Surcouf Class Submarine?
- Thread starter chaos0xomega
- Start date
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
sneaky? I am entirely serious. If they do make it to patrol, I will definitely get 30 of them. If skirmish, maybe 10.... maybe...
So... how are the rules coming along, and when will they become 'official'?
So... how are the rules coming along, and when will they become 'official'?
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Why would you want thirty patrol level units?
chaos0xomega said:
Ok, you are then bringing up a very good point for discussion. Historically, the Surcouf was a one-off unit, even though others were planned originally. So, do we play Victory at Sea with unlimited numbers of a ship design, or try to stay within historical limits? I wouldn't say anyone has a right to restrict you, because then I would never get to use my Alsace battleships or other units that were never actually completed. As for myself, I shall limit any units used to that of something that can be either historically built or planned. If you get your fleet of corsair submarines, then you need to make a secret island base for them, commanded by Nemo of course! :wink:
Captain_Nemo
Mongoose
Secret Island Bases, Yeeesssss. I like it!
You've even inspired me to change my user name
Muahahaha!!!
You've even inspired me to change my user name
Muahahaha!!!
Captain_Nemo said:Secret Island Bases, Yeeesssss. I like it!
You've even inspired me to change my user name
Muahahaha!!!
Oh, that's you! Heh. I guess you really do like the Surcouf, then. :lol: Oh, the second unit of the Surcouf class (had it been built) might have been called the Jules Verne . I thought you might like to know.
Sounds cool, regardless.Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
So, this was a French submarine design that we (the British) recovered after the fall of France and used ourselves? And planned further units of the same class?
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
BuShips said:
Actually, my plan was to say that the blueprints for the original Surcouf were handed over to the Germans whilst she was refueling a German U-boat in long island sound(the crew mutineed against the Brits and Free Fench Navy loyalists aboard and joined the Vichy regime), and the krauts built more of the subs during the war, hence my fleet :twisted:
No, it was a French SUBMARINE that the Brits more or less captured, and then placed under the command of the Free French Navy(with British advisors of course, due to trust issues). The Brits never planned further units, the French did(2 more according to what I read), but the Surcouf ultimately sunk/disappeared, and the designs were more or less abandoned.
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
so...ermmm..... rules? How they coming?
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
No, the SURCOUF rules.
Silly :roll:
Last thing I want to hear right now is that the Surcouf idea was scrapped. Please don't tell me that, please. I just got my rejection letter from MIT, and I could use a real mood lifter.
Silly :roll:
Last thing I want to hear right now is that the Surcouf idea was scrapped. Please don't tell me that, please. I just got my rejection letter from MIT, and I could use a real mood lifter.
chaos0xomega said:
Oh, those rules! Sorry, but you'll need the VaS rules as well to play, eh? (trying to cover my gaff at not reading the question correctly) :wink: .
As additional information that I've been gathering, it's possible that the 8" turret info might need further modification. I'm still trying to confirm this, but several websites (sort of) mention that although the main turret was indeed trainable, it might have only been trainable to the port side. We have already established that it is indeed not a fixed gun mount, but the stats might need to be tweaked to limit the gun's traverse to only 90 degrees to port.
Sorry to hear about your MIT rejection (hey, their loss!)
Fear not, the Surcouf plan is alive and well (and hopefully coming to a copy of S&P soon).
I'm spending tomorrow conducting submarine design reviews (one of our sub design training courses) so I should be in a good place to access historical design data. There's a chance there is some info there on Surcouf. I'd much rather find something in an old fashioned medium like a reference book thatn on the internet (French design drawings would be a good start )
One thing though - if we decide to do the British X1 we should have no problems. I have copies of the official general arrangement drawings here
Fear not, the Surcouf plan is alive and well (and hopefully coming to a copy of S&P soon).
I'm spending tomorrow conducting submarine design reviews (one of our sub design training courses) so I should be in a good place to access historical design data. There's a chance there is some info there on Surcouf. I'd much rather find something in an old fashioned medium like a reference book thatn on the internet
(French design drawings would be a good start )One thing though - if we decide to do the British X1 we should have no problems. I have copies of the official general arrangement drawings here
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
I know where you can get plans of the Surcouf(1/144 scale or 1/100 scale), the 1/100 cost something like 75 bucks, and the 1/144 are only like 15 american
Just heard from a friend who went to a highly reliable French source re the turret:
Claude Huan (Les Sous-Marins Francais, Marines) states:
(translation) 'The 203mm guns were the same as in the 10,000-tonne cruisers, the angle of elevation was from 0 degrees to 30 degrees, which gave a [theoretical] range of 27,500m and a training arc of 130 degrees on either side of the axis'
He later qualifies the range of the gun by stating that the 4-metre base rangefinder had a maximum effective range of 12,000m.
Claude Huan (Les Sous-Marins Francais, Marines) states:
(translation) 'The 203mm guns were the same as in the 10,000-tonne cruisers, the angle of elevation was from 0 degrees to 30 degrees, which gave a [theoretical] range of 27,500m and a training arc of 130 degrees on either side of the axis'
He later qualifies the range of the gun by stating that the 4-metre base rangefinder had a maximum effective range of 12,000m.
chaos0xomega
Mongoose
Hah, that was a good one. Took me a while to get it, at first I thought you meant that it could sit off the french coast, with it's gun aimed at germany, then turn it a bit to face italy, but i couldn't figure out Japan, as Japan would be behind Italy. Then I thought, maybe he meant the Earth's axis, and then when I was just about to respond, I realized you meant THE Axis.
chaos0xomega said:
Ahh, you got it. Smart fellow, you are. :lol: Those three were the first "Axis of Evil", I suppose. It's interesting that even back then, probably 95% of the population of those countries were not "evil", but rather that a small percentage ran those countries into a world conflict that affected so many others. Good and evil are sometimes just a matter of perspective, as Mongoose points out in the perspectives of the sides of BF:Evo. For instance, Japan was on the allied side in WW1, and received island mandates that gave them powerful strategic bases in the opening phases of WW2 (even though by treaty they weren't supposed to militarise them).
Indeed, one's perspective of "evil" can change quite markedly, as can that of governments (consider the change in stance of the West towards a certain Mr Hussein between the 1960s, even the 1980s, and today). The passage of time also does a lot to lessen the impact of what one today would consider "evil" acts - many historical figures who are revered by wargamers today would be reviled for their atrocities and up before a court in the Hague if they were to do what they did in a contemporary setting.
But I digress - all far too depressing for a Thursday morning.
But I digress - all far too depressing for a Thursday morning.
