Tight fleet formations 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
Models and Manufacturers
pastebin.com
Rule the Waves
mega.nz
Previous:
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
pacificwrecks.com
explorers.org
navy.gov.au
defencyclopedia.com
defencyclopedia.com
informationdissemination.net
thomaspmbarnett.squarespace.com
docs.google.com
twitter.com
How well would one of the USN treaty battleships performed in place of Prince of Wales? Were they much better protected against air/torpedo attack?
They were better protected (superior torpedo protection, MUCH better anti-aircraft defenses), but the same *number* of hits from torpedoes and bombs probably still would have been enough to cripple or sink one. Prince of Wales took what, four torpedoes and a 1000 pound bomb through the deck? Even a SoDak wouldn't have survived that, I don't think. At the very least not without a lot of luck.
It seems the Brits really dropped the ball on battleship design sometime after Malaya was commissioned.
I think it's more about where the torpedo hits.
PoW took one on a shaft, and that tore a huge hole into the hull.
It's comparable to the hit that doomed Bismarck, though that one was less obvious at the time, and a British ship with inoperable steering gearobviously would've been in less danger.
The lesson here is that steering and propulsion elements are very hard to protect against torpedo hits, and even the rather good USN TDS setup could not protect against a hit there.
Three or fours air-dropped torps into the broadside, where it's covered by the TDS? Most BBs could probably surivive that and limp home, no matter who actually built them.
Possible exception are the Italians.
...
>Not shown: Collapsing support structures breaching the torpedo bulkhead and flooding the engine rooms, secondary water hammer/void effects on structures above the TDS causing the belt armor to buckle.
...
...
Our hero!
...
>x6 double 11 (-1) with only 2 centerline turrets tech researched
Why'd they bother? Was it a mandated build? Just take the prestige hit. Just lay down another Deutchland B so you don't have to pay the the new class penalty if that's the case, you can scrap it before completion after a few months. If it isn't build some light cruisers, you've never got enough of those.
Ain't that the truth, never enough CL's. I run most of my fleets pretty heavy on them, rather a bit lighter on DD's by comparison. They just age so much better in that game when you build them right.
This is a point. Why were so many early dreads built with the hexagonal turret format? I don't understand ANY benefits aside from perhaps a marginally better arc of fire for one turret, ala HMS Dreadnaught... but getting the tonnage and balance issues of 2 extra turrets seems a huge price for that.
Maybe they just figured there was no way to get enough guns in that arrangement, or that you wouldn't be able to find space for the turrets in the center amidst the machinery.
But so many magazines to armor had to have been a gigantic problem. At least somewhat.
It was, the ships rolled pretty badly. And they lost speed like crazy in a turn.
But they had magazines that were sufficiently armored, which as it tirns out was worth more than going fast.
In this specific case, there is no way to put more turrets on the centerline because the ship uses VTE engines.
None of that newfangled 'turbine' stuff.
>In this specific case, there is no way to put more turrets on the centerline because the ship uses VTE engines.
That'd probably be specifically an issue with how that ship's VTE engines were arranged, not inherent to VTE engines. The New York-class battleships used VTE but had centerline turrets.
Did somebody say strange turret layouts?
Russians don't count. They had Frogs for the Good Naval Architecture shoulder-angel. And Frogs for the Bad Naval Architecture shoulder-devil.
>besides I've unironically used that layout in RTW
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
I still have no clue how torpedo rams are meant to work.
Approach in darkness, get in among the enemy ships, launch all your torpedoes, ram an enemy or two.
A more realistic scenario:
Approach in darkness, get detected, ineffectually launch all torpedoes, enemy fires randomly at you and each other, you attempt to ram but your engines malfunction, everybody ends up drifting around helplessly as they're blinded by muzzle flash, smoke and fire.
Several ships end up burning and sinking, none of them were actually hit by your torps or rammed by you.
>ram through harbour defences at night
>launch your torpedoes at the stationary ships inside
>profit!
It turned out to be a pretty bad idea.
>It turned out to be a pretty bad idea.
Taht sums up naval tactics between ca. 1865 and 1900.
Neither did anyone else if that's any comfort.
Coastal & harbor defense was one proposed role. During the period in question, blockades meant ships steaming around in sight of the port(s) in question and breaking the blockade meant driving those ships off. It was thought that ships like HMS Polyphemus or USS Katahdin operating at night or in poor visibility could wreak havoc among blockaders much like how the casemate ironclads Palmetto State, Chicora, various unarmored gunboats, and to a lesser extent Hunley and spar torpedo boats occasionally bedeviled the USN blockade of Charleston.
The RN also tested Polyphemus in a more offensive role by testing it's ability to ram and break harbor defense booms. The idea there was to have the torpedo ram kick the door down for a horde of light torpedo forces to swarm in.
As explains, these were all bad ideas especially in the face of the rapidly improving technologies of the time.
It was the golden age of cute but in retrospective retarded boats.
You use them to kill aliens, didn't you ever read War of the Worlds?
...
>you can't ignore my girth.jpg
...
...
...
>PoW took one on a shaft, and that tore a huge hole into the hull.
Close. The hit actually bent the shaft and before they could shut it down, it ruptured the watertight seals and caused very serious flooding up the shaft alley.
pacificwrecks.com
explorers.org
navy.gov.au
...
Guys, what's the difference between a frigate and a destroyer and why are modern destroyers doing so much cruising, missile launching, and aircraft handling in addition to the traditional torpedoing and light gunnery?
Destroyers have always been a strange ship.
WW1ish Destroyers started out as anti-torpedo boats, and evolved into Fleet Torpedo Boats: Fast, thin, and capable of fleet torpedo action or independent patrol, and to counter the enemy DDs
WW2 Destroyers became multirole: Same torpedo boat role as above, but more powerful with gunnery for shore bombardment (most shore bombardment by the US was done by destroyers, not heavier vessels), anti-ship torpedos, and sub hunting.
Frigates (Corvettes by RN, or DEs by the US) were cheaper, weaker DDs that were slower and thus not fit for fleet work, but were good enough for patrols, anti-sub, convoy escort, some AA, etc.
Afterwards, because of how missiles made gunnery obsolete, and how armor is literally obsolete, pretty much all surface combatants were in that destroyer-to-light cruiser tonnage range. But then they evolved to do everything that a Carrier or Submarine did not do.
Modern Frigates are just smaller, cheaper, less capable Modern Destroyers.
There is very little difference between modern destroyers and cruisers at this point unless you look at the remaining large russian cruisers from soviet days. The line between frigate and destroyer is similarly blurred these days and neither take after their namesakes.
Frigates tend to be smaller, police the oceans out on their own, and act as maritime generalists. Destroyers are the bigger badder versions of Frigates with a focus on escorting/protecting battlegroups and hunting subs. Cruisers used to be the ones who reached out and to touch the battlegroups enemies at range and protect the group from air attack. But with cruisers seemingly a dying breed and their roles being taken up by destroyers...
Its just tough to categorize them when the lines have blurred so. Every ship does a bit of everything seemingly now.
if i may, why is armour obsolete? would steel not block a missile?
maybe at best in the 1960s missile technology has advanced far faster than defensive technologies.
Active protection systems are far more useful against the primary ship killers (missiles with torpedoes a distant second) then armor is these days. That and good subdivision and damage party systems.
These two links help define the two classes. And at this point it is basically all down to tonnage.
Frigates range from 3000 to 7000 tons while Destroyers go from 6000 to 12000 tons. Other than that they are typically interchangeable unless they are designed for air defense or some other specialty.
Fisher was ahead of his time. Too bad he did not live in the age of Rickover.
Some European navies eschew the destroyer designation in favor of frigates. Also, the USN relabeled its frigates as cruisers in the 70's. I like this guy's suggestion to revert to the 18th century rating system. Given that Bob Work was Deputy SecDef for three years, I wonder why his idea was not adopted.
>Bob Work's Battle Force Missile Ship Rating System For Surface Combatants
>First-rate battle force ships (battleships): Ships armed more than 100 battle force VLS cells, and/or more than 100 battle force missiles;
>Second-rate battleships: Ships armed with 90-99 battle force VLS cells, and/or 90-99 battle force missiles;
>Third-rate battleships: Ships armed with 60-89 battle force VLS cells, and/or 61-89 battle force missiles;
>Fourth-rate battleships/frigates: Ships armed with 48-59 battle force VLS cells, and/or 48-60 battle force missiles;
>Fifth-rate battleships/frigates: Ships armed with 20-47 battle force VLS cells, and/or 20-47 battle force missiles;
>Sixth-rate frigates: Ships designed specifically for the protection of shipping role, armed with either VLS cells or legacy missile systems, and armed with local air defense SAMs and anti-submarine and anti-ship cruise missiles for convoy defense; and
>Unrated Flotilla: Warships optimized for a single role, usually either anti-submarine or anti-surface warfare, or for general-purpose naval missions. The distinguishing feature of these ships is that they carry only terminal missile defenses—either in the form of rapid fire guns or short-range terminal defense SAMs.
informationdissemination.net
This is a very common thought, that's wrong. It appears all the time. Armor is not a reasonable defense, because the nature of weapons changed.
WW1/2 gunnery was about shooting into an area, as even accurate guns would be difficult to aim, and even when fired with perfect aim, could miss by hundreds of yards. So you armored ships based on probability: You protected your machinery and turrets with belt armor, since a ballistic shell probably will strike there. You used thinner armor on the deck for the angles where shells will naturally plunge, hoping to engage at a range where the angle will cause them to glance off. Even in that era, battleships were never 'fully' armored and never ever uniformly.
Now, with guided missiles able to hit a single human, it's impossible to armor what's needed to keep a ship fighting. Sensors simply cannot be armored, and missiles can perform maneuvers or target things unthinkable to old style gunnery. Armor likewise, can be defeated by simply using more powerful missiles, and cost a lot in terms of what it does to your design and expense of construction.
Also, armor is not a structural component. It's a liability in that sense. Even damage that fails to penetrate armor can do horrible things to your ship's structural integrity, from other effects like the hangar fire that wrecked that RN Carrier (Illustrious?).
Imagination time:
You are in charge of creating a fleet for a rich but moderately sized country in the Indian ocean (use Madagascar).
The government wants a dozen submarines, a mix of surface vessels, and one helicopter carrier/cruiser.
Using current build or proposed vessels from around the world how do you build up your fleet?
>Hard mode: Use designs from only one nation.
I love the romantic notion of returning to Old Rates. 100 missile broadside for that man while I pace my aegis quarterdeck.
For what geopolitical purpose? Who is the expected opponent? Are there racial/historical/cultural ties to one of the regional powers? Those questions will dictate whether the goal is power projection (with a single amphibious group), protection of SLOCs (ASW heavy, like a Cold War minor NATO navy) or sea denial (Soviet-style).
Type 214 Subs
Gowind 2500 Corvettes
Iver Huitfeldt Frigates
Either a Mistral or Canberra class for the carrier.
The Subs are the best option available imo for a small submarine force not intended to take the fight out across a major ocean.
The Gowind appears to be a solid contender for an economic yet capable small combatant to procure in numbers.
The Huitfeldt Frigates are cheap(ish) but well armed and protected and seem like they'd be a good option as a primary combatant.
Not much to say about the carriers other than they're both newer designs.
Expected potential opponents are the Indian and Chinese Navies given the location of the country...India due to a long history of unease and China due to their growing power.
Protection is the primary mission with the ability to project force within the Indian ocean being a secondary concern.
...
...
...
In RtW, what do SAP shells do? When is it best to use them? Should i equip them on larger or smaller ships?
I understand them somewhat IRL, but in the game, i cant quite figure out when and if they work well. Never really messed with ammo loads either, should i do that too?
...
>In RtW, what do SAP shells do? When is it best to use them?
Basically it is slightly less effective HE shell with some armor piercing capabilities, probably best suited for 6-inch and smaller guns against CLs and other lightly armored targets like that.
Ah, ok. I will have to mess wih them on my batch of cl's. Thanks.
...
thanks man my primary area of interest is nelson navy stuff beyond that is kinda esoteric to me.
What were some good Japanese warship classes during the world wars?
>When to use [SAP shells] is really a matter of taste. The Germans were firing quite a lot of SAP from 12 in guns at Jutland, the famous hit on the Lions Q turret was from an SAP shell. I suggest using it in heavy guns against CA and CL and in medium guns against CL. The real conundrum of course is what proportion to load up with. That I leave to you. Real navies had different philosophies. The German KM in WW2 usually had 1/3 each of AP, SAP and HE. The British carried almost exclusively AP and some HE but no SAP in WW2.
If anyone cares, some guy on the RTW forums made a compilation of tips and helpful information straight from the main developers' posts.
docs.google.com
What? Bullshit.
The Nelson was a goddamn tank, and easily one of the best Battleships of the Interwar era. The KGV was an excellent ship by all accounts, with enough "FUCK YOU" armor to give any of her contemporaries pause, equal speed to any treaty ship that wasn't cheating on displacement, and a higher throw weight then Bismarck.
The KGV served in far more battles/theatres then people realized, for only one loss, which is pretty good considering the loss was due more to arrogance/stupidity of the pacific admiralty then a flaw in the ship's overall design.
Hell yes. Thanks much user.
Doesn't matter, they were all either built in Britain, or based on British technology. When you ask what Japanese ship is best, you are basically saying "What export British ship is best?".
Kongo is probably the answer, essentially a Super-Tiger battlecruiser.
I honestly really like some of the French and Russian designs.
Just the smoothness of them.
>and a higher throw weight then Bismarck.
Hardly a feat worth of bragging about considering that it one achieved by boats like QEs, Rs, Hood, Richelieus, Nevadas, etc.
Most of the destroyers were pretty well regarded. Most of the CL's weren't bad, at least at the time they were built, but they weren't anywhere near top of the line come WWII. Nagato was sex. Most of the heavy cruisers and larger suffered from being modernized a few too many times.
None of the domestically built Japanese ships were any good?
You forgot the part where nelsol and rodnol lacked reserve buoyancy in a way that makes Bismarck look good, adn had a shitty TDS on top of that.
And let's not forget about their armor, that handily made penetrations into machinery spaces possible across pretty much all ranges.
The Fusos and Ises were OK, but didn't age well.
The Nagatos were state of the fucking art, though.
The Amagis, Tosas and Kiis also looked pretty good.
Of the ships you mentioned, only the Rich had modern guns like KGV.
The 14s on KGV had better penetration then the 15 inch guns in the RN, and superior to the Nevada's ancient guns.
The KGV class scared away german ships from convoys,helped sink a BB, sank a BC, and served very well throughout their careers. Suffered the same loss rate as the QEs and Revenge class.
>DDs CLs CAs
You mean the top heavy DDs that capsized in a stiff breeze?
Or the CLs/CAs that broke their welds in light waves?
Japanese ships were garbage, and of those that were average, on the same tonnage the Allies were able to build far superior designs.
Fuso was a waste of time, overly fragile along the keel, developed stress folds, and was generally a failure.
Ise was ok, but essentially just a Kongo with more guns and armor, and ended up riding low in the water because of it. The conversion to a seaplane carrier was retarded.
The Nagato was half decent, but the guns were just British guns upscaled, no originality in powerplant, hull design, armor, etc. For when she was built, not a good ship at all compared to where the US and the UK were.
Nelsons were treaty ships, that maximized armor, speed, and firepower on a very strict weight limit.
Compared to Colorado, she was faster, with better guns and armor.
Compared to Nagato, she outclassed the Japanese ship in every area save speed.
The Nelsons gave a good accounting whereever they served, and notably, Rodnol sank Bismarck.
>compared to where the US and the UK were
The UK were busy shitting out more retarded BCs with 15 inch guns that they knew were inadequate, the US was still building 21 knot standards.
Nagato showed everyone where to go design-wise.
"Shattered Sword" has good things to say about Shoho/Zhuiho, which I wasn't expecting.
>notably, Rodnol shot up Bismarck after she had been scuttled
Truly, a highlight of Royal Navy performance across the world wars.
>with better guns
Depends, better than the US Mk 1 probably but US Mk 5&8 seem pretty clearly superior to it.
Finally got to the printer, so I guess I don't have any excuses anymore to not base quite a bit of my stuff, like the entirety of my Marine Nationale.
Just as well, I probably won't be able to afford more botes to paint till after Christmas, so I'll have to make what I have left last.
Lols, those scuttling rumours are false, it was away for the kriegsmarine to try and save face after the RN pushed their shit in.
No one on the battleship escaped the lower decks, so Bismarck died to Rodnol's guns.
>The UK were busy shitting out more retarded BCs with 15 inch guns
You mean Hood, a ship with the same armor as Nagato, and a 8 knot speed advantage?
Hood was the future, Nagato was a slow turd compared to Hood.
>Hood was the future
Explosive death trap that actively tried to kill its crew with tuberculosis?
>rumours
teaboos in denial, as usual :°)
>Hood
>same armor as Nagato
All the 5&8 did though, was allow for a supercharge, to compensate for a max elevation of 30 degrees, compared to Rodney's 40. It was an attempt to get some range on the guns that they sorely lacked (similar to the Old 22 deg elevation on the brit 15 turret until it was modded to 33).
The performance of each shell is tough to quantify, given that the US tests tended to be a bit optimistic, and the british pessimistic/realist.
In real world situations we are at an impasse for both guns, as the US gun never really shot a battleship.
12 inches on the belt on both. Nagato was either an overarmoured slow battlecruiser, or an underarmoured dread.
That's straight from Warships international.
Bismarck was never scuttled, she was tracked, silenced, and killed by the RN.
Go on, explain how more than a hundred survivors agreed on how the order to suttcle was given long before she sank.
>armor is just the belt
>and 15" guns are totally adequate
Fubuki was a revolutionary destroyer--- when she was revealed. Modern style, fast, heavier tonnage and well armed, while other navies were using crap like the Clemsons. But she didn't age well into WW2, nor were her successors as good as USN comparisons.
The IJN Battle Line was actually pretty sad at the outbreak of war. The Fusos and Ises were trash, Nagato was on par with the Colorados (which the US had more than twice of). They never, ever had a quantitative or qualitative advantage.
>Have group of friends I play games with on tabletop sim
>One of them suggests we try the KanColle RPG on the workshop as a one-off
>Everyone decides "sure why not"
Quick, /nwg/ what shipgirl should I choose?