Thread 64470671

2x3 is the most aesthetic.
What's your favorite turret layout?

>>64470671 (OP)
Tone, because it's silly

>>64470671 (OP)
3x3 or 4x3.

>>64470671 (OP)
>Spee
WWI outside the Trenches was all one giant Indiana Jones movie. Fucking wild shit and barely anyone knows it happened.

Sometimes I have thoughts of stuff like how enemies pronounced each others ships.
Like an American saying "Tony" for >>64470720, or a Japanese guy having to try to say "Colorado". Aircraft had code names for simplicity but I don't know if ships did.

>>64470671 (OP)
1x4+2x3

But I spend most of my time thinking about design concepts that the real world was too cowardly to pursue, like large light cruisers or battle lines formed of fast pseudo-protected cruisers with a single battleship grade gun and a few light guns for destroyers, backed by fairly normalish fast armored cruisers with 8 inch main battery for wrecking destroyers.

>>64470975
ever heard of the wargame "trench crusade"?

your point is EXACTLY what gets on my tits about it. Oh, its grim dark darkness of dark grimness trenches bullshit ramped up to 11. and its just so fucking shallow.
the rest of WW1 is incredible. Alpine warfare in Italy with climbers with ropes and rifles, the whole lawrence of arabia stuff and arab uprising against the Ottoman Turks - Mesopotamia and the likes. you had Spee and his sorties the submarine war, the balkan fronts, the african parts. and some fucking game goes "oh yes, WW1. that's just mud and trenches in europe".

its so fucking lazy.

>>64471129
I always pronounce Tone like I'm Chris in the Sopranos

>>64471170
Yeah, they usually have a hard time making WWI games because they only want to focus on what people know, and people only know the trenches. And the trenches were miserable and not fun at all, you can't make a game out of it no matter how hard you try. The only one that's come close was Battlefield 1 and that's because it's more of a WWI-inspired fever dream than an accurate depiction.

Every other theatre of WWI however was a batshit crazy adventure out of a novel, focusing in on any of them would yield some pretty crazy results.

>>64471152
Play RtW

>>64471313
>BF1
I'm still mad that they nerfed the grenade spam. That combined with how fast medics could revive a group made for the best damned microcosm loop of being stuck in a chokepoint exploding over and over again.

>>64470671 (OP)
One.

>>64471170
Trench Crusade was made by libtards based entirely on the excellent artwork of a single slav from Artstation. You can't expect these retards to make a compelling setting when they have zero passion for it and don't even seem to like the implications of grimdark. 40k began with Rogue Trader, goofy over the top swashbuckling hijinks are not alien to grimdark. You could have all sorts of crazy stories about a demon possessed Spee running the navies of world a merry chase across the seven seas while doing fucked up shit. Or missionary soldiers trying to stir up a new Christianized Khanate to throw at the demonic hordes, kind of like what happened in the Russian Civil War but not a massive failure. Or just massive trains and landships which are mobile fortresses that transport fuck huge cavalry forces around like the Eastern Front. Crazy riverine wars with inland monitors.

>>64471318
I have. RTW is terrible for building anything not pretty normal IRL. For example, doing a 1x heavy gun light cruiser like I describe is only possible by dressing it up as a protected cruiser so the AI will accept it as a valid ship type, and that compromises the design critically by requiring things like (from memory) casemate secondaries.

This sort of thing is true in general for any non-vanilla IRL ship concept you'd ever want to try. The admiralty's conservativeness isn't modifiable enough and they're way too strict with ship designs. I can be a successful admiral that's won every battle against all odds with unconventional ideas, only to have every extension of those ideas flatly rejected by them.

9 guns all forward

just seems nicely balanced.

this is what USN should get if they, or someone else, really wants "shore bombardment".

155mm/6' is the Goldlocks size for reasons, and range of today's 6' would do for WTF shore bombardment is really about, dominating the first few miles inland, and 12 fast firing 6' makes more sense than 9 very slow firing 16".

At least an old light cruiser would also be expendable.

>>64471510
Why not 203mm/8in?

>>64471519
6in is man-portable. Less machinery needed to work it. 8in is kind of man portable, but the crew would get tired out quick as fuck so usually ends up using the machinery anyway.

>>64471519
because there is only one post war fast firing 8" cruiser, which would be ideal.

Never saw action so should be cherry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines-class_cruiser

they say it could pump out more tons per hour than a battleship, due to fast firing guns.

but 155mm is still too big for most targets.

>>64471564
Mark 16:
130 lb (59 kg) armor-piercing Mark 35 (super heavy)
105 lb (48 kg) HC (high capacity) Mark 34/39
I think 5in (55lb) is the limit where you can manually load the shells realistically, 105lb is too much for prolonged action and 8in (335lb AP/260lb HE) is not possible without some kind of machinery, besides, the 8in got autoloaders late in the war, much faster than manual loading.

>>64471313
nah Verdun was really cool, until it emptied out and they added bots to compensate.

>>64471510
>155mm/6' is the Goldlocks size for reason
The reason is man portability for field artillery, mostly.

>>64470671 (OP)
7x2
It's heroically daft and I love it

>>64470671 (OP)
>What's your favorite turret layout?
2x4.

>>64470671 (OP)
>What's your favorite turret layout?
3x2 AB-Y

>>64471655
>for field artillery
It's still useful for shipboard guns because to this day warships use ammo parties to sustain a high rate of fire

>>64471510
>6 feet

>>64470671 (OP)
>What's your favorite turret layout?
yes.

>>64471369
> made by libtards

Oh fuck off with your political bullshit being inserted into every single goddamn thing.
No one fucking cares what you think about "libtards"

>>64470671 (OP)
5x3 with a Q/R turret, but since that didn't happen 5x2 is the best I can get.
Anything under 5 turrets isn't a battleship, and anything under 4 turrets barely qualifies as a battlecruiser.
2-A-1 is the most unaesthetic arrangement for main battery guns.

>>64470671 (OP)
A single fixed 300mm rotary cannon on the port side pointed towards the bow. 7x2 800mm carronades on starboard in quick-traversing mounts.

>>64472948
luv me neutrality stripes

>look up the book Mimi and Toutou Go Forth

HMS Mimi and HMS Toutou were motor launches of the Royal Navy. After undergoing an unusual journey from Britain to Lake Tanganyika in the interior of Africa, the ships played an important role in the African naval struggle between Britain and Germany during World War I. The names mean Meow and Fido in Parisian slang. They had originally been named Dog and Cat by their erstwhile commander, Geoffrey Spicer-Simson, only to have the names rejected by an apparently scandalized Admiralty.

It took nearly a month and a half to travel the 100 or more miles from Fungurume to Sankisia, the railhead for a narrow-gauge railway. The terrain in between was mountainous and broken, requiring the construction of 150 bridges over various streams and gorges. The movement was accomplished by the brute force of two steam tractors, dozens of oxen, and hundreds of Africans employed for the expedition. At some points, even this was not enough, and complex winching systems were developed to lever the ships over the more formidable inclines. Even after the railroad was reached, the difficulties continued, as there were still some 500 miles to go. Streams which Spicer-Simson had depended on for navigation turned out to be nearly dry: the ships had to be raised on barrel rafts to float, and even then they had to be portaged dozens of times. Finally, however, the wearied expedition arrived at Lake Tanganyika on 26 October.

Mimi and Toutou were finally launched around the end of December, and by 26 December they experienced their first action. The German ship Kingani was sighted, and the allied "fleet" gave chase. In the lead of the formation was Mimi, commanded by Spicer-Simson. After evading the initial German fire, Mimi and Toutou opened fire at noon, eventually puncturing Kingani's hull below the waterline. With water coming in and the commander dead, the German ship struck her colours.

>>64471510
The Cleveland class was a step down from the Brooklyn.

>>64470671 (OP)
Wing turrets are my favorite.

>>64470671 (OP)
2x2 but en echelon

>>64475068
Different angle

>>64470671 (OP)
4x3 or 4x2 light cruisers with secondary guns almost as big as the main guns are a vibe

>>64470671 (OP)
Whenever I'm able to make custom ships in games I always go for something that looks like the french quad 380mms in an ab-xyz layout.

>>64477187
>ab-xyz
Amateur.

>>64471510
With extreme extended range munitions 6" sacrifices a lot of of payload to just kinda a be a more expense, less capable Tomahawk.

I personally think 200-240mm is more a goldilocks caliber for this purpose. It leaves you with more explosive filler after you've taken up volume with extended range tricks and guidance.

With that said, the USMC 75nm requirement is kinda silly.

Beep beep motherfuckers

I want 3x3 16in and I want them all in the front so I can look my enemy in the eye as I sink his shitty ship.

>>64470975
>>64471170
Feed me amazing happenings from WW1. I'm fine with basic shit I can read up in detail later.

>>64477323
Read up on the Battle of Tanga.

Triples over doubles are kino

>>64477202
So you don't understand mass nor buoyancy at all.

>>64472074
I love these dumbass little secondaries on the back like it was a pre-dread.
fr*nch retardation is truely something special and precious in this world.

>>64478939
I feel like the Richelieu gun plan entirely reflects how the French want to believe they'll fight, rather than reflects how they will actually fight. Charge in with elan and what will be will be.

>>64470720
Do not call my shipfu 'silly'.
She has very nice aviation facilities.

Why didn't the Grand Fleet annihilate the High Seas Fleet at Jutland?

>>64482579
shit shells and awful communication

>>64482579

didn't the germans have either better armour or guns?

>>64482648
brits definitely outgunned the germans, both in terms of number of guns as well as the size of those guns
germany wouldn't commission anything bigger than 12" until after Jutland, whereas the RN showed up with a shitton of 15" and 13.5" guns
problem was (iirc) that their AP shells had a tendency to explode on contact instead of after punching through the armour
and to add insult to injury, some of the (more spectacular) british losses were down to things like leaving blast doors open to increase reload speed to compensate for lack of gunnery training, and their battlecruisers being more designed around the cruising than (the line of) battle (and vice versa for germany)

>>64482648
Germans mostly used 12" guns but due to their superior metallurgy their gun performance actually matched or exceeded British 13.5" and even 15" guns.

>>64480477
>No quintenary or senary gun batteries
Pathétique

>>64482579
experience from Doggerbank battle
turret hatches open
ammunition fires spread
cold blooded Willhelm Heidkamp to open the flooding valves in the ammo chamber
valves, glowing red from the heat of the fire, with his bare hands

not only he saved sms seydlitz, but the germans knew now, men flee fire and so they bolted all hatches shut in the turret system where fires can spread

brits didnt know till end war because all ships with turret fires blew up, no survivors who could tell.


picrel

>>64482579
Beatty

>>64478939
Those are dual-purpose guns. Every battleship of that era had them. They are used for engaging air and surface targets. Dreadnought-era battleships typically carried their secondaries in casemate mountings, which rendered them incapable of sufficient elevation to be used effectively against aircraft. Dual purpose guns were intended to be used for long-range protection from aircraft, and as interdiction weapons against smaller, faster surface targets that the main guns were less suited to engage. They are also capable of depressing farther than the main guns, allowing the battleship to engage enemies that were too close to be engaged with the main guns.

>>64470720
>Word to the wise Tone, rememba Pearl Harbor

>>64470671 (OP)
4x3, combination of high volume of firepower with a balanced turret layout that doesn't compromise firing arcs or have an excessive amount of turrets.
>>64472686
Your mask is slipping. If the falloff in engagement with it is any indicator, apparently people do care in spite of your insistence that they don't.
Moreover, the fundamental problems related to the project mentioned by the other anons are at least partially tied to the creators' politics.
>>64477202
What game? I forgot the name of it and I'll be getting a decent PC soon.

>>64472686
>hire DEI donkeys who don't do shit because fuck the patriarchy
>their work output and quality are far from justifying their salary
>game price-content ratio is fucked into the shitter
>ram their gender bender nonsense into wherever they can
>game releases
>fans hate the gameplay
>WHY MUST YOU INJECT YOUR POLITICS INTO EVERYTHING!!1! YOUR BEIN HATEFUL N HOMEOPATHIC!!1!
ishygddt

What would make for a good merchant raider?

Tower-type secondary gun turrets have large openings in the horizontal armor, which raises concerns (the blast from a 1,000-pound bomb blew into the rear secondary gun magazine on the Yamato).

>>64487248
Different anon, but it's ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts.
Do yourself a favor and install the Dreadnought Improvement Project, games a bit of a mess.

>>64487414
>Dreadnought Improvement Project
Should have call it 'Super-Dreadnought Project'.

>>64487284
>What would make for a good merchant raider?
A submarine

But if you want a fun answer, imagine if the Countys had carried 11" guns...

>>64487488
>A submarine
Deep down in my heart I know it's true, but still...

>>64487506
The Deutschlands were pretty decent, all said and done

>>64470720
you talk a lot of shit for someone in floatplane range

3x3 obviously. Aesthetic and firepower in a perfect balance.

>>64487284
hear me out
>something in the cruiser/destroyer grey zone to reduce cost/manpower compared to capital ships, with the added bonus of the ability to build more of them in smaller yards
>lots of power to make it fast enough to outrun cruisers (big engines also means a long ship, long ships go fast, long ships carry more fuel so we got range covered)
>guns somewhere in the 5-6" range, we're tackling cargo ships and destroyers after all, larger opposition and we'll run, if possible make them DP
basically an Abdiel but bigger guns and more fuel

VGH...

>>64487978
Sounds like a Spähkreuzer.
https://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/destroyer/spahkreuzer/index.html

>>64487990
well bugger me, Jerry beat me to it

>>64487978
>basically an Abdiel
With zero armour you would be better off using auxiliary cruisers like Kormoran and Atlantis; it's less sunk cost (literally) because you will be blown apart in short order by any armed merchantmen or convoy escorts

If you want to threaten escorted convoys you need something at least the size of a Deutschlands, which are almost like cut-down ww1 battlecruisers or very heavy cruisers. That will give you the ability to kill merchant ships with impunity and also manage to kill 1 or 2 escorts.
(Bet's entirely off if you run into 3 cruisers and Henry Harwood, of course)

The Allies fielded some pretty tough escort cruisers. And you can't just slap an 8" or 11" on a big destroyer and call it a day.

>>64488035
you make good arguments, but I have already decided that my idea is brilliant and as your Führer I will make it your job to make my plan work
I will give you command over 3 spahkreuzers to destroy an incoming convoy, how do you proceed?
assume it is a fairly 'standard' kind of convoy, and the convoy is being shadowed by another spahkreuzer

>>64488129
Zu befehl mein Fuehrer.
We will coordinate with a Uboat pack. The cruisers attack from the far side, that is, the side farthest from friendly land. The Uboats will position on the inshore side, the side nearer to the Allied coast. Formation is classic line astern with clearly allotted fields of fire. Just do figure eights in and out of the convoy. Focus fire on each target, destroy it, then move on.
Eventually the convoy survivors will scatter, hopefully away from the cruisers and towards Allied territory. That is when the Uboats mop up.

E.g. if we're attacking an Atlantic convoy near the Western Approaches, the cruisers strike from the west, Uboats are positioned east.

>>64487284
A Carrier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier

>>64488235
Merchant ships and their escorts potentially carried heavy close-in AA armament, enough to make MAC raiders infeasible. Also they would only be able to attack by day.

>>64488308
For a Convoy that may be true (and that depends mostly on the nation you're raiding), but for individual merchant ships, having the range and striking capacity of an air wing, regardless of it's size, would do considerable work in choking off shipping lane traffic and redirecting actual warships from where they're needed most.

>>64488363
In that scenario is the MAC Carrier defending or attacking a convoy?
If attacking, its bombers are at risk of being shot down by AA and then the MAC has to go home

>>64488388
Attacking; the risk for the attacking aircraft being shot down by the escorts isn't substantially different from the risk that a Sub or Raiding Cruiser would face in engaging a convoy head-on. Moreover, since the MAC isn't risking itself in such an engagement, the fact that it can go home and resupply is another point in it's favor.
Also, you do realize that stafing the merchants/escorts by those bombers and the fighter escort would cause pretty significant damage on their own, right? Losing bombers wouldn't neuter their attacking capability entirely.

>>64488219
Ah, ein güt oldfashioned treibjagd, very clever.
We shall organize a diversionary raid on the British east coast to lure away any responders to the convoy, perhaps even diverting outgoing convoys into our little trap!

>>64488420
>the risk for the attacking aircraft being shot down by the escorts isn't substantially different from the risk that a Sub or Raiding Cruiser would face in engaging a convoy head-on
It is though
Light AA is very effective and very cheap, whereas a much greater investment is needed to get the kind of guns that would do more than annoy a cruiser. Merchant ships can get in veritable batteries of 50 cal and 20mm, but 6" guns are much more scarce.
>go home and resupply
And hence transit times would reduce the effectiveness of the MAC Carrier, and make it vulnerable to being intercepted by defending cruisers.

Raiders armed with big ship-killing guns of at least 4", maybe higher calibre to deal with escorts, is the most efficient option. Even more efficient than torpedoes actually, which is why WW2 submarines carried deck guns.

>>64488423
>treibjagd
Sort of, yes.
A combination of the most deadly tactics used in the Pacific and Atlantic.

A few years ago the Royal Canadian navy repainted the HMCS Regina to celebrate the battle of Atlantic and now I wish that some Canadian warships would keep the paint

>>64488588
Now all warships are painted gray.

>>64488634
some of the River class got dazzled a while back
not what you'd call warships but it's a start

>>64470671 (OP)
for me its the derpy one with the ship funnel stuck on it

>>64471325
Monitors are cool.