So I was in a new campaign being run by my local club. Sort of a victory at sea style campaign, where history doesn't matter so much as the fun. The world was a bit like strange real, where nations having 100+ battleships wouldn't be out of place.
Anyway, my main battlefleet is composed of three Nassau, two Helgoland, one Kaiser and one Baden Battleships. These are supported by Armored Cruisers and Cruisers.
In my first match, I was up against this guy, who is like the living embodiment of the masterwork katana meme. He thinks that the Kongo's armour belt was made of glorious nippon steel folded 1000 times. Anyway, we set out the pieces for the match. My fleet's objective was to defend a port (this guy was trying to capture mine). Now he spent a lot of money buying a ton of expensive boats, where I wanted to be able to lose a ship and not be out of the Campaign. Anyway, he lays out this small but modern fleet of Japanese ships. Two Kongo's, and a Fuso, backed by Heavy Cruisers (which for japan are minibattleships).
I know he has a range advantage over a lot of my early dreadnaughts, so I park them in an area where he can't see them. I put my two modern BBs front and center, with a screen of cruisers.
This guy comes charging in, and for some reason doesn't exploit his range advantage, closing to 20,000 yards. I lose an armored cruiser almost immediately to a Kongo, but my battleships weather hits well. Then my Bayern scores a hit on the forward turret of the Fuso at about 10,000 yards. The shell penetrates, and a few lucky rolls later, the front of the Fuso detonates with the fury of 1000 suns. The GM comes over when he hears 'Oh for FUCKS SAKE" from Otakusperglord. Guy starts trying to blame the rules system, saying that there is no way that a WW1 battleship could hurt a WW2 BB.
GG DM smirks a bit, and says, "You know the Fuso was just a slap dash re-armouring of a WW1 era ship right?" Otakusperglord is in shock.
Then rest of my fleet appears.
As the smoking wreck of the Fuso sinks beneath the waves, my Nassaus and Helgolands appear from behind an island chain.
At 10,000 yards from the enemy heavy cruisers, it is almost too easy. 12 inch shells smash into the Japanese cruiser force, who launch a flurry of torpedoes in response, and shell the crap out of the flanking force, but they are out of position slightly. I lose a Nassau to Torpedoes but the rest miss, or fail to sink my ships. A lot of them have holes in them, but they are still floating. The Japanese cruisers though are suffering from the pounding, critical hits to their fire directors, waterline belts, and engines, mean they can't shoot, and they can't run.
The two Kongos start a turn away, but this throws off their gunnery. My Bayern stays the course, and dumps some 15 inch love on one of the Kongos, having no trouble punching through armor at 10,000 yards. The Kongo is set on fire, and loses most of it's secondary armament on the side facing my ships. The Kaiser scores hits on the other Kongo, knocking the command team out of action.
By turn five, the Japanese are running from my fleet. A few of the more untouched ships get away, but the stragglers suffer continual punishing fire from the plethora of long ranged guns.
By the game end, the port is safe, I am down a BB, with two almost sinking, and two armoured cruisers underwater. But my opponent lost a kongo, a Fuso, a myoko, and three furutakas. He has no real strength left at all, and actually asked the GM if he could get a do-over for the campaign, which was politely declined.
I'm really tempted to try and steal a port from him on the next campaign turn. I also had enough money to requisition another Kaiser, and to replenish my losses.
TL;DR: If you have a range and speed advantage, don't throw it away because your guns are 14% better then your opponents and you want a higher chance to hit him.
>>47728962
Remind him the British used a group of older ships to hunt down Germany's best. Even if the Bismark and Graf Spee were scuttled, out numbered they were heavily damaged by out dated ships.
Sure they took some out in the process as well.
It's still all about who can bring the numbers and get local superiority.
The only ship battles I can relate are those from sci-fi. I've only played Star Trek, Star Frontiers Knight Hawks, Battlefleet Gothic, Babylon 5 Wars, Jovian Chronicles and Full Thrust.
But ships are ships.
>>47729206
>Hunting Bismarck with Older Ships
Prince of Wales was so new, it still had electricians and machinists on board fitting it out while it was in combat...
Hood was definitely out of date though, much like the Kongo in WW2.
Rodnol was modernized, and was a damn fine ship, armoured and packing a big punch by WW2. Only real downside was her slow speed imposed by concessions to meet treaty limits.
But your general note is correct, the British were never outnumbered in WW2 against germany.
>>47728962
>>47729168
Naval games are criminally underappreciated, and I'd love to get into them if there wasn't an utter dearth of players where I live (here's hoping for the Battlefleet Gothic re-release...)
Please share anymore stories if you've got them. I love hearing gunnery shitters get btfo by the power of Krupp steel.
>>47728962
>He thinks that the Kongo's armour belt was made of glorious nippon steel
It's funny because the Kongos were glorified Lion-class battlecruisers. That "nippon steel" was Vickers Hardened.Those ships were about as Japanese as tea and the queen.
>>47729255
Well, I'll certainly have more to say later this month when we have our next meet.
I actually came to /tg/ for help choosing my fleet a few weeks ago. some grea/tg/entlemen helped me choose the Helgoland group, which did really well. I was worried about my lack of speed, so on my first turn I decided to play defensively, so enemies would have to come to me, rather then I hunt them down. I plan to get a squadron of Von Der Tann battlecruisers to add some speed, but that will depend on how the next game goes.
>>47729294
If you visit Japan's only battleship museum, you can see the Sheffield Steel logos on a lot of the structural beams, and the guns are all made in the UK.
>>47729294
I think the Kongo's were basically the Tiger class battlecruiser, but with a slightly larger gun. You are right though, a lot of Japanese naval know-how and firepower was just bought from the best, the british.
>>47729324
What wargame were you playing?
Also, you should give the Standard-type battleships a try. I mean, who doesn't like a nice consistent battle line?
>>47729358
Sounds about right
>>47729397
I considered going with the US, but I found I could get more heavy units with a german loadout. We also get bonuses for having a consistent fleet, so mixing and matching is useful, but you pay for it on a campaign basis.
I also didn't know much about boats at the time, but I'm now really interested in them, doubly so after my old ships pushed my opponents shit in.
>>47729507
I meant a force composed entirely of Standard-types.
However, I suppose you can't go wrong with a heavier force overall.
>>47729168
>Smoking wreck of the Fuso
Game is historically accurate at least.
>>47729358
That shouldn't be a surprise seeing as during WWI Japan was an ally of the US and UK. There was a falling out which made them enemies in WWII.
Just remember the 1904 battle the Japanese navy had with the Russians, and the Russians fared badly.
>>47728962
Technically he has a point: he *shouldn't* have lost with WWII era ships against WWI era. However he also misplayed his strengths, misunderstood his weaknesses, and brought a small attack force against numerical superiority.
tl;dr two forces that had no business winning the engagement throw down, and the one that's not led by a moron wins.
>>47729600
Russia sailed around the world to fight the Japanese, the ships were basically wrecked from the voyage, the Japanese just delivered the mercy shot.
>>47729624
The Kongo and Fuso are barely WW2 ships. They had some modernization done to them, but they weren't really WW2 capable. They were uparmored but still vulnerable to WW1 gun sizes, and the extra weight made the freeboard so low they probably would have sunk in anything other then the calm waters of the pacific.
>I park them in an area where he can't see them
How does ship detection work in this game? I'm trying to figure out if you can launch a spread of torpedoes into a bay without the other player counter-launching before you round the corner
>>47729686
I'd argue that no commander would waste torpedoes on a blind shot, especially if he doesn't know that any ships are located there. Torpedoes are inaccurate enough when you are firing at close range against a know target.
>>47729636
The Baltic fleet only set sail because the Pacific fleet, which didn't have to sail around the world, hadn't fared all that much better than the Baltic fleet would.
>>47728962
That thing looks like it has Bismark turrets on it?
>>47728962
What game is it?
Wait, /tg/ likes Naval Games?
>>47728962
Not exactly a naval story, but it's the closest one I've got.
So I like to play this really cool hex and chit wargame called World in Flames, this mega sized WW2 slugfest.
And one of the more important rules are the countermix.You only get so many infantry, armor, land bomber, etc. units that you can build, and you can't get them all at once. The Germans can't build Me-262s in 1939, but have to wait for the counters to enter the force pool, which usually happens in 1942.
Now, there are a few things you can do to accelerate individual chits entering the force pool (It gets complicated), if you're willing to shell out more money for it; it is theoretically possible to get say, jets earlier. And as a corollary to this, there are units in everyone's force pool, often very strong units, that enter in "naturally" after the game ends.
People, however, naturally wanted to play with these uber-tough late game units, and the company, ADG, eventually made some expansions, a couple of "Patton in Flames" scenarios (post 1945 WW3 of democracies vs Comunists) and they made this admittedly very silly scenario called America in Flames, which posits a long string of ever more improbable Axis victories, culminating in an attempt to invade America before the Americans develop the H-Bomb.
Historically, it's ridiculous, but it's actually quite well made, and a lot of fun to play.
Cont.
>>47729926
Anyway, a while back, my group wanted to try out AIF, and I wound up playing the Americans. You're strong, but long term you're outbuilt by the Axis, (not by as much as you might think though) so your long term prospects are bleak unless you can get the H-Bomb and win. You're also at the outset outnumbered in pretty much every field except atomics. The scenario we were playing, the U.S. has the Bomb, and the Axis don't.
Which ins't to say that the Americans are helpless. Transcontinental invasions are tough to pull off, and I was doing my damn best to play hit and run games with what was left of my fleet, and when he based his own too close to my shores, I would raid them in port with my land based planes. Often with nuclear weapons.
This had some deleterious political effects, since vaguely pro-axis Caribbean and south American nations take a dim view to me lobbing atomic weapons on their shores, which would drive them further into the Axis camp, but in the words of someone here on /tg/ when I was talking about the game in more general, it is a problem that can be solved with more nukes.
Anyway, the Germans based a BIG fleet up in Havana, with a brand spanking new aircraft carrier, the Sigfried. ( fantasy vessel). Almost as good as one of my Midway class carriers. I decided it needed a big bomb inauguration, and dispatched some B-29s to do the strike. Owing to the rather heavy fighter cover in the area, I sent the mission at night, which halved my effectiveness, but it's not like nukes lack for power.
I send the bombers.
He scrambles some fighters
The bombers clear through the fighters
They get shot at by flack
They release the bomb and run like frightened girls.
And then he pays the surprise points he had earned (complicated rules) to force the pick of the first target, who gets the brunt of the nuke.
Crap, I forgot he can do that.
We go through great risk and travail and the nukes themselves ain't cheap, to blow up the Tirpitz.
GOD DAMN IT.
>>47729860
Our GM built the game from a few other ones, including Victory at Sea, Naval Thunder, and Command at Sea.
>>47729772
It looks like the Bismark gun, but the Baden's guns were not the same. A lot of the turret was the same on the Bismark class, but the guns were a new design, not the least they were longer, and had a higher muzzle velocity.
>>47729947
Actually I have one more story. This was again me playing as the Americans, although this was a classic WiF game.
Anyway, America starts the game neutral. They're on the Allies side, so no counterfactuals where they join Germany, but they start off doing very little and gradually ratchet up how much they can help before officially entering the war.
Anyway, I was intervening in the pacific, but I was having trouble to get Congress to officially declare war. Japan was avoiding a Pearl Harborish situation, waiting for me to start the conflict. This forfeits a big surprise turn, but it means that I enter the war a bit later.
In the meantime, I had just passed an entry option that allowed for "Unrestricted naval warfare". I'm not really at war, I'm not going at a wartime production or anything, but on the water, I can attack and be attacked by any of the Axis navies.
Anyway, I send 3 cruisers, I think 2 New Orleans class and a Northhampton class (but it's been a while) to patrol around the South China sea, hoping to catch some Japanese shipping. He didn't have any actual warships with the convoys, but he did have the Kaga and an escorting cruiser out just doing search and patrol.
What I was really hoping for, and the odds were pretty good, was to catch the convoys before the Kaga caught my cruisers, sink a bunch of his shipping, and run home laughing. Instead, I got a VERY lucky set of search rolls, and wound up with a big pile of surprise points to spend, enough that I could target and kill the Kaga in a naval combat.
Bear in mind, this is the first ever combat between the USN and the IJN in this game. I always liked to think of it as the captain of the Kaga thinking.
>Oh hey, there are some U.S. vessels off over there.
>I"m sure they're just dick-waving, they wouldn't actually shoot at us.
>HOLY SHIT THEY'RE SHOOTING AT US.
Never actually did get those convoys, but I think the carrier was a better catch anyway.
>>47729168
>takes battlecruisers up against battleships and is surprised when he gets btfo
>angry weeaboo noises
ahahahahahahahahaha wow
>>47729168
>Helgolands appear from behind an island
>>47729168
>>47730472
>>47730472
From OP's description, you'd think the Fuso was his Waifu or something.
>>47730400
You did it, you preemptively saved America.
>Oh hey, there are some U.S. vessels off over there.
>I"m sure they're just dick-waving, they wouldn't actually shoot at us.
>HOLY SHIT THEY'RE SHOOTING AT US.
So basically like the French Fleet when facing off against the British at Mars El Kabir.
>>47730635
>waifu battleships
I thought this wouldn't turn up anything on GIS. I was wrong.
>>47730827
>Forgetting Rule 34
You fool!
>>47728962
Frankly I couldn't care less for the That Guy side of the story, but holy shit do I want to play that campaign. I feel grateful in that I have a solid historicals club and have participated in some good campaigns myself, but holy shit that sounds fun.
>>47730034
Could you share the rules please?
How do you anons get to know all this cool warship stuff? I'm lost.
Also, since this is a ship thread, do you anons think advancement in railgun technology and reactor miniaturization technology could being back battlecruisers, in the form of aegis battlecruisers? I don't even expect fully fledged battleships unless mentions of real life energy shields come in, but I'm just hoping.
>>47731235
>>47731522
This.
(These?)
>>47731797
>How do you anons get to know all this cool warship stuff? I'm lost.
I can't think of any of the manufcturers off the top of my head, try asking in the Historical Wargames General, /hwg/
>>47731797
No. I see similar ships to what we have now. Hell, the current ships ARE going to benefit greatly from railgun technology, even if they don't have a railgun. When they made the railgun's projectile, they found out something neat. With a few modifications, they could make versions for standard tube artillery. Thus, they're making a version of the HVP which can be fired out of every single 5" gun in the fleet. And then another that can be fired from any 155 mm gun in the military, including the Army's. While they don't have the range of the railgun, the range is a significant increase. On me Mk 45 mod 2, it's a 20 nmi range. For the Mod 4, which has a slightly larger barrel and I believe is more numerous, has a 40 nmi range.
>>47731797
>How do you anons get to know all this cool warship stuff? I'm lost.
Just a lot of reading.
>>47731994
Know, whoops, completely misread you.
Still, there's a heap of Ospreys in the /hwg/ OP, which are generally solid entry level guides mostly aimed at wargamers and military modellers.
>>47729899
Yes, we even had a forum game going once...it feel apart because of many reasons, including an entire fleet getting sunk at Skappa Flow because they didn't think to sweep for mines and netting... The retard players even ran to /TG/ and bitched that the GM was an unfair meanie poopoo head.
>>47731994
Thanks-
>>47732007
Again, it amazes me how people know all these stuff. I never read about these things in articles and such.
Regardless this was a great input.
>>47732022
Any recommendations?
>>47728962
>>47729168
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcL5bJuFw4A
>>47729324
If you want to go the Battlecruiser Route, there's only one class you need to take - and that's the battlecruiser that just wouldn't die at Jutland:
S E Y D L I T Z
E
Y
D
L
I
T
Z
>>47729624
To be fair, even a modern ship would have been wrecked if it attempted that maneuver; range is the best form of protection.
>>47729624
>tl;dr two forces that had no business winning the engagement throw down, and the one that's not led by a moron wins.
exactly like in real life.
also gg OP
>>47732141
>Any recommendations?
Depends on what exactly you want. I've found the book "Rules of the Game" about the Battle of Jutland to be extremely fascinating.
One can not go wrong with the 15 volume History of United States Naval Operations in World War 2. Since that's a bit excessive, you could watch the series of documentaries known as Victory at Sea. It's a bit focused on just the USN in WW2, but it gives you a pretty good idea anyways.
If you want to learn anything about Japanese carriers, the book Shattered Sword is a must read. It is essentially a look at the Battle of Midway from the Japanese perspective, and is quite fascinating. Read it anyways.
There's all sorts of other books you could read as well. I'm just naming those because they're the ones I can see on my bookshelf from halfway across the room. Go down to your local library and start browsing.
>>47732141
>Again, it amazes me how people know all these stuff. I never read about these things in articles and such.
You just have to read the right articles. I started browsing /k/ about 5 years ago. By shifting through the bullshit (and there's certainly a lot of it to wade through) you can actually manage to pick up the basics. After that, there's a few places I watch. Part of my daily routine is going through a list of defense news websites, where I can pick additional information up. Then, read certain blogs written by those who know what they're talking about, and you get a pretty good background. Then, take your knowledge of history and apply it. Use your head to see how things have worked in the past and apply that to the way things are now. Then take that and apply it to find how things might work in the future. However, don't be afraid to admit you're wrong, and to listen to those who know more than you. That's a part of the learning process.
>>47730717
Well, like I said, the game itself is pretty abstract: I got enough surprise to force a naval combat instead of a naval-air, and to pick the Kaga as a target, hitting it hard enough to sink it without launching planes.
The they didn't expect us to actually shoot at them is a pat-hoc invention to come up with a narrative for an abstract combat result.
>>47732104
That game is actually still running, with some new fleets and some old ones.
There any RPGs that let the PCs all be on the same battleship and meaningfully contribute to a naval battle?
No reason in particular, just asking.
>>47729294
>about as Japanese as tea
>what is the tea ceremony
Silly anon.
>>47733919
Space 1889 comes to mind if you like the old steampunk sci-fi.
But I only know sci-fi game with that RPG to ship elements. Star Frontier's starship game Knight Hawks characters can have skills if they're a part of the ship's crew, from gunners, pilots to the damage control and engineers.
>>47731797
Railguns are going to take a while but laser CIWS are where it's at.
>>47732414
>don't be afraid to admit you're wrong, and to listen to those who know more than you. That's a part of the learning process.
This is my normal attitude actually. You know, things like 'nothing's perfect, don't be afraid and keep fixin' forever'
>>47729947
What's wrong with nuking the Tirpitz? She was a damn fine vessel.
>>47734625
Aside from a nuke being a rather useless anti ship weapon.
>>47729766
Yes, but the Russian navy has always been a joke.
>>47729899
we have naval wargame generals here for a long time. Ended up playing Harpoon in roll20. Some of the most intense wargaming of my life.
Now most of us just lurk /hwg/
>>47735223
>. Ended up playing Harpoon in roll20. Some of the most intense wargaming of my life.
DOUBLE BLIND SUB BATTLE WITH NO OBJECTIVE OTHER THAN KILLING EACH OTHER. LIFE IS PAIN.
>>47735267
That was fucking amazing. I was one of the referees. Still some of the most intense and rewarding gaming experiences of my life. All to the Hell March from Red Alert on repeat
>>47728962
>Be about 5 years old.
>My Dad and one of his friends used to play this game called Scratch One Flat Top.
>I think it's a game about the Battle of Coral Sea.
>Double blind, a lot of searching, they had a big screen between two identical boards where they deployed their assets and searched for each other.
>Watching.
>Ask a few questions about how the game worked.
>Dad explains
>'Oh, so it's basically Battleship.'
>Dad gets mad.
>>47735548
Ahahahaha, you weren't even wrong
>>47734939
>>47735311
>I was one of the referees.
Same here, bro.
>>47735765
I just cant laugh hard enough to express my enjoyment of this post.
>>47728962
Damn OP, I like your style. Shows why command/quality of troops is so important (overlooked but important). Take your disadvantages and turn them into strengths. Don't interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Loved it, can't wait for the next battle report. Hope you sink that last Kongo.
>>47735223
>Harpoon in Roll20
I didn't know that was possible
>>47736554
As one of the guys who participated, it was definitely a challenge, but it sort of worked. You needed multiple refs if you wanted to do double blind, as you needed three "boards", all being updated to the exact same state. You had the two player boards, but you also had the ref board. Thus, you generally needed one ref per player. It was worse because we were all trying to learn the rules at the same time. Having dedicated software would have made it so much easier (the old Harpoon game as well as its spiritual successor, Command Modern Air Naval Operations, or CMANO for short, are godsends for this, but multiplayer is not really doable). If I had a chance to do it all again, I'd like to try having multiple formations on a given side, operating under EMCON, essentially radio silence, meaning that two groups on the same side couldn't necessarily communicate with one another over the horizon without revealing their positions. It'd be interesting.
>>47731797
Lots and lots of prodigious reading and memorization. Read through various warship class pages on wikipedia for general info and browse the web generally. Also, I recommend checking out the website for Avalanche Press, they make a fuckton of wargames and a number of historical and counterfactual naval wargames, and publish a lot of articles detailing historical information and warship details on the site as well.
>>47729685
Mostly what they were was overworked. Taking on a modern, purpose-built 16in battleship from any range wasn't what they were designed to do: that was what the Nagato and Yamato classes were designed to do. But lord knows the IJN couldn't be consistent and sensible even if they had the money and materiel, so yeah. Let's convert these battlecruisers to keep up with carriers rather than trade punches with the USN's new designs, then throw them into surface combat while our two 16in ships faff about. Great idea there, hope it goes well for you.
Anything more outdated than the Kongos and Nagatos had no business going into combat in any role though, aside from the fact that the IJN just didn't have enough hulls NOT to use them.
>>47732225
DRAUF SEYDLITZ!
Still love to read the accounts from her captain and one of her artillery officers, they're riveting.
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/jut01.htm
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/foeseyd.htm
Hey guys, can we join in? It's not like DW can sustain it's on thread these days.
>>47736682
I'm surprised nobody has set up a nice "double blind" online system where people can play whatever games. Ideally run by 1 ref
>>47738117
Another DW admiral, how rare! I'm currently looking for another fleet, since I'm getting tired of my Russian fleet. You see, playing a faction whose naval ordnance begins and ends at 406mm smoothbore guns gets boring after three years.
How are the covenanters nowadays? From what I've seen, they have a bit of everything but no particular strong points.
>>47739611
Drones got nerfed to shit, so now they struggle against big stuff. They're average to below-average these days.
Covenant can build a list to do pretty much anything if built well, but there are a few options that are auto include if you want to be competitive- Kepler-Aristotle squadron is pretty much the only non-DN threat to large models we have. Most of the carriers are terrible, as the drones got nerfed and the carriers increased in cost. They can do boarding, because everything except a few aircraft has Elite crews, but they have to be careful because their AP counts are pretty poor. That said, jumping the opposing Commodore's heavy Battleship with a squadron of Zenos often surprises.
Holy crapsticks, how the hell do I game with you OP? Naval warfare is fucking awesome, love big boats blasting each other to pieces!
This post is still going?
You are great elegan/tg/entlemen!
So our next moves are all in, and I'm pressing the attack on one of the ports controlled by the guy who's fleet got decimated.
I actually had enough victory points from the battle to get a second Bayern, and a Moltke. I am planning the assault with two Bayerns and the Moltke. The Kaiser, Helgolands and Nassau will be staying back at base to dissuade anyone from showing up. Cruisers are split up pretty evenly, but I got a few more interwar era destroyers for defense, since torpedo lines are a great detterent.
Some of the other happenings on the turn. One guy with Royal Navy ships fought his german opponent to a standstill. Another Japanese player edged out a narrow victory against the Italian focused fleet. The two American fleets shot mean glances at each other and conducted a fleet exercise, meaning they got to play a game against each other, but earned minimal victory points, but lost no ships or had repair bills. Was done mainly so they could play a game.
The other german player got three Kaisers to upgrade his fleet. The British got two Iron Dukes and two Neptune Battleships. My opponent next game got another Kongo, but that was about all he could afford since he earned so little from the loss. He didn't replace his cruisers to full strength, but there are two new Furatakas now. The other players haven't put in their purchases yet. But it looks like there is an arms war developing.
I think against two Kongos, my battleline should be ok.
>>47742122
Recall that the Furutakas were only designed to withstand 6in shells, and that many IJN escort and light capital ships were originally meant to make torpedo runs. If you can use your Bayerns and Moltke carefully you can probably draw his cruisers out away from the Kongos and shell the shit out of them before he even realizes what's going on.
Sounds a bit like Rule the Waves
I approve.
>>47742292
I also have armoured cruisers. One thing that the game I found models, is that if you have multiple ships shooting the same target, it gets progressively harder to score a hit. Apparently the shell splashes are hard to distinguish, so your gunnery teams don't know how to correct.
I think my main line will be on the battleships, but the Furutakas if they start to get close will take shots from my armored cruiser line.
>>47742122
>Iron Duke
25,000 tons of 'fuck you' to anything else on the seas those were.
That 13.5 inch BL was a damn fine weapon.
>>47742368
My favourite Royal navy story is that in 1936~38, they still wanted to put armoured prows on their warships. The KGV almost had a bow capable of ramming enemy ships.
>>47729168
Cool story, bro. I enjoyed reading it; not enough naval wargames and after action reports.
>>47742503
I fully expect OP to have a Scharnhorst after his next turn.
These are my German ships
>>47737441
This is literally mind boggling
>>47735765
i remember also reading that the kamchatka later got lost and fired a few hundred shells at civilian/merchantmen vessels of several other european countries
and somehow even just trying to leave morocco they somehow destroyed a communications cable for telegraph messages
>>47742892
>http://www.gwpda.org/naval/foeseyd.htm
And my Brittish fleet
>>47742920
How so?
>>47743108
On phone, maybe lengthy answer later, but a lot is the damage control descriptions and effectiveness while getting shot to pieces.
>>47742892
>>47743005
What game is this? As fun as building a 1:700 battleship set is it's not the most engaging of games.
>>47743492
I play either General Quarters 3 or Victory at sea.
Models are 1/3000 Navwar models (You need to order them by mail, not e-mail, mail)
>>47743492
Looks like 1:3000 to my untrained eye.
>>47743492
I'll make a suggestion, Last Square Miniatures has a huge range of 1:6000 ships, and they are really cheap. You can fight Jutland for 200 bucks. 1:6000 is really small, but there is enough detail on the models to pick out the different classes. It also has the added benefit of looking 'right' on the table. Victory at Sea is a good starter game for naval battles, Command at Sea is a higher level game but more detailed.
I love the Chinese Battleship!
>>47745179
Does that actually work?
>>47745963
I mean, you could shoot things on shore with them on a barge like that, but you wouldn't want to try to hit a moving ship.
>>47746055
But if they hit it that ship would be fucked up.
>>47746414
Not really, no. You'd need multiple hits to really do much of anything. And you ain't likely to hit with them as opposed to one from a ship's gun. Namely, fire control. Hence, unlikely to hit.
>>47728962
kongo a shit
>>47728962
>>47729168
How exactly are the players in this campaign representing the ships? Are tokens plentiful here, or are there legit minis representing each ship class?
If the latter, can you tell me where you managed to pick up WW1-era German ship minis? I've been itching to collect a fleet of them since I first started reading into the naval arms race & the naval war.
>>47747845
Start on GHQ's website 1:2400
http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/military-models-great-war-micronauts.html
Or, for a cheaper alternative, try Last Square 1:6000
http://www.lastsquare.com/zen-cart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=103_107_111
>>47746905
You'd think so, but remember modern warships are unarmored.
>>47750011
I am. Do you think a single 155mm shell is going to knock out a ship? It doesn't have an HP pool, it has to hit something important to damage that part of it. And do note that they'll probably be hit with contact fuses, which do less damage. So yes, even when it's hit, it will take quite a few hits to render it combat ineffective.
>>47750339
Oh dear, I misread your previous comment.
So agreed it all comes down to range, rate of fire and hit location?
>>47750339
I make no claim to expertise in either naval wargames or naval history but a recent visit set me thinking. At the end of January I went round HMS Belfast, looking to kill 40 minutes before meeting colleagues. In the event, I ended up spending nearly three hours on board, and had to apologise profusely for my lateness!
In the fire control room, Roger Barnes turned to me and said: `All this cumulative degradation of damage points in naval games is nonsense. Everything we've seen today is either going to work or it's not.' It seems obvious. But it's an important insight. An hour on HMS Belfast demonstrates quite clearly that in terms of functionality in battle it's nothing more or less than a mobile gun platform. The elements of the ship are either critical to that function or irrelevant, and they are either working or they are not. There is of course a role for damage control parties, but ultimately that's at the margins (albeit sometimes critical margins).
I recall Ian Drury coming up with some interesting research on capital ship vs capital ship combat in a write-up of his Bismark game 'North Atlantic Raiders' many years ago that demonstrated that big gun hits were either very effective or almost totally ineffective. It is also interesting to note the way in naval gunnery in the first part of the 20th century, warships often took heavy damage to their armanents and relatively little to their movement ability, perhaps because the key elements of the gunnery systems are so much more exposed to gunfire than the engine room
>>47750554
Nope. The number one factor is fire control. If you took a battery of these guns on a barge and you put them up against a ship armed with naught but a single 5" gun, the ship would win. You know why? Radar controlled gunnery. The difference is made all the more clear if the platform for the guns is moving as well. Primitive (relatively) radar controlled gunnery allowed the West Virginia to achieve first salvo hits on the Yamashiro on the first salvo, at a distance of over 22,000 yards. That's twelve and a half miles. Now, given the smaller gun, I would doubt a current 5" gun could hit on its first round at that sort of range with unguided shells, but it illustrates the point well.
>>47750623
I'd disagree on two points:
1) A 15 inch shell, by it's Kinetic nature, is going to damage the structure of a ship if it hits.
2) Warships are so crammed full of machinery, munitions, men, and fuel, that any hit is going to break something. About the only inconsequential heavy gun hit I can recall is on Reknown's rear mast.
If you think of HP pools as a metric that represents manpower, and structural integrity, it makes sense to use it. Not every hit is going to wreck a magazine, or knock out a gun, but a hit to the forward bow, or the stern, or even the belt, is going to make the ship slightly less able to stay above the waves. A 15 inch shell hitting a foot of armour is going to do some damage, somewhere.
>>47750680
This is ignoring heat seeking/radar guided/GPS guided munitions in use in modern artillery. You only need really good fire control if your shells are dumb. With a laser rangefinder, you only need to put your shells in the general vicinity of an enemy boat, the onboard guidance in the shell will do the rest.
>>47750680
Radar gunnery works best at range, and I doubt a warship would engage a barge at such a range unless they knew it was a threat, and even so they may not engage still due to politics, in this case the barge only has a chance if it hides the 'battery' on the deck until they are in a range to engage reliably.
>>47750715
>This is ignoring heat seeking/radar guided/GPS guided munitions in use in modern artillery.
I'm not ignoring them because the first ones don't exist and GPS guided munitions aren't going to hit a moving target. You need a different seeker for that, which doesn't exist for tube artillery. Now, there ARE some guided shells for naval guns. Mostly radar guided at the moment, while some in the works have a thermal imager. But that's just it. Those are specifically for naval guns. Not towed or self propelled artillery pieces, as the conversation follows.
>>47750694
1.Perhaps, but some areas are more vital than others, the beam comes to mind. Also of note certain areas of a ship will be 'proof' against shells of a certain caliber and down.
2.Again true, but strictly speaking certain areas are vital, it's a matter of striking those areas and in places to do the most damage.
>>47750772
But of course you know that technology can be scaled down, it's only a matter of time.
>>47750728
>Radar gunnery works best at range
This is such utter and complete bullshit that I can't believe you even uttered it. And besides, let's suppose that they do wait to close range to reveal themselves. The naval gun still has actual fire control and can at this point achieve hits in the first shots, as opposed to the barge guns not having any such system, requiring them to estimate range on a maneuvering target, which is far from the easiest thing.
>>47750623
This may be true for large caliber guns, but we aren't talking about large caliber guns.
>>47750792
Let me put it this way- JUST HOOK THEM UP TO A FUCKING DIRECTOR. You still need to be in the ballpark for these things to work. Thus, a radar directed gun will STILL have a massive advantage over the tube guns. Oh, and by the way, they fire faster. There is no way this is ever a reasonable option.
>>47750811
Is it or is it not true that it's best for a naval vessel to engage at range. Also a warship can't turn on a dime, it has a relatively predictable path.
>>47750873
Of course they fire faster, they have auto loaders.
>>47747845
to add to >>47749642 list
C in C
http://www.pfc-cinc.com/page/page/325381.htm
They are basically GHQ quality but cheaper. Also they also lack the GHQ "out of scale" detail that makes them look cool but wrong to scale detail.
>>47750957
>Is it or is it not true that it's best for a naval vessel to engage at range.
In this situation, the ship is probably best served by keeping the range, because that's where the opponent is the most disadvantaged. That is not to say that radar controlled gunnery isn't superior at every single range.
>Also a warship can't turn on a dime, it has a relatively predictable path
You'd be surprised just how fast a full rudder turn can change your bearing, never mind the fact that any maneuvering whatsoever will make it significantly harder to hit. Remember, complete lack of a rangefinder for the fuckers on the barge? You have absolutely no clue how difficult trying to hit a ship by simply eyeballing it was, never mind doing so without the benefits of any training or even any sort of aid, such as shell dyes.
You're seriously arguing that a battery of artillery pieces strapped to a barge stands a reasonable chance in that engagement. That's literally the most retarded thing I've heard all week. Stop that.
>>47732225
this guy gets it
>>47750772
>doesn't exist
Uhh, all three of those munition types exist for artillery. Laser Guided, radar guided, gps guided. Every single one is a real type of shell, that can currently be fired out of an artillery piece.
>>47751082
True on all accounts, of course we aren't talking about a barge being an actual substitute for a warship or even being able to last in a prolonged engagement. The only way this would be viable is as a one off attack to knock out a single warship.
>>47751148
>Laser guided
Exist, but weren't mentioned.
>Radar guided
Exist, but not for towed guns or SPGs. I said as such later on in that post. You know why they don't exist for those? It doesn't make any bloody sense for it TO exist for them. It could be semi-active, in which case it needs something to light it up for it, which the artillery lacks because it isn't going to be direct firing unless something has gone horribly wrong. There are no ARH shells.
>GPS guided
I said it existed in that post.
>>47751197
Radar Guided shells exist for excalibur rounds. We use them to take out moving tanks. From a self propelled guns. Denel in South Africa has the tech as well. All millimeter band radar, contained in the shell package. It's awesome tech.
>>47751184
>The only way this would be viable is as a one off attack to knock out a single warship.
And it wouldn't work, as I believe I mentioned something about the paramount nature of fire control
>>47751223
I love people who insist non-traditional wafare won't work. Usually they are the same people who think a surface fleet with aircraft carriers are still relevant to modern warfare.
Subs, Cruise Missiles, and ACBMs, the age of the carrier has been over for 20 years now.
>>47751222
>Radar Guided shells exist for excalibur rounds.
No they don't. Excalibur is GPS/INS. They can't hit moving tanks. There was some talk about adding a seeker head, but guess what? That was for cut down versions for naval guns.
And I'd require a source for the Denel claim.
>>47751248
Are you being serious right now? Have I been arguing with a madman and/or troll this entire time?
>>47751272
You really shouldn't get all your information from wiki sources. Try reading up on the actual defense industry.
>>47751294
Convince me that the aircraft carrier is a relevant weapon on the modern battlefield.
>>47751297
>implying I do
You still haven't provided a source.
>>47751310
There's only 1 thing they're good for: Show of force. Beyond that, it aint WW2 anymore.
>>47751294
Watch the series "carrier" on youtube. An entire 6 month tour of duty, and not a single bomb dropped or missile fired. Everyone on board starts to get the feeling they're not really needed anymore in tight city fighting and IEDs
>>47734079
>Space 1889
wew lad
>>47751364
You got a problem with one of the most well-written RPGs ever, designed by the legendary Frank Chadwick?
>>47751352
This guy gets it. A carrier is just a big target in a real naval battle. Same with pretty much every surface ship.
>>47751310
Does the fact that the planes it carries allow it to project any sort of power that could feasibly be needed and do so in an incredibly efficient manner with all supporting assets mean nothing to you? If literally nothing else, pic related.
If you need other information, take a look at these.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e2f92747-f9f1-4987-8db4-7e99874214b2/Maritime-Deception-and-Concealment--Concepts-for-D.aspx
https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/201510SharpeningtheSpearTheCarriertheJointForceandHighEndConflict.pdf
>>47751352
>>47751387
Why are you samefagging now? Stop that.
>>47751391
One sub ends all that. No carrier, no purpose for the escort group.
A carrier is just a big target. The US keeps dumping money into carriers, but really, subs have been the future of naval warfare since USS Nautilus.
The life expectancy of a carrier in a modern engagement vs a major power is around 38 hours.
>>47751391
A sub can project power a lot more easily, and for less money, so more efficiently.
One Ohio loaded with the new multipack tomahawk launchers would be the best deterrent. Just let the enemy know that if they don't straighten up, death will be raining down on them from an unknown location within ten minutes.
>>47751424
>One sub ends all that. No carrier, no purpose for the escort group.
Sure thing, kiddo. It's not like the US spent the entire Cold War figuring out how to defend a CSG from submarines or anything.
And before you try and point to boats surfacing next to fleet carriers, I'll remind you that those are in exercises in constrained areas where the carrier isn't allowed to really maneuver. Just about any submarine could sit on the bottom of the ocean undetected as a CSG goes over top it. The only problem is actually being in that position. The ocean is a big place.
I'd also like to point towards developments in continuous active sonar, which specifically counter this.
>>47751391
>Carriers Relevant
>Forgets Millenium Challenge
>Ignores Oscar Class Sub
>Pretends ACBMs aren't in use by everyone with a beef against the US.
Sure man, Carriers are a real big 'threat'
>>47751404
>There are more than 1 instance of an opinion I dont agree with! it must be a samefag
carriers are obsolete friendo. Bombing alone doesn't win wars, if that was the case, the US would have "won" vietnam, as they dropped more bombs there than all forces in WW2 combined.
>>47751471
China surfacing within torpedo range of a flattop.
Navy doesn't like to talk about that incident much.
>>47751455
>A sub can project power a lot more easily, and for less money, so more efficiently.
Nope. How many targets could an Ohio hit at once? In other words, how many Tomahawks does the SSGN carry? Then you realize that the carrier carries far more munitions. Many times that amount of munitions. And its stocks can be refilled at sea, because it's a floating airstrip. The carrier can sustain its fighting ability, the SSGN cannot. The Carrier can do just about every single mission in the book, from ELINT to maritime strike to AAW to land strike, and more.
SSGNs are good, but are no replacement for the carrier.
>>47751505
That's funny, because DC Think tanks are saying that the Carrier is basically useless:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/02/22/report-u-s-aircraft-carriers-unchallenged-primacy-may-be-coming-to-a-close/
How is a Carrier going to stop Iran? Or China? Or Russia in the Black Sea?
>>47751478
I haven't forgotten anything. The actual results of the Millenium Challenge are hotly debated. Namely, cheating from REDFOR.
>Ignores Oscar Class Sub
Literally nothing.
>>Pretends ACBMs aren't in use by everyone with a beef against the US.
It's ASCMs or ASBMs, mate, never to mention that every seems to not know what a kill chain is, or the fact that the US spent the entire Cold War figuring out how to defend against massed ASCMs.
>carriers are obsolete friendo
How?
>Bombing alone doesn't win wars
So what? How do you suggest you win a conventional war without airpower?
>>47751494
I believe I addressed that exact problem.
http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-captain-us-should-rethink-aircraft-carriers-2015-4
Here is an ex US Navy Captain admitting what we all know: The Carrier is just a liability these days.
>>47751558
>How do you suggest you win a conventional war without airpower?
Infantry. Armor. Light vehicles with TOWs. Artillery. That pretty much covers everything you need to do.
SAMs are pretty brutal in the modern age. You need to spend 3 weeks running SEAD missions before actually being able to do any effective strikes. Falcon 4.0 taught me this.
Also you can still use air power without a carrier. Normal airfields still exist, and they dont pitch horribly every now and then, making landing VERY difficult
>>47751550
>That's funny, because DC Think tanks are saying that the Carrier is basically useless:
That's not what the report says, and you know it. I believe I posted at least one farther up the thread. I suggest you read it sometimes. I'll also say something about kill chains, sustained fires, and probably the continued primacy of airplanes.
>How is a Carrier going to stop Iran? Or China? Or Russia in the Black Sea?
By providing a survivable base for airplanes that can't be hit by SSMs because they don't know where they are. Those planes then destroy the enemy and suppress their ability to conduct operations, allowing friendly forces to achieve whatever objective they wanted.
>>47751609
You don't seem to understand basic geography. A carrier group is a huge target. A carrier in the south china sea, persian gulf, or black sea, is a dead carrier in a major engagement.
>>47730472
Aren't you supposed to be writing boats of a more sexually available manner?
Also, how many turrets does a Pensylvania-class have again?
>>47751604
>Infantry. Armor. Light vehicles with TOWs. Artillery. That pretty much covers everything you need to do.
Sure thing. Let's see how well that goes when you have airpower interdicting troop movements, destroying means of transportation, hampering C3, and anything else planes do.
>SAMs are pretty brutal in the modern age. You need to spend 3 weeks running SEAD missions before actually being able to do any effective strikes. Falcon 4.0 taught me this.
Funny, because Falcon 4.0 taught me how to conduct strikes in the midst of IADS. This completely ignores the fact that the F-35 and other stealth platforms almost completely negate SAMs.
>Normal airfields still exist, and they dont pitch horribly every now and then, making landing VERY difficult
They don't exist in the middle of the ocean, and they don't move around, meaning the enemy knows where they are and can flatten the base with SSM strikes.
And before you say something about the vulnerability of carriers, I'll say something about disrupting the kill chain. Works damn well in CMANO and in real life, as links I've posted above show.
>>47751661
Wow, you think the F-35 is a good weapons system. Now I know you are either trolling, or retarded.
>>>/k/30257557
>>47751634
>A carrier in the south china sea, persian gulf, or black sea, is a dead carrier in a major engagement.
How? Tell me, how are you going to find it to kill it? The Persian Gulf I could MAYBE understand, but in such a situation you likely aren't going to be transiting the Straits of Hormuz, so you've actually got space to work in, especially if you don't enter the Gulf in the first place. The same thing with the Black Sea. You've got standoff range, use it. That's what planes are for.
>>47751690
>thinking the F-35 is a bad weapons system
You know nothing but memes, my friend. The F-35 is by all accounts a fantastic system. I think you'd find that /k/ agrees on that.
>>47751693
Satellites are a thing man. Radar. Emissions tracking. You think carrier groups move around quietly? A direction finding station could probably locate a carrier group.
>>47751709
Yeah, because /k/ is full of rational minds. Every report on the F-35 is damning. It's a known turkey. It's just a jobs program (much like carriers)
>>47751661
>F-35
lol
Well stealth bombers were shot down during the bosnian war so you can't really rely on stealth tech among modern SAMs.
I mean aircraft are essentially just airborne artillery. Modern artillery and satellite imaging render them pretty much obsolete. Infantry still do the main clearing of houses street by street. as long as you support them they can and will win wars on their own.
>>47751715
Not him but, how long would those things last? ASAT missiles exist, HARM missiles exist, and the first thing that will happen if a war breaks out is everyone trying to put out the enemy's eyes. How long after the beginning of hostilities would it take to punch holes in the sensor net large enough to slip a carrier through?
>>47751715
>Satellites are a thing man.
I believe I posted a link above directly countering that.
> Radar. Emissions tracking. You think carrier groups move around quietly? A direction finding station could probably locate a carrier group.
There's a little thing known as EMCON, ever heard of it? It's stands for EMmisions CONtrol, and it basically means you don't turn on your radar. If you turn on your radar, you can be seen. This is why AEW-C is amazing. You have a radar you can see with, without it being directly on top of you. Offset it by 100 nmi or more, and you're undetected. Once again, I believe I posted a link about this above.
And if you think you're going to try to find it with a radar, you'll quickly find that radar destroyed, probably before it comes within range of the CSG. Planes are a hell of a drug.
>>47751375
Now I know you're trolling me.
Legitimately kekd
>>47751759
Novator K-100.
S-400.
No more AWACS.
>>47751763
>I've never played the game but I'm going to hate on it, because that's what we do right?
>>47731797
Late to the thread but Japanese Destroyer Captain by Tameichi Hara is good for a Japanese perspective on the Pacific War. Though by the end of it you end up about as angry as he was about how terrible Japanese Naval Command was at fighting a war.
Checking in.
Mainly General Quarters 3: Fleet Action Imminent, though I'm always on the lookout for other WW1-era systems (not a fan of Seakrieg or Fear God and Dread Nought, though).
>British fleet; representing Hunt for the Goeben and Battle of Dogger Bank
>>47751727
>>47751739
>Every report on the F-35 is damning.
Not really, no. Go read what the Norwegian pilot had to say about it. He found it's pretty handy in a dogfight. Even then, let's think about what makes the F-35 great.
First, and perhaps least importantly, stealth. Stealth reduces the range at which you can be detected dramatically. Remember that F-117s flew over Baghdad and out completely undetected, and that's shitty stealth. Then remember the F-22 pilot sneaking up and Top Gunning an Iranian F-4. Or F-22s completely wrecking anything they come against in the first mock dogfights, so they had to put an RCS increasing thing on it specifically for mock dogfights. The commonly quoted figure for the F-35's RCS means that it gets detected at 1/10th the range of conventional fighters. To put this into perspective, if a conventional fighter would get detected by a radar at 100 nmi, the F-35 would get detected at 10 nmi. You can imagine how that's rather significant.
2, avionics. Long story short, they're great, and provide the biggest advantage. All the information collated quickly and displayed clearly. You can see through your plane, for Christ's sake.
As for the F-117 shootdown, take a look at the circumstances of that. A known flightpath for the one stealth aircraft that has the worst stealth if you're positioned at a certain aspect. You'll note that the bottom of the F-117 is literally flat. If you're positioned right under it, you'll get a good return. Not to mention it had an open bay.
>>47751834
...and I just realized I don't have a British Fleet picture without the Water Effects on the destroyers still "wet". Damn.
>German Fleet, representing same.
Building Jutland is the next task.
>>47751834
Love that fleet! Seriously sexy!
>>47751779
Oh yes, I'm sure you'd be able to maintain a lock on it to actually guide it to where it is. Never mind the fact that you've been spotted and BARCAP has already shredded the launching fighter, and that the S-400 has to radiate in order to shoot, at which point the AEW bird could simply dive for the deck and have it miss, because it's not being lit up anymore. Having radiated, the S-400 is then killed.
>>47751859
You really don't understand stealth. A flat surface was the key component of stealth in the F-117. Curved surfaces on that gen reflect more radar return. The shootdown showed that stealth wasn't invulnerable. And the new DWL002 radar has no problem with stealth. Stealth was revolutionary, but technology in detection has caught up with it.
>>47751739
>Well stealth bombers were shot down during the bosnian war so you can't really rely on stealth tech among modern SAMs.
One F-117 was shot down. Said F-117 was flying the same route they had been using for weeks and had it's bomb bay doors wide open. The SAM had also been modified to use a different radar wavelength than normal, and the commander of it went against protocol and tried for a third lock-on when he knew he shouldn't have. It was one of the biggest cases of pure dumb luck in the history of aviation.
>>47751883
Hah, yeah, sure. S-400 uses a distributed network, and has a super mobile system. No AWACS plane is going to spot a passive ARM in time to shut down, and even if it does, the radar seeker goes active.
No weapon system is invulnerable. If you think that weapon designers aren't thinking of ways to defeat the largest strengths of the US, you'd be wrong.
Localized GPS disruption with high altitude chaff burst shells. Ultra-longrange anti-awacs. Anti-Carrier weapons. Stealth defeating passive radar.
The US military has some truly lethargic weapon programs. Instead of focusing on drones and decentralization, the US strategy is based on high value vulnerable targets.
>>47751909
>A flat surface was the key component of stealth in the F-117.
I'm well aware. That's why it's so angular. However, think of the physics involved. The goal of the angles was to divert the radar waves away from the source, which is where the receiver is as well. Think of it like throwing a ball at a wall. If you're throwing it at the wall at any angle other than roughly 90 degrees, the ball won't bounce back to you. That's why the F-117 was angular. However, if you are at 90 degrees, the ball will bounce straight back to you. Hence the F-117's problem at that aspect. Now, there are more components to stealth than just the aspect you're hitting, but it is a major factor.
>>47751970
The only bounce back angle in the situation you described is directly below the aircraft. All the other angles (ie anywhere in the sky) the return would bounce off away from the receiver... There\s more to the shootdown then you seem to know.
>>47751957
> S-400 uses a distributed network, and has a super mobile system
And?
>No AWACS plane is going to spot a passive ARM in time to shut down
That's likely bullshit, given the size of the objects in question. Besides, the S-400 isn't an ARM.
>No weapon system is invulnerable.
I never claimed it was. Everything can be destroyed. However, systems are set up in such a way that the risk of destruction is minimized. And if one gets destroyed, tough luck. That's war. There's more where it came from. But to think that there aren't counters to those counters is preposterous. Do you have any idea what a kill chain is?
>Localized GPS disruption with high altitude chaff burst shells.
That is in part why many GPS guided systems have secondary INS guidance.
>Ultra-longrange anti-awacs.
Doesn't exist in any real manner. Kh-31 is a meme.
>Anti-Carrier weapons.
Disrupting the kill chain.
>Stealth defeating passive radar.
Doesn't exist.
>>47752009
>The only bounce back angle in the situation you described is directly below the aircraft. All the other angles (ie anywhere in the sky) the return would bounce off away from the receiver... There\s more to the shootdown then you seem to know.
I literally just said that. Are you okay, anon? And with the F-117 all of 7 miles away, they were literally right underneath it.
>>47751913
A second F-117 was hit and damaged so badly it never flew again during the same campaign.
I mean this is shitty serb tech, can you imagine how raped standard F-18s and EA-6Bs would be against modern Russian or Chinese SAMs? The carrier would be an empty deck after a few weeks of operation.
>>47752347
>I mean this is shitty serb tech, can you imagine how raped standard F-18s and EA-6Bs would be against modern Russian or Chinese SAMs? The carrier would be an empty deck after a few weeks of operation.
By that logic, the force which attacked Iraq and Serbia should have been completely wiped out.
>>47752359
I dont think you know the meaning of "logic"
>Shitty serb tech vs stealth
>Can you imagine actual Russian and Chinese SAMs vs F-18s
>by that logic said force invading serbia would have been wiped out
Your post just doesn't make sense.
Iraq was mostly won by TOW missiles on M2A2 Bradleys.
>>47752369
If the missiles were capable of shooting down the vehicles without problem, then surely the entire force would have been wiped out, right? Or at the very least, they'd suffer massive casualties, far more than the one shootdown which occurred. Do note that stealth technology hasn't stood still either. Especially pay attention to the F-22's performance in its early years, when there was no Luneberg lens. In the ORI testing, the F-22 achieved a 221:0 kill to death ratio. This is pretty notable, because ORI tests an aircraft to its very limits, because they don't want anything to be wrong with the craft. That against American radars, which tend to be more advanced than their Russian counterparts. So you tell me, is stealth a meme?
>>47752369
>Iraq was mostly won by TOW missiles on M2A2 Bradleys.
Iraq was mostly won by air power preventing Iraq's army from maneuvering through both interdiction and strikes on C3, letting them be destroyed in detail by Coalition ground forces.
>>47751754
Yep, and China has been investing more into them than the US, so it may not be flattops with the eye in the sky advantage.
>>47752440
It's not a meme, but it's not invisibility either. Russian and likely Chinese radars CAN detect and probably track the F-22 and F-35.
However, there's a world of difference between tracking something, and being able to get a solid lock on it for a weapon. And while the radars are radiating, missiles are being launched to home in on the emissions.
>>47752623
>Yep, and China has been investing more into them than the US
Sure thing. You realize that the SM-3 has been used as an ASAT weapon, right?
>>47752664
>It's not a meme, but it's not invisibility either. Russian and likely Chinese radars CAN detect and probably track the F-22 and F-35.
They probably COULD. What needs to be answered is from how far away could it be? It's not invisibility, it's low visibility, reducing detection ranges. This is true even with long band.
stealth bump
>>47754719
Bumpong for intrest.
And seriously, what's with all this fighting in this thread? It seems that people somehow really want to proove carriers are useless.
Although I don't know much about the subject, if murrica is tugging around at least ten of them, I assume that they serve a purpose.
>>47756276
the argument is whether or not the purpose is worth the cost, or whether things are kept the way they are to keep certain people with monetary interests in their continued use happy.
>>47756474
I just came here to talk about BIG BATTLESHIP GUNS and cool naval battle stories though
>>47752680
Never successfully.
>>47756276
America's purpose with Carriers is tradition, and parking an airbase near whatever third world craphole they are invading this week.
Naval strategists have known that Carriers became obsolete the moment cruise missiles became a reliable weapon in the early to mid-70s. The US uses carriers as Force projection, but in a full scale conflict with China or the Russ, they would only be useful after securing air supremacy (not easily done) and sea supremacy (which, with modern subs in play, is a lot harder then you'd think). Carriers are going the way of the Battleship in WW2, except the US hasn't figured this out yet.
>>47756633
i understand and that was my first post in the thread.
just offering a simplified view of the carrier debate
How do I get into a group that does stuff like naval wargames? I have to wrestle with my group to play anything that isn't Pathfinder or MtG.
>>47752693
That was my point. They can detect, but not lock. Whereas missiles can home in on their emissions. It's a great way to lose BVR combat before they can even close to visual range where the slavshit proponents claim superiority.
>>47752680
Not with any great success, and only in LEO. Which is not where a great many spy sats reside.
>>47756276
>And seriously, what's with all this fighting in this thread? It seems that people somehow really want to proove carriers are useless.
Because carriers are an American strength, and if Americans are doing it, then it's wrong.
Also because if you can blanket the sky with cruise missiles, for practical purposes, ANY AND ALL warships are obsolete, which includes carriers. There's honestly no real point in building anything but cruise missiles and various launchers to house them (or disposable craft of some sort to get them closer to their targets, such as inexpensive aircraft that you can hang a rotary launcher off of, or an arsenal ship).
>>47751297
The burden of proof is you, my friend
>>47751310
There are these things called "stand off weaponry" which can be launched from planes.
You need to find an aircraft carrier to target it, which given radar horizons and the limited detection range of a submerged submarine is not necessarily easy.
>>47759869
Arsenal ships are dumb because they are likely to get sunk with a bunch of expensive missiles still in their tubes
I just want to talk about botes.
>>47756825
>>47759268
Do you not remember the news at all? USA 193 comes to mind.
>>47756858
>Naval strategists have known that Carriers became obsolete the moment cruise missiles became a reliable weapon in the early to mid-70s.
No, they haven't. That is complete and utter bullshit. The carrier is still considered top dog for a great many reasons, even in full scale conflicts. They are half of what opens up the scene for supporting assets, due to their range, power, and sustainability.
You have to prove to me how a carrier is obsolete. You haven't, I've countered every single point you could possibly have.
>>47759249
>That was my point. They can detect, but not lock.
If they can detect, they could lock, providing they are a targeting radar and not just an air search radar. Like I said, the question is how close that would be.
>>47759869
>There's honestly no real point in building anything but cruise missiles and various launchers to house them (or disposable craft of some sort to get them closer to their targets, such as inexpensive aircraft that you can hang a rotary launcher off of, or an arsenal ship).
You realize that planes launch cruise missiles and things like them? And in doing so, impart a greater range upon them? And can do vastly more?
And as I said earlier, you have to find something to hit it. Big CVNs provide AEW-C aircraft, which lets you in the carrier see without being seen. You can see anything that might potentially see you before they do, and then kill it before they see you as well. You can hide in the open ocean. I've provided links describing this above.
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP
Talk about cool botes and fun wargames. Don't get all pissy about dumb jingoistic force projection modern combat bullshit. Carriers have a useful role but are also highly vulnerable. But then again the Chinese and Russian navies only exist to bully smaller players in their own region and would crumple against the vastly-oversized USN. Also call your senator and tell them to prosecute lockmart's execs for treason because lol the F-35 is a shitshow that's less airworthy than a museum piece.
But everybody post fun stories about naval combat. Or about cool naval-ish wargames Is anybody else excited for dropfleet commander? I sure am.
>>47760426
Question: Which bote is best?
>>47758682
Well the first thing I would do is find a copy of Mongoose's Victory at sea. It's the best 'simple' naval game, and was designed from the ground up for gaming groups (not historical gaming clubs). It plays smoothly, and has nice mechanics for all types of naval warfare including carriers. It abstracts some parts in the name of simplicity, but I've never found someone who didn't enjoy playing it.
Second, is get yourself some ship models. I suggest 1/6000 because you can get a lot of them, and they are cheap. Last Square Minis has a set of Hallmark/Figurehead 1/6000 that are the best available. If you want more detail, go to 1/2400 scale from GHQ or CinC. Beware, a single battleship will set you back 20 bucks or so at that scale, whereas a pack of 4 south dakotas at 1/6000 will only run you 7 bucks.
That's it really. Rules can be found online with some digging, or on drivethrurpg for some money. Get a blue tablecloth, set up some battleship groups, and invite people to experience being in control of the largest concentration of firepower ever assembled.
>>47761592
Battlestar Galactica.
>>47752018
>do you even know what a kill chain is?
Do you? You keep spouting off 'disrupt the kill chain' but I don't see how that is relevant. The sub doesn't need to take out the whole task force, it just needs to damage or sink the carrier. Finding a carrier task force is pretty easy, this isn't WW2 anymore. Carriers are big, and noisy. You can talk about ASuW, but the truth is that ASuW from surface vessels is almost useless. From planes it is a bit better, but what Carrier plane does the ASuW role now? None. As long as the sub can dive below the layers, it will be a pain to find. And if it can't dive below the layers, then the carrier is too close to land, and risks taking hits from land based weapons.
A sub can find a carrier group, intercept it, and attack it. The ability to disrupt that kill chain is very minimal in most surface navies of the world.
>>47761701
Victory at Sea is a great game.
http://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/45/Mongoose/subcategory/3317_9884/Victory-at-Sea
Can't recommend it enough to new players, to get them interested in naval warfare.
>>47761901
>Do you? You keep spouting off 'disrupt the kill chain' but I don't see how that is relevant.
You keep saying that anti-ship missiles have made the carrier obsolete, so I'm telling you how you counter them. You don't let them shoot at you in the first place. You find and kill them before they do the same to you. Given that an aircraft carrier has a lot of open ocean to hide in, it's not actually that hard. You may think it's easy to see a carrier group, but I provided multiple links on the topic upthread which should have dissuaded you of that notion, if you ever bothered to read them. You can't localize the contact enough to shoot anything at it, because the things which could do that are all killed before they have a chance to find the carrier group. If you've ever played Harpoon, as the thread is about, you'd realize this, as well as the unlikeliness of a submarine to be in position.
As for a submarine killing a CSG, the same thing applies. The submarine needs to get lucky and be right in front of the CSG before it even knows it is there, for many reasons. It tries to catch up to it, the propellers start cavitating because they're turning too fast. It's a needle in a haystack type situation.
>You can talk about ASuW, but the truth is that ASuW from surface vessels is almost useless
First of all, you're thinking of ASW, not ASuW. ASW is anti-submarine, ASuW is anti-surface. It's encouraging knowing your opponent doesn't even know that much. Second of all, it's far from worthless from surface ships, but not the ideal weapon. As you said, that continues to be from the air. However, you've made the mistake in thinking the CSG lacks ASW aircraft. It does. They're called helicopters, and they're the single most dangerous weapon to submarines. And you realize that there are variable depth sonars, which specifically were designed to go underneath the thermocline?
>>47761901
>Sub can find, intercept, and attack it
>Disruption is minimal
>ASuW from surface vessels is almost useless, no planes can do it
You mean ASW you fucking retard, ASuW is anti surface warfare, and guess what? We've got ASM's and planes that can carry them.
Taking out sats, information and communication infrastructure, command centers, and the delivery vehicle itself are all ways to disrupt the kill chain. And the USN is really REALLY good at destroying C3I.
Also ASW helos and drones exist, and that carrier task force you're talking about usually has oh, three or four nuclear submarines around who have the job of hunting down and killing other submarines, not to mention DDG's with ASROCs and other weapons.
Play Harpoon or CMANO, and realize what a fucking chucklefuck you are.
>>47761592
I don't know which bote is best but kongo a shit
>>47762307
>usually has oh, three or four nuclear submarines
Generally two. Might be beefed up in wartime, but no way to know for sure. I'd probably have them out doing other things, two is more than plenty to make the seas a bit crowded.
>>47761592
Any ship named the Invincible, for obvious reasons.
>>47762307
Play CMANO, kill carriers all the time. It's super easy.
>>47762307
https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8#.t8xwf9nn8
Done. You're wrong.
>>47763032
That should say "the US Navy's big mistake in existing."
Nobody needs warships anymore. They're just fodder for land-based aircraft with GPS-guided cruise missiles.
>>47763149
I think a big factor left forgotten is the shitload of secret project stuck in R and D for economic and political reasons, you say there's no need for the now but what about four years from now? War rarely stays the same.
>Laser_Defense_System.webm
What do people here think about the Scharnhorst?
>>47763032
>using war is boring as an actual source
>>47763602
pretty sexy. wonder how it would have stacked up to the dunkerque like it was supposed to
>>47763620
All the articles it cites are sourced. Defense News, the Navy Review, declassified pentagon minutes, congressional testimony.
I like how you attack the source rather then the argument, that's a pretty shite debating strategy.
Valid points in that article, feel free to rebut, or just admit you were wrong.
>>47751494
USN was already tracking him.
Also what were they going to do. Sink that old clunky ming boat?
Like how they shoot down russian planes that buzz US warships? Oh wait.
>>47762805
Not easy, but doable. Then you play as a carrier, and you can defend yourself easily. Try playing MP, it's a lot more difficult.
Remember when Austria had a navy?
>>47764340
>austria
>navy
maximumKUKold
I think this thread deserves a bump.
>>47761592
It has to be one of the battleships.
>>47761592
I'd love to say an American battleship (for a bunch of actual, technical, reasons), but I'm pretty sure that if I did so, it'd get jumped on simply because the battleship's from the US.
(South Dakota or Iowa)
>>47769965
>it'd get jumped on simply because the battleship's from the US.
You are correct. I would, for one.
>>47769965
Pound for Pound, the Richielieu is probably the best Treaty Battleship, narrowly edging out the South Dakota. Honorable mention to the KGV which had an incredibly strong armour scheme.
For unrestricted Battleships, the Iowa for actual built designs, just for the firepower advantage of the super heavy 16 inch, and the speed. Armour scheme was 'decent' but not great. Yamato 18s were not really all that better then the 16 inch super heavy.
Balanced design, probably the North Carolina, or the Sodak.
Fantasy designs: The Lion would have been an equal match for an Iowa, 3 knots slower, but more heavily armoured, firepower nearly identical, and a more stable firing platform. Fire control essentially the same, since both used Radar. Montana is probably the best of all the fantasy designs, since it uparmoured the Iowa, and added another turret for huge throw weight. So for fantasy, the Montana for sure, followed by the Lion. The German H series were just too big, and the throw weight and armour scheme weren't really that much better then the Bismarck. Honorable mention to the never built russian BB, which would have probably been similar to an Iowa.
>>47774652
>the Richielieu is probably the best Treaty Battleship, narrowly edging out the South Dakota.
I'd take exception to this, especially in secondary and anti-aircraft armament. You could make the argument it would win in a fight, but in a war, I'd rather have the SoDak. Another notable feature for the SoDak is the range.
Say, wasn't there a collectible ships game where you popped the pieces out of plastic cards which had the relevant rules and measures printed on them?
>>47775080
Pirates of the Spanish Main.
It was actually a pretty fun little wargame, although we never really cared about the "sail around and get the gold" objectives. I've still got a crapton of the models I keep around for playing age of sail wargames (Wooden Ships & Iron Men, for example).
>>47775208
Oh man. I used to play that game all the time. Darkhawk II with its 8 cargo was too good. Its a shame they never did anything better than a shuffling deck game with the ip. Id like to see a clix style or xwing style game come out.
>>47775279
There is a prepainted Age of Sail game floating (heh) around out there with mechanics very similar to X-wing, but as god is my witness I can't remember the name right now.
>>47775334
>>47775279
SAILS OF GLORY
That's the one.
>>47774652
>copying wholesale from combinedfleet
>>47775531
What is combined fleet?
Why was Japanese damage control so poor?
>>47730034
>Our GM built the game from a few other ones, including Victory at Sea, Naval Thunder, and Command at Sea.
>>47731522
>Could you share the rules please?
Would be appreciated.
>>47776098
That's a complicated issue. I'd probably sum it up in a lack of redundancy and training. Initially, they didn't have all available crewmembers trained in DC, putting it all in the hands of a few crewmembers. Not a good idea, especially if those few guys get taken out of the fight for whatever reason.
>>47776098
They weren't very good at building ships. They tended to fall apart in bad weather, let alone gunfire.
>>47764340
Actually, yes. I was just visiting their national military history museum last week. Nothing really that remarkable on their naval history, but they do have the car and uniform Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in. So THAT'S kind of a thing.
>>47761592
Not a Japanese bote. They never really got their shit together: poor AA schemes, gross mis-allocation of their destroyers, DP guns with slow rates of fire and low maximum elevations, restrictive submarine warfare doctrines, 18in behemoths that couldn't keep up with their carriers, 16in botes that were never substantially updated or supported with new construction, and 14in relics that were rebuilt to keep up with their carriers but that withered under fire. Yeah they built submarines that could carry aircraft and a battleship with a flight deck, but those never actually accomplished anything. It was money well-wasted.
The USN on the other hand churned out 16in battleships that were increasingly capable of keeping up with the fleet carriers, and supported them with ALL OF THE DESTROYERS.
South Dakotas would be a good choice. I'm a sucker for double-ended designs so the Nagato and Mutsu are personal favorites, and the Bismarck and Tirpitz are in a similar position.
>>47775777
http://www combinedfleet com/
neat website about the ww2 jap navy. despite what it might seem like, its not really FOLDED HUNDRED TIMES propaganda and is fairly unbiased.
>>47729531
Imagine the New Mexicos Battleship Division 3 blasting away with 36 14 inch guns!
>>47776098
Read "Shattered Sword", by Parshall and Tully. They go into this at length. It's a combination of a whole LOT of factors - doctrinal, cultural, technical, and sheer stubborn stupidity.
>>47779998
Seconding recommendation.
>>47779998
Can confirm this is a good book.
