Shakedown Cruise 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/)
mediafire.com
Rule the Waves
mega.nz
Previous Thread
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
drive.google.com
twitter.com
...
1st for sub-spamming AI
Y'know, I always found submarine deck guns really interesting. Did they have to tilt the barrels down to run water out of them before they could be used, or did they have some kind of self-draining vent system?
>tilt the barrels down to run water out
Tilt barrel up & open the breech.
After the first round is fired, any remaining problems will be solved.
The only catch, IMHO, would be the low service life of the barrel.
You'd need a new one every couple of patrols ...
Pretty sure subs had stuff like plugs to make their guns at least partially watertight. I recall there being a YouTube video about the operation of submarine deck guns in the USN, I'll try to find it later.
It's a shame X1 was such a mess and got scrapped before the war, a well executed version might have been pretty nasty for the ASW work RN subs often did.
Well, it doesn't mention anything about waterproofing it, but the video is interesting anyway.
youtube.com
German ones at least had a plug that would be screwed into the barrel to make it watertight. And if you forgot to remove it before firing, the ammunition would explode inside the barrel, destroying the gun and probably killing the people firing and loading it.
...
Threadly reminder that Hotel would have lost in a one on one battle with Iowa.
which botes game from the OP would you guys recommend i could play without needing a huge investment. Modern or ww1-2 era
Could i just print out overhead pics of ships and play like that?
Silent Victory, the rules are available for free and VASSAL has a module for it. That is of course if you're fine playing it on a computer, physical copies of it are only slightly less expensive than crack wrapped in gold leaf.
...
...the submarine class?
I'm too sexy for my own good.
I do love never built designs
Yamato.
Ah. Carry on.
Though really, we need to figure out two new ships to compare to death. How about H39 vs. Sovetsky Soyuz? Battle of the paper tigers.
>"Okay so, we're going to make sure those fucking pilots approach the landing deck correctly from now on..."
...
I think we've made a rookie error by comparing BBs all this time anyway. How about some DD or CL/CA matchups? Hipper vs Pensacola, Town vs Myoko, Tribal vs any other DD of the war etc.
I do love me some CAs.
Problem is that the American cruisers and tin cans were far and away the best, barring the Akizuki class which I'd honestly rate the best. That's what you get when you can throw money at it hand over fist.
Not really, they were probably the best destroyers in the role of the DD as an escort focused on AA or ASW (and in ASW I'd probably give the Brits the edge) but in DD on DD gunfights, stuff like the Fletcher starts to be outmatched by Tribals, Ls and Ms, J,K and Ns, Akizuki, even Kageros and Yugumos give it a run for its money. Really the only US destroyer that's particularly impressive in the gunnery department's the Gearing.
Also, American cruisers don't have that great a performance record. Primarily due to the fact that they didn't carry torpedoes, whereas their opponents did.
Mind, they did hurt things bad when they had the chance, but that lack of torpedoes really sucked for them.
At least the USN never lost any of their heavy cruisers to their own torpedoes blowing up, or had to plate over holes where their paper-thin turrets got blown the fuck out.
No, but dear god the New Orleans class had horrific casualty rates.
>horrific casualty rates
>new orleans
Lets see how many heavy cruisers were lost during WW2 and how high New Orleans place when you list them.
Aoba class 2 out of 2 (100%)
Algerie class 1 out of 1 (100%)
Bolzano class 1 out of 1 (100%)
Deutschland class 3 out of 3 (100%)
Furutaka class 2 out of 2 (100%)
Mogami class 4 out of 4 (100%)
Tone class 2 out of 2 (100%)
Trento class 2 out of 2 (100%)
York class 2 out of 2 (100%)
Myouko class 3 out of 4 (75%)
Takao class 3 out of 4 (75%)
Suffren class 3 out of 4 (75%)
Zara class 3 out of 4 (75%)
Admiral Hipper class 2 out of 3 (67%)
Northampton class 3 out of 6 (50%)
Portland class 1 out of 2 (50%)
New Orleans class 3 out of 7 (43%)
County class 3 out of 13 (23%)
Pensacola class 0 out of 2 (0%)
Baltimore class 0 out of 14 (0%)
Duquesne class 0 out of 2 (0%).
43% not really that good percentage but still far from being horrible considering how many of classes were completely wiped out during the war, hell even without including Axis or French CAs they still come after Yorks and Northamptons&Portlands.
Well, you also have to remember that even the New Orleans ships that weren't *lost* all took massive damage during the war and had significant loss of life aboard.
Poor Yorks, they just wanted to be real CAs like their County onee-samas.
Alaska vs. O-class?
Renown vs O would be a better pairing.
Mm, true. Alaska vs. O is another Iowa vs. Yamato situation again, I think.
At Tassafaronga 395 Americans were killed total. Astoria was lost with 219 men, Quincy with 370, Vincennes with 332.
Kinugasa went down with 511 of her crew. Nachi went down with 807 killed. Haguro was lost with 900 dead. Ashigara had some 2000 troops aboard when she sank, of those 1200 died along with 100 of her own crew.
Need me to go on?
It's even worse than that; the O class would've had an even narrower immunity zone to Alaska's shells than Yamato had to Iowa's.
What game is this?
Renown a qt
Best looking BC ever made.
Steel Ocean, free on steam.
Damn straight we will! Americans were on to something with Ranger.
One of these threads recommended the game to me, I gotta say thanks, it's amazing. Blows WoWs out of the water in terms of gameplay.
It reminds me a bit of Battlestations Pacific in terms of UI, which was a game I loved back in the day even though it was simplified as all hell.
...Also, at least Steel Ocean remembered that Iowa's gun covers were BLACK, not WHITE.
It is wows, extreme historical inaccuracy and fans that think that they are the Admiral Nelson reborn are to be expected.
Anybody else wish RtW also had a shell/gun design component?
...
Really just no comparison there, is it? Counties were just too beautiful.
...
Sometimes, but in my opinion the gun quality system does a good enough job. Maybe RtW2 will have advanced design menus for stuff like guns, shells, torpedoes and subs.
...
...
...
Uh, no, WoWs gets a lot more wrong about ship combat then SO.
For example, going bow on is encouraged in WOWS despite that being the DUMBEST way to fight.
I'm old enough to have played Navy Field years ago. Everything that people wanted to armor didn't have rear turrets to have X Tons of more armor.
It may be because I just woke up here, but I can't parse this; are you agreeing or disagreeing with
No it's not, you are encouraged to angle your armour. Fighting parallel to your enemy is retarded because it exposes your citadel. Angle the ship and you have a better chance at bouncing shells. Bow on bow works even less when you have rear turrets, which the vast majority of ships do.
I love Dunkirk. I'd love to get her and Tirpitz.
I think the issue in WoWs is that there's less of a diminishing return for armor angle than there is in real life. IIRC War Thunder also has this issue.
...
I feel like Renown vs. the O class, looking at the gun figures and armor values on hand for both, would be something like the naval version of rocket tag or an iaijutsu duel. They're both really vulnerable to each other's guns at a lot of ranges. And I'm not sure if the Admiralty Fire Control Table would be as swingy a factor as, say, the USN's insane radar fire control computers. Somebody with better knowledge of RN equipment can correct me on this if need be.
...
I do. I also wish the "Gradual improvement" and "Increased penitration" technologies actualy required some degree of refit.
Not as bad as changing your whole guns or FC systems. Some refits should be possible without any downtime. Also you should be able to refit during repairs.
CALIFORNIA
KNOWS HOW TO PARTY
> latice mast
>he doesn't appreciate lattice masts
It's really a matter of what happens in the early stages of the engagement, the longer it goes on the more it favours the Renown, because German FCS and Radar had a way of disabling/disassembling themselves when the main batteries fired. Renown also has the slightly superior protection scheme of the two.
Some user posted a RtW graphic set last thread, it's pretty nice but supposedly incomplete
drive.google.com
Got a question for the gun power guys here.
When you read Navweapons' armor pen figures, should the amount of armor penetrated by the gun at various ranges and angles be taken as the absolute armor penetration or the effective armor penetration.
Like say a gun at X range penetrates 383mm of armor at a fall angle of 23 degrees. Should this be read as "the gun can punch through a plate of armor 383mm thick at X range with that striking angle", or should it be read as "the gun will punch through 383mm effective armor protection at X range, due to that striking angle"?
Sorry, I meant that I felt it was dumb that game encouraged people to always to nose in at someone.
Shells only really spread horizontally, rather than 'vertically' with differences in range.
Next thing you'll be insulting pagodas and saying you hate turret farms.
That just goes in the ship parts folder I suppose since there's already a "Set 1, 2 and 3" in there
Does it just autogenerate the graphic based on the ship design?
It auto-generates the hull and the turrets, and places the funnels based on the ship's top view graphic.
Everything else is hand placed decals.
Anyone?
It should be read as "the gun will punch through 383mm of the defined-below-steel type armor protection at X range, with that striking angle"
Remember: material (i.e. the type of stuff the armor's made of) is what counts here, too.
Some types of stuff are better than others, and the type WILL be given for the Chart.
Ah, so it is absolute penetration, for the given type of armor being assumed in the test? Okay, thanks. That'd been bugging me today.
...
I notice that in some pictures of the Iowa class in WW2 their conning towers have a structure on the front of it that's absent from other pictures. Was that a wartime structure that got removed over time?
I *think* that was removed sometime in mid-1944, and to my knowledge only appeared on Iowa and New Jersey. I've never seen a picture of Missouri or Wisconsin with that extra armored bit on the conning tower.
IN THE CITAAAAAAAAY
OF L.A.
americans are asleep
post beautiful ships from the DAI-NIPPON TEIKOKU KAIGUN
kancolle shit not needed because I already have a ton of those pics
>Applicants must be 41cm or bigger to be considered.
...
...
Gotta admit, them nips built pretty ships. Even if the armor quality was...variable.
To be fair, the armored ships they built before the Depression were quite good. It's partly their reconstructions which added some variability. Nagato and Mutsu probably fared the best for it.
Yamato's torpedo bulges were so poorly constructed the US Navy didn't even consider them basically effective.
...
...
...
>secret pre-dreadnought
>when I said "Castles of Steel" you weren't supposed to take it literally, you damned nips
Post unique.
Mate, Nagato's not even that bad.
Vessel name and maker?
SMS Siegfried
>Yamato's torpedo bulges were so poorly constructed the US Navy didn't even consider them basically effective.
Wasn't this also true of the SoDak's and Iowa's torpedo defenses? Something about the outer bulge being too rigid and prone to permitting leakage?
>we need to build HIGHER
It's what's known as "joint efficiency", which has to do with the way the various components are riveted together and their resulting points of failure (it's pretty fucking complicated). 50-60% efficiency was regarded as adequate to get the full rated resistance: Colorado was rated for 400kg of pitric acid with joint efficiency estimated at 70%, Nagato was rated for 500kg with ~65% efficiency, which are both respectable. Bismarck was considered rather overboard, rated for 900kg with an estimated 85% joint efficiency.
Yamato was rated for 520kg, a little more than Nagato's, but with an estimated joint efficiency of 45%. Basically, you had a risk that even if Yamato's defenses could withstand a certain warhead on paper in practice her seams would pop open where they shouldn't. Meaning you might not get fatal penetration, but the flooding would be dangerous.
>Basically, you had a risk that even if Yamato's defenses could withstand a certain warhead on paper in practice her seams would pop open where they shouldn't. Meaning you might not get fatal penetration, but the flooding would be dangerous.
Kinda reminds me of how Bismarck's belt armor was designed in such a way that even Yamato's guns would have basically needed to be pressed up against the hull to fully penetrate it into the vital spaces, because of a 68 degree sloped 4.33'' armored deck positioned such that after penning the main belt a shell would need to penetrate it as well...but this deck is by necessity so low on the ship that holing the main belt is likely to result in flooding, the arrangement forms a few dangerous "shot traps" up above, and it lacks much ability to shatter or decap enemy projectiles.
Anybody got figures for WW2-era Iowa-class shot dispersions? I can only find ones for the post-refit Iowas.
...
How would yamato be squashed?
Yamato would detect the Iowa hundreds of miles away while Iowa can't fire at ships that are already within her gun range.
Yamato can entirely dictate the engagement and choose her fight, while Iowa would sail around obliviously with its pathetic 40k yards maximum sighting range. it literally cannot fire at ships that are already within the range of her guns. just like what happened with the Nowaki at Truk, which was lost track of at 35k yards
yamato would literally play with Iowa like a puppet, she's slap the Iowa around without the Iowa even realizing where the shells are coming from, because Yamato has a large immunity GUNFIRE zone, and this Immunity zone is even further extended with Iowa's 40k yard detecting radius.
SK MK8 mod.3 can detect 40k yards max, while E-27 Mod.3 can detect radar & Radio wavelength 300km away while emitting very low KW and wavelength while Iowa's crude FCs system and MK8 emits large amounts of radar wavelength, operates at high Voltage, is sensitive and would be the first thing to go out of action under attack, and yet can only detect BATTLESHIP sized targets at 40k yards.
as for American gunnary, it was significantly inferior, 16"/50 cal dispersion was inferior to IJN 18.1" dispersion, two worthy examples are samar & Truk lagoon.
Truk lagoon on its own serves as a huge example of Iowa's overrated gun accuracy being put to shame.
6 main gun hits and 5 secondary hits from 46 16" rounds and 125 5" rounds on a static bismarck-sized target at ONLY 14,500 yards.
6 hits figure is even disputed by a recon pilot who reported TWO large main calibre hits in the hull.
(cont...)