Which Navy?

Discuss the Victory at Sea range of naval games.

Moderator: rcbecker1

Which Fleet Will You Play?

The Royal Navy
26
32%
The Kreigsmarine
11
14%
The US Navy
20
25%
Imperial Japanese Navy
14
17%
The Italian Navy
6
7%
The French Navy
4
5%
 
Total votes: 81
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:56 am

Depends which ones you talk to I guess. There is a lovely model of "S" at the German Navy Damage Control School, and they described her as a "battlecruiser" (which is also how she is listed in the rules), and they dropped the "G" in "G" :)

To be honest, by the time of WW2 (and probably a lot earlier) the clear distinction between battlecruiser and battleship had largely disappeared, with everything lumped into the more steely "battleship" category (at least until the Alaskas came along :) )
admiral_tee
Shrew
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:58 am

Postby admiral_tee » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:51 am

DM wrote:Depends which ones you talk to I guess. There is a lovely model of "S" at the German Navy Damage Control School, and they described her as a "battlecruiser" (which is also how she is listed in the rules), and they dropped the "G" in "G" :)

To be honest, by the time of WW2 (and probably a lot earlier) the clear distinction between battlecruiser and battleship had largely disappeared, with everything lumped into the more steely "battleship" category (at least until the Alaskas came along :) )
Yeah, thats true.
The 2 main distinctions became BB and fast BB.
Idea of a lighter armoured and faster cap' ship became less of an issue, as once BB's reached speeds of 28+ knots it became a horrendously more expensive excercise to produce modern well armed 'BC's that were 'worth' it.

The Dunkerque and Alaska were really the last BC's (and even then she was officially classed as a CH by the USN). Building a new BC to reach speed in excess of 32+kn (of which Renown, Repulse, Hood could JUST) became a ever increasing engineering "greater expenditure and diminishing returns" scenario...

I mean, could you imagine the cost of building a BC version of the Iowa? Wouldnt have worth it. The BC was eclisped by the Fast BB.

Going back to Scharnhorst now.
This class does not fit the true Beaty definition of a BC, and after all, this class was primarily a love child of his.
She was armoured on the scale of a BB, and i hope in VaS she is reflected so. Parts of her belt and deck were better amoured than Bismarck. Although overall she wasn't as well protected as Bismarck was.

Ahh, its always a compromise in loving Naval History, yet also being a historical gamer. You gotta grit your teeth sometimes.

tee out
User avatar
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:52 pm

I think the official designation for the Alaskas was that of "CB" or "Large Cruiser" but we all know of course it was a battlecruiser. As far as cost, they were almost as much to build as an Iowa, and the 12" guns were purpose-built for the class (and more expensive than the triple 16" turret). They are however one of the designs that I have been drawn to for favorite ships to like. Yes admiral_tee the lines of Scharnhorst are indeed very nice, and the two ships would have benifitted from being upgunned to 6x15" guns had that happened. Maybe a proper definition of Scharnhorst might be that of fast battleship than calling it a BC, but they did make great commerce raiders. Just ask their victims... :wink:
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:38 pm

The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were visually appealing designs. They were incredibly “wet” ships. This became apparent almost immediately after they were put in service and they had their bows modified. However, this problem was something that remained with them their whole lives and they required extensive maintenance as a result of their operations. Also their machinery was very prone to breaking down. It is important to remember that they were still very much experimental designs.

Just a side note. They were not designed or seen as “battlecruisers” by the Kriegsmarine at the time. The word itself is not used as such.
admiral_tee
Shrew
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:58 am

Postby admiral_tee » Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:48 am

Jellicoe wrote:The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were visually appealing designs. They were incredibly “wet” ships. This became apparent almost immediately after they were put in service and they had their bows modified. However, this problem was something that remained with them their whole lives and they required extensive maintenance as a result of their operations. Also their machinery was very prone to breaking down. It is important to remember that they were still very much experimental designs.

Just a side note. They were not designed or seen as “battlecruisers” by the Kriegsmarine at the time. The word itself is not used as such.
Yes, they were very wet ships.
The Iowa's also suffered from being rather 'wet' as well.
'A' turret was often awash in both ships.

And, when i am away from my book, I always get confused as to the US official designation of the Alaskas'.
lol CH, CB is right!

tee out
oggie x
Stoat
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:02 pm
Location: Birmingham

Postby oggie x » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:05 am

With their final bow modifications the Scharnorst class are easily in my top 5 visually appealing capital ships. Had they been upgunned to 15" they would have indeed been far better ships. Their 11" guns meant that they were restricted really to commerce raider duties as in a sea battle they were very likely to be outmatched by the larger gun battleships and would be forced to try and make a run for it. I think that is what happened at North Cape 1943 were the Scharnorst was lost.

So only being restricted to commerce raiding meant that they were a waste of resources that probably be better spent on U-boat fleet development. Also being designed to accept the 15" gun meant that the Bismarck class were also tied to this mounting when the Bismarck would probably been better with a 16" main battery.

oggie
"What burns apart from witches"?

"Errrm...........MORE WITCHES"!!!!
admiral_tee
Shrew
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:58 am

Postby admiral_tee » Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:39 am

oggie x wrote:With their final bow modifications the Scharnorst class are easily in my top 5 visually appealing capital ships. Had they been upgunned to 15" they would have indeed been far better ships. Their 11" guns meant that they were restricted really to commerce raider duties as in a sea battle they were very likely to be outmatched by the larger gun battleships and would be forced to try and make a run for it. I think that is what happened at North Cape 1943 were the Scharnorst was lost.

So only being restricted to commerce raiding meant that they were a waste of resources that probably be better spent on U-boat fleet development. Also being designed to accept the 15" gun meant that the Bismarck class were also tied to this mounting when the Bismarck would probably been better with a 16" main battery.

oggie
About the Scharnhorst - i would be very confident in saying that had they had the orders to fight the UK Capital ships, rather than 'flee', they would've been a match for the Revenge class, Renown/Repulse (that one action against the Brit BC's was hampered by their 'flee' orders) and the QE class.
They were faster than the QE and Revenge so could potentially have a tactical advantage, had better optics than both, had longer gun range (possibly a moot point when you consider extreme range accuracy), had more armour than R&R.
Shell spotting RADAR was still in its infancy and proved to be unreliable in anything but semi calm seas...
History is a cruel mistress and shows her to be less of a match for the KGV's, but this was in shocking weather and the UK radar superiority toward the end of the war was instrumental. In a semi clear weather scenario, i would still favour the KGV's but less so. A 11" shell (one that actually exploded :wink: ) would still hurt the UK BB. And S&G were well armoured as similar BB's, as they were BC's as such.

And the Bismarck didnt really need any upgunning to 16" as she was more than capable of penetrating a modern UK BB, as shown when a shell penetrated the PoW heavily armoured bridge.

But, what can i see - i think she would'v been more monstrous with 16"s :lol:
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:23 pm

IIRC the part of PoW's superstructure that was hit was unarmoured. I have a copy of the damage report tucked away at the office somewhere.
admiral_tee
Shrew
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:58 am

Postby admiral_tee » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:07 am

DM wrote:IIRC the part of PoW's superstructure that was hit was unarmoured. I have a copy of the damage report tucked away at the office somewhere.
Yeah, it was the compass platform.
Which is only lightly armoured.
Still, it goes to show that she didnt necessarily need to have bigger guns to inflict serious damage. :wink:
If it wasnt for the threat of torp's in the water, Bismarck and Prinz Eugen wouldve maintained their advantage, as once the compass platform was hit PoW main guns were firing on local control and weren't close to Bismarck.
Also the smokescreen from PoW was helping obscure her.
But Bism and PE turned away after hearing Torps on the GHG (sound locator system) and seeing 2 Torp tracks.
Could've been a more disastrous day for the RN!

Note that i wish to glorify what is a shocking event. :oops:
User avatar
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Postby Reaverman » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:13 pm

Well judging by the opinion poll, tourney's are going to be very interesting. 1/3 of the competitors are going to be RN, the other third USN, and the remainder being split between the other fleets.
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!
Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:56 pm

Reaverman wrote:Well judging by the opinion poll, tourney's are going to be very interesting. 1/3 of the competitors are going to be RN, the other third USN, and the remainder being split between the other fleets.
What possibilities are there going to be to mix fleets, e.g. combined RN and USN squadrons?
User avatar
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Postby Lord David the Denied » Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:56 pm

Something to remember, though, is that people are likely to get more than one fleet. For me it'd be RN and then Kriegsmarine, so if I went to a tournament I'd have either option. I expect most players will buy two fleets at least.
Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:01 pm

Lord David the Denied wrote:Something to remember, though, is that people are likely to get more than one fleet. For me it'd be RN and then Kriegsmarine, so if I went to a tournament I'd have either option. I expect most players will buy two fleets at least.
Quite so and as the models are relatively reasonable its affordable to do that.
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:32 pm

Jellicoe wrote:
Reaverman wrote:Well judging by the opinion poll, tourney's are going to be very interesting. 1/3 of the competitors are going to be RN, the other third USN, and the remainder being split between the other fleets.
What possibilities are there going to be to mix fleets, e.g. combined RN and USN squadrons?
No possibility in the official list, but who can keep you to mix up the fleet list of the allies???
:D
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image
User avatar
E Nicely
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1288
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Euless, TX
Contact:

Postby E Nicely » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:33 am

Lord David the Denied wrote:Something to remember, though, is that people are likely to get more than one fleet. For me it'd be RN and then Kriegsmarine, so if I went to a tournament I'd have either option. I expect most players will buy two fleets at least.
I'm playing IJN as my primary fleet, USN because,uh, I'm American. I'll probably pick up some German stuff (like a large number of submarines :twisted: ) just for something different to play.
Project Lead and Contributing Designer, VaS Order of Battle
Mongoose Playtester
User avatar
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:18 am

As an example of never selling off any of my old collections (which friends of mine have done), I own the bulk of the US Pacific Fleet and Imperial Japanese Fleet in two scales (1/1200 and 1/2400), mounted and painted :wink: . How could I use the tag of BuShips here and elsewhere and not have had the ships to prove it, heh.
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
User avatar
Captain Kremmen
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Reading England

Postby Captain Kremmen » Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:18 pm

His Majesty's Royal Navy for me too. What true Limey could play otherwise....

K
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:47 pm

How's Karla these days? :D
Davesaint
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:53 pm
Location: Lake Villa, IL

Postby Davesaint » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:26 pm

msprange wrote:
Wulf Corbett wrote: You might be as appalled as I was to hear that originally the book would include the French, but no Italians, to save space... :shock:
What can I say? I had a French girlfriend at the time. . .
That explains alot. ;)
User avatar
Captain Kremmen
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Reading England

Postby Captain Kremmen » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:49 pm

DM wrote:How's Karla these days? :D
Voluptuous as ever.....

What a lucky Captain I am

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests