Naval Wargames General: Royal Navy Battlecruisers Edition

See, I was thinking that, but I thought the guns were removed from X after Fritz hit her.

But I did some RGIS and yes, that is Warspite.

Have a Grorious Photo of Best Battleship Haruna at speed!

Love the bow wave she is riding on, WoWs gets water physics all wrong, especially for Battleships.

>being into gilf battlecruisers

Does wows even have water physics? Isn't the wake just a particle effect on top of a flat sheet?

WoWS does have "water" riding up the bow and sides, but it doesn't sink down towards the back, all movement over the sides is due to the regular waves all over the map, which are small as shit as well.
Doesn't mean it gets anything right at all though, fuck WoWS.
Also, post some fucking bong battlecruisers damnit.

...

...

>Doesn't mean it gets anything right at all though, fuck WoWS.

Seriously, WoWs is Cancer. Play Steel Ocean on steam instead, or if you hate PvP, Atlantic Fleet.

I found Steel Ocean underwhelming, really.
Every time I think about all of this, I miss Fighting Steel ;_;

>I found Steel Ocean underwhelming, really
Everyone misses fighting steel. But SO is the best we have at the moment.

...

GHQ.

Problem is GHQ doesn't do a WWI Japanese line, and the armored cruisers they used were unusual patterns ordered from overseas yards. The only perfect match to a foreign navy's designs that I know of was Italian-built, which is another country GHQ doesn't do in that era.

...

Damnit, why did you make me go past the tutorial.
Now with two 8-kill streaks I'm hooked! Addicted! Curse you Veeky Forums!

It will get a lot tougher when you are not fighting bots, but welcome to Steel Ocean user.

>tfw can't play Steel Ocean because my laptop is shit

user, I...
...am sure I wasn't fighting bots, not after tier I anwyays.

Tier 4 is guaranteed no bots. Tier 3 and below generally has a fair number of bots, in DDs.

...

...

>tfw your favorite bote game can be run a potato

>mfw my U-boat is attacked by aircraft at least once in the Bay of Biscay in all three patrols (her first patrol she got attacked twice)
>mfw my U-boat is detected by both convoys she encounters
>first forces aborting the patrol in the first box of an Atlantic patrol, second sinks her

U-88 is unlucky.

Gentlemen, I give you the greatest battleship in the world! Observe its massive secondary batteries! Its enormous bulk and thick armor plating! And most of all those 18-inch monsters that will enable it to engage two American battleships at the same time!

This is the best we can build and we shall build it, expenses be damned!

Gentleman, I give you the smallest battleship in the world! Observe the presence of is secondary batteries! Its modest bulk and paper-thin 3-inch belt armor! And most of all its anemic 11-inc popguns that will enable it to engage two cruisers at once provided we can train both turrets on them!

This is an armored cruiser by another name, literally what are we doing?

>decide to try a VIID next time
>aircraft encounters 8(!) times in one patrol
Once in transit out, three times laying mines, once patrolling, three times in the Bay of Biscay on return. I've certainly gained an appreciation for why U-Boats hated aircraft.

It was the best they could do at the time, given the limitations imposed by the Versailles treaty and the lack of competent naval engineers. Technically it wasn't a battleship either, but an "armoured ship" (panzerschiffe), more equivalent to a battlecruiser. The "pocket battleship" term came from British or Americans.

She was designed specifically to replace one of the six pre-dreadnought battleships that they were left, which reached the age where it could be replaced in 1922.

> It was the best they could do at the time
That says more about the Germans than the Treaty of Versailles, which the Deutschlands flagrantly violated anyway.

As "cruisers" yes, they're clearly not light cruisers by any definition and so they would have been in violation. But it was permitted to replace their six pre-dreadnought ships with newer vessels of (I believe) 10,000-ton displacement and 14-inch guns or smaller once they reached twenty years of age. The allied powers thought the result would be coastal defense ships, not vessels which could be used offensively.

They violated the spirit of the treaty yes, but they were technically acceptable (albeit 600 tons over design weight). And by the mid-30's subsequent treaties allowed for some buildup to occur, allowing for the Scharnhorsts and Bismarcks which left the Deutschlands as a somewhat bizarre case of "what actually IS this?".

>albeit 600 tons over design weight

And 6000 over treaty limit.

Still I always wonder what the Gerrys were thinking with it?
Slow raider is like a sitting duck in modern war.

And it's always funny hearing about 'muh River Platte' - do people even realise Exeter, Ajax & Achilles outmassed it 2-to-1?
Not likely.

The 10'000 long ton displacement is a straight up lie, by design the Deutschland had a 12'400ish ton standard displacement and over 14'000 at full load, while the Graf's Pee was 14'650 and 16'020 respectively, while Scheer was somewhere in the middle.

Not even, going by full load displacements the RN ships were around 1.8 times GS, while standard displacements give you more around 1.5 times.

Did you literally not read the post you quoted? As has been stated twice now they were meant to replace their aging pre-dreadnoughts, which was allowed under treaty after 20 years in service and as long as they displaced less than 10,000 tons.

Except they didn't displace 10000 tons or less, they were vastly over that limit, so if they were going to flagrantly and blatantly ignore the treaty limits anyway, why didn't they do so with something good?

>Still I always wonder what the Gerrys were thinking with it?
>Slow raider is like a sitting duck in modern war.

At the time, she was not slow, she outpaced everything except the British BC fleet, and the Kongos.

Need to make the ship look even somewhat treaty legal mixed with massive need to overcompensate.

Sexy Japanese never built reporting in!

...

>They violated the spirit of the treaty yes

If by "violated' you mean gang raped, dismembered, and buried in the crawlspace under the house, then, yes, they did "violate" the Treaty. The Panzerschiffes exceeded the treaty tonnage limits by between 50 and 60%.

>>And it's always funny hearing about 'muh River Platte' - do people even realise Exeter, Ajax & Achilles outmassed it 2-to-1?
Not likely.

I do, but I'm also aware of the differing speeds and main battery ranges involved. While Langsdorff didn't have the speed advantage many assume, he still had heavy guns with a longer range. He should have fought the battle in a completely different manner if at all. Instead, he played right into Harwood's plans.

Pyramid gun batteries are not sexy. Somebody needs to teach the Japanese how to triple gun, or settle for a perfectly acceptable 8 gun broadside.

Triple turrets and turret arrangements that don't make HMS Agincourt look like a sensible idea are unnipponese white devil trash.

...

Nothing inherently wrong with Twin turrets, they were easily the most reliable turret arrangement in both wars.

Here is a "So Ugly it's kind of hot" never built from the UK.

Muh Pagoduh!

...

...

>Muh Pagoduh!

Great. Now I'm singing that to the tune of "My Sharona"!

Dammit, now I need to rewrite some lyrics.

>VIIC in The Hunters
>is literally detected every time I encounter a convoy, either trying to get close or after firing
>somehow manages to last a year

She's the luckiest unlucky boat I ever used.

...

...

Twin turrets are fine, as long as you don't go crazy with pyramid batteries and midships turrets.

Line battles don't happen nearly often enough to justify turrets that can't fire fore or aft.

It is pretty hilarious how long nips clung to dual turrets even when everyone around them were opting to use triple turrets.

...

I know they weren't very effective in the surface engagement role, but I've always found the twin 4 inch mounts on RN ships just adorable.

...

...

She came THAT close to getting away too...

>Not Effective
>Twin 4in

Pick 1.

...

Well, that's because nobody built a truly competent navy (had well-built ships, AND used them well once the war actually started) except the US.

>pack of 1/2400 GHQ Matsus arrive
>clear acrylic bases arrive
HAPPY DAY. Now all I'm waiting for is milliput. Pics some time tomorrow once the basing is ready.

...

Does anyone want to join a play by post game of naval warfare? I'm looking to start a fleet after I found out/read about this game run by a forum member.

You basically make a post for your movement, everyone moves, the map is updated, and then you engage / roll dice to hit the enemy. Has some light RPG elements to it as well with ship upgrades.

I'd be down.

Cool, I asked the person running the game and they said we need four people to form a fleet.

...

Those some Italians?

I'm pretty sure they are. Those triple-mount secondaries at the bridge level are rather unique.

>reading up on armor penetration values
>formulae based on USNI research suggest that the top five in terms of penetration are Yamato (bulky), Iowa, Littorio (superfast), H-Class (never built) and Nagato
>FACEHARD program calibrated with British armor in mind suggests every other navy's guns have 2-3 inches less penetration capacity than USNI results
>same program estimates RN battleships have 2-3 inches greater penetration than the USNI calculations
>Nelson on top, Lion and QEs suddenly in the top 10
>Iowas aren't in the top 10, Colorados are
Gee, I wonder who could be behind this.

HMS Refit & Repair during the early interwar period.

Where at?

The Littorio penetration might be decent, but the guns had such shit dispersion because of the speed of the shell, they were a waste. Having to be relined every 150 EFC vs the British 15 inch's 300~350 EFC relining schedule meant that they'd be in dock way more often.

German shells were famous for not exploding in WW2.

USN 16 inch 2700 lb was probably about equal to the Yamato 18.1. Ditto the British 16 (for the Lion, not the Rodnols)

British 16 on Rodnol was crap until they increased shell weight and reduced muzzle velocity.

British 15 was good, became great with 33 degree angle + "Greenboy" 6crh shells.

Not just speed, mainly QC with powder. The relining is a bitch, although it's less of a problem for a fleet intended to fight close to home.

Basically, at a certain point penetration capacity is a tossup. British Admiralty's view on the subject is that there are too damn many variables involved, right down to the fact that your target might roll slightly and present a less favorable striking angle. So just shoot good and shoot often, and try not to get hit in exchange.

If the other bastards sink you did it right.

Wow... am I a dope.

The Littorios not only had trip main batteries, their trip secondaries were deck mounted.

Different user.
Could you post the system rules or direct us to it please?

Not same user, but sounds like user is talking about Bloodwake, from the planes and mercs anons.

planesandmercs.org is the forum.

To follow on for other Naval friends.
Bloodwake is a little home brewed surface naval game. You Captain a ship in a fleet (or a small group of ships if you are in CA/CL/DD) and work with others to try and win the day over the GM, who runs the enemy Opfor. You have a slight advantage in that you have an ability as a captain to give your ship a boost in combat occasionally. other then that, you need to think and plan with the others in your group to carry the day.

Here is an example map. Each turn takes 6 minutes in 'realtime' so 13 turns would be 1hr 18 mins into the engagement. As you can see, there is an enemy aircraft carrier, emplaced batteries, a battleship, and a heavy cruiser. The PCs have already sunk some ships as well.

Every different color is a diferent player.

Your forum account name is your character name. You can rename your forum account so it is not a big deal, but if you already know who you want to be called, the format is:

Cpt First Last

Asking for a friend, what type of ships can you drive?

Just playing Rule the Waves. I'm working on a treaty cruiser while I can't fix my lack of modern battlecruisers (generous terms for cruiser building, 20,000 and 12"). Being as it is 1914 and I will need to build capital ships these will probably be my last frontline cruiser class for the game. I've got most of the bells and whistles, I seem to have AoN for cruiser hulls, quad turrets, superimposed B, oil.

Anyway I'm wondering whether I go 3 x 4 10", 2 fore 1 aft, or 4 x 3 in a 2 fore 2 aft config. The quads are going to be unreliable at first but it gives me more fore firepower and saves the tonnage of a turret.

>British moral ascendency

Pretty much any ship from 1906-1946.

System is fairly robust. Teams are not limited to one nation for ships, so you can have franken combinations of vessels sailing together. There is a monetary benefit to having ships from the same nation, as it is cheaper to outfit them overall compared to a more eclectic fleet, but then you lose out on the fun of a North Carolina leading a Littorio and a Revenge into battle.

It's freeform enough to not feel constraining, but the system simulates naval combat well enough that it doesn't feel 'fake' if that makes sense?

Are never-built ships allowed? Cause I want to see a fleet of a modernized Tillman, A-150, H-39 and escorts.

One of the fleets currently has a KGV with 3 Quad turrets, and a Hood that had the 1941 Modernization applied.

GM has said that if it had realworld plans/stats, it can be put in the game.

Well I am in, Cpt Josiah Bartlett. Anyone want to make a fleet with me?

John_Doe is go.

Might get in on the action, moving to the bush for work so data light gaming sounds an idea