[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.56908660 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

K.u.K. Edition

Talk about botes, bote based wargaming and RPGs, and maybe even a certain bote based vidya that tickles our autism in just the right way.

Games, Ospreys and References (Courtesy of /hwg/)

Models and Manufacturers

Rule the Waves

Previous: >>56776113

>> No.56908838

>While your idea of multiple classes seems sensible, Japan couldn't afford to build them.
>They simply couldn't build an air recon CA class, a torp attack CA class, and any other specialized classes they needed in the numbers they needed of each. None of the powers - except perhaps the US after entering the war - had the money or industrial capacity to do that.
The key here is to build as many as they can that are actually good enough at doing what they were built to do.
Instead of building as many as possible, and all end up moderately shit at everything.

Sure, they could not have built enough of each type to be everywhere and do everything. But they could not do that with their overloaded, fragile designs that ended up being bad at almost everything anyway.

inb4 hindsight etc., they knew they lacked the nubmer of cruisers, they knew the US would outproduce them horribly two or so years into the war, and they knew their designs were overloaded.
Their leadership decided to ignore reality, and convinced themselves that 'Yamato spirit' would be enough.

>> No.56909403


>the KuKs are comfy because they're in way very reassuring
>mediocre ships, mediocre crews, mediocre command, and it all worked out pretty ok
>they held on to their bit of Adriatic, and that's all they were trying to get done
>they weren't sure they could do it, but by golly they did it

>> No.56909975

>The key here is to build as many as they can that are actually good enough at doing what they were built to do.
>Instead of building as many as possible, and all end up moderately shit at everything.

Exactly. They needed to build good general types instead of a handful of super-specialized the other poster suggested or the over-built ones they attempted in real life.

>Sure, they could not have built enough of each type to be everywhere and do everything.

No one could do that except, as I pointed, the US and then only after the war began. By mid-44, the US had more warships building than the navy's planned percentage of the draft could actually man.

>> No.56910073

>mediocre ships

I'll quibble about that. While their BBs were less than mediocre, they had good DDs, subs, and other light forces. I few of their crusier designs weren't bad either.

>>mediocre command

Again, I'll quibble about that too. They had some good commanders with good ideas. Their fleet, unlike the Entente's use of a few monitors, actually provided fire support against Serbia and Montenegro early in the war. The KuK navy also bombarded Italian ports the morning after Italy entered the war while the RM wasn't even ready. One KuK DD commander had the balls to actually BACK his ship into an Italian harbor to perform a bombardment mission so he could steam away more easily once the mission was completed.

The KuK navy had a pretty good war record, albeit against the pathetic Italians and the RN/MN 3rd string. They held their end of the Adriatic until the end and it was politically-driven inaction plus domestic revolution which saw the KuK navy rot away.

Much like the constant fighting between RN and SM light forces in the Narrows, the Otranto Barrage can provide lots of plausible skirmishes for naval gaming.

>> No.56910611

>They needed to build good general types instead of a handful of super-specialized the other poster suggested
What I meant was NOT a number of super-specialized types
To throw out some random examples of what NOT to do: Post refit Kitakami with her gazillion torpedo tubes, or post refit Mogami i.e. a seaplane tender with six guns)

What I meant were cruiser types with general capabilities to still be worth the name, but less overloaded with ALL the fucking gadgets they had in their inventory.

Or just say to hell with the treaty, we lied about the tonnage anyway, and build them big enough to actually make it work.

>> No.56910766

>Or just say to hell with the treaty, we lied about the tonnage anyway, and build them big enough to actually make it work.

They didn't have the money to do that either.

>> No.56911415

>US Navy Escort Carriers 1942–45 (New Vanguard 251)
While not as famous as their larger and faster sister ships, escort carriers made an enormous contribution towards Allied victory both in the Pacific and Atlantic theatres. It was their sheer numbers that made them so effective. Indeed, the Casablanca-class escort carrier was the most-produced aircraft carrier in history. In partnership with the Royal Navy, they provided the backbone of Allied anti-submarine efforts in the Atlantic. In the Pacific, they provided the air cover for the series of landings which led to the doorstep of Japan by 1945. These robust ships faced submarine, air, and even surface threats from the Japanese, but proved able to contend with everything thrown their way. Fully illustrated with contemporary photographs and unique specially commissioned artwork, this book shines a new light on these unjustly overlooked workhorses of the US Navy.

>British Destroyers 1939–45 - Wartime-built Classes (New Vanguard 253)
As the possibility of war loomed in the 1930s, the British Admiralty looked to update their fleet of destroyers to compete with the new ships being built by Germany and Japan, resulting in the commissioning of the powerful Tribal-class. These were followed by the designing of the first of several slightly smaller ships, which carried fewer guns than the Tribals, but were armed with a greatly enlarged suite of torpedoes. Designed to combat enemy warships, aircraft and U-boats, the British built these destroyers to face off against anything the enemy could throw at them. Using a collection of contemporary photographs and beautiful colour artwork, this is a fascinating new study of the ships that formed the backbone of the Royal Navy during World War II.

>> No.56911954

>This file was uploaded from New Zealand

God bless you, Kiwibro.

>> No.56912528

>> No.56913256

>> No.56914099

>> No.56914636

A report on a sinking with picture of flooding etc that might be of interest


>> No.56914649

A very stupid question regarding early steamships:
Why they were painted black? I'm not talking about those made from iron, that was just anti-corrosive coating, but what about those made still out of wood and painted black.

>> No.56914663

i think because the coal leave black mark anyway so a black paint don't require a new coating everytime your coal the ship

>> No.56914702

What about the white line for gun battery then? I mean I get it that both colours are probably just aesthetics at that point anyway, but I find it really weird.

>> No.56915450

>> No.56916401

>> No.56917117

>use bow and stern thrusters that have a 'material saving' design
>they fai due to fatigue (because they are overstressedand) and cause the shaft tunnel to flood
>install wrong cable penetration seals in watertight bulkhead between shaft tunnel and engine, watch the engine room get flooded
>pilot is a useless cunt because aöö he does is screech at his radio in arabic
>when his boss turns up, he can't do jack shit either
>the tugboats were also fuckign useless becuase half their lines broke
>the ship was essentailly saved from sinking in the turning basin by a change of the wind direction that pusehd it alongside the quai
Funnily enough, the shipyard that built the ship and the subcontractor that installed the 'mysteriously' unnmarked seal parts in the watertight builkead cable penetration both do not exist anymore.

>> No.56917296

The Tone class were an attempt to move in that direction, dropping a main turret for increased floatplane capability in a scouting/escort capacity, and the Ooyodo deleted the torpedo facilities, but they never really committed to the concept of having their cruisers do one thing well.

Honestly with how volatile the torpedos were in surface combat no heavy cruiser should have carried them in the first place, and matters would have improved if the IJN had just done scouting with their carrier air wings like everyone else with carriers did.

>> No.56918093

>> No.56918256

Didn't they originally plan to have the Tones carry one fuckhueg catapult plus just a normal number of higher performance recon planes?

And then either the planes or teh catapult ended up not working, and they reverted to the same catapult setup as on the Mogamis, and just added more planes.

Oh great, I'm almost delirious thanks to a complete lack of any kind of sleep rythm, and the monitorposting starts.

>> No.56918664

>The Tone class were an attempt to move in that direction, dropping a main turret for increased floatplane capability in a scouting/escort capacity, and the Ooyodo deleted the torpedo facilities, but they never really committed to the concept of having their cruisers do one thing well.

That was the IJN's problem. Their designs were either over-built in a doomed attempt to do everything well or over-specialized in an attempt to fill an over-specialized role in their Decisive Battle fantasy.

>Honestly with how volatile the torpedos were in surface combat no heavy cruiser should have carried them in the first place...

The Long Lance was dangerous as was it's oxy equipment, but how many DDs, CLs, and CAs were actually lost and/or heavily damaged when their own torpedoes hit and/or cooked off?

For decades the IJN lost pred-dreds and a BB to shitty shells and during the war they lost who knows how many other ships to piss poor damage control, but how many ship were lost because of the Long Lance?

>>... and matters would have improved if the IJN had just done scouting with their carrier air wings like everyone else with carriers did.

Another example of over-specialization. Other navies used ordinary fighters & attack craft to scout while the IJN chose to "stovepipe" roles and waste their limited budget on ship & aircraft designs which could only scout.

How many of those relatively worthless floatplane-carrying, sub-directing cruisers did they build in the mistaken belief their subs could/would regularly ambush warships? Wouldn't those hulls have been better off built as bog standard CAs or CLs?

>> No.56918696


If memory serves, she worked briefly with everyone's favorite RM "monitor" Faa di Bruno.

>> No.56918897

Let's talk about the best Cruiser of the modern age.

>> No.56918959

and how the Russian Navy basically is letting them all rot away?

>> No.56919220

>Decisive Battle fantasy
It wasn't so much a fantasy as what everyone thought would happen in teh 1920s and 30s, the USN planned for pretty much exactly that scenario.
But yeah, the IJN certainly went overboard with how they designed ships for a special role in their one glorious battle.

I think only one cruiser was lost directly to explosions of her own torps, but more than on Jap ship was ravaged by fires which may have been mde worse by the presence of pure oxygen in teh tanks around the torps.
But IJN firefighting setups were terrible, and as you said their propellant and shell filler could explode from bieng dropped to the floor.

>Wouldn't those hulls have been better off built as bog standard CAs or CLs?
Sure. They should've used dedicated floatplane tenders (as in, a bunch of repurposed cheapass freighters) to set up and support island bases, and let the Germans explain to them how to uboat.

>> No.56919235

>how many DDs, CLs, and CAs were actually lost and/or heavily damaged when their own torpedoes hit and/or cooked off?
Furutaka was sunk by her own torpedoes cooking off.
Chokai was lost when a single 5" shell hit her torpedoes.
Maya wasn't lost to her own torpedoes, but was once forced to jettison all of them due to fires on her deck.
Mogami was severely damaged by her torpedoes cooking off and lost her starboard engine in the blast, contributing to her loss.
Mikuma was lost after a bomb set off her torpedoes and gutted her amidships.
Suzuya was lost when her torpedoes cooked off and the resulting fires spread out of control.
Chikuma was nearly lost at Santa Cruz, like Maya only having been saved by a crewman jettisoning her torpedoes minutes before a bomb scored a direct hit on where they'd been.

So five CAs lost to damage from their own torpedoes and two which would have been lost had they not jettisoned their torpedoes. I'm not going to go through all the CLs and DDs, but I know there were a few destroyers lost to torpedo detonations. With so little target to hit it's not surprising.

>> No.56919418


Thanks, anon. I truly didn't know and that's why I asked.

>> No.56919447


Jettisoning torpedoes was quasi-defacto SOP, but it was entirely on the Damage control officer to actually decide it. At Midway Mogami did. Mikuma didn't.

>> No.56919569

>It wasn't so much a fantasy as what everyone thought would happen in teh 1920s and 30s, the USN planned for pretty much exactly that scenario.

Not to the same extent as Japan. It was a matter of degree and not kind.

Orange wasn't as simple as people tend to think it was. The pre-WW1 version gets much of the press while the updates & variations from ~1910 thru the mid-30s get ignored. The "cautionary" school won out over the "thrusting" school. Miller's "War Plan Orange" from USNI is a good book on the subject.

Jutland, games at NWC, and fleet problems disabused the US from any "one big battle" thinking. Japan never made that conceptual leap and fell so far down the rabbit hole that she built over-specialized ships to fill over-specialized roles in that fantasy.

>>They should've used dedicated floatplane tenders (as in, a bunch of repurposed cheapass freighters)

Just like nearly everyone else did and did successfully.

>>to set up and support island bases, and let the Germans explain to them how to uboat.

Great torps and good long range sub designs coupled with Three Stooges level doctrine and operations. It was so bad that US didn't have to bother convoying east of Pearl and merchant ships sailed independently along the West Coast.

>> No.56919620

I actually took a look through records for the CLs and DDs, since I was also curious. It wasn't as pronounced as with the CAs, partly because a lot of the CLs were sunk by submarines and the DDs were lost at night or with all hands, meaning there aren't any detailed damage reports. But the CL Abukuma was definitely lost to a massive explosion of her torpedoes as were a couple of destroyers.

>> No.56919689

>... detailed damage reports.

That's to be expected. As you note, the CLs and DDs were lost in ways that weren't really conducive to detailed AARs.

That being said, the woeful record of Long Lance/oxy equipment aboard the CAs most certainly points to each being both sole and contributory reasons for the loss of those smaller ships.

>> No.56919864

i'm not so sure about the torp detonations causing so many losses on the smaller ships, a big part of the reason why they fucked over so many ca's was that they were placed in a middle deck, completely surrounded by their ship. this meant when they were hit or a fire reached them, the blast was contained inside the ship and invariably caused catastrophic damage. on cl's and dd's, the torps were topside and a lot of the blast would have been directed upward.

i'm not saying that the blast wouldn't have completely destroyed the ships, just that the positions they were mounted on would have saved them from the catastrophic damage that the ca's typically took.

>> No.56919929

So, ass-torps?
Picture very much related.

>> No.56919953

>i'm not so sure about the torp detonations causing so many losses on the smaller ships

There's a difference between "causing" and "being among the causes".

That's why >>56919235 listed both cases in their excellent list and I specifically wrote "sole and contributory reasons".

>> No.56919997

each one of those torps was like what 1000 pounds of tnt? i wouldn't want to be in an enclosed space near them during a gunfight or air raid

>> No.56920036


If I'm reading the book right and Tribals existed to sink enemy destroyers with gunfire so other, smaller, older destroyers could safely go about the business of torping everything making a wake, I pretty much replicated that circumstance in RtW. Nifty.

>> No.56920067


>was life ever so sublime as it was in Vienna of those bygone days?

>> No.56920171

1080 pounds of Type 97 powder, which is around 7% more powerful than pure TNT according to a quick google search. But yeah, nothing to be sneezed at.

>> No.56920222


That's why nearly all torp mounts/launchers were designed & placed with jettisoning the torpedoes in mind.

The same was true with depth charges. While ready use charges were stored on the weather decks by the launch rails, additional charges were stored on deck too.

>> No.56920270

>I pretty much replicated that circumstance in RtW.

Did you remember to use quad turrets (once available and reliable) for your gun-focused DDs?

>> No.56920290


No, I used doubles. It's really quite freaky.

>> No.56920362


Ooooo... a big DD with reliable quads...

Nasty indeed.

>> No.56920712

This is the price we pay for having all ships registered in places like Panama - it's 40% cheaper to pay taxes for them, but half of world merchant marine is floating scrap and rust

>> No.56921780

The ship in question was registered in Denmark, and the American Bureau of Shipping doesn't exactly make up classifications and then hands out certificates for teh lulz, either.

What the ship encountered was a combination of two unlucky point failures.
One of which had already been noticed by Rolls-Royce, and corrected in later models of their thruster, the second was probably a cheapass counterfeit part installed by a long-defunct subcontractor for a defunct shipyard.

The third bit is that the shaft tunnel being flooded was pointed outas a possible weakness in the post-panamax designs with teh engine mounted centrally, but was dismissed as 'unlikely'.

Well, turns out the shaft tunnel DID flood becasue the thruster shredded itself and broke the seal, and the water entered teh engien room because the cable penetration did not hold.

>> No.56921784

>> No.56921891

Oh god the USN caught the infection from the Japs.

>> No.56922047

Imagine cruisers with six or seven turrets.

>> No.56922122

You didn't say that they couldn't be singles.

>> No.56922235


God, they should have just let the kebabs have it. They fire all the guns at once, damned thing capsizes, Russians sail into Constantinople.

Instead you get a HSF battlecruiser with something to prove and a world to prove it against.

>> No.56922416

Excuse me, but the Brooklyn and St.Louis classes had zero problems with their turrets that were actually caused by the arrangement (aside from the obvious limited fire angle of Turret #3). The only reason why the Clevelands deleted the #3 turret was weight issues, and the Surface School wasn't happy about losing such a massive amount of firepower as (later) war proven by the 'Sic-Inch Machine Gun' USS Helena (pictured in the previous post).

>> No.56922459


Not exactly. Remember up-thread I wrote about how perhaps only the US (and UK with US backing) had the money and capacity to build specialized classes instead of generalized ones? The AA CLs are an example of that.

>> No.56922531

Anon, the Brooklyn and St.Louis classes (St.Louis class Helena, pictured in that image) were just Surface Warfare Cruisers, as typical of the US' Light Cruiser doctrine. They weren't AA Cruisers.
The US was inspired by the Japanese Myoukou-class of Heavy Cruiser and built a Light Cruiser version of them, except better, our Navy BuCon openly admitted this.

>> No.56922691

Interestingly, the hull of the Brooklyns would later be scaled up a bit, and this would be the basis for USS Wichita and the Baltimore class heavy cruisers.

>> No.56922722


I used the term "AA cruisers" because it was something non-grogs would be able to grasp.

>> No.56924325

>> No.56924515


They used a CLAA designation for some which suggests that they saw them as being at least slightly than the usual Surface Warfare Cruisers.

>> No.56925835

Anon, CLAA was only used by the US for the Atlanta-class and variants, it had fallen out of use by the time the Worcesters were brought in.
None of the Brooklyn or St.Louis class Light Cruisers ever received the CLAA designation in US Service.

>> No.56926085


That's true, but they still used the designation. They saw the Atlantas & variants as something sufficiently different from the Surface Warfare paradigm to rate a slightly different classification. They created and used it for a reason, not for shits and giggles.

All I'm saying is that it was used for a small number of ships for a small period of time.

>> No.56926530

Anon, the post you had been replying to was specifically talking about the Brooklyn and St.Louis classes, which had the 3a2 turret layout and were simple surface warfare Light Cruisers.
If you want to go into left field, the US had designations for Aviation Cruisers (CLV/CAV), Anti-Submarine Cruisers (CLK), Anti-Destroyer/Assault/Strike Cruisers (CAK, later CS), Shore Bombardment Cruisers (CAS), Scout Cruisers (CS, was later taken by 'Strike Cruiser'), and more even though most of these were never used operationally. The US recognized a lot of potential specialist roles for Cruisers and gave a lot of thought into building them. But when it came down to brass tacks, the US didn't care much for expanding the cruiser role beyond DL (a type if CL to the USN), CL and CA. Functionally and designwise, the Atlantas were DLs, they only came into their CLAA role well after they were designed and built. A happy accident, not a planned development.

>> No.56926644

>Anon, the post you had been replying

No, the reply chain is far deeper than that.

I've been carrying on a discussion about how the US alone had the money and industrial capacity to build warships which tended to be more specialized. That discussion began on the previous thread with a question about IJN design issues.

The US primarily built "generalist" ships but, for a brief period, they built a class and some variants which the men of the time felt were different enough and used differently enough to require a different designation. That's all.

I'm not interested in some military trivia dick sizing contest regarding the classes. If you want to count rivets, be my guest but that's not what this discussion has been ever been about.

Do you understand now?

>> No.56927702

>> No.56927761

Are cruisers even useful in the modern day? what do they offer that guided missile destroyers and frigates dont?

Are they just bigger with more guns and more missiles, so essentially could be replaced by the same tonnage of destroyers but with more redundancy (ie. 2 ships to try to sink instead of 1)?

>> No.56927791

I've heard people call the Zumwalts basically cruisers with the ship type entry crossed out and "destroyer" penciled in above it.

>> No.56927831

I've heard proposals (on the net) that modern ships be rated just like Royal Navy's Rating system - but with Missiles instead of guns.
So, 1st rate would have over 120 missiles,
2nd Rate would have 100 to 120 missiles,
3rd Rate would have 80 to 100 missiles,
and so on ...

>> No.56927845

In the US navy there's not a significant difference between the role and capability of destroyers. Both terms just refer to a medium sized surface combatant.

>> No.56928295

I have a soft spot for refitted Standards.

>> No.56928940

Post-WW2 you just call your ships whatever the fuck you want to bomboozle the government into handing over the shekels.

>> No.56929424

No, anon.
You made a veritably incorrect assertion (that some of the Brooklyn and/or St.Louis class Light Cruisers were CLAA, via THE topic [not subject] of the post in question) and were corrected. You came back with ACKTUALLY-tier bullcrap and attempted to move the goalpoasts. You were again corrected. You then continued to move goalposts and resorted to accusations of dick measuring, which is no better than a muh dick argument.

Do you understand now? You are either too short for this ride or you don't understand English grammar and failed to recognize a topic instead of a subject.

>> No.56929917

>> No.56930937

>> No.56931911

>> No.56933074

>> No.56934158

>> No.56934554

I love a southern belle with a great ass.

>> No.56934635

I prefer a girl who's stacked up front.

>> No.56935605

>> No.56936826

>> No.56938254

>> No.56940357

>Are cruisers even useful in the modern day?
The first question you have to ask yourself, Anon, is what are you actually talking about.
Cruisers in the actual sense or cruisers as the US Navy calls them, even though their own actual paperwork clearly says they are full of shit?

Because as per role and hull standardization, the US Navy has only '''Cruisers'''.
Yes, you read that right, according to the US Navy's own codes on hull classification, the Burkes are ''Light Cruisers'' because they do not meet the requirements of being mass producible and replaceable during wartime losses, while also being far too many eggs in one basket.
They also lack the technical requirements to be labeled Cruisers (they are not stand and fight ships).

Cruisers in the actual sense, well, look at the Kirov. That's one ship that I would not like to meet as a CV (or anything else below a date-comparable Battleship) on the ocean on a bad day.

>> No.56940817

If we were to adapt WWII definitions to the modern day, would a modern battleship be an arsenal ship loaded with a blend of cruise missiles for land attack and anti-ship missiles for use against enemy surface combatants (seeing as how the last battleships alternating between shore bombardment and trying to kill everything else afloat)?

>> No.56941020

>modern battleship
We already have them, anon.
They're called aircraft carriers.

>> No.56941622

It is true though.

>> No.56941801

>Arsenal Ship
Anon, no. Those are deathtraps and wastes of ammunition, which we already don't have enough of.

On a more serious note, to answer the assumed gist of your actual question, firstly ignore memeheads like CVmemers above, they either don't understand what a Battleship actually is (by US parlance, and in general this is to no fault of their own) or are just memeing.

It would take several posts to try to explain what a 'Battleship' is in US parlance/hullrole in detail. But suffice to say USN doctrinal strategy is, when actually intending to fight wars, still based on the Mahanian concept of the strategic 'Battle Lines' (not to be confused with the tactical 'lines of battle'). All of the USN's ships were supposed to be by this doctrine, but then they canned the Sprucans and multi-roled specialists, but I digress.
Cutting short here, but in a modern circumstance, it'd be easiest to analogue a Modern Battleship to floating A2/AD zone, the most powerful and capable 'Bodyguard Ship' afloat that could handle pretty much any threat (at varying degrees of efficiency and would naturally be specialized to two or three) while also taking over heavy strike/anti-surface duties in the area. When taken with its 'battlegroup', it becomes essentially a 'no go zone' for the enemy.
Put one of these with a CV and you've freed up the CV to do what the CV does best: Air Superiority and Reconnaissance. Two things even the Modern Battleship designs out there can't really do that well.
Or, as fmr US CNO, Adm. Albert Herman Trost put it:
"Put a Battleship with an Aegis cruiser and you've got something that can go anywhere in the world. Put a battleship battle group within a couple of hundred miles of a carrier battle group and you've got something no one in the world can beat!"

The two ship types compliment each other very well, like King and Queen of the Oceans. Which is kind of why I still advocate the old 'Chess' Fleets.

>> No.56941977

>would a modern battleship
It would be a battleship. Likely the Iowas under their flight 3 outfit. Or new ones. Both the Navy promised, but here we are.

>> No.56942044

>Anon, no. Those are deathtraps and wastes of ammunition, which we already don't have enough of.
I disagree on the deathtrap statement, but ships would have to be built and launched for my final opinion. The ammunition issue on the other hand I will not contest but is something more easily addressed.

>> No.56942073

Guess who got his ticket to the commissioning of the LCS Little Rock today lads?

>> No.56942172

Standards are great.

>> No.56942231

The problem with Arsenal ships is they had essentially no way to defend themselves properly.
If they were built high enough to have C-RAM type defenses, they were easy pickings for missiles. If they were built to hide from the missiles, they were easy pickings for Artillery.
And so on and so forth.
The happy median wasn't easy to hold either, and took its cost in crew and cost.
Realize, the proposed Arsenal Ships were somehow magically supposed to have a crew of about 20 to 30 people, very limited communications equipment, and no capability to target for itself. It also had virtually no compartmentalization, being little more than a hull with VLS bolted on. I have actually seen several drafts for some of the designs, speaking as an Engineering guy they were absurd and terrifying things to look at and there was no way I would ever put my signature on that, I'd have rather lost my job.
By the time that you addressed all of the myriad of problems with the designs that made them entirely incapable of combat service (the communications equipment they had was incapable of secure operation at all, it was a civilian model, a nonstarter if I ever saw one), you would have had ships the size of the USS Texas with 200 crewmen (educated guesstimate here).
At that point, it wasn't an Arsenal Ship anymore, it was a Monitor, and anyone in their right mind would have rather had the 850man Battleship (again, educated guesstimate).

>> No.56942304

So as I understand it the idea simply isn't well developed.
Probably because there's no need to.
I still think it's a good concept, just executed (on paper) poorly.

>> No.56942352

>So as I understand it the idea simply isn't well developed.
From a Naval Engineering standards, that's not really the issue.
The issue is that when you fix the Arsenal Ship concept's flaws, you either have a towed barge with missiles on it or you have a Guided Missile Monitor. And in either case, you may as well just admit it and built that instead.

>> No.56942420

I don't believe those are the only applications at the end of the day. But then I don't have any blueprints in front of me to go over. And the concept has been buried since the 60s.

>> No.56942472

>And the concept has been buried since the 60s.
Anon, the last Arsenal Ship proposals were in 2011.

>> No.56942505

You would think they would have addressed these issues more thoroughly.
They...they didn't present this to congress like you said did they?

>> No.56942587

Of course they did. They had an ulterior objective, to save pic-related, which Congress was already disillusioned on.
They presented absolute 100% Grade-A Bull Cookies to make even shit look appealing in comparison.
The guys they forced to work on those designs would've liked to neck themselves from the stress this gave them. Impossible design requirements.
It's the same bull that produced the LCS, except LockMart and Austel were both more mercenary and gave the Navy exactly the crap they asked for.

>> No.56942743

>They had an ulterior objective, to save pic-related
But the only reason pic related exists is because the admiralty previously screwed over congress and threw pic related at them as a half-assed distraction.
Why the hell is the USN doing this to itself? And more importantly how is congress allowing it?

>> No.56943658

>> No.56943885

>Why the hell is the USN doing this to itself? And more importantly how is congress allowing it?
They have forgotten what it means to fight a war which meant death for losing instead of just egg on their faces.
Their most important thing isn't winning battles, it's winning a larger slice of the budget pie.
This is the same reason that maintenance and training has been lapsing, because bad maintenance and training mean equipment runs down more meaning Congress HAS TO allow more money to replace equipment.
The Airforce and Army have also been guilty of the same thing, though the Army seems to be waking up (albeit very, very slowly).
Is it even remotely sensible? No. But it makes the money.
Why does the Navy/Congress go along with it?
Easy. Look at the records of the people who put these lunatic contracts and deals through, from both the military and congressional sides of the arrangements. More often than not, they stand to directly profit from it.
As President Eisenhower put it, "beware the Military Industrial Congressional Complex, lest their corporate schemes doom us all".

>> No.56944387

Except they've of course, built the arsenal ship. And they're submersible! SSGNs fill the role perfectly, and are more survivable. They're even named after the States. So what if USS Florida is SSGN-728 instead of BBG-67?

>> No.56944905

>> No.56945690

>> No.56945723

There's a special beauty to post-war modern ships before they all went to shit with missiles...

>> No.56946779

>> No.56947551

>> No.56948660

>> No.56949197

It is disheartening to hear but it is the truth. I pray our military leaders see the error of their ways lest they be humbled in battle.
At first I didn't like it, but I have come around to SSGNs inheriting the mantle.

>> No.56949391

They're only what, 30 years late?

Oscar class...

>> No.56949805


Type 26 Frigate is going to be about 300 tonnes lighter than Type 45 Destoryer.

Ships are classed as what sounds the cheapest.

>> No.56950065

I for one, am a fan of the new Gerald Ford-class Patrol Aviation Boat.

>> No.56950452

Nah, they'll cut your budget unless you call it a super carrier. Ignoring ship classes doesn't work with carriers.

>> No.56950767

How did American warships between say 1900 to 1930 rate against British, French and German ships?

>> No.56950857

Pretty decent. Standards had good firepower/protection even if they were a bit slower. American fire control was decent. Ammo handling was medium to poor, as evidenced by numerous explosions in port.

Overall they were probably just behind the british in terms of battleships, to the point where you would not really notice. The Colorado at the time was probably one of the best ships, although it was eclipsed by the Nagato, and most certainly the Rodnols. Had the SoDak been not cut down by the washington treaty though, the G3 would have had it's work cut out for it, relying on speed and choosing the engagement over brute firepower.

>> No.56950894

>Ammo handling was medium to poor, as evidenced by numerous explosions in port.
Neat, I've never heard that.

>> No.56950928

Don't forget that the G3 was not designed to go up vs the SoDak (that was the N3 and the ridiculous 'rivets are fucking raining on my head each time she fires sir' 18 inch guns) The G3 was the counter to the Lexington battlecruiser. G3 had the speed to deal with the Lex, the firepower to take her on, and the armor to outlast her.

No other nation had anything that could deal with the Lex though.

>> No.56951103

Supposing naval aviation never took off (or was at least delayed a few decades), what do you suppose we would have seen out of ship designs in the 30s and 40s?

>> No.56952048

>Ammo handling was medium to poor, as evidenced by numerous explosions in port.

Gonna need some cites for that, anon. You know, accidents and explosions aboard warships and not ammo ships & depots.

>> No.56952216

G3, Tosa, Lexington, South Dakota, N3, Normandie, Admiral, Mackensens, etc.

>> No.56952272

Wouldn't most of those have been blocked by Washington Naval Treaty?

>> No.56952499

If air power wasn't a thing, all those ships would have been dusted off and put into production.

>> No.56953297

>> No.56953590

>If air power wasn't a thing, all those ships would have been dusted off and put into production.

If air power wasn't a thing, all those ships wouldn't exist in the manner they did.

Technology and science isn't as "stove piped" as people like to think.

>> No.56954200

>early 1900s
>start a war with germany as japan in hopes of getting couple islands from them
>about two years late
>have sunk 5 german ships, none of which is larger than 10k tons
>german goverment collapses and kaiser gets a bullet between his eyes
>end up taking all of germany's holdings in asia

Jesus, just what did this Wilhelm 2 and his administration do to become that unpopular?

>> No.56954429

>Jesus, just what did this Wilhelm 2 and his administration do to become that unpopular?

Granted it's RtW, but read some actual history about Kaiser Bill. He was unpopular for most of his reign and only "supported" by most Germans for nationalistic reasons than anything else; i.e. bad mouthing the Kaiser makes Germany look bad so don't grouse too openly.

After the insane 1905 Daily Mail interview, everyone from the political elites on down to the lowliest peasants pretty much ignored the brain damage little shit. After WW1 began, the elites parked him Spa either completely ignoring him or trotting him out like a mascot.

An endless, distant, and losing war against "little yellow monkeys" could very well trigger a coup of sorts bringing down Bismarck's "federal empire" and replacing it with a constitutional monarchy. That same coup could very well see an intransigent Kaiser Bill shot to clear the way for an infant grandchild to take the throne.

The government Bismarck devised during 1871/72 had profound structural problems and no clear way of fixing them. It was as if Bismarck had built a machine which worked well only when Bismarck was in control. When someone else took over, the machinery began to fail.

>> No.56954847

>After the insane 1905 Daily Mail interview, everyone from the political elites on down to the lowliest peasants pretty much ignored the brain damage little shit.

This sounds intriguing, where can I read more about this incident?

>> No.56955318


Wiki of course, but it's just a place to start. John Rohl has written a couple recent bios of Wilhelm. one of which primarily covers the 1900-1941 period (Yes, the little shit live that long) There's another good recent bio by Clark too.

The Daily Mail interview is best described as a black op run by Wilhelm's OWN MINISTERS to sideline him. The Kaiser's gov't had finally had enough of his shit and purposely hung him out to dry on the international stage. Wilhelm had sat for an interview with a reporter and, as was the practice at the time, the text was submitted to the government for comment, correction, and even permission to publish. Wilhelm's chancellor simply rubber stamped the interview knowing full well that the delusional claims made by the Kaiser would cause a huge shit storm.

It did and the Kaiser had one of his nervous breakdowns hiding in bed for over two weeks. After that, he was even less than a figurehead. His ministers and generals went through the motions pretending to advise him or follow his instructions.

The set-up Wilhelmine gov't both led to this and made this worse. Imperial Germany was a federation of kingdoms. The King of Prussia, who also always the Emperor, was the federation's permanent president. There was a federal legislature with various powers, but the Emperor-President didn't need to consult it for many things with the most important thing being ministerial appointments. The empire's chancellor, for example, wasn't a politician from the largest party or coalition in the legislature. He was just someone who the Emperor chose, just like every other minister. So they body who was supposed to impose taxes and pay bills had no say in who spent the money.

There were other structural problems too but, as long as Wilhelm was emperor, there was no chance of any reform. Of equal importance was that people who didn't want reform supported Wilhelm not because he was worth a damn but because he was a block.

>> No.56955392

>After the insane 1905 Daily Mail interview


Daily Telegraph, and apparently it was actually in 1908.

>> No.56955432


>He implied, among other things, that the Germans cared nothing for the British; that the French and Russians had attempted to incite Germany to intervene in the Second Boer War; and that the German naval buildup was targeted against the Japanese, not Britain.[6]

>The British leadership had already decided that Wilhelm was somewhat mentally disturbed, and saw this as further evidence of his unstable personality, as opposed to an indication of official German hostility.[7]

brb laughing too hard to breathe

>> No.56955499

>Daily Telegraph, and apparently it was actually in 1908.

Different newspaper and different year, yet it doesn't change anything.


How about the part where he said he'd worked with the German General Staff to prepare a strategy for the UK to employ during the 2nd Boer War which he sent to London? And that the UK used that strategy to win?

>> No.56955617

>yet it doesn't change anything.

Just wanted to clarify for others who might want to look it up.

>> No.56955647

Did you honestly not know this?
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that Willy was a clown.

The great tragedy is that he ever got the throne that early.
His father was way more liberal (in the classic sense of the word, not what Amricans think it means)and wanted to introduce various kinds of reforms to esentially turn the german Reich into a constiturional monarchy.
But he died from cancer of the larynx after only three months as kaiser, and had already lost his voice to the cancer when he took the throne.

>> No.56955718

>and wanted to introduce various kinds of reforms

That is what it means here, you're thinking of what *rednecks* think it means.

>> No.56955752

>His father was way more liberal (in the classic sense of the word, not what Amricans think it means)and wanted to introduce various kinds of reforms to esentially turn the german Reich into a constiturional monarchy.

You couldn't be more wrong. There's been a hagiography surrounding Frederick since his death driven in large part by just how big a disaster Wilhelm was from the first.

Read "Our Fritz: Emperor Frederick III and the Political Culture of Imperial Germany" and learn about the real man. The idea that he was a reformer was little more than a political smear engineered by Bismarck for domestic political purposes.

>> No.56955776

So I'm getting that the lesson to be learned here was that Imperial Germany was a gigantic cesspit of adversarial politics.

>> No.56955824

>was a gigantic cesspit of adversarial politics

Just like any other nation to be honest.

When you're the industrial, technological, and scientific powerhouse of Europe with an army regarded to be the best in the world, you domestic politics tend not to stay domestic.

>> No.56956010

That is one sexy configuration. I wish I could place ass torps in RTW. That would be my go-to for light cruisers if I could.

>> No.56956051

He wasn't exactly the guy who wanted to abolish the monarchy and become a republican, but by the ultra-conservative, monarchist standards of the time even a step towards an uncensored press (which he at least spoke of, when he was still able to speak) would be something remarkable.

That Bismarck did not like him is almost a sign that this guy SHOULD have been in power, becasue Bismarck waas (as somebody said before) setting up a system that relied on Bismarck being therre.

We have this odd situation here where the system has too muhc power concentated at teh very top, and at the same time gives too much freedom to the individual heads of state, which caused the various ministries which were nominally in charge of teh everyday affairs to be overruled whenever one of the dilletantes who had the final say decided to do so.

>> No.56958144

>> No.56958930

I haven't had it explained to me, what makes the Zumwalt a bad ship?

>> No.56958959


Cost, ill and/or undefined role, too many bleeding edge & untried "gizmos" & tech. It has a gun, forex, with ammo so expensive they won't fire it.

>> No.56959169

Hooray for planned economies of scale that don't actually come to pass.

She's not the sexiest looking thing afloat either.

>> No.56960112

>destroyers are now the size of a Standard

God damn.

>> No.56960297


Bainbridge, the 1st US destroyer and called a torpedo boat destroyer, was built in 1899 and displaced ~600 tons loaded and were 250 ft long. The WW2 Fletchers were ~3000 tons and 375 ft long. And now there's the Zumwalt.

Of course, as has been pointed out in this thread and earlier ones, there's little rhyme or reason as to how the USN chooses ship designations beyond the need to lie to Congress.

>> No.56961083

>> No.56961280

We always have Japan's new "destroyer" class. And hell, a Zumwalt has the displacement of a pre-dread battleship.

>> No.56961313

Should we start a signature campaing to ask game developers like warlord games to start a warships line?
Because as far as i can see the ability to acquire ships to actually play a wargame is very limited.

>> No.56961648

As lulzy as the DDH is, you can thank the Soviets for that particular bit of lawyering.
They built 'flight deck cruisers' to get around the old treaety that doesn't allow 'aircraft carriers' to pass the Bosporus.

So now Japan is building 'helicopter destroyers', because their laws say they can't have aircraft carriers.

>> No.56962410

>> No.56963417

>> No.56963795

A bit more info on RtW2 if anyone is interested.
>We are still not decided on the level of detail in aircraft design. Having too many factors in might be overdoing it for a naval game.
>Airbase building and upgrading will be in.
>As for the nations in the game, changing those during the course of a game will be complicated and most likely not a feature. The nations in RTW2 (if starting in 1920) will be USA, Britain, Italy, Japan, France, Germany and the Soviet Union. As in RTW, those can be modded, but 6 AI nations will be the limit.
>The idea in RTW2 is you will be able to start at either 1900 or 1920 (your choice at the start of a new game), so no need to import from RTW1.

>> No.56964292

Have they mentioned anything about an option to auto resolve the battles? I enjoyed the design/construction/management aspect of RtW, but found the combat kind of tedious.

>> No.56964411

I wonder how much you will be able to customize your CVs' air groups.

>> No.56964923

I'm back from the LCS Little Rock commissioning. It was a pretty nice service, after some important people said their peace the ship was formally commissioned, activated and given benediction. I stuck around for a quick "tour" and my conclusion is it's basically a destroyer, but it can go in shallow waters too.

Feel free to ask me anything.

>> No.56964968

Play in 1/6000. Ships are cheap, and every ww1 and ww2 design is available, along with a surprising number of 'never builts'. Last Square miniatures has them.

>> No.56965016

Not as far as I know. I guess your only options will be declining battles or just turning around your fleet at the beginning of a scenario and steaming away at full speed if you don't want the VP and prestige loss.
But hey, they did actually add the option to auto-resolve raider interceptions shortly after RtW1s' release, so there's still hope.

>> No.56965059

I like the Freedom-class, they look a bit better to me than the Independence-class.

>> No.56965981

>flight deck cruiser
That is a Royal Navy term, along with flush deck cruiser (Invincible class).
The Soviets called aircraft carriers 'aircraft carrying cruisers', and so do the Americans (guess what the C in CV stands for).
>because their laws say they can't have aircraft carriers.
The law disallows aggressive weapons, carriers aren't mentioned. They call them DDHs probably because they are ASW platforms.

>> No.56965983

>it's basically a destroyer
Isn't it essentially unarmed?

>> No.56966242

>(guess what the C in CV stands for)

Carrier. :^)

>> No.56966352

>The law disallows aggressive weapons, carriers aren't mentioned.
Let's see what wiki has.

>Although the Montreux Convention is cited by the Turkish government as prohibiting aircraft carriers in the straits,[16] the treaty actually contains no explicit prohibition on aircraft carriers. However, modern aircraft carriers are heavier than the 15,000 ton limit, making it impossible for non-Black Sea powers to transit modern aircraft carriers through the Straits.

>Under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits, but Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ship. In 1936, it was common for battleships to carry observation aircraft. Therefore, aircraft carriers were defined as ships that were "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea." The inclusion of aircraft on any other ship does not classify it as an aircraft carrier.

>A number of highly specific restrictions were imposed on what type of warships are allowed passage. Non-Black Sea state warships in the Straits must be under 15,000 tons. No more than nine non-Black Sea state warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of no more than 30,000 tons, may pass at any one time, and they are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than twenty-one days. Black Sea states may transit capital ships of any tonnage, escorted by no more than two destroyers.

So it's basically a clusterfuck of obsolete definitions nobody wanted to touch during the Cold War

>> No.56967080

>> No.56967276

Has a 57mm cannon, 30mm cannon, several heavy MGs and ASMs, but not a great amount of either. I meant Destroyer in the traditional sense.

>> No.56967340

I've heard they have engine reliability issues.

>> No.56967374

How do you get that? There's quite a few ships available in a multitude of scales and time periods. Go check the pastebin that should still be in the OP.

I didn't spend the better part of a day compiling it for people to not use the damn thing.

>> No.56967435

>I've heard they have engine reliability issues.
I wouldn't know. But this one runs on jets instead of screws. Also I did read Little Rock was the first to receive a clean sweep from trials.

>> No.56967448

>Ships are classed as what sounds the cheapest.

This is wrong and you should never repeat it.

Classification is done by ROLE and all have historical precedence - much like the JDF's flattops destroyers highlighted in >>56961280

>> No.56967468

>Classification is done by ROLE and all have historical precedence
Like the current line of US Destroyers right? Fuck out of here, if they don't think it's important and it sounds expensive Congress won't fund it.

>> No.56967516

>The law disallows aggressive weapons, carriers aren't mentioned

Carriers are indeed mentioned, they do not allow themselves "attack carriers". The wording is very precise.

Japanese MoD
>The possession of armaments deemed to be offensive weapons designed to be used only for the mass destruction of another country, which would, by definition, exceed the minimum necessary level, is not permissible under any circumstances. For example, the SDF is not allowed to possess intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), long-range strategic bombers, or attack aircraft carriers.


I didn't mention the USN (my fault for not specific). Both those navies draw their classifications from the preceding classes role.

>> No.56967666

I love how Japanese destroyers still kind of sort of have a vague pagoda-ish style to their masts.

>> No.56967979


Some European navies have continued the pagoda-esk lineage as they place greater emphasis on their escorts having greater radar horizon than their Aegis+AN/SPY cousins, thanks to the early NFR-90 (top ship in pic) studies in the 80s.

Though the Russians have a design (as all things Russian, funding is questionable) for creature in bottom of my pic.

>> No.56969202

>> No.56970088

>> No.56971780


But they look like shit.
The best ship i found that is both small and detailed was ironicly not made for wargame but for weeabos.

>pic related

>> No.56972550

Hot damn that actually looks good.

>> No.56973909

>> No.56974158


Holy guacamole, what's the story behind that photo?

>> No.56974680

some idiot forgot to set the parking brake?

>> No.56974867

Torp hit in the bow, bow tore off, ship got towed home.
Was repaired in three months.

>> No.56975186


Name, year, location?

>> No.56975358

Muzio Attendolo, Italian CL, August 42. Med, obviously.
Got torped by a British sub.

>> No.56975365


Thanks, anon. Thought it was RM but couldn't place it.

>> No.56975489

How the hell do you even repair such a thing?
You need to build the entire front again, and you say three months??

>> No.56975679

1) put ship in drydock, remove all the shredded metal parts
2) grab plans of ship
3) take steel, build new bow
4) attach new bow

1, 2 and 3 can be done at the same time.

It look a lot worse than it really is, teh bow isn't exactly full of really important stuff. The bulkhead in front of the fore magatines held, so all the important, finnicky and explosive stuff wasn't heavily damaged.

>> No.56975709

Dont post guro here

>> No.56976421


>> No.56977126

>> No.56977305

>Damage to capital ships 1654-1815
>The Warspite was hit twice. The first hit by an 11 in shell pierced the after 6in side armour 3ft above the flat part of the middle deck and about 4ft abaft `Y' barbette. It made a calibre size hole in the armour and burst 6ft from impact in a cabin. Considerable local damage was done not affecting fighting efficiency, and a water-tight bulkhead was buckled and leaked through rivet holes. The 2 1/2in middle deck was not damaged, and no injuries were visible on the main deck which was here 1 1/4in.
>The other hit was apparently through the fore funnel near the top, but details are lacking. The first hit must be credited to the Seydlitz, and probably the second was also from this ship. Both are believed to have occurred shortly after 1727.

>> No.56977548

>hit must be credited to the Seydlitz
Seydlitz is mai WW1 shipfu.

>> No.56977643

A man of taste!

>> No.56978002


Best Grosser Kreuzer

>> No.56978369

>'litz could had been all centerline
>tirpitz had to go and fuck it up

>> No.56978399

while an all centreline seydlitz brings me to full mast. part of the reason i love it is because of how well it did in spite of its derpy design.

>> No.56978589

There's a lot that could have been with this particular ship. One idea was to increase the caliber of the main battery and replace the 5 28cm turrets with 4 30.5cm turret, yet another idea was to save weight by introducing triple turrets mounting either 28cm or 30.5cm guns. Sadly the triple turrets idea was discarded right away as there were still issues with them. I'd love to see what they would have come up with if triple turrets had been approved. Gangut-like layout with 4 turrets? 3 turrets? Or maybe jump straight to the "modern" 3x3 layout ala Iowa, Scharnhorst, Yamato, etc.

>> No.56978746

If they'd gone to triple turrets, I'd expect a 4x3 setup with superfirng pairs fore and aft.

That is the setup they went to with all the other designs in later years, though those were obviosuly doubles instead of triples.

And it would be sexy as fuck.

>> No.56979063

What do you prefer /nwg/, 4x3 14in or 4x2 15 in?

>> No.56979339

>4x2 15 in

>> No.56980484

>> No.56980642

>Germany has always been a gigantic cesspit of adversarial politics.

It's why it should go back to just being different states.

>> No.56980906

Yeah, but 1/2000 is huge for a naval wargame. 1/2400 is about as large as you should go, and even then the ships are massively out of scale with the table.

Grab GHQ micronauts at 1/2400 if you want great detail.

>> No.56981347

Buttdevastated teeb detected.

>> No.56981394


The concept of Germany has always been Inferiority Complex: The Country.

Just watch this peer reviewed youtube video:


>> No.56982231

>> No.56982406

Why is Royal Sovereign less compartmentalized than the others?

>> No.56982450

>has Habsburg in it somehow
your untermesch is showing

>> No.56982531

Because the RN thought that channeling the spirit of Nelson would help them win sea battles.

Remember, that's the same RN that had a gunnery manual stating that missing the enemy wasn't bad as long as you missed short, because the splashes would blind the enemy.
And then they pointed out that shooting really fast was a pretty great idea. And stacked shells and cordite everyhere.

>> No.56982695

The germans wasted tonnage, the royal navy did not.

>> No.56982731

>And then they pointed out that shooting really fast was a pretty great idea.

It was a great idea. It remained a great idea until the battleship became obsolete. Almost every naval battle was decided by who hit first. The Royal Navy realized that you could minimize deviation between shots, but it still had an element of luck involved. Your odds improved if you put more rounds downrange then the enemy did. It was a solid concept. The cordite stacking was never authorized by the RN, individual captains did that to boost their fire rates even higher. But pre-jutland there had been numerous memos sent out to the fleet telling them to NOT ignore ammo handling procedures.

>> No.56982819


German ships are wasted tonnage.

>> No.56982946

>But pre-jutland there had been numerous memos sent out to the fleet telling them to NOT ignore ammo handling procedures.

Maybe they should have promised more tea.

>> No.56983604

Yeah, well tell that to HMS New Zealand, they fired 400 or so rounds while being out of range.
BUt that's OK, they missed short, right.

The idea to hit first is great. But the key is HITTING, not sending all your ammo downrange as fast as possible.

Ironically, the HSF managed to get this right.

>> No.56984298

>> No.56984700

When you find the range and get straddles, the enemy's in your dispersion pattern. There's literally nothing further that can be done except wait for a shot to land on target, as you cannot aim any more accurately.

If that means spamming shells as hard as you can, it's sensible.

>> No.56985303

>Yeah, well tell that to HMS New Zealand, they fired 400 or so rounds while being out of range.
>BUt that's OK, they missed short, right.

Nice way to misrepresent and confuse things, assclown.

While NZ was wrong to fire while being out of range, firing shorts while IN RANGE is a valid concept because it led more quickly to straddles which led more quickly to hits.

You're also deliberately ignoring it was the RN's piss poor SHELLS in WW1 which led to fewer damaging hits and not their fire control methods.

>> No.56985988

NZ was last in line, got zero straddles, and blazed away becasue hey, why the fuck not.
Maybe gravity gets bored or the ghost of Nelson lifts our shells into Fritz's boat.

The RN relied on officers to learn about what they would have to do, how to do it and when to do it without any central setup for teaching all this in a cooridnated manner, which resulted in different commands, squadrons, divisions and even individual ships doing things in radically different ways, even though they were theoretically ordered to do them in a way the Admiralty thought best.
Which was often a way that simpyl did not work in reality, but the Admiralty was ten years out of touch with the reality at sea.
This cost them heavily, in a scenario where tehy should basically brush aside the HSF, mine the Elbe, Weser, Ems, etc. and laugh at the stupid landlocked Krauts, they proved to be incapable of stopping said Kraut short of their own coast.

I'm not trying to bash the RN here, what happened to them was practically unavoidable given their traditioanl setup and the radical changes in technology.
That doesn't change the fact that they had huge orgnazitional problems.

No shit. It is. But if you're out of range, you're out of range. You should notice that by the time your third or fourth salvo splashes short.
Except they didn't cease fire, because hey we're splashing short, this will blind the enemy.

Contrast this with the German BCs. They were producing stradles by the second or third salvo, and kept firing rapidly.
Without stacking cordite everywhere, though finding out that this was important almost cost them a ship, too.

And the shells. Well, that just makes it worse. There is just NO fucking excuse ever to let tthat happen. Test your fucking shells, live, under real conditions. This is the ONLY way to find out.
It's just the same embarassing failure the Germans suffered twenty years later.

>> No.56986346

>But if you're out of range, you're out of range.

Keep stuffing that strawman, assclown.

The fact that the morons aboard the Kiwi Dred were out of range has nothing to do with firing shorts. If they thought creating splashes "helped" by "blinding" the enemy they were alone in that belief. It wasn't Grand Fleet SOP, it was something only the well-meaning morons aboard that single ship ever did.

Take it from a 19P, the term "short" has a specific meaning in the case of fire control. It means your gun is IN RANGE but your range estimate is SHORT. It doesn't mean you're firing deliberate misses while out of range, you profoundly ignorant faggot. The En-Zed wasn't firing "shorts", they weren't even "missing". They were wasting powder and shells, nothing more.

As for the UK's WW1 shells, there was no excuse and I've not suggesting there was one. Jellicoe himself wrote the memo suggesting prewar testing and then did nothing both before and during the war to conduct such testing. The fact that the RN didn't even suspect their shells were shit until a few Swedish officers at a Scapa Flow cocktail party mentioned what they'd been told at an earlier Kiel cocktail party is incredible.

And for stacking cordite, much like the idiots about the En-Zed, that was not SOP and was done in defiance of orders.

>> No.56986857

>my training from the 21st century has any bearing on how terrible the RN performend in WW1
It upsets you somehow, and I'm sorry about that, but that doesn't change the historic record, and that record shows that the RN was in dire need of reforms.

Luckily their failings were unimportant in WW1, so they had time to get some of those reforms done in the 20s.

>> No.56987615

>that record shows that the RN was in dire need of reforms.

The RN was in dire need of reforms, you strawman stuffing cocksucker, and no one denies that. From shells to signals to ship handling, the RN needed a huge shake-up.

However, pointing to the behavior of the idiots about the NZ doesn't "prove" anything other than the fact that there were idiots aboard the NZ.
Deliberately firing while out of range to create splashes that somehow blind the enemy was not standard RN practice. It was attempted by ONE ship in ONE battle.

And my training as a FO was in the 20th Century, you incredibly stupid assbandit. The principles are the same no matter what equipment is being used.

>> No.56989071

I find it very hard to believe a whingey little spastic like yourself would be accepted for any service beyond that of an example of how not to comport oneself publicly.

>> No.56989869

>> No.56989903

>Threads always comes down to two autists arguing about fucking boats.

>> No.56989984

in my experience, its usually reasonable people arguing with autistic (and wrong) teaboos

>> No.56990034

Honestly it's always the same incredibly mad faggot who is sometimes correct sometimes not but either way his assdamage takes a normally pretty chill thread and sends the conversation spiraling into the shitter.

>> No.56990055


Can we please just fucking chill and discuss waterborn craft?

>> No.56990192

we can now.

>> No.56990252


hold my beer

>> No.56990350

They better not "fix" the quad turrets on DDs bug in RtW2.

>> No.56990457

>> No.56990520

> 33kn
> No superfiring forward turret
Try again Nippon

>> No.56991257

This is amazing

>> No.56991816

>This cost them heavily, in a scenario where tehy should basically brush aside the HSF

Bullshit. Jellicoe crossed their T, 3 fucking times in a row. Every decision Jellicoe made was the right one. Jutland proved decisively that the RN controlled the HSF, it was a strategic loss for Germany.

Jellicoe could have pushed agressively several times, but given that the Germans ran away behind screens of torpedoes, had sun positioning advantage, and a whole lot of luck, Jellicoe made the right call each time, and played it safe. As long as he held the numerical advantage, the HSF was fucked. Losing ships pointlessly was what he did not want, and he didn't do it.

>> No.56992395

>Jutland proved decisively that the RN controlled the HSF, it was a strategic loss for Germany.
Ah, so that is why following Jutland the RN sailed up and down the German coast, shelled all their ports to rubble, mined all their river estuaries to make the inland ports useless, landed troops behind the front in Belgium to save France, along the Baltic coast to save Russia and also in Pommerania to just march straight down to Berlin.
Or maybe you're wrong, and Jutland was a draw that failed to shift the strategic situation in any way.
The kaiser had essentially ordered his fleet to sit in port following Heligoland, but let's be honest here: Retarded orders from German heads of state are what make a Wolrd War a World War.

If you want to argue that Jellicoe didn't have to fight, then why was he even out there? Yes, he could've achieved the exact same outcme by sitting in port, and not lost a single ship.
But he did not, he went out there to fight, and failed to achieve the crushing victory that his positioning, numbers, etc. should have resulted in.

>> No.56993199

Can someone describe IJN submarine doctrine in the second world war for a simpleton like me? I knew they tended to use fleet submarines for scouting for the KB and also for raids on the US, but what was its main role?

>> No.56993446

they were supposed to strike at teh enemy fleet before th night battle, finish off crippled enemy ships after the night battle/cruiser battle and generally provide scouting. Their focus was very much in striking enemy warships.

They had a few plans like a long-range strike against the Paname canal, or hitting known USN anchorages at soem specific islandbut those were one-off projects that generally never materialized.

Obviously, their intended role never mattered because there was never a decisive battle, but that thinking resulted in IJN subs being oredered around by their admiralty while also not really knowing what to do when they got to where the admiralty wanted them.
Instead of being let loose in the central and eastern pacific, they tried to fight warships in the western pacific.

tl;dr: The IJN had good submarine technology, their boats were well built, but they had no fucking clue what to do with them.
If you handed that sub force to Doenitz, he'd have forced the USN to use hundreds of units as convoy escorts in teh eastern pacific, and along the US west coast, and he'D pribably have mined the shit out of various atolls just on the remote cahnce that teh USN might use it.
And heD' probably have struck the Paname canal, just to show the USN that they have to guard that, too.

Half the damage a sub does is immaterial, it's that the enemy has to guard shit against the possibility of a sub being there.

>> No.56993462

IJN Submarines were viewed as anther cog in the Japanese long-term doctrine of decisive battle and warplanning for war with the USA.

Japan envisioned a decisive battle taking place somewhere southwest of Japan, where the full Japanese battle line would engage its U.S. counterpart following the U.S. battle fleets long journey across the Pacific.

To make the battle even and deal with the U.S. numerical superiority. Japanese doctrine and plans called for attrition to the U.S. battle fleet as it moved across the Pacific, utilizing hit-and-run destroyers and submarines to wear down the fleet by attacking and sinking capital ships here and there.

As such, the primary goal and doctrine for IJN submarines throughout the war was anti-capital ships, not anti-shipping. This is what the IJN submarines primarily tried to do throughout until such tactics became untenable in the face of Allied superiority.

Of course, the IJN is known also for basing its shop designs solely around on-mission (whereas the US went for jack-of-all-trades, such as with its fleet boat subs). While the primaryf goal of sub warfare was to sink capital ships, they designed some subs for coastal defense, scouting, etc.

If I recall, the subs with planes were supposed to scout out the U.S. fleet as it traveled towards the Philippines (so that forces could gather and attrite it in prep for the decisive battle).

>> No.56993523

The problem with IJN sub design was that they went for too many designs with too many specialized roles. In one sense, their tech was fine or better (much better torps), but they really inhibited themselves by reducing the operational flexibility of their subs.

Moreover, the many designs meant that they could never fully become efficient at any one design. Too many designs, too few boats of any of them. In a nation already suffering from extreme production inefficiency and incapacity, this was a big mistake.

In contrast, the USN went for flexibility and endurance, which meant their subs could perform many types of operations. Furthermore, it stuck to a few designs and was able to output many of them.

>> No.56994303

>> No.56994432

Suppose a RtW style 1v1 war between France and Italy breaks out in the late 30's or early 40's (also suppose the fighting in Europe mostly bogs down to stalemate in the Alps and the major ground theater is North Africa). Which navy would you place money on?

>> No.56994819

Anyone here fuck around with From the Depths? It's not the best historical-warfare sim out there, but building botes in it can be fun.

>> No.56995176

Oh. sure. The industrial side of thigns goes without question, japan was hopelessly outclassed.
The only other country that managed to get this right was Germany.

>> No.56995414

>And so Noah received a vision from the lord.
>"Noah, it will rain for 40 days and 40 nights. Build a sick-ass warship with superfiring turrets, k?"

>> No.56995462

Not really, German tank prod. had many flaws and stupid decisions that really hurt efficiency.

>> No.56995487

Honestly the people with an abosolute hateboner for everything with a Union Jack attached to it bring the threads down more.

>> No.56995532

B-but I only have -1 Quality 16" guns ...

>> No.56995582

Yeah, it's kind of lacking in superstructure at the moment, no funnels or bridge or mast or floatplane, but it's not actually made out of wood - it's metal covered by wood, because that's actually a smart move in this game engine. The wood is light, cheap to repair and receives something like 80% of the armor of the metal behind it, though it doesn't have as much HP.

Here's a smoler bote.

>> No.56995981

I meant specifically submarine production. Germany built 700 or Type VII, plus 150 or so Type IXs, and had another 250 or so Type XXI built or building at the end of the war, with another 700 of those scheduled for the rest of 1945.

Also, German tank production gets bashed quite regularly, but it's actually a lot less terrible and a lot less stupid than what it looks like.
Yeah, there was some really retarded infighting going on (though not as retarded as that between the aircraft manufacturers, for example), but the delays and lack of streamlining in the production was well recognized by 1940
The big problem was that while they realized they needed a replacement for the Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 and that their heavy tank project (that would become the Tiger) was a clusterfuck, Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union.

And changing production over to a new model would mean a few months of reduced production, plus the next tank was projected to be ready by 1943, so they essentially thought 'let's just keep building what we have, then switch to the Panther'
Except by the time that was all ready to go, th situation had become shitty enough that building more StuGs was decided to be good enough for now, besides the replacement for the Panther would be ready by '45 and then we can finally stop this clusterfuck and standardize on five tracked fighting vehicles.

>> No.56996166

I still don't get how we went from Battlestations Pacific to that...

Fuck Warthunder and World of Warships.

>> No.56996555

>I still don't get how we went from Battlestations Pacific to that...
But From the Depths has never claimed to be a sim or historical game (it has more in common with something like KSP than any of the russian grind-em-ups). Hell, the pictures on the steam page spend more time showing off airships and helicarriers and shit than they do botes.

>> No.56997552

That's what I mean it's the closest thing to it while not being a F2P Grindfest

>> No.56998607

The High Seas fleet realized it couldn't beat Jellicoe. They sat in port.

Jellicoe didn't need to roll up and down the german coast, exposing his fleet to torpedo boats and submarines. He ran his distant blockade, and the germans never made it out of the North Sea to threaten Britain's supply routes.

The germans wanted a break out, or to destroy part of Jellicoe's fleet with overwhelming numbers. They failed.

Jellicoe's mission was to prevent a sortie and maintain his fleet strength, he succeeded.

Jellicoe won Jutland. In spite of what the newspapers claimed (that he should have crushed them) Jellicoe followed the exact requirement of his job, as dictated to him by the admiralty. He did not, as one feared, 'lose the war in a single afternoon'.

>> No.56999276


If you have a battle and you don't destroy your opponent, then it's you who lost. Jellicoe did not destroy the HSF. Therefore he lost. Beatty would have done better.

And your navy hasn't been relevant since then, teaaboo.

>> No.56999366

>someone mentions a theoretical engagement, politics or an actual historical battle
>thread goes to shit with insulting and low-quality bait everywhere

Every time
See you next thread

>> No.56999427

I don't even think its worth it, this is youtube comments tier toxic. and barely anyone actually talks about games, this thread would be better on /his/ or something

>> No.57000550



>> No.57001107

Quite your bitching, this is quality, if you want to talk games, talk games.

>> No.57001395

While you're right, it seems that this only happens as soon as anything even remotely negative about the Royal Navy gets mentioned.

Also, I'd like to talk about naval wargames, but the only one I sometimes play is Victory at Sea, and last time that got mentioned it got called '40kids of naval wargaming'.

>> No.57001449

>and last time that got mentioned it got called '40kids of naval wargaming'.

I'll point out that it was the same idiot mentioned by >>56990034 who said it, though, so I really wouldn't worry so much.

>> No.57001525

>While you're right, it seems that this only happens as soon as anything even remotely negative about the Royal Navy gets mentioned.

Nah, in this case it was the limey-haters with the troll hat on.

>Anti-Jellicoe trolling is literally 100 years stale, get new memes

>> No.57001548

Frankly, it's a case of diehard RN fanboys and diehard RN haters screaming at each other in unison. Y'all both need to chill and just talk about botes.

>> No.57002114

>> No.57002165


They just can't bring themselves to bad-mouth anything, can they? 25knts wasn't exactly cruiser-tier.

Hell, it was BB-tier only in comparison to the older stuff.

>> No.57002275

>Anti-Jellicoe trolling is literally 100 years stale
Did they actually hate on him for not smashing kaiser Willy's fleet 100 years ago?

Also, an unrelated tonk being loaded off a bote.

>> No.57002324

If that was published in 1929 or so, then it was actually correct.
The fastest BBs back then were the Nelsons with 25 or 26 knots, and the Deutscland could beat that.
That changed when the various modernizations went through of course.

>> No.57002460

It can be hard to get a complete picture when you are part of the problem.

>> No.57002848

>Did they actually hate on him for not smashing kaiser Willy's fleet 100 years ago?

Good lord, yes. Massie's "Castles of Steel" has basically a full chapter devoted entirely to anti-Jellicoe hate and the Jellicoe/Beatty battles that took place for the next 40 years. Much of the hate was stirred up by Beatty supporters. Another good portion came about from the British public, who didn't have a grasp of the larger strategic picture, and felt that if he hadn't *won* a decisive battle in the Nelsonian tradition, then by definition be must have *lost* the battle.

It's telling that Nelson has a positively giant statue on a plinth, and the official monument to Jellicoe is a modest bust tucked away in an out-of-the-way section of Trafalgar Square, when the consequences of Jellicoe's battle were arguably as great as Nelson's.

Interestingly, the only one of the four main commanders to have come out of Jutland with their reputation rather beyond reproach was Hipper.

>> No.57003365

>when the consequences of Jellicoe's battle were arguably as great as Nelson's.
Well, that's where the criticism was probably justified.

Because Jutland failed to significantly change teh strategic situation.
Yes, the German losses were proportionally more significant than the RN losses, and the Kaiser once more ordered his fleet to stay in port

But that was the exact same situation as the year before. In a way, Jutland is the at-sea mirror image of the grinding, terrible stalemate of the Western Front.

>> No.57003533

>Because Jutland failed to significantly change teh strategic situation.

"Teh strategic situation" was that England was already winning. It didn't *have* to change the strategic situation a single whit.

The consequences of Jellicoe's battle were arguably as great as Nelsons. That is, by virtue of *not losing*, he all-but-guaranteed a strategic victory for the British Navy, irrespective of any minor tactical engagements which might occur from then-on in the war.

Did Jellicoe *completely* seize every opportunity? No. Could he have all-but-annihilated the HSF? Almost certainly. It would have been a far more interesting battle in history if he had, and it certainly would have cemented his legacy. But there was no reason to take the risk of turning into the HSF's torpedo attack when the British won the whole war whether the engagement at Jutland was a win *or* a tie. If you can win on a tie, there's no reason to risk a loss.

Had Beatty been in command, he would have accepted the losses from the German torpedo attack and turned toward the HSF instead of away. And in the resultant close action he almost CERTAINLY should have shattered the HSF, even at the expense of taking additional losses. But he would have had a percentage chance to lose the resulting engagement. Even if that percentage chance was small, it's still greater than the *0%* chance that Jellicoe's plan provided.

So if you're already winning anyway, what's the sense in risking a 10% chance of defeat by engaging, when you can *not* engage and reduce that 10% to a 0%?

>assuming one is more concerned about the results of the naval war, than what gets reported in the papers and what results occur in public opinion, of course.

>> No.57003580

The thing with that is it requires ignorance that the situation prior to Jutland was the RN *winning their war*, on a day-to-day basis.

The foreshadowed crisis was a Grand Fleet/High Seas Fleet clash in order to upset the strategic situation.

The almost-secret (Jellicoe was aware of it) liability was that the RN was brittle.

>> No.57003601

Thank you for putting this out there in a way that lays the facts bare but doesn't slobber all over the RN's knob.

>> No.57003677

>But he would have had a percentage chance to lose the resulting engagement. Even if that percentage chance was small, it's still greater than the *0%* chance that Jellicoe's plan provided.
He would have lost several ships to torpedo damage. But the HSF at that point was beaten, the large Cruisers were afloat but effectively silenced, the German pre-dreads were little more than targets, the German battleships were so heavily outnumbered that they were guaranteed to lose.

War means losses. That is the simple, sad truth. Jellicoe suffered losses (well, technically it was Beatty's BCs), and in return gained no change to the strategic situation. The RN kept blockading Germany, and by doing this, helped win the war.

If Jellicoe had really wanted to avoid losses as much as you imply, he would simply have denied battle completely.
And won without fighting.

>> No.57003679

Could the HSF pulled a victory out of Jutland?

>> No.57003776


Yeah, if the RN fell apart. Or split apart. Or if they were able to engage them in detail in spite of everything. Not in the tactical circumstances offered that day, though.

>> No.57003785

The short and simple answer is 'No'.

Defeat Beatty? Yes, if he continues south a little longer he might end up in deep shit.
Seriously threaten the 5th BS? Yes, if they rush to help the BCs.
but the Grand Fleet? No fucking way.
Jellicoe's positioning was near perfect and his timing was as good as it gets under real-world conditions.

You could construct some other scenario where German uboats or zeppelins detect the Grand Fleet, and the HSF manages to deploy favorably, but that doesn't really change a lot. The grand Fleet is simply too powerful.

>> No.57003912


Almost certainly not. Like, 90% sure. As >>57003677 points out, they were largely a beaten force.

But the POSSIBILITY existed that they could have lost a great many ships to German torpedoes (which were numerous and effective), and this possibility is increased because - due to the poor visibility - the BGF would have had to close more than they would prefer to put *accurate* fire onto the HSF. This would have had the reasonable estimate of increasing torpedo losses. Would those heightened losses have been enough to allow the HSF a chance at outright victory? Almost certainly not.

But imagine that the British sink outright Hipper's entire BC squadron, and half the surviving BBs of the HSF...at the cost of, say, 2 full divisions of BBs (8 ships) sunk by torpedo (which *period* sources say would be a MINIMAL assumption given the engagement conditions), 2 ships destroyed via magazine explosion, and another 4 severely damaged enough to spend a year in the yards, plus the damage already suffered to Beatty's BCF. That's 16 ships damaged or destroyed out of (IIRC) 34 British capital ships. With half the BGF out of action, there no longer exist sufficient ships to enforce the blockade, and suddenly resources can get to Germany, which extends the war. At that point, who the fuck knows what could have happened? For sure, with the ability pierce the British blockage, the Germans wouldn't have resumed the submarine campaign that brought the US into the war.

The POSSIBILITY exists that by pursuing the HSF, the war could be "lost in an afternoon". No such possibility exists by declining action.

Basically, weird shit happens in battles. If you can guarantee victory in the WHOLE WAR by virtue of declining to pursue an enemy already in retreat and not expose yourself to ANY chance - however slim - of granting the enemy a comeback, then you'd be demonstrating the *height* of irresponsibility as a commander by deciding to pursue that enemy.

>> No.57004131

Even assuming the HSF somehow manages to lock the GF in a completely confused night action, and assuming crazy things like several German pre-dreads managing to ram GF dreadnoughts, the GF taking extremely high numbers of torpedo hits because in that hypothetical night action they all decide to 'engage the enemy more closely', the GF would not be annihilated.

And even then, the HSF would be equally heavily damaged, with lots of ships sunk and most others damaged. What are the Germans gonna do now? Well, repair their ships, mostly.
And then?
Invade Britain? They can't.
Shell British ports? That's a useless propaganda stunt, and everybody will notice that. The Brits will be laughing at the HSF as soone as one of the bombarding ships runs into a minefield and sinks in view of the British coast.
Use the HSF to go and block the Atlantic? They can't, the 'High Seas' fleet lacks the range to actually go there, that whole name is basically a ruse.

Maybe Germany can now get some supplies through. But again, this doesn't magically remove all the RN's cruisers and auxiliaries and minelayers from the picture, they are still there. And they are the ones actually stopping German shipping.

>> No.57004204

>the GF would not be annihilated

The fuck is wrong with you? That's not what he said. At all.

>> No.57004447

That is the point. It is impossible.
I said 'even assuming'. This was to imply practically impossible things. Which I also stated. Did you even read what I posted?

There is no real world scenario where that could ever happen.

Even if the GF takes crippling losses (and that takes Alien Space Bats using laserguns to sink a few additional British ships), the HSF will be in no condition to fight for the following months, probably up to a year.
Britain could repair ships faster than Germany, and the remainig British ships could still restrict the HSF's movements.

And once HSF is repaired it can't help fight Britain in the Atlantic (not enough range, operating that way leaves it open to be intercepted on the way back by the remaining British forces), it can't really hurt Britain by bombarding ports, it can't do jack shit. The Germans can't invade. maybe teh HSF can go out and cover mineclearing operations to help German supplies get into teh north Sea, but the RN can simply intercept them further north and west.

There is NO WAY for the war to be lost in an afternoon.
This simply can't happen.
Yes, it'd be a blow to morale. Yes, it'd be a German propaganda victory. No, it will not stop Britain from continuing the fight.
There'd be lots of egg in the Admiralty's collective faces, too. But that's it

Also, the French will be sniggering, but they do still have two or three battle squadrons to keep the Germans bottled up in the North Sea.

>> No.57005326

Anyone up for Guadalcanal scenario on War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition?

>> No.57006577

>> No.57006749

I wish I had the time, skill and game.

On an unrelated note, the slightly agitated discussion above made me wonder:
How would the French fleet fare against the HSF in WW1?

>> No.57007891

>How would the French fleet fare against the HSF in WW1?

It has just occurred to me that I know fairly little about what the French Navy was up to in WWI. I imagine that might possibly be because the answer is "not that much".

>> No.57007962

The French had two classes of dreadnoughts, and a ton of pre-dreads.
Which is probably why the Germans kept their pre-dreads around, now that I think about it.

>> No.57009028

>> No.57009160

Does anyone have the pastebin link for with all the max technology for Rule the Waves? I know where to put it, I just can't find the technologies to copy

>> No.57009167


>> No.57009266


>> No.57009275

>If you have a battle and you don't destroy your opponent, then it's you who lost.

I don't think you understand the basics of warfare. Jellicoe ended the HSF's desire to sortie. They knew that they couldn't get one up on the RN, that any fleet action would be a massacre at 2 to 1 odds against them. They wanted to sink elements of the RN's battlefleet, Jellicoe denied them that.

If you take away the enemy's will to fight, you've won.

>> No.57009296

Wrong, the fastest BB at the time was Hood, at a blistering 31 knots. The BBL was doomed if Hood, Repulse, or Reknown were anywhere near them. Hell the british effectively ended the career of one of them with a trio of cruisers.

>> No.57009315

>Hood, Repulse or Renown

>> No.57009321

>Interestingly, the only one of the four main commanders to have come out of Jutland with their reputation rather beyond reproach was Hipper.

Hipper did pretty well. The HSF escaped certain death by the skin of their teeth several times, because Hipper wasn't determined to get them all killed that day.

Beatty was ok, but probably wouldn't have made the calls that Jellicoe did that saved Jutland. Beatty's signal officer should have been fired out of a cannon though. Talk about buying a commission, what a fucking tool.

>> No.57009352

Hood was a battleship.

Repulse and Reknown were not. But both sister BC's could have pushed a BBL's shit in, much like they did to the Scharn sisters.

>> No.57009394

Hood had surprising amounts of armor, not far off the Revenge class really.

Given her construction in 1920, she doesn't fit with the profile of a battlecruiser at the time, since she was rolling with battleship levels of protection, high speed, and heavy armament. I would contend that Hood was the first fast battleship.

>> No.57010125

Where would you put it?

>> No.57010391

BNat.dat copypaste everything in pastenbin under whatever nation you wish, edit "DockSize=[whatever number]" to "DockSize=52000" if you want highest possible displacement available from the start. After that edit Guns-values (Guns2=[whatever], Guns3=[whatever], etc.) to whatever you want them to be "GunsX=-2" means that the guns will be -2 quality, "GunsX=-1" means that guns will be -1 quality, "GunsX=0" means that guns will be 0 quality, "GunsX=1" means that guns will be +1 quality, "GunsX=9" means that you'ven't yet develop them. Outside of those you can also mess with national traits, 0=nation will not have that trait, 1=nation will have that trait, so for example if you want USA to have bombastic leader of state switch "Bombastic=0" to "Bombastic=1" you can also change the government type, base resources, etc. If you're planning to play as a nation that doesn't have automatic access to oil open MapData.dat, look up the area you want to put the oil fields in and edit "
MapAreaXPossessionYOil=0" to "
MapAreaXPossessionYOil=1", so if you want to give Japan access to oil you would edit
"MapArea4Possession6Oil=0" to
"MapArea4Possession6Oil=1" and Japan starts the game with access to newly created Taiwanese oil fields.

>> No.57010621


>> No.57011211

Whatever Hood ended up as, the RN called her a battlecruiser. I agree that she was among the first steps towards the fast BB (other examples include the cancelled Kii class)

As such, it is not surprising that she's superior to a Deutschland/Lützow class cruiser.
And let's be clear here, the whole 'Panzerschiff' thing was a clever ruse. They were dedicated commerce-raiding cruisers.
Also, they were obviously made obsolete by the new, fast BBs that were built in the 30s, and the newer types of aircraft.

>> No.57011886

>> No.57012244

Battlecruiser in RN terminology at that point meant 'Fast Battleship'. A capital ship that can beat 26 knots.

The Hood had more armor than the Queen Elizabeth class and the same armament for example. Just was faster.

>> No.57012684

>>56908660 Warning

4chan has been compromised. Browsing on Windows can infect the computer with a program that renders parts of your data inaccessible.

Ways to protect yourself:

1) Only browse via phone
2)If you use Firefox install https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/umatrix/
3) If you use Chrome install https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/umatrix/ogfcmafjalglgifnmanfmnieipoejdcf

>> No.57012713

Wasn't hoods armor thinner and only heavier because she was longer than the queen Elizabeth class and so had more length to cover?

I'm not being snarky. I'm asking if I am mistaken.

>> No.57012757

FtD's development cycle turned to absolute shit and now the game is full of half-finished systems and nonsensical gimmick things that were developed while basic systems remain badly implemented shitshows.

>> No.57013534

Well duh, it is an early access game on Steam. Most of those end up like that.

>> No.57014586

>> No.57015488

No you are right. Hood carried about 12 inches, tapering. QEs had about 13, tapering. Hood was designed with less initially (10.5~11) but after Jutland, she got redesigned, hence why she rides so low in the water, all the extra armor. Her conning tower was also extremely heavy, being one of the highest, largest, and best protected of the time. Hood's refit in 41 would have removed the conning tower, and put that armor to better use on deck armor increases. The Hood's bridge structure would have been rebuilt to look like the structures on QE/Valiant and Reknown.

>> No.57016624

>> No.57017461

>> No.57017506

As anti-teebism I am, even I weep for the loss of a chance to see a fully refitted Hood.

>> No.57019092

>> No.57020127

Weren't the QEs considered fast battleships?

>> No.57020642

any chance to play the kuk navy?

>> No.57021686

>> No.57022622

No. They were the RN's definite superdreadnoughts and were faster than the dreadnoughts, and in this way they certainly represent a step towards the fast battleship.

But the lines were already starting to blur in the designs that were built during WW1, and the generation of cancelled designs shows that the ships of the mid-20s would essentially have become fast BBs.

>> No.57023704

Presumably only if you start from 1900, though even if it is removed I somehow doubt that it would take too long before someone mods Austro-Hungarians in.

>> No.57024693

I came here for pics of cool models and naval tables and all I got was boring history book pictures.

>> No.57025612


Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.