Naval General (Admiral FFS) thread

...

>I will never forget how savagely the HMS Rodney bullied the Bismarck, it's almost hard to read.

Agreed. The battle was essentially over after the first 20 minutes.

Oddly enough, as Preston explains, closing in on Bismarck worked against the RN. Bismarck's antiquated, Bayern-style, "submerged", armor scheme was designed with short range "flat" fire in mind. If Rodney and KGV had opened the distance for more "plunging" fire, there would have been fewer hits but they would have done even more damage.

>500$
>stickers

How the hell did that happen, though?
I've like a good hundred Pirates of the Spanish Main ships, which I'd consider one step up from stickers, and that didn't cost me anywhere as much!

>half the US
So that's where the $500 went

Literally nothing wrong with pagodas.

Anyone here have experience with SpringSharp or other design programs?

That is Japan for you, they had plenty of plenty of bad ideas to go around.

...

It's not a bad deal. A battleship runs you about a dollar and a bit. Look up how big the complete UK fleet was in ww2, All the cruisers. All the dds. In battlesjips they had over 15. Must have had over 50 dds. Cruiser count was huge too.

I bought the entire german fleet, italian, french, and half each of the major us japan and uk. Thats easily over 100 ships per half fleet.

In all I probably got 700+ ships for around 500 usd, which on a per ship basis is bargain basement pricing.

For ref, the entire kgv line 5 boats, in ghq models would be 85 usd. The same stickers+wood is 11 usd from topside. The entire german navy is only 75$.

I get good looking durable table pieces with almost no assembly for cheap. I can game any conflict from ww2 naval history since i have all the ships.

I still collect ghq because they are pretty. But topside is a great resource for new players or people on a budget.

I will also add if you are doubtful of spending money on stickers, topside will send you a free demo piece to let you judge for yourself the quality of the product.

I got one before I bought most of ww2s naval forces.

I'm demoing a lot of naval games this year, and I didnt want to haul my tackle box full of ghq and hallmark ships around. Topside was cheap and colorful, and easy to transport.

I plan on picking up the other half fleets later this year, maybe with their great war lineup as well.

Victory at sea had the same idea for counters in the rulebook, this is just a more polished product

So for modeling purposes, does anyone have a picture of any Japanese battleship with her crane in the collapsed position? I feel like the jib more or less lowers straight down to the deck and the tower rests on top of it, but I can't be sure.

Which ship in particular?

Any of them, really. The only one I think I know is that Nagato's was stored IN the sponson, though the one model I've seen of Mutsu with hers stowed is resting on top of the sponson.

They didnt just steam with them up like every other nation?

Ok, I guess that makes sense. I looked at their site. It is 2.25 for a KGV vs 17 for a ghq model. Just over 1/10th the price seems fair. I think 500 bucks sounds like a lot for stickers, but if you got 700 ships that evens it out, 70 cents a ship is a good deal.

Tbf coming up with an overly complex way to store their cranes instead of just doing what everyone else did does sound like something that nips would do.

Ain't that the truth.

To be fair the Nagatos and Kongōs were built before battleships were being given floatplanes, and so that equipment had to be fitted in where space could be found. Nagato and Mutsu had folding cranes because otherwise they'd actually block the barrels of X-turret from traversing fully to port. I suppose it would've been more expensive to rebuild the rear mast with adequate equipment.

...

>when there's no hope of success but you go anyway because you're in too deep to turn back now

...

Meanwhile the QE c,ass got spotter planes withoutsuch a stupid limitation.

Guess that unlike Brits&Yanks Japs didn't find midship aircraft facilities suitable for their needs.

That goes a long way towards making the ship more livable

The QEs were two meters narrower, had less substantial rear masts to begin with, had a different layout of superstructure and funnel, and were operating different aircraft with different handling equipment.

What works for one class may not work for another, and even when looking at the same ship different architects might bicker over what the best approach would be.

I'm planning a setting based loosely on ca. 16th–17th-century South-East Asia (with some African and Caribbean influences) that is going to have a lot of islands, piracy, and such.
Are GURPS vehicles rules good enough for small-scale naval warfare during that period?

Well the best approach was the British approach.

I honestly don't know enough about the era to give you a good answer.

I can tell you that:
ospreypublishing.com/on-the-seven-seas
ospreypublishing.com/fighting-sail-fleet-actions-1775-1815

Should cover most naval actions for pirates. Warhammer Historical's "Trafalgar" was also quite good.

Hey, another Steel Ocean player!

SeaWar1805 from Wessex games is also very good.

wessexgames.co.uk/p/other-historical-rules.html

Cheap too.

...

Thanks for that user!

I do. SpringSharp's really easy to use, but it edges on the conservative side, and it has no provision for all welded hulls to save weight and the like. You do have to install an old NET framework and like 3 patches in order to make it run.

>like 3 patches
So THAT'S the problem!

I've been trying to get it to work on mac with winebottler, but even with the correct NET framework (1.1) it still won't work.

Yup, that must be it. When I installed NET framework, I received a notification that shit was obsolete (duh) and that I should patch it. Fortunately, M$ still keeps the patches available for download.

I don't suppose you can tell me what patches they are? I have no idea whether I can get it to work, but maybe I can bug /g/ or something.

Older programs can be like that, have heard that the beta version of SpringSharp 3.0 can work without requiring you to mess around with old as fuck versions of NET framework but, given that I've never touched that version of SpringSharp, I can't confirm it.

>Laga
NO
YOU'LL BRING HIM HERE

Ive always wondered who would win in a fight. Bismarck vs Colorado or Nagato.

Bisko would probably suffer a total electrical breakdown within 30 minutes or something equally crippling. Poor girl just can't get it right.

What the fuck?
Noted. I'll try it later tonight.

Not the same guy, I like my warships either sleek or top heavy and in danger of capsizing. This battleship just strikes an unappealing balance.
But seriously, a quick google search will tell you that NET framework 1.1 doesn't work well by itself and there's a ton of threads on different sites with people having the same problem, and the answers being given, so go try it and come back to us.

>Asashio
>Not Arashio

>not going for the reliable nameship
>wanting to be constantly challenged and questioned
It's like you want a real woman or something.

Don't worry, I already have one.
Anyway, we should stop this for now.

Weirdly, I think the Colorado > Bismark > Nagato.

Only benefit Bizzy had is speed. Colorado had tons of armor, could probably duke it out with Bizzy all day.

Good news, got the 3b3 to work.

Bad news, I have no idea what I'm doing with it.

Good taste in cuties m8.

>springsharp
>no idea what do

Make the ship that could win Japan the war.

But the Bismark could choose the engagement. Bismark wins.

Base should come tomorrow, and her topcoat has actually cured a bit more since the photo so she doesn't look as glossy. Had to use the ends of her spare catapults to more accurately model her pagoda.

So is there any role where these two could validate themselves aside from pure reenactment value? Maybe specifically leading all-Akizuki formations?

...

A valid role? They had one at the time they were designed/built (WW1) and it was the destroyer leader role you suggested. Put them at the head of a Kaba or Momi formation in the 1920s and they're superb.

By the 40s they've been replaced in that role by better/newer designs just like many other ships in many other navies. They then filled other roles one of which was acting as a "big" destroyer in cruiser formations. Tenryu did very well at Savo in the capacity.

...

...

Exhibit #1 in the argument that the IJN was run by idiot savants.

>build a fast, armored carrier
>give it good heavy DP guns
>gets torpedoed because your destroyers are mostly shit at ASW
>subsequently explodes because nobody thinks to cover the fuel spills with foam from the fire suppression systems
Seriously, every nice thing they had.

That is Japan for you.

...

Seriously indeed.

>Determine before 1900 they cannot fight a war of attrition with the US
>Spend 40+ years planning not to fight a war of attrition with the US
>Develop strategy, doctrine, tactics, weapons, ships not to fight a war of attrition with the US
>Fight a war of attrition with the US in the Solomons

>Have some of the best long range subs
>Have some of the best torpedoes
>Subs patrolling off US West Coast "see" no targets
>US doesn't even need to convoy ships east of Pearl

>Combatant most dependent on merchant shipping
>Does little to build more merchant shipping
>Does even less to protect merchant shipping

>Imperial Army needs oil to fight China
>Imperial Army only gives Imperial Navy 6 divisions to attack Philippines, Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, etc. to seize oil.

Late in the war, the Imperial Army built it's own ESCORT CARRIERS to defend it's troop/supply convoys because the Imperial Navy wouldn't.

Idiot savants.

Don't forget the bit where their submarine doctrine was "go here, stay there and wait for enemies to come by" rather than letting them roam in their AO.

They had multiple sub classes with floatplanes. Could you imagine what a "wolfpack" with it's air recon could have done? Can you imagine the assets the US would have been forced to divert to counter that?

>be allied with fucking germany
>never bother to ask them to send a memo about how to u-boat

Guess that 2 world wars spent by spamming submarines wasn't enough experience for Japs.

>Guess that 2 world wars spent by spamming submarines wasn't enough experience for Japs.

They saw their ally, the UK, come within months of losing due to unrestricted submarine warfare. They even sent warships to the Med to assist with ASW efforts.

Yet, somehow, they never thought it could happen to them and they never tried to do it themselves.

Idiot fucking savants. Night fighting and surface torpedo tactics? None better until radar gave the Allies the upper hand. Everything else? Either the worst or close to it.

How could you know you're going to be fighting outnumbered, that your opponents will have more ships, and yet NOT emphasize damage control?

What's that nursery rhyme? When they are good, they are very very good and when they are bad they are horrid?

Are there any pre-dreadnought systems with rules for building warships so you can play around with hypothetical wackiness, sort-of like Rule the Waves?

R8 my special type destroyers.

I picked up the Falklands and Coronel set, will probably pick up Jutlands sometime in the future too. I'm too invested in minis for WWII to pick up anything other maybe plane and small craft counters though. Really nice product.

What kills me is they built cruisers like Oyodo with the specific idea that they would be sub squadron leaders, and never used them in that way.

They used Katori as flagship for 6th Fleet at the start of the war (why the hell did they put all the subs in one fleet?)

While part that was due to the "Norm" floatplane program failing, the biggest reason was the echo chamber the IJN lived and worked in. If you can find "Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the IJN 1887-1941" by Evans & Peattie it's an eye opener. The IJN failed to reexamine earlier preconception while obsessing over trivia enough to create over-specialized plans using over-specialized ships.

Around 1900, they made a few assumptions regarding a war with the US and then never seriously reexamined them. They conceived of one way a war would be fought, dismissed any other ways, and kept refining that one way well past the point of absurdity. They then began building ships and weapon systems to fit those very narrow preconceptions. When the US "failed" to follow the script, the IJN's plans fell apart and the ships specifically designed for specific parts of those plans weren't much use elsewhere.

Their preconceptions had such a hold on them that they routinely ignored evidence to the contrary. I'm sure you've heard about the IJN wargame which "predicted" Midway only to have the referees reset the result. That's just one case.

They ran an exercise in '39 or '40 involving subs vs merchant shipping. They sent subs to the Home Island choke points and simulated attacks on merchants while ASW forces and aircraft attempted a defense. The subs "sank" 100+ ships in FIVE days but the only lesson from the exercise the IJN took away had to do with the efficacy of RDF.

Like I've posted before: Idiot savants.

>(why the hell did they put all the subs in one fleet?)

It wasn't all of them, just 3 of 7 flotillas, and it was an admin/role thing.

6th fleet was comprised of three different flotillas each made up of relatively similar designs tasked to specific & independent combat missions. The other 4 flotillas were assigned to the Combined Fleet and 2 others and tasked with missions which supported those fleets.

Look at the 1st Air Fleet. They combined some of their carriers into an independent strike force while assigning the rest into support roles with other fleets.

Think SAC vs. CAS.

SAC didn't do CAS, though, that was TAC.

>SAC didn't do CAS, though, that was TAC.

Jesus H. Titty Fucking Christ. I wasn't suggesting SAC performed CAS, pinhead. I was contrasting two different missions performed by the same type of asset.

Independent air power missions VERSUS air power supporting other missions.

6th Fleet's three sub flotillas performed independent missions while the 4 flotillas parceled out the other fleets performed missions directly in support of the fleets.

>How could you know you're going to be fighting outnumbered, that your opponents will have more ships, and yet NOT emphasize damage control?

But muh decisive battle, no need for damage control if we finish the war with it.

Japs built quite few boats around rather questionable ideas.
>instead of having our carriers carry a scout plane or two lets build a heavy cruiser capable of carrying multiple seaplanes to work as a scout for them

...

> Only 4 inch guns
4/10 Not adequately wave ruling.

>30 knots

Is this 1899 or what?

They were mainly designed as 'heavy' destroyers for open sea work, with an emphasis on reliability and seakeeping, as I consistently found my faster fleet destroyers with speeds more around 36 or whatnot could rarely reach those speeds in inclement weather and when/if they got to the battle the 4 inch guns weren't hitting hard enough to effectively deal with enemy DDs, preventing them from closing in to torp BBs and Cruisers.

So I made them slower but dependable, and with 8 5 inchers its not uncommon for them to render their opposite numbers nonfunctional within minutes of engaging. They ended up being my most successful ship class of the game, sinking something like 12 BBs and innumerable DDs and MSs for the loss of just 3 ships in their 6 year service life.

They were also designed to work alongside the less successful Royal-class CL in the raiding role, but this never really panned out due to the way RtW handles raiders.

...

>Only 30 knots
>Only 4 tubes

Nice light cruiser you got there.

>Nice light cruiser you got there.

Think destroyer leader...

Either way it's a shit destroyer. The extra firepower is not worth the reduction in speed and torpedo loadout. It's still going to lose gunfights against actual light cruisers, and now it won't be able to run away either.

>Either way it's a shit destroyer.

Miss this bit?

>They ended up being my most successful ship class of the game, sinking something like 12 BBs and innumerable DDs and MSs for the loss of just 3 ships in their 6 year service life.

I very much agree that, in reality, it's a shit DD. In RtW, however, it put under TWELVE BBs at a cost of three losses.

They were "game artifacts" true, but they were excellent game artifacts.

Well. that's definitely interesting. I assume the BBs sunk were with torpedoes though right?

>I assume the DDs sunk were with torpedoes though right?

Ask the guy who designed and used them.

Every rules set can be "hacked" to some extent and 's Paladins are a good example. Their 30 knots was "fast enough", their 8.5 inch guns savaged opposing destroyers, and their torpedoes sank opposing BBs. They're the juene ecole come to life.

How bad was WWII US cruisers not mounting torps?

But that was after they already lost their attempt at a decisive battle, and since surrender or peace negotiations weren't on the table the war was effectively over aside from grinding the gristle.

Annoying in 42/43. Inconsequential in 44/45.

We've had this discussion before in previous threads. Surface launched torpedoes never lived up to their decades of hype. Every navy theorized they'd be decisive, every navy developed doctrine, ships, weapons, tactics, and defenses predicated on the theory they'd be decisive. Every navy saw all those theories and development essentially fail in practice.

Japan, naturally, took the theories to an extreme building a big chunk of their navy based on those theories. They had some successes under very specific circumstances. Yet those successes triggered doctrinal changes by the US which prevented further success even under those circumstances.

All of Japan's efforts over all those decades produced results for a relatively limited time in a relatively small area. Very telling, no other combatant in both worlds wars even approached Japan's very limited successes.

In reality, US CAs 'lacking' torps amounted to nothing. In a game, however, that same lack can be important.