What minis are you going to use?

Discuss the Victory at Sea range of naval games.

Moderator: rcbecker1

Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:57 am

DM wrote:G3 and N3 are amongst the planned ships for the RN "What If?" project, which will also include the Malta class carriers, Lion class battleships, ronstructed Hood, etc. To be honest I should have done it already but "real life" is intruding at the moment :(
Well there is no rush we don't need everything at once as as long as it is in the pipeline.

Virtual naval history is fine, but it should not be taken to extremes too much. It would have taken many years to design and build a German H Class battleship, by which time the inevitable war would have broken out and prevented their completion. The the follow-up designs were so far fetched and in most cases not even wanted by the Kriegsmarine owing to their sheer scale. To quote Master Yoda "size matters not". There are limits to the practicability of large designs. Still good fun to speculate.
oggie x
Stoat
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:02 pm
Location: Birmingham

Postby oggie x » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:40 pm

Though maybe a one off game with one of these "possible" ships may be good, they could prove unbalenced if taken to extremes. I would be far more comfortable playing with those ships that had a realistic chance of being completed e.g. the 3rd Yamato and the Jean Bart.

oggie
"What burns apart from witches"?

"Errrm...........MORE WITCHES"!!!!
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 Oct 22, 2006 3:49 pm

DM wrote:G3 and N3 are amongst the planned ships for the RN "What If?" project, which will also include the Malta class carriers, Lion class battleships, ronstructed Hood, etc. To be honest I should have done it already but "real life" is intruding at the moment :(
Excellent. 8)
Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:12 pm

oggie x wrote:Though maybe a one off game with one of these "possible" ships may be good, they could prove unbalenced if taken to extremes. I would be far more comfortable playing with those ships that had a realistic chance of being completed e.g. the 3rd Yamato and the Jean Bart.

oggie
The third Yamato did exist .. as a carrier :)
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:18 am

Jellicoe wrote:
oggie x wrote:Though maybe a one off game with one of these "possible" ships may be good, they could prove unbalenced if taken to extremes. I would be far more comfortable playing with those ships that had a realistic chance of being completed e.g. the 3rd Yamato and the Jean Bart.

oggie
The third Yamato did exist .. as a carrier :)
I have a suggestion for the name of the what-if rulebook-
VaS: Armageddon :lol: Hey, if the shoe fits... right? :wink:

One of my favorite things to study, years ago was the ships that were planned and even being constucted before the Washington Treaty of 1922 stopped them cold. Add to that the even larger ships planned years later armed with 20-in. guns (H-class, super Yamato, etc.).
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
Wulf Corbett
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:19 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Wulf Corbett » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:58 am

Does anyone have the new URL for Navwar? I just realised I only have the old one, not their own.

(As a brief explanation to those not used to Navwar, they only just reached the 20th century, and barely admit the existance of electricity... their old website was actually maintained by, I was told, their lawyer, who figured they should have SOME internet presence! You still had to post or phone in an order. The NEW website is at least hosted by Navwar themselves, although I don't know it's improved any...)

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

Postby DM » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:01 am

www.navwar.co.uk

Good to see that they are responsible for their own website now. It will avoid the problems they had (or rather that they caused) in previous years.
Last edited by DM on Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wulf Corbett
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:19 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Wulf Corbett » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:04 am

Ah... right... ahem... I knew it was something obscure... :oops:

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

Postby oggie x » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:00 am

Oh yeah sorry. I meant as a battleship, not the carrier with the life expectancy of a cute fluffy bunny....in HELL!!

oggie
"What burns apart from witches"?

"Errrm...........MORE WITCHES"!!!!
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:46 am

To be fair the Shinano wasn't complete. The oft-repeated tale on the internet that "her compartmentalisation hadn't been installed" isn't correct, as this is a fundamental element of the ships structure and isn't added later (I suspect it falls into the same category as "aluminium burning sank the Sheffield"). What is more likely is that her ability to maintain watertight integrity was impaired by (a) the reduced crew, (b) dor and hatch obstruction through the presence of fitting out gear and (c) door / hatch misalignment. The fact that she took 7 hours to sink indicates gradual progessive flooding. Shinano was ordered to transfer from her shipyard to avoid air attack (IIRC the place was targeted by B-29 raids) so it was really a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. And Enwright's attack was heavily supported by luck. Shinano's loss on her transfer voyage was very far from a "dead cert".
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:08 pm

DM wrote:To be fair the Shinano wasn't complete. The oft-repeated tale on the internet that "her compartmentalisation hadn't been installed" isn't correct, as this is a fundamental element of the ships structure and isn't added later (I suspect it falls into the same category as "aluminium burning sank the Sheffield"). What is more likely is that her ability to maintain watertight integrity was impaired by (a) the reduced crew, (b) dor and hatch obstruction through the presence of fitting out gear and (c) door / hatch misalignment. The fact that she took 7 hours to sink indicates gradual progessive flooding. Shinano was ordered to transfer from her shipyard to avoid air attack (IIRC the place was targeted by B-29 raids) so it was really a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. And Enwright's attack was heavily supported by luck. Shinano's loss on her transfer voyage was very far from a "dead cert".
In many naval references, even if it proves out that they were correct but in any case way before the internet existed, it was said that the hatches had not had watertight seals installed into them at the time of the sinking. They were to be added when the ship was fitted out furthur. Some newer books are using additional records from Japanese sources, but as to whether there are new facts that explain the fate of Shinano I do not know. You are correct that the compartmentalisation was installed (that is done when the ship is built as you said), but without watertight door seals it was negated from helping keep the ship afloat.
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
Chernobyl
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4943
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: the part of the US that's still sane

Postby Chernobyl » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:13 pm

GHQ also has a mini of the planned "Montana-Class" Battleship, which was a design to follow the Iowa class. Basically, it was a 4-turret Iowa, but with heavier armor, and slower speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Class
www.epicarmycard.com
For ACTA and E:A resources

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

Postby BuShips » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:17 pm

Chernobyl wrote:GHQ also has a mini of the planned "Montana-Class" Battleship, which was a design to follow the Iowa class. Basically, it was a 4-turret Iowa, but with heavier armor, and slower speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Class
An additional point of trivia was that it was too wide for the Panama Canal locks. Congress was considering also funding widening it those so it and other ships would fit.
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
Chernobyl
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4943
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: the part of the US that's still sane

Postby Chernobyl » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:10 pm

actually, in fact, they had already started work on the new locks...

from wikipedia.org:
Since the 1930s, all of the Canal’s widening studies have determined that the most effective and efficient alternative to enhance Canal capacity is the construction of a third set of locks, with bigger dimensions than those of the locks built in 1914. Thus, in 1939, the United States initiated the construction of locks designed to allow the transit of commercial and war ships, whose dimensions exceeded the size of the existing locks. In 1942, after advancing the excavations significantly, the Americans suspended the third set of locks project due to the outbreak of World War II. In the 1980s, the tripartite commission formed by Panama, Japan, and the United States took up the issue again, and like the Americans in 1939, determined that a third set of locks with larger lock chambers was the most appropriate alternative for increasing Canal capacity. Today, the studies developed by the ACP as part of its Master Plan, with a horizon to the year 2025, confirm that a third set of locks, larger than those existing now, is the most suitable, profitable and environmentally responsible way to increase Canal capacity and allow the Panamanian maritime route to continue to grow.
you can look at the canal using aerial photographs on google maps, and see the locations of the previous excavations - they've since been filled with rainwater.

Chernobyl
www.epicarmycard.com
For ACTA and E:A resources

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

Postby BuShips » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:18 pm

Chernobyl wrote:actually, in fact, they had already started work on the new locks...

...

you can look at the canal using aerial photographs on google maps, and see the locations of the previous excavations - they've since been filled with rainwater.

Chernobyl
Thanks Chernobyl. To add to what you spotted, I heard the other day that Panama is currently constructing that third set of locks. I'll bet they picked the existing water-filled area as a starting point :wink: .
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
Chernobyl
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4943
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: the part of the US that's still sane

Postby Chernobyl » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:26 pm

safe bet :!:
www.epicarmycard.com
For ACTA and E:A resources

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

Postby DM » Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm

fwiw the door seals would probably have been supplied with the doors themselves (they are usually supplied as a single unit), but they usually need alignment to make them fully watertight. A trained crew could have made up the deficiencies through shoring and wedging (I've done this before - good fun, even if you are getting a bit cold and wet), but the level of training and reduced numbers in her crew would have made this effort far more difficult to achieve.

This isn't me doing it, but shows what it can be like!

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/sho ... File.16892

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/sho ... File.17112

Most definitely one of the best courses I've ever done (esp. the firefighting!)
knuckles
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 734
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 1:16 am
Location: Port Moresby - Papua New Guinea

Postby knuckles » Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:33 am

Minis are very hard to get in PNG, mail order tkaes forever and heaps of duty to pay ontop so will probably make my own. scale 1:3000. In searching for dimensions on ships I found this website.

http://www.history.navy.mil/index.html

it may have been posted, I have not read all the threads.

I was looking specifically for dimnesions on the Iowa Class and found this

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usns ... 61cl-d.htm
Mi Pinim big pella natnat na kisim deewy na killim het bilong em!
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:03 am

knuckles wrote:Minis are very hard to get in PNG, mail order tkaes forever and heaps of duty to pay ontop so will probably make my own. scale 1:3000. In searching for dimensions on ships I found this website.

http://www.history.navy.mil/index.html

it may have been posted, I have not read all the threads.

I was looking specifically for dimnesions on the Iowa Class and found this

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usns ... 61cl-d.htm
OK, this is from old memory, so here goes. I didn't peek anywhere. Iowa class. Four ships- Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin (all completed). Two ships, Louisiana and Kentucky not finished. Length overall, 888 ft. Beam (width) of 108 ft. (width of Panama Canal locks is 110 ft.). Standard displacement of 45,000 tons, around 54,000 tons full load (or thereabouts). Main armament is nine 16" /50 cal. guns, 20- 5" dual purpose /38 cal. secondary guns, many 40mm and 20mm AA guns (can't remember #). Speed, 33 kts. Main guns are around 67 feet long, and have a recoil of four feet when fired. Main guns rate of fire, 2 rounds per minute. 16" projectile weight, 2700 lbs., around six feet tall. Propellant, cordite (nitroglycerin soaked in gun cotton). One powder bag, around five feet each in length. Maximum load of five bags iirc. Range, 23 miles, using radar direction (over the horizon). Main belt of armor at 16" thick, hardened armor. Conning tower armor, 24" thick. Crew, I can't remember, but I'll guess around 2,700. How did I do? Score me, guys. Oh, hull numbers are BB-61 (Iowa), BB-62 (New Jersey), BB-63 (Missouri), and BB-64 (Wisconsin). Class to be followed by Montana class (BB-67) of five ships armed with 12-16"/50 cal. guns.
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
knuckles
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 734
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 1:16 am
Location: Port Moresby - Papua New Guinea

Postby knuckles » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:14 am

Very good Bus, most of it as per the link although can I pick you up on LOA is listed as 887 feet not 888 feet, better luck next time. :D
Mi Pinim big pella natnat na kisim deewy na killim het bilong em!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests