Triple Deck 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:
en.wikipedia.org
theaviationist.com
tumblingdiceuk.com
rodlangton.com
ghqmodels.com
panzerschiffe.com
peterpig.co.uk
navwar.co.uk
pitheadminiatures.com
bayareayards.virtualscratchbuilder.com
thoroughbredmodels.com
mongoosepublishing.com
wtj.com
3d-models-games.com
shapeways.com
shapeways.com
shapeways.com
shapeways.com
shapeways.com
shapeways.com
shapeways.com
shapeways.com
shapeways.com
shapeways.com
twitter.com
Neat! Never saw a triple deck in air pics. Were they any good?
Just started reading the article on it. Apparently no.
I'm surprised they didn't try using catapults for the lower decks since they weren't long enough for heavier aircraft to take off from.
Like hangar cats? Could work, but, how you recover the aircraft? Using the upper deck? That would overwhelm it
They wanted to be able to launch fighters from the lower 2 decks at the same time the upper one was recovering them. Theory being this would give them better utility in combat.
Reality didn't seem to have agreed with the designers as newer planes needed longer decks to take off. It's an interesting idea though.
>That would overwhelm it
They must have thought Kaga capable of recovering them quick enough to try the 3 deck design.
I don't think the addition of catapults would have worsened that, though ultimately it's just speculation.
Well, my bad. If they planned to use the upper to only recover planes, no problem then.
The idea is, ofc, interesting, but hardly effective, I think. You would have to wait for too long to put planes in the air again, as they would need to be lowered, rearmed and refueled. You can do this quickly with few planes, but not so much when you are launching entire squadrons.
Should have been glorious seaplane tender. At least then wonky lower deck catapults would have worked out, or else you could have upper cats and two lower decks for recovery.
Maybe the lower decks could be equipped with emergency arresting nets, to allow them to recover planes. It would be difficult, but still a possibility.
>upside down
One of the downsides of operating near Australia?
>If down is up and up is down, then wouldn't it be an upside of operating near Australia?
All I had on my phone was the old raw pic, and iphone is a dick sometimes about stubbornly insisting that certain pictures cannot ever be oriented right.
As soon as I saw that it did that, I was hoping someone would make the Australia joke.
...
...
HMS Furious was originally fitted with something similar, so it's not just the IJN. Nobody really knew what features would be useful or desirable at that point in the game.
The slightly less derpy twin decks of Furious.
GIVE THEM A BROADSIDE
I dunno how to feel about the Furious
We missed out on an 18" armed battlecruiser but we got this nice carrier
BOOM BABY BOOM
She would never have continued with the 18" gun. Early firing tests suggested her hull couldn't withstand repeated firing of the gun.
Though a 30kt seaplane cruiser with 5.5" casemates and an aft twin 15" turret would've been neat.
...
...
posting hotels
...
I heard somewhere that the Yamatos actually still had voice tubes as the main intra-ship communications system.
They were simple and somewhat reliable. If it works well, why to change it?
Also, multiple-deck carriers are derpy no matter how many they have. Do you think that multiple decks would work in modern day carriers?
...
Sup, /nwg/
I'm reading Master And Commander, the first one, and someone mentioned "a pair of mortars" as possible weapons for HMS Sophie, the main ship of the book(A sloop)
It's April of 1800, and I've never heard of mortars being used as naval weapons anywhere around that time period. Is this accurate? If so, are these mortars like the arcing guns we think of today or something that just shares the name?
>Is this accurate?
Yup, ships that carried mortars as their primary armament were still very much a thing circa Napoleonic wars.
en.wikipedia.org
Long story short, naval mortars are what were launching the "bombs bursting in air" mentioned in The Star-Spangled Banner.
>Is this accurate?
Yes, actually. Here's a period engraving of the Battle of Baltimore during the war of 1812, which inspired The Star Spangled Banner. The "bombs bursting in air" were shrapnel shells.
>If so, are these mortars like the arcing guns we think of today or something that just shares the name?
Indeed they were, and for the most part they were built identically to ground based mortars. Much like their terrestrial brethren, naval mortars served primarily to attack forts, shooting projectiles up and over walls. They aren't as accurate at hitting ships however, which is why they weren't commonly carried by most ships of the line.
Cool, thanks all. Had no idea.
Have an airlock door-type arrangement at the forward end of the hangar, catapult fully inside airlock for easy maintenance/reduced weathering..
Keep the angled deck for smaller aircraft, but move the tower so that a C-130 will fit going straight forward
Could you ever land a C-130 on a carrier or would it be limited entirely to Doolittle-style stuff?
Considering the USN actually did that shit back in the 60s, that's a big yes there boss.
The tried it with the U-2 too.
>Come into /nwg/
>immediately learn two cool things
I think I'm going to like it here.
Could the aircraft be recovered using emergency nets in this system?
Yes, it can be done. With JATO bottles you can even launch it. The Nimitzs are pretty big, have no doubt about their capabilities.
I came because this OP, and found an enjoyable conversation. My tens, guys.
Also, anyone played the vidya Carrier Deck?
Seems to me they'd be harder to recover just because closer to the water. In rough seas you'd be more likely to lose them.
Maybe if your core deck aircraft were clear weather planes, and your top deck aircraft were all weather?
Maybe, yes. Or you could use that second deck in plain seas. It would allow for faster launch and recovery, but reducing hangar space. Anyway, most A/c are deck-parked, so that wouldn't be a big issue.
>Yes, it can be done. With JATO bottles you can even launch it. The Nimitzs are pretty big, have no doubt about their capabilities.
Just to reiterate, in 1963 the USN test landed and took off a C-130 from the USS Forestall, a carrier over 100 feet shorter than a Nimitz, without the use of nets or JATO rockets. The C-130 is a supremely capable aircraft.
Source: theaviationist.com
I knew that test were ran in those years, but thought they used JATO Bottles. This is bonus points. So, could C-130s used in carrier replenishment ops?
In theory, yes. The C-130 could flt 2,5000 miles and carry 25,000 lbs to the deck of a carrier. This is far more weight than has ever been put down on a flight deck, before or since, and the C-130 could take off with its max payload and still have over 200 feet of ship length to spare.
In practice, on landing the wingtips passed just 15 feel from the the island so a single unexpected swell could fatally disrupt operations. All other aircraft had to be cleared from the deck for safety, and there was absolutely no way they'd every be able to take that massive hunk of aluminum below deck for maintenance.
It was a neat idea, but building the C-2 Greyhound ended up being far more practical
Even with all the prep they had to make that is still hella impressive.
Yes, seems a better idea. But the possibility exists.
Sure
I would argue that operating the U-2 from a carrier was the greater achievement. We're talking about and aircraft with 5 feet wider wingspan and bicycle landing gear. That's right, the U-2 only has 2 main landing gear which it delicately balances on while landing, a process so dangerous that the USAF mandates it be followed down the runway by chase cars to give the pilot an extra set of eyes.
And then the CIA takes one look at this and thinks "Fuck yeah, lets put this baby on a carrier!". The first time they tried landing one of the wingtips hit the island, causing the aircraft to spin around and make its best attempt to demonstrate the design's suitability for submarine warfare before the flight deck crew managed to the flight deck crew managed to halt its roll.
Seeing this, the CIA decided "fuck yes this is a good idea" and promptly brought the design into operational service. The U-2 actually flew a real reconnaissance mission off the deck off the USS Ranger in 1964, to observe a French nuclear test, and the CIA maintained the capability until at least the mid 70s.
Those crazy spy kids.
WTFF
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction user
Certainly
I had been in a used book store this past weekend, and had been thinking about picking up the first in that series. I had no idea it was about a bomb ketch. It's definitely on my list now, I always thought those were pretty neat.
I read two or three and I love them.
...
Yeah, Bomb Ketches.
...
...
>Multi spaghetti wagons
You don't know what you're doing to me, user.
...
I'm working on a thing:
I feel like it'd be helpful to have a list of manufacturers and rough subject/scale ranges as a pastebin or something. To that end, I compiled the following list, if somebody wants to add more, or host it somewhere for our next OP, and to add to /hwg/ OP as well in case this general ever sinks for good.
In no particular order:
Traditional Naval Miniature Manufacturers (Eras and Scales)
Tumbling Dice:
tumblingdiceuk.com
Classical and Ancients 1/2400
Spanish Armada 1/2400
Anglo Dutch Wars 1/2400
Napoleonic 1/2400 and 1/4800
Victorian Period/ACW 1/2400
Age of Battleships/Predread 1/2400
VSF 1/2400
Langton Miniatures:
rodlangton.com
Ancients 1/300 and 1/1200
Renaissance Galleys 1/1200
Anglo Dutch 1/1200
Great Lakes 1/1200
Napoleonic 1/1200
18th Century Sail 1/1200
ACW 1/1200
WWI Coastal 1/200
GHQ Models:
ghqmodels.com
Napoleonic 1/1200
Great War/WW1 1/2400
WWII 1/2400
Modern 1/2400
Panzerschiffe:
panzerschiffe.com
ACW 1/2400
WW1 1/2400
Spanish-American/Russo-Japan/Sino-Japan 1/2400
WWII 1/2400
Modern 1/2400
Peter Pig:
peterpig.co.uk
Pirates/Age of Sail 1/450
ACW 1/1200?
Navwar:
navwar.co.uk
Chinese Junks 1/1200
Renaissance 1/1200 and 1/3000
Napoleonic/AWI 1/1200 and 1/3000
Anglo Dutch/ Seven Year War 1/1200 and 1/3000
Spanish Armada 1/1200
ACW 1/1200
WW1/WWII 1/3000
Modern 1/3000
Pithead/Spitehead:
pitheadminiatures.com
Anglo Dutch 1/2400
Ironclads/ACW 1/1200
Predreads 1/2000
WWI 1/6000
Bay Area Yards:
bayareayards.virtualscratchbuilder.com
Ironclads 1/600
Thoroughbred Models:
thoroughbredmodels.com
ACW 1/600
War of 1812 15mm
Mongoose Publishing:
mongoosepublishing.com
Fuckall 0/0
Cantdoshit 0/0
Shapeways and other 3D printed miniatures
WTJ Miniatures:
wtj.com
Predread 1/1500, 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000
WW1 1/1500, 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000
Maurizio Casella:
3d-models-games.com
Predread 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000
Interwar/WWII 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000
Modern 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000
Shapeways Shops:
Direwolf's Depot:
shapeways.com
WWII 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/4800
Dutch Fleet Naval Miniatures:
shapeways.com
Modern 1/700, 1/600, 1/550, 1/350, 1/1250, 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000, 1/6000
Tiny Thingamajigs:
shapeways.com
WWII 1/1800, 1/2400 1/4800
Miniatures:
shapeways.com
WWII 1/1800
C.O.B. Constructs and Miniatures
shapeways.com
WWI/Interwar/WWII 1/1800
Masters of Military:
shapeways.com
WWII 1/1800
SNAFU Store
shapeways.com
WWII/Modern 1/1800
Decapod Models:
shapeways.com
Cold War 1/1250, 1/1800
Ebard:
shapeways.com
WWII/Modern 1/1800
Amateur Wargame Figures
shapeways.com
Modern 1/1800, 1/2400, 1/3000, 1/6000
I'm sure there's manufacturers I've missed, if anybody has anymore to add, or would like to put it into a pastebin, that'd be great.
Man, Japanese sure did love their swept-back hot-rod smokestacks. Yum.
Love the double trunked swept back funnels on the mogamis.
I guess I'm posting from down under again. Fucking iphone.
...
...
Post ship gore.
...
...
...
It's a serious miracle that Seydlitz made it back to port after being pummeled like that.
Considering she's my favourite bote, this might just be my personal bias speaking, but I think she's the luckiest ship of the entire war.
Almost destroyed twice by a magazine fire, the sheer amount of hits at Jutland and a mine that hit her right in the forward torpedo room without detonating any of the warheads in there.
The whole German navy was ridiculously lucky in WW1, they just never stopped rolling high, even when they got outplayed, while the British seemingly couldn't catch a break.
Apparently the British admiralty estimated that if they'd outfitted their ships with shells that had less-sensitive burster charges with more reliable fuzes (like what the Germans had), they probably would have sent six more ships to the bottom at Jutland.
Anyone here play Clear for Action? I'm looking for charts for French ships and the older US battleships (everything before North Carolina).
...
...
...
How would the Littorio class have fared against the Bismarck or Tirpitz?
from what I've heard anything involving the littorio largely depends on how lucky the italians get on their draw from the shell lots. with good shells, the littorio's guns hit damn near as hard as a 406mm set. with bad shells, they have hideous spread and are prone to shell shatter.
In a lot of the accounts I've read, Italians generally had pretty good shots fired to hits ratios compared to the British they were fighting, but the British typically extended such a massive volume of shells that the absolute number of hits they inflicted were still higher. One of my favorite anecdotes involves RN cruisers Orion, Neptune, and Sydney about 5000 6" rounds to sink destroyer Espero, with only 800 shells remaining in theater at the time. Moral Ascendancy indeed.
I'd be inclined to say that as long as she didn't draw bad shells or happen to run across any torpedoes, I'd think she could be expected to do well.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Nothing like messing around with early dreadnoughts in RtW.
>originally I was thinking about having it to have 6 wing turrets but then I ran out of tons to spare
>playing USA
>not abusing the hell out of all-centerline superfiring turrets
Easier said than done when your researchers react to the idea of having more than 2 centerline turrets in a similar fashion as a vampire reacts to a crucifix shaped aspergillum.
...
...
I'm kind of partial to the New Orleans class more than the newer CA's myself.
They're all right, but the Baltimore and Wichita just nail it for me.
At least with the New Orleans class (as well as the Portland and Northampton classes) you don't get the fugly turret arrangement you did on the Pensacola class.
We can all agree though that nobody has anything on the County class, right?
Randomized tech games, huh?
I can't play without that option enabled anymore, the resulting abominations and weird designs are just too tempting.
Here's to hoping that they'll improve the AI design algorithms in RtW2 so we start seeing even crazier stuff.
Reminder that they still have no idea how this ship survived more raw damage by weight than it took to sink either the Yamato or Musashi.
I have heard Yank damage control was, bar none, the best of anybody in the war.
...
...