat is biggest sexbang ship of party?

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

140KB, 1024x768px

>>54418746
Well, the Yamato class did have the nickname "Hotels", so...

File: BritannicaColorChart.jpg (57KB, 600x571px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x571px

>>54415110
The idea with dazzle was to not hide ships but to make it harder to tell how far the ship was, to what direction it was heading, how fast it was going, and make it harder to identify the vessel.

File: fe67a1087b948488a990240ef80f0745--imperial-japanese-navy-japanese-history[1].jpg (46KB, 440x620px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 440x620px

>>54418811
We should note that "hotel" is a very relative term. The Japanese called the Yamatos that because they possessed unabashed luxuries like separate eating areas (aka mess halls) and bunks outside of work areas. To your average Japaneses sailor, eating a half a bowl of rice in his bunk underneath a propeller shaft, that might seem an unaccountable extravagance but would still be considered spartan even on America destroyers.

>>54421021
That post was mainly in jest anyway. Got any more interior pics of IJN ships, though?

File: 27a4c52796a3062f4e0436127f4691b9--nagasaki-submarines[1].jpg (49KB, 620x466px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 620x466px

>>54421079
I understood that it was, I was mainly putting out some historical trivia.

There are shockingly few pictures of daily life aboard Japanese warships, especially amongst the enlisted. When you find them, they're good as good.

File: paintbism19412[1].jpg (34KB, 740x217px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 740x217px

>>54415110
Some ships actually did use solid colored camos. See USN Ms 21 or RN's experiments with Montbatten pink.

>>54415215
Some of the other camo styles, like the KM's Batlic camo attempted to hide the distance and direction of the ship through false bows and wakes.

File: interior-of-battleship-roma.jpg (181KB, 1024x715px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1024x715px

>>54418746
Roma was an art deco masterpiece on the inside.

HMS Agincourt was pretty lavishly appointed, even by Royal Navy standards.

File: ROMA107.jpg (141KB, 1024x751px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1024x751px

>>54421903

>>54421891
False wakes I think were also used by the USN.

File: ROMA109.jpg (171KB, 1024x736px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1024x736px

>>54421915

>>54421916

USN Ms. 5 had them, apparently

>>54421903
>HMS Agincourt was pretty lavishly appointed, even by Royal Navy standards

Probably because the Ottomans paid for the whole thing.

File: Ms.Rodney, you have no ass.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>>54425169

>>54425169
I love the Nelsons. They are beautiful.

>>54424176
Well, that's a new one, can't id it for shit.

I've cut out a bunch of paper tokens from Victory at Sea but am not sure about the system.

I'm looking for something a bit more gritty. Hitting specific areas and determining if you penetrate based on the armour value of that specific area.

I know Bismarck had some advanced rules for rather tactical play but I can't find a pdf.

Bonus Points if it's in the mediafire folder

>>54429958
Not quite as detailed as you might want, but check out Naval War at naval-war.com

It's a bit more detailed than VaS but still quite playable.

File: ROMA152-1024x766.jpg (163KB, 1024x766px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1024x766px

>>54421903

After seeing this post I went googling. I am legit astounded at this WAR SHIP's interior.

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

667KB, 3072x1827px

>>54432662
Her exterior was pretty easy on the eyes as well.

File: 25dea8aa9353fab5964674b83bd9e654.jpg (50KB, 736x544px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 736x544px

>>54432662

Look at the bedside table on the left ... it's a deco design masterclass.

File: IMG_9995.jpg (337KB, 1971x1478px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1971x1478px

>>54432662
>I am legit astounded at this WAR SHIP's interior.

Nah, that's just the life of an officer.

File: DSCN6867.jpg (218KB, 1296x972px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1296x972px

And then a supersonic ten pound chunk of jagged iron come and say hi to your intestines. Oh well. At least the rabble's no less likely to suffer that than you are.

>>54432751
Yeah. Also to be fair, those are all probably the Roma's port quarters for the captain and officers. The sea quarters are prooobably more spartan.

>>54421903
>>54421915
>>54421939
That is fucking beautiful

File: RIP.jpg (641KB, 1352x1559px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1352x1559px

>Playing as Italy and whooping A-H's ass
>Spain joins in because tensions ran too high
>First battle against the Spaniards is 2 of my BCs escorted by 2 CLs and 3 DDs against a Spanish legacy fleet CA and 4 escorting DDs
>This happens

Jesus Christ, RNG, calm down.
And while chasing down the fleeing DDs, Amalfi got nailed by a torpedo because I got too greedy. Took it like a champ, though, even without torpedo protection.

>>54435012
Nuked by a 7 inch gun, jesus.

File: image0181[1].gif (9KB, 400x310px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 400x310px

>>54436081
Flash fires are fucking scary.
One of the Queen Elizabeths, Malaya, was almost lost to a flash fire caused by a single 12" shell during the battle of Jutland. It hit the secondary battery casemate, killed the entire crew in the starboard battery and the resulting fire almost reached the 6" magazine, which was directly adjacent to the 15" magazine.

>>54436826
Yikes. And I'd read somewhere that the RN at that point had grown a little lax as to flash-tightness and powder handling discipline.

>>54436826
Do you have more damage/damage control stories to tell anon?

I would like to hear more.

More damage diagrams would also be appreciated.

>>54437560
>a little lax

Wasn't it one of the big reasons the brits lost so many battle cruisers at Jutland? (Blaming the designs of the ships was a cover to prevent men responsible for the horrifically bad habits the navy had trained into their crews from being exposed)

>>54439079
Yeah. Powder trains from the turrets to the magazines and such.

>>54438814
>look closely at this pic
>notice that the secondary battery is all aimed at the camera aircraft

Man even from a friendly plane that's gotta be unnerving as fuck.

>>54439039
This site here is a treasure trove of hit analysis to the ships involved at Jutland starting from chapter 5. http://webpages.charter.net/abacus/news/jutland/

The only issue is that the text was transcribed using a scanner, so there's weird stuff like "1/zin" which should actually be "1/2in".

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

500KB, 2400x1698px

So, anons of /nwg/

What would your ideal destroyer, cruiser, battleship, or carrier be like?

>>54439906
>not asking about submarines

File: I-176.jpg (51KB, 1164x324px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1164x324px

>>54439982
A submarine is fine too.

Alternately, post your craziest RtW and related designs.

>>54439906
That's a bit like one of my gottagofast 1899 rtw designs. I tend to put four funnels on the earlier fast vessels

>>54439906

>What would your ideal destroyer, cruiser, battleship, or carrier be like?

... able to totally kick ass out of any other ship of it's class?
Srsly, there's a reason power creep exists, ya know?

>>54439906
Rule of thumb for general superiority: what you can't outrun, outgun.

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

364KB, 1992x888px

>>54440676
It's a good policy

>>54439290

Thanks

>>54439906
>What would your ideal destroyer, cruiser, battleship, or carrier be like?
What era? Assuming Modern just for giggles.

> destroyer
Small, Lightweight, Semi-Disposable. Probably 4,500-6,500 l.tons, 32kts, and armed with a spread of a couple of twin 5" autoloading gun mounts, AA missiles, and ASW missiles. It would not have a helo-hanger, but it would have a small flight neck to 'guest' helos if needed.
Its primary role would be AAW, while also assisting in ASW.

>cruiser
I would actually have two types. One would be a Heavy Cruiser analogy for surface warfare and medium AA duties, the other would be a Helicopter Cruiser for ASW work.
Both of these would be Alaska-class huge.
I like Missiles-Fired-From-Guns, but the weapons for the CA are up for debate.

>battleship
A logical extreme extension of the Iowa-design, but being designed to crush everything in a one-on-one fight, even submarines - with a focus on Anti-Capital and Anti-Air duties.
They would be armed with Large Bore Guns, but those guns would probably be throwing scramjet projectiles making them glorified (but armored) missile launchers.

>carrier
The Nimitzes were going in the right direction, honestly, just give them the aircraft and role they were designed for (Air Superiority).

>submarines
SSKs.
Seriously, SSKs.
Hundreds of them.
U-boat numbers of them.

Hey, so, is there a book/game that replicates the Mahan's fleet in being as a part of its campaign structure? I'm trying to do a refight of the 13th black crusade and I want to make it less about random battles and more about trying to manage your whole fleet and its necessities at any one moment.

>>54439906
>>54446421

>Destroyer
Cheap and small. Hell it wouldn't even be a proper destroyer. I'd just do a more modern take on the Oliver Hazard Perry class. Mass produce them. ASW/AAW/Generalist unit.

>Cruiser
Like >>54446421 I would have two vessel types. One would be AAW/ASW focused with a heavy VTOL complement. Surface to Surface combat taken care of by a limited gun/missile option. Second would be all about the Surface to Surface combat with an AAW secondary. Heavy missile battery.

>BB
Modern take on the Kirov concept but with the addition of at least two good guns. Basically just a bigger version of the second cruiser concept.

>CV
Big boy whose primary missions are Air Defense and ASW. Heavier VTOL compliment than normal. Gads of defensive measures and at least some Surface to Surface capabilities.

>Subs
Again i'm with >>54446421. Lots of high quality SSKs. Perhaps something along the lines of German Type 212 subs.

>>54440024
>A sub is fine too.

HERESY!

File: U1l.jpg (1MB, 1600x1093px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1093px

>>54449352
>not giving love to ubotes

Is there much info on rtw 2 available yet?

>>54450875
Nope

File: Surcouf_FRA.jpg (92KB, 909x391px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 909x391px

What if my submarine is also my cruiser

File: UCh9u3J.jpg (401KB, 2325x1618px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 2325x1618px

>>54452244
I concur

File: 9f7EzWX.jpg (781KB, 2678x1532px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 2678x1532px

>>54452244
>>54452851
Guns too small.

>>54451014
Shame. It would be nice to know what to expect.

>>54452905
what the shit

>>54453715
That is a no-shit 12 inch gun on there, friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_M1

>>54453751
>They put a 12 inch gun on it because they thought you couldn't torpedo a moving target

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Royal Navy.

>>54453751
> Murdered by the Swedes
They just ruin everything don't they?

>>54454142
I mean at the time they were kind of right, torpedoes in WW1 were basically the naval equivalent of a melee weapon.

>>54454248
>I mean at the time they were kind of right

Not even. They'd had the armored cruisers Aboukir, Cressy, and Hogue sunk in one action by submarine launched torpedoes while underway - and this was nearly 3 YEARS before M1 was launched. And while those torpedoes were launched from under 1000 yards, slapping a 12 inch gun on a sub with no fire control was probably more expensive than just making more accurate, longer ranged torps.

>>54454972
I wonder now what it cost to develop the torpedo computers used in WW2.

>>54455147
I seem to recall reading that the US' collective fire control systems cost roughly $800 million 1941 dollars to develop over the life of their developmental processes, but I cannot for the life of me remember the book I read that in and I just spent the last hour skimming my references.

So, to answer your question, "somewhere between 'ouch' and pushing up daisies".

File: Radar.jpg (86KB, 826x662px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 826x662px

>>54450875
Timeline set from 1900-1950, floatplanes confirmed, carriers confirmed, tech will be extended all the way to 1950, planes might mistake their own ships for enemy ships, there will be radar (pic related).

>>54459003
Noice. Do we know how far through the dev process it is?

>>54459045
The only thing they keep saying is that "we're not far enough into the developement process to give previews yet", so we can only guess.

>>54459140
A shame, sounds pretty delicious though. I wonder how long it will take to put out 2...

>>54450875

Well, I can tell you the only thing I know about it right now: I'll buy it.

>>54459844
It does sound like a worthy successor.

>>54459003
I really hope we'll get more fleshed out design/research mechanics for guns, shells and mounts. Stuff beyond just quality, like you could have a great 16 inch gun but your engineers just can't for the life of them figure out a triple mounting for it that doesn't suck a bag of dicks, so you content yourself with double turrets for longer than other nations.

>>54460731
Yeah, being able to fiddle with your shells' casing materials/configurations and burster size/composition a la Children of a Dead Earth would be awesome.

File: image.jpg (156KB, 766x401px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 766x401px

>>54459003
>Planes might mis-id ships

Hope aerial recognition marks are a thing too.

>>54453751
The good old M-class, trying (and failing) at so many things.

>>54460731
>like you could have a great 16 inch gun but your engineers just can't for the life of them figure out a triple mounting for it that doesn't suck a bag of dicks, so you content yourself with double turrets for longer than other nations.

I sort of had that happen in a varied tech game in RtW1 lately. engineers researched triple turrets but by the time they research improved triple turrets which removes the massive reliability penalty, it was already 1923 or so.
Never really used any triples, except on a single class of treaty CA to squeeze in as many guns as possible.

>>54462085
Varied tech can cause all kinds of interesting scenarios even without that random nerf/buff into certain techs.
>after years of building reliable triple turrets your nation's leading scientists finally figure out how to make them unreliable
>lol using oil as fuel for our warships? that is fucking crazy talk
>hexagonal turrets arrangements well into mid-1910 because no one in the research bureau thought about having more than 2 centerline turrets

File: 0008994_japanese-destroyer-captain.jpg (132KB, 600x901px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 600x901px

>>54409637

I recently listened to this book from Audible and I found it be very interesting, if a little depressing. I highly recommend it to anybody who wants to better understand what a destroyer actually does, and the psychology of a destroyer captain. Before this book, I had this belief that destroyers were only used for hunting submarines. It turns out, they're expected to do much, much more than that.

>>54463816
It is very interesting but one must remember the Japanese context to the book when compared to the western allies and use of destoryers.

>>54464365

What's the difference?

>>54465378
Well it depends. Youre talkinga bout wartime naval doctrine and expediency. Japan used Fleet Destroyers as transports, no one else did. That stems from stragetic and logistical limiatiations.

Western allies used DEs and Corvettes most for convoy protection and ASW which is often talked about when dicsussing destroyers. Which all gets lumped in when talking about destroyers, its a massive topic and the terms destroyer mean differnt things at differnt times. Im too drunk to really talk but theres plent of books that could explain doctrine far better than I could.

>>54462859
>lol using oil as fuel for our warships? that is fucking crazy talk

This one's not as crazy as it sounds--oil was still pretty scarce and expensive for a lot of countries in the first quarter of the 20th century. The USA was the only major shipbuilding nation with enough oil reserves at the time to readily change to pure oil firing (and even they decided to deliberately dial things back to coal with oil spray on the initial configuration of the New York class), and the UK had just enough that the expense was deemed justified in seeking performance increases.

>>54469496
>when superfiring turrets go horribly awry

>>54460785
I'd love to see mods for this. Especially ones that allow for crazy weird-science shit. I want to drop shells full of angry bees on enemy ships.

>>54470861
>18" shell that's 99% explosive filler
>IF one hits, it simply disintegrates the enemy
>every light cruiser involved in the battle sinks from splinter damage
>secondary gun crews cease to exist
>destroyers are erased from the history records

On a more serious note, I'd like to see some crazy stuff. But I think at most we're gonna get beehive shells and maybe, MAYBE nuclear shells.

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

44KB, 383x700px

>>54470957
>the Minengeschoss concept applied to naval artillery

File: Sea_Pattern_Brown_Bess.jpg (22KB, 769x154px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 769x154px

>tfw will never cap frogs from the fighting top of a stout wooden vessel

>>54477516
that's North Carolina class, right?

>>54477865
Yup, the Showboat herself to be precise.

>>54477865
American BB classes build during/immediately before WW2 are pretty easy to tell apart if you know where to look.
>NC 2 funnels fairly close together
>SD 1 funnel
>Iowas 2 funnels further away from each other than on NC, extremely pronounced bow

>>54478573
...Is that an early attempt to make a submarine, or did that bote sink in the harbour?

>>54480734
That is USS Katahdin, a late 19th century naval ram.

>>54482579
It is always pretty weird to see a lattice mast on non-USN boat.

>>54439906
>>54440024

Some kind of large research submarine. (like a research ship that hosts labs and deploys ROVs and submersibles but it doesn't have to stop working because weather topside turns to shit)

>>54452905
Is that an interwar cruiser submarine?

>POLICE ASSIS
Captcha I'm not sure that's the best thing to intercept narcotics submarines with.

>>54477947
When did North Carolina get the nickname "showboat"?

>>54484231
Great War era submarine monitor armed with a 12-incher taken form old pre-dread.

File: Polyphemus in drydock.jpg (68KB, 400x500px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 400x500px

>>54478573 >>54480734 >>54480848

>USS Katahdin, a late 19th century naval ram

Thank you.
Me and my father had fun reading about the HMS Polyphemus (1881) and USS Katahdin (1893) after I found out they existed thanks to this thread.

Seriously go read about these two boats.

>>54484371
>submarine monitor

what was the thinking behind such a thing?

you are taking a coastal defence ship and making it more complicated to run and maintain while also sacrificing armor and the ability of the crew to escape in the event of a sinking.

do we have any torpedo history experts here?

I would like to know when the earliest experiments with wire guided self propelled torpedoes were.

>>54463816
I really want the first line of that book to be: "Work very hard at keeping your ship upright, as your ship is inevitably far too top heavy"

>>54467214
>the UK had just enough that the expense was deemed justified in seeking performance increases

and the UK had to ship the oil it owned from the land said oil was under to the British Isles.

>>54485251
Well, the first one made was the Whitehead torpedo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehead_torpedo

Which apparently came from experiments and ideas taken from the Austro-Hungarian Navy in the 1850s.

>>54485400
the whitehead was self propelled but not wire guided as far as I know.

>>54485745
Ah, missed that

>>54485745
True wire guidance in torpedoes wasn't done until the 1960s, I think.

>>54485784

I'm looking to learn about early floundering around and testing with the idea, not the first battle ready weapons system deployed.

>>54485920
That's I think when they were trialed, actually.

>>54485784

you mean the russian USET torps?

>>54485964
Oh hey, looks like I was wrong, here's the USN's first attempt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_39_torpedo

Experimental torpedo made for developing wire guidance systems.

>>54485964
wow.
I thought experiments with wire guided torps would have come earlier

>>54486012

makes sense the US would start on it late. their torpedo program for most of the early half of the 20th century was hilariously and tragically corrupt.

>>54486162
It's a fucking miracle they sank as many ships as they did, frankly. The Mk. 14 was pure garbage in the shape of a torpedo.

>>54486480
Needs to be a USN vs BuOrd solo game.

>play rtw as uk
>it takes until fucking 1917 before my eggheads figure out that you can have a superfiring b turret

You know what is the worst part about these short bus riders? They figured out how to have a superfiring x turret way back in 1905.

File: 1492294667956.jpg (183KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1280x851px

>>54488834
I hope that at least you got 4/5+ centerline turrets early to make some Ganguts.
I think I once went until 1914 until somebody figured out more than two centerline turrets.
So many fucking Nassaus and Kawachis.

>>54488921
Nope, it took until 1912 before they figured out that you could have more than 3 centerline turrets and by that point I was too busy going full kraut with submarines to build anything that wasn't either DD or SS.

>>54489047
Amazing.

I'm really confused by RTW. How do I get battles to just auto-resolve without my input?

>>54470134
>>when superfiring turrets go horribly awry
Isn't that the Nelson-class BBs?

>>54491453
Only raider interceptions can be auto-resolved.
You have to decline all others, or just swing your fleet around to the nearest port as soon as the battle starts.

>>54491466
The Delaware and Florida classes also had problems with their rear superfiring turrets.

>>54491453

>auto-resolving battles

Error: failure to Rule the Waves detected.

Bloodwake anon here, paging Captain John Doe, if you're out there buddy pop by, we got some stuff to catch you up on.

File: Showboat Origin Story.jpg (592KB, 720x943px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 720x943px

>>54484253
Found three different sources that all agree that the press nicknamed her that after she made repeated trials in and out of New York harbor while trying to straighten out some mechanical issues.

>>54498348
My boss is a retired Seabee. He enters the lottery every year, and I'm hoping he wins it once before he's too old to make it there. Be a hell of at thing to take a ride on.

>>54494041
is that the kotetsu?

>>54499816

Oh, hell no!
That's ... uh ... Stonewall Jackson!
*nods* Yep. Uh-huh. Fer sure.

No, I'm just pretending to be stupid ... seriously.

File: Panzerschiff Ting Yuen.jpg (4MB, 4023x3077px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4023x3077px

>>54499589
Thanks for reminding me that I have this picture saved. I would have uploaded the .png version, but that one's around 9MB.

>>54501743
why did some early metal hulled warships have such low free board?

Was the idea to compensate for low speed and maneuverability of early steam driven warships compared to sail driven warships by putting most of the vessel bellow the waterline to make it hard to shoot since gun ranges were relatively short at the time so you couldn't do plunging fire?

>>54504402
That might have been part of it, though I'd imagined that most ships with freeboard that low were coastal defense and riverine combat ships that weren't meant to go out into the high seas in the first place.

>>54506267
French pre-dreads, somehow they always manage to surprise you with their weird designs.

File: e54307bb.jpg (231KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1280x960px

>>54506267
>>54510767

I'll say. This ones wearing high waters, has FAR too many holes in her cloths to be healthy, and doesn't seem to know which direction she's supposed to be going weapon-wise.

And thats the reason I love this era so much. SO many interesting designs. No one sure which ideas are good or bad. Tech evolving so quickly. Its great.

>>54511422
>And thats the reason I love this era so much. SO many interesting designs. No one sure which ideas are good or bad. Tech evolving so quickly. Its great.

It really is. A great spirit of experimentation permeated that era.

>>54506267
That ship has no ass!

>>54513571
what kind of ship ass is best ass

Not sure if this is the place to ask but, are there any cold war era/modern naval wargames besides Harpoon floating around? Looking for this one in particular:

http://www.wargamevault.com/product/121787/MODERN-NAVAL-CONFLICTS-1970s

File: QYiePkS.jpg (387KB, 1450x1330px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1450x1330px

>>54514561

>>54514803
Heard that it is decent but then again I'm not into modern stuff so no first hand experience with it. Other than that 2nd Fleet is the only other thing that comes to mind.

>>54409637
>>54409783
Did this shit actually work?

>>54518200
Nobody really knows.

>>54518200
/k/ommando here, the point of tge groovy ass paint job is to break up the ships silhouette just like regular camo. Since radar is a thing its pointless to try to hide it (visually) so they dont bother making them grey or blue (you know ocean colors).

>>54518645
Radar's (specifically ranging fire control radar) honestly the thing that made it obsolete. Also, later naval camo often was in grays and blues.

>>54519639
Fair enough. Its been awhile since i brushed up on my naval history.

>>54520738
THAT'S A LOT OF STACKS

also turrets

File: 035_HMS_Furious1.jpg (263KB, 1643x1059px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1643x1059px

Too much French shit in this thread recently.

>>54522750
how can you tell?

>>54520738
I'm I wrong or is the dip behind the wake more pronounced on this ship than most modern designs?

Tell me /nwg/, are shore batteries superior to actual botes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ79i11JSnU

>>54522750
>30 knots

For some reason I thought HMS Furious was a slow ship.


>>54524370
Shore batteries are only for a few tasks. botes let you do more things.

>>54524370
>Tell me /nwg/, are shore batteries superior to actual botes?

Only as long as they outrange the guns on the botes and the botes don't have accurate locations on them. Otherwise, they're fucked.

>>54517545
Is that rusty W?

>>54524230
Yes-it's the result of an inefficient hull design producing a bow wave, which modern ships negate with a bulbous bow that generates a bow wave which partially cancels the wake. This means less energy goes into creating the wake, resulting in a more efficient and smoother passage.
https://youtu.be/jog1NsR_cDo?t=2m

>>54524391
>fisher's autistic pet projects
>ever being slow

>>54529306
Fisher is basically real-life Raith Sienar, but with big guns instead of solar panels

>>54529396
You know, Zoomwall has got plenty of flat surfaces we could attach panels to. Who shall take up Jackie Boy's mantle in this day and age? Who will build tomahawk armed torpedo boats, Motherships for attack subs disguised as container vessels, or nuclear powered harbor defense tugs?

>>54529667
Did Art Cebrowski count, or am I just a boring fuddy duddy?

>>54531418
you don't see chinese ships of that period very often.

>>54532789
Imagine if the Qing dynasty had gotten some proper pre-dreads.

>>54432782
Have some fun for once in your life

>>54534969
Why does the one gun in the B turret have the banding on it?

File: Tiger_1913_10.jpg (371KB, 1447x2343px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1447x2343px

>>54536298
Who knows, they seem to appear at least in couple pictures of Tiger that were taken in late 1910s/early 1920s.

>pic related, both of her b turret's guns seem to sport those bandings

>>54538485
Unfortunately Navweaps doesn't mention anything about it, either. Doesn't even have a picture of that model of gun with those bandings on it.

Perhaps meant to stiffen certain guns against muzzle droop in transit for a time?

File: 30629846334_572ce0c156_b.jpg (265KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1024x683px

>>54538795
Maybe the barrels got warped during the war/gunnery drills and those things are there to help recalibrate them? Just a wild guess from my side, I really have no clue about this and can't find anything about them either.

File: Tiger_1913_11.jpg (470KB, 2499x1470px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 2499x1470px

>>54536298
>>54538485
>>54538795
>>54538940
I think that I might have figured it out. See that aircraft launch platform on top of turret b? Those bandings seem to be there to support the rails that were used to launch aircrafts.

see Benbow in http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_13-45_mk5_Benbow_pic.jpg for another example of it.

>>54539090
I'll be damned. I missed that because there's not nearly as many bands on Benbow there as there are on Tiger above, but those are definitely the same kind of bands.

File: 62778fe0af9d00762d5c1fd3af6229f0--naval-history-military-history.jpg (81KB, 650x960px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 650x960px

>>54539090
Looks like you got it! Found this after googling a bit.

>>54539163
>>54539090
Neat.

>>54415110
iirc either the IJN or USN did studies on it, and found that it did make the user harder to accurately lead in the day, but actually made you easier to lead and hit at night.

Not that it mattered since the US didn't use it and the Japanese were fighting people armed with radars anyway.

>>54539163
How does that work when it's time to elevate the barrels?

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

>>54539558
>since the US didn't use it

I mean, the Measures didn't generally include the classic zebra pattern, but still.

>>54415110
>Actually i remember reading that solid blocks of colour are much better for hiding MOVING objects (ie the Israel Defence Force Olive Green or the Austrian Armies current service outfits)

Swedish air force splinter camo (aka viggen camo) is supposedly better in motion than when stationary. So this may vary from pattern to pattern. One possibility is a that a lot of camo schemes were designed based on photographs, creating a bias towards optimising for stationary.

>>54539558
>>54415110
Well, it seems the site is unfortunately down, but I'm 99% I got the information about the Japanese finding Dazzle ineffective at night from
>http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200K-0022-0089%20Report%20X-32.pdf
Hopefully it comes back up, since that site is the only full online archive of the United States Naval Technical Mission to Japan.

File: Treaty Pitsburg.png (68KB, 1014x755px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1014x755px

>>54446421

Honestly, I' say move your destroyer plan down to a frigate and make your destroyer a proper fleet unit. Eurofrigs get a bad rap, but they're just a smaller version of what you're describing.

The thing about a frigate versus a destroyer is that a frigate is primarily reactionary, read defensive. Destroyers are what you send to bomb Sandystan and fuck things up, and should have 96-ish cells and good PD so it can serve as an indipendant contact or as part of the AAW net.

That said, battleships are a dead letter unless you've got both good, working railguns and Moskit missiles, and at that point you're a giant slab of bait for submarines. Then there's also the problem that missiles are fucking expensive, which doesn't help at all.

Pic is a RtW deign from when I was not in a right mind.

File: 20170726143342_1.jpg (261KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1920x1080px

Little German Battlecruiser action.

>>54539632
I assume you can remove it leaving just the bands on the barrels. Really you want to launch your spotter aircraft well in advance anyway, not mid gunnery duel.

Beyond that getting the planes onto existing hulls would be preferable to having to wait for new ships to be commissioned that were designed with dedicated aircraft facilities or for existing hulls to be rebuilt to accommodate them. It's important to remember that military aviation almost didn't exist pre-WW1 but by 1918 it was a well established and important facet of the armed forces. That leaves you with the fleet you went to war with lacking any aircraft facilities and the fleet you're left with after the war lacking the funding for expensive rebuilds.

File: 16in-11in subcaliber SCRAM shell.jpg (21KB, 469x255px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 469x255px

>>54542350
> move your destroyer plan down to a frigate and make your destroyer a proper fleet unit.
I was describing a Fleet DD, US Spruance-class at the latest as an example of a comparable US design (and even then, it's a 'Super-DD'), which is an escort.
DDs (in my opinion) are best suited as Aggressive Escorts, not purely offensive arms except in cases of last resort.
Or political fuck ups and know-nothings ruining your optimum fleet distribution, as was the case with the US.
By all practical definitions, I was describing a fleet unit.

> Destroyers are what you send to bomb Sandystan and fuck things up
That is the role of a Cruiser.
The 1970s fleet reorganization needs to die, the US' hull designation system made a lot more sense in WW2, when everything had a defined role and mission creep wasn't nearly as bad.

>That said, battleships are a dead letter...
The US actually was actually experimenting with ~450nmi+ Scramjet powered 16in shells in the 80s (pic related), and Pratt & Whitney (the guys in charge of the US' scramjet programs) R&D teams are still arguing in favor of them.
The modern estimates place a 18in SCRAM shell as being a 'Precision Guided Armor Piercing Tomahawk equivalent with a range of 1500nmi and a speed of Mach 7, ringing in at at ~$140k/shell'.
We actually test fired 100nmi+ ASuW shells, ASW shells were 'operational and working as intended', Anti-Satellite shells were being developed, Anti-Ballistic Missile were being developed from those. This all in the late 80s. Fast forward to today and multiple MW defensive lasers are technically ready to field, anti-torpedo torpedos are a thing, and NWC Dahlgren has developed 'super armor which invalidates every functional weapon system we know of short of nukes'. All we are lacking is a willing financial system to fund them, and we'd have floating fortresse Super-Capitals back.
TLDR: Battleships are no dead letter.

t. defense focused Naval Engineer

>>54544452
Neat.

>>54544452
>The 1970s fleet reorganization needs to die, the US' hull designation system made a lot more sense in WW2, when everything had a defined role and mission creep wasn't nearly as bad.

Tbh hull designation system needed a major overhaul to match the modern standards, the biggest problem with the 70s overhaul was that it didn't go far enough.

File: Richelieu Ass.jpg (88KB, 650x431px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 650x431px

>>54514561

>>54550453
damn son, this is a blue board.

>>54550453
>desire to play rtw2 intensifies

File: tiger3.jpg (549KB, 2400x1415px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 2400x1415px

>>54514561

File: BB-Tirpitz.jpg (125KB, 760x380px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 760x380px

Question: What is/was the largest ship fitted with torpedoes?

I know the Tirpitz had its refit with 2x4 tubes added, but was there any larger (or more unusual) ship with torpedo armament?

>>54551428
I think that Furious still had some torpedo armament left after her conversion into a hybrid carrier-light battlecruiser.

>>54551428
Rodnol was the only battleship to ever actually torpedo a battleship. Texas retained her tubes as well.

>>54542625

Isn't that Bayern?

>>54553350
Looks more Mackensen-ish to me, mostly because of aft.

>>54553350
Ersatz Yorck, so no, not the Bayern.

File: 20170401104524_1.jpg (478KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1920x1080px

>>54553067
"Alledgedly" torpedoed a battlship. The reports are conflicting.

Still, Rodnol pushed Bismarck's shit in.

>>54446421
>>battleship
>A logical extreme extension of the Iowa-design, but being designed to crush everything in a one-on-one fight, even submarines - with a focus on Anti-Capital and Anti-Air duties.
>They would be armed with Large Bore Guns, but those guns would probably be throwing scramjet projectiles making them glorified (but armored) missile launchers.

Why not just replace the space with VLS tubes?

Lads, requesting some British predreads for RTW inspo

File: WNJAP_18-45_t94_Musashi_Firing_pic.jpg (93KB, 800x441px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x441px

>>54559321
>Why not just replace the space with VLS tubes?

sure

you can do that.

if you have no soul.

File: 1280px-HMS_Agamemnon_LOC_ggbain_18554.jpg (96KB, 1280x701px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1280x701px

>>54559933
if it's RtW you're looking for, hard to go wrong with the Lord Nelson class.

File: HMSSwiftsure-IWM-Q40256[1].jpg (45KB, 800x608px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 800x608px

>>54559933
Does Swiftsure count?

File: vls.jpg (137KB, 490x328px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 490x328px

>>54559944
Different kind of soul anon.
I just like precision.

File: HMS_Swiftsure_LOC_ggbain_16800.jpg (1MB, 3300x1980px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3300x1980px

>>54560031
Or if you're looking for something slightly more traditional to start off with, there's the Swiftsure class, their direct predecessors.

>>54548725
In the end, it's really just opinion.
I was and am satisfied with the old way because everything had a clear cut doctrinal role, and we built ships to do those roles, and we built ships that did those roles well (or comically bad).
I do agree that tossing around some uniform names wasn't a bad idea, such as replacing the US' 'Frigate' with the old 'Destroyer Leader' and changing 'Escort Destroyer' to the international standard 'Frigate'.

DDE/FF: Ocean-Going Escorts, they are disposable and not intended to survive battle.
DD/G: Fleet Escorts that protect the Battle Line (which in today's time is hundreds of miles wide). It is preferred that they survive battle, but their loss is acceptable.
DL/'Frigates' (US Pre-70s): Leader of Destroyer-Groups. Technically command-focused Light Cruisers.
CL(G): Heavy Escorts, ergo the center of defensive lines.
CA(G): Somewhat more affordable Offense/Assault Specialists, effectively midget capital ships.
BB(B/F/G): Both the heaviest offensive/assault unit and the heaviest defensive units. Doctrinally used primarily for spearhead operations into enemy A2/AD zones, the Iowa-class never survived to see this doctrine enacted.
CV(L/S): Anti-Submarine Carrier with a limited ability to project Air-Cover over a small region. See Cold-War Essex-class.
CV (Fleet): Air-Superiority Carrier with limited Anti-Surface and Strike Warfare capabilities.
CVA(N): Strike (Anti-Land) Warfare Carrier with limited Anti-Surface and Air-Superiority capabilities. See Midway-class through their entire lives and late-life Nimitz-class.
CVE: Ocean Going air-cover based Escort. Carrier equivalent of the Escort Destroyer and not intended to survive battle.
etc, etc.

Today's time, in my opinion, the ratings are:
LCS/FF: For buying hookers.
DD/G: For sucking dick.
CG: For showing off dick.
CV/N: For waving dick.
SS/N: For Surprise Buttsex.
SSB/N: For mutual rape time.

File: Artists Depiction of Flight 3 Iowa-class Reactivations.png (566KB, 3000x1318px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 3000x1318px

>>54559321

Because the ship would have them for defensive purposes anyway?
See pic related, an artist's depiction of the never-realized Flight III Iowa-class 1980s Reactivations.
Considering the offensive power and lethal accuracy of the precision-guided SCRAM shells (not to mention the massive speed advantage of Scramjet powered missilery), the ship would have no need for Tomahawks for land strike duties. Lighter weight versions of the SCRAM shells would also be capable of mid-course guidance (or even independent target selection), so they would be adequate in the Anti-Ship Role as well. Therefore, the number of cells would be perfectly adequate, and it could have Armored Box Launchers rigged up for the next-gen AShMs if they every actually get around to getting that to work (I dislike everyone's entry into that field except Russia's).
For clarification, the CEP of a Tomahawk Cruise Missile is 20 meters (the various attempts at mid-course guidance balloons this to a undisclosed figure, which could be as little as 23 meters for all I know - advantage of wings). The CEP of the SCRAM shells against a point target is 3 yards (mid-course guidance would balloon this to about 25-50 yards, which would still be within its lethal radius, but it is still the disadvantage of nosecone guidance).

Before anyone asks, nobody uses these things because of the massive upfront costs in getting the ships to fire these things and the industry to build them in the first place. Nobody in any of the powers that could afford it likes the thought of spending billions upon billions of dollars on something that doesn't make them look good between elections.

>>54560612
Fuck, that sounds cool. Shame it never worked out.

Ship article is the featured article on Wikipedia:

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

>>54553067
>Texas retained her tubes as well.
Got source on that? Wiki says they were removed in the 1926 refit, but it's wiki so...

Who makes good jap ships?

>>54561966
No, it's right. I misremembered. I remembered there being a lot of crowing about them being on her, and my poor addled brain fabricated the rest.

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/w05texas.htm

when are battleships going to be overpowered in WOWS?

Seriously they deserve a turn at being the broken overpowered ship type. Destroyers, Cruisers, and Carriers have all had turns at this point.

>>54567077
Battleships will never be powerful in that shitgame so long as the ranges for combat are as compressed as they are.

>>54567116
they could be if the guns had no dispersion

what kind of non nuclear naval explosion takes the longest for the debris to stop falling?

I'm guessing most of the events at the top of the list were cargo ships loaded with munitions exploding like the Halifax disaster.

Please share what you've got.

>>54567525
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Chicago_disaster

Always a classic.

>>54567077
Battleships are overpowered you mong, all the high tier players are in agreement on that, as are all the competitive clans. They've been the far and away most dominant class for about 10 patches, and have continually been buffed because mouthbreathing cunts like you are so shit at everything you've ever done with your life you manage to not do well in them.

>>54567809
I've never played a battleship since I tried the Japanese battleship line back in the closed beta.

ever since I've played everything BUT battleships.

I just find that in most games battleship drivers are the most useless and the team with the most battleships tends to lose.

>>54567988
sorry i meant OPEN beta.

>>54567988
That has more to do with them having generally lower skill, more passive players in them, and the fact that DDs and CVs, while less dominant in terms of gameplay are more essential to winning matches because they contest caps and spot, so they tend to win more Domination or epicentre matches.

>>54567809
I'm still shocked that wargaming brand games have competitive scenes

>>54567809

>World of Warships
Are low tier battleships still useless as tits on a fish no matter who is driving them?

>>54567535
>those court marshals.

>>54417484
Has a sub ever had its sail/fin torn off or blown off and managed to get back to port?

>>54568125
Everything at low tier sucks, WG doesn't give a shit about anything below Tier VI and only really cares about Tier VII and up because that's where they make their money.

File: Canopus class.jpg (4MB, 3329x2616px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3329x2616px

HMS Goliath

>>54568146
No idea off the top of my head.

>>54568184
wasn't she the canopus-class that got sunk by literally a lone destroyer making a torpedo run?

File: Muâvenet-i Millîye the ship that sank Goliath.jpg (47KB, 545x382px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 545x382px

>>54568216

File: big.jpg (195KB, 1248x1000px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1248x1000px

I'd like a laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge

File: shots fired.png (177KB, 548x319px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 548x319px

>>54559944

>>54562092
Not the japs

Sorry, it had to be done.
You'll have to give us a scale and era for a realistic answer.

>>54568645
the 1980's

>>54568730
http://www.navwar.co.uk/nav/default.asp?mmid=67&pos=151

https://www.shapeways.com/shops/amwarfig?section=Japanese+Navy&s=0

These are the best I can offer you right now.

>>54568645
the half century before perry showed up

I'm guessing the Satsuma clan had the most and possibly the best ships, but who in japan built them?

>>54568645
I'm not sure on scale. I'm new to this. Era would be world war 2.

>>54568785
thanks.

>>54568926
You could check out GHQ's 1/2400 range.

>>54568926
Bunch of decent stuff in various scales on Shapeways as well.

>>54568926
Check the pastebin in the OP.

>>54567525
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Princess_Irene
Not sure how long it took for the stuff to stop falling, but the distances always amaze me.

A collier half a mile (800 m) away had its crane blown off its mountings. A part of one of Princess Irene's boilers landed on the ship; a man working on the ship died from injuries sustained when he was struck by a piece of metal weighing 70 pounds (32 kg).[4][5][7][8]

Wreckage was flung up to 20 miles (32 km) away, with people near Sittingbourne being injured by flying débris,[3] some of which landed in Bredhurst.[2] Severed heads were found at Hartlip and on the Isle of Grain. A case of butter landed at Rainham, 6 miles (10 km) away.[6] A 10-ton (10,160 kg) section of the ship landed on the Isle of Grain.

>>54571592
Big, powerful explosions are to be expected if you load something up with shitload of potent explosives.

>>54573212
>>54573212