Give em the old razzle dazzle 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
/lx05hfgbic6b8/Naval_Wargaming
Models and Manufacturers
Rule the Waves
mega.nz
Old Thread:
Other urls found in this thread:
webpages.charter.net
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Gotta love that dazzle.
...
q-ships~
...
...
...
Dazzle actually works pretty well on that PT boat. Looks like it ran headfirst into a Japanese DD and crumpled, rather than the other way around.
how effective was the old razzle dazzle anyway? i would think it makes the ship stand out more than plain grey.
Actually i remember reading that solid blocks of colour are much better for hiding MOVING objects (ie the Israel Defence Force Olive Green or the Austrian Armies current service outfits) while camoflage patterns were much better for hiding stationary targets.
The objective of dazzle isn't to hide, but to make it really hard to effectively identify or range the target because the pattern makes discerning its exact size/silhouette a nightmare.
The idea is to obscure the direction the ship is moving for rangefinding purposes moreso than to make it stand out less in general. It does so by breaking up the outline of the ship.
It's...variably effective. Different forms of naval camouflage were tried at different points in history.
Jesus christ my eyes.
Here, have a beautiful one.
...
...
Wat is biggest sexbang ship of party?
Well, the Yamato class did have the nickname "Hotels", so...
The idea with dazzle was to not hide ships but to make it harder to tell how far the ship was, to what direction it was heading, how fast it was going, and make it harder to identify the vessel.
...
We should note that "hotel" is a very relative term. The Japanese called the Yamatos that because they possessed unabashed luxuries like separate eating areas (aka mess halls) and bunks outside of work areas. To your average Japaneses sailor, eating a half a bowl of rice in his bunk underneath a propeller shaft, that might seem an unaccountable extravagance but would still be considered spartan even on America destroyers.
That post was mainly in jest anyway. Got any more interior pics of IJN ships, though?
I understood that it was, I was mainly putting out some historical trivia.
There are shockingly few pictures of daily life aboard Japanese warships, especially amongst the enlisted. When you find them, they're good as good.
Some ships actually did use solid colored camos. See USN Ms 21 or RN's experiments with Montbatten pink.
Some of the other camo styles, like the KM's Batlic camo attempted to hide the distance and direction of the ship through false bows and wakes.
Roma was an art deco masterpiece on the inside.
HMS Agincourt was pretty lavishly appointed, even by Royal Navy standards.
...
False wakes I think were also used by the USN.
USN Ms. 5 had them, apparently
>HMS Agincourt was pretty lavishly appointed, even by Royal Navy standards
Probably because the Ottomans paid for the whole thing.
...
...
...
...
...
...
I love the Nelsons. They are beautiful.
Well, that's a new one, can't id it for shit.
...
...
...
I've cut out a bunch of paper tokens from Victory at Sea but am not sure about the system.
I'm looking for something a bit more gritty. Hitting specific areas and determining if you penetrate based on the armour value of that specific area.
I know Bismarck had some advanced rules for rather tactical play but I can't find a pdf.
Bonus Points if it's in the mediafire folder
Not quite as detailed as you might want, but check out Naval War at naval-war.com
It's a bit more detailed than VaS but still quite playable.
...
After seeing this post I went googling. I am legit astounded at this WAR SHIP's interior.
Her exterior was pretty easy on the eyes as well.
Look at the bedside table on the left ... it's a deco design masterclass.
>I am legit astounded at this WAR SHIP's interior.
Nah, that's just the life of an officer.
...
And then a supersonic ten pound chunk of jagged iron come and say hi to your intestines. Oh well. At least the rabble's no less likely to suffer that than you are.
Yeah. Also to be fair, those are all probably the Roma's port quarters for the captain and officers. The sea quarters are prooobably more spartan.
That is fucking beautiful
...
>Playing as Italy and whooping A-H's ass
>Spain joins in because tensions ran too high
>First battle against the Spaniards is 2 of my BCs escorted by 2 CLs and 3 DDs against a Spanish legacy fleet CA and 4 escorting DDs
>This happens
Jesus Christ, RNG, calm down.
And while chasing down the fleeing DDs, Amalfi got nailed by a torpedo because I got too greedy. Took it like a champ, though, even without torpedo protection.
Nuked by a 7 inch gun, jesus.
Flash fires are fucking scary.
One of the Queen Elizabeths, Malaya, was almost lost to a flash fire caused by a single 12" shell during the battle of Jutland. It hit the secondary battery casemate, killed the entire crew in the starboard battery and the resulting fire almost reached the 6" magazine, which was directly adjacent to the 15" magazine.
Yikes. And I'd read somewhere that the RN at that point had grown a little lax as to flash-tightness and powder handling discipline.
...
Do you have more damage/damage control stories to tell user?
I would like to hear more.
More damage diagrams would also be appreciated.
>a little lax
Wasn't it one of the big reasons the brits lost so many battle cruisers at Jutland? (Blaming the designs of the ships was a cover to prevent men responsible for the horrifically bad habits the navy had trained into their crews from being exposed)
Yeah. Powder trains from the turrets to the magazines and such.
>look closely at this pic
>notice that the secondary battery is all aimed at the camera aircraft
Man even from a friendly plane that's gotta be unnerving as fuck.
This site here is a treasure trove of hit analysis to the ships involved at Jutland starting from chapter 5. webpages.charter.net
The only issue is that the text was transcribed using a scanner, so there's weird stuff like "1/zin" which should actually be "1/2in".
So, anons of /nwg/
What would your ideal destroyer, cruiser, battleship, or carrier be like?
>not asking about submarines
A submarine is fine too.
Alternately, post your craziest RtW and related designs.
That's a bit like one of my gottagofast 1899 rtw designs. I tend to put four funnels on the earlier fast vessels
>What would your ideal destroyer, cruiser, battleship, or carrier be like?
... able to totally kick ass out of any other ship of it's class?
Srsly, there's a reason power creep exists, ya know?
Rule of thumb for general superiority: what you can't outrun, outgun.
It's a good policy
...
Thanks
...
...
...
>What would your ideal destroyer, cruiser, battleship, or carrier be like?
What era? Assuming Modern just for giggles.
> destroyer
Small, Lightweight, Semi-Disposable. Probably 4,500-6,500 l.tons, 32kts, and armed with a spread of a couple of twin 5" autoloading gun mounts, AA missiles, and ASW missiles. It would not have a helo-hanger, but it would have a small flight neck to 'guest' helos if needed.
Its primary role would be AAW, while also assisting in ASW.
>cruiser
I would actually have two types. One would be a Heavy Cruiser analogy for surface warfare and medium AA duties, the other would be a Helicopter Cruiser for ASW work.
Both of these would be Alaska-class huge.
I like Missiles-Fired-From-Guns, but the weapons for the CA are up for debate.
>battleship
A logical extreme extension of the Iowa-design, but being designed to crush everything in a one-on-one fight, even submarines - with a focus on Anti-Capital and Anti-Air duties.
They would be armed with Large Bore Guns, but those guns would probably be throwing scramjet projectiles making them glorified (but armored) missile launchers.
>carrier
The Nimitzes were going in the right direction, honestly, just give them the aircraft and role they were designed for (Air Superiority).
>submarines
SSKs.
Seriously, SSKs.
Hundreds of them.
U-boat numbers of them.
Hey, so, is there a book/game that replicates the Mahan's fleet in being as a part of its campaign structure? I'm trying to do a refight of the 13th black crusade and I want to make it less about random battles and more about trying to manage your whole fleet and its necessities at any one moment.
>Destroyer
Cheap and small. Hell it wouldn't even be a proper destroyer. I'd just do a more modern take on the Oliver Hazard Perry class. Mass produce them. ASW/AAW/Generalist unit.
>Cruiser
Like I would have two vessel types. One would be AAW/ASW focused with a heavy VTOL complement. Surface to Surface combat taken care of by a limited gun/missile option. Second would be all about the Surface to Surface combat with an AAW secondary. Heavy missile battery.
>BB
Modern take on the Kirov concept but with the addition of at least two good guns. Basically just a bigger version of the second cruiser concept.
>CV
Big boy whose primary missions are Air Defense and ASW. Heavier VTOL compliment than normal. Gads of defensive measures and at least some Surface to Surface capabilities.
>Subs
Again i'm with . Lots of high quality SSKs. Perhaps something along the lines of German Type 212 subs.
...
>A sub is fine too.
HERESY!
>not giving love to ubotes
Is there much info on rtw 2 available yet?
Nope
What if my submarine is also my cruiser
I concur
Guns too small.
Shame. It would be nice to know what to expect.
what the shit
That is a no-shit 12 inch gun on there, friend.
>They put a 12 inch gun on it because they thought you couldn't torpedo a moving target
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Royal Navy.
> Murdered by the Swedes
They just ruin everything don't they?
I mean at the time they were kind of right, torpedoes in WW1 were basically the naval equivalent of a melee weapon.
>I mean at the time they were kind of right
Not even. They'd had the armored cruisers Aboukir, Cressy, and Hogue sunk in one action by submarine launched torpedoes while underway - and this was nearly 3 YEARS before M1 was launched. And while those torpedoes were launched from under 1000 yards, slapping a 12 inch gun on a sub with no fire control was probably more expensive than just making more accurate, longer ranged torps.
I wonder now what it cost to develop the torpedo computers used in WW2.
I seem to recall reading that the US' collective fire control systems cost roughly $800 million 1941 dollars to develop over the life of their developmental processes, but I cannot for the life of me remember the book I read that in and I just spent the last hour skimming my references.
So, to answer your question, "somewhere between 'ouch' and pushing up daisies".
...
...
Timeline set from 1900-1950, floatplanes confirmed, carriers confirmed, tech will be extended all the way to 1950, planes might mistake their own ships for enemy ships, there will be radar (pic related).
Noice. Do we know how far through the dev process it is?
The only thing they keep saying is that "we're not far enough into the developement process to give previews yet", so we can only guess.
A shame, sounds pretty delicious though. I wonder how long it will take to put out 2...
Well, I can tell you the only thing I know about it right now: I'll buy it.
It does sound like a worthy successor.