I'm Kenny Libben, been with the Buckeye Battle Squadron for 5 years now? wow, i didn't think it was that long. Anywho i haven't battled much, ship problems and i'm not very technical with this stuff so i really only work on boats at build sessions. Used to sail the USS Augusta then i saw the light and joined the IJN with a Kumano. Im technically a member of Treaty Combat although i have no plans to build a ship in it (for the time being), i think they just invited me so i would help promote them (but dont tell them i know that, haha []) Anywho, yeah... I'm in college and my summer job is hard to take off of for weekends, so i dont do much in the season...but i'm always looking for the latest news and always eager to get some footage to edit.
WELCOME to the R/C Naval Combat Forum! I'm sure you'll love it here, it is filled with 71 great people!
I doubt "they" want you to just promote their format. Personally, I'd love to have an IJN Kumano to shoot at. My ships are all currently configured for fast gun, but I'm hoping to be able to quickly switch back and forth between the two formats. My Invincible, I'm planning on a simple prop-swap to get on speed for Treaty, and keep my fast gun props set for fast gun speeds. I'm undecided about how to best slow down my pump capacity at the moment. There have been some good ideas kicked around that I'm going to look into. Other then speed (and with a Kumano, you're actually REALLY close to being on speed for both formats) and pump capacity (depending on your pump you might be good to go already) there isn't very much difference between the two formats unless you have a crazy high rate of fire...but even that is a matter of self control... Mike D
no, i was just joking about the promoting part. Yeah, Kumano shouldn't be too far off but i'm not sure how much i'll batter in either format this year.... although the convoy i'm working on should be able to go in both formats perfectly fine and if so i will take it to any battles i attend for either format.
well i cant go into the specifics yet .... but all i can say is that if i can afford the budget and skill to have it operational anytime soon .... have fun shooting at it. I just pray to god you dont hit it.... I still have my doubts about its success as a working model, but then again nothing works when i build it...
Hello I'm scratch building a sharnhorst.I have the hull done and I installed the stufing tubes (twice) first for the two out side shafts to rotate and 2nd for only the center shaft to rotate. I was going with dual stern cannons and a dual rotating bow cannon but after rereading the rules for the 10th time I seen what was naging at me about my setup. the 2 forword rotating cannons can't be in the same turret!!! So I think I'll go with one fixed in each turret up front. My next task will be rudders. I would be happy to listen to any and all advice for I have found humility
oh yea my name is steve 40 yearold kid married I'm in corona Ca. I've never battled or belonged to a battlers club but I'm about too.
Welcome, Steve. I have a 1/144 Gneisenau myself, fine looking ships. I drive the center prop and the other two are for drag. Feel free to post questions on the forums here, there are a lot of experienced people who love to talk
I've been reading MWC rules justin. what other rulesets are there to choose from in my area? Hey tugboat or anybody with one of these ships how do you have your rudders setup? I was thinking about how it looks like if they were angled the way my planes show there would be a twisting affect on the hull that would counter the roll you get from turning? Is this signifigant or even noticable? And if so is it worth the trouble of trying to do this with so little room in the stern. (I don't want to over complicate things)
I mounted mine straight up and down, because the gears I'm using don't like a lot of misalignment. I don't get a lot of roll in turns because I have my batteries very low in the hull. Scharnies have plenty of freeboard, so I wouldn't go crazy angling the rudders just to reduce what roll there is. I would definately use a high-torque servo for the rudders (one with metal gears) so that you have full rudder control at ahead flank
Not sure where you are in CA... but there are also Big Gun groups available. Check the club finder: http://www.rcnavalcombat.com/rcnavalcombat/localClubs/ Scharnhorst MWC Units: 5 Ships over 720': These ships may carry a maximum of three sidemount cannons with a maximum of two firing cannons covering a specific side. When two cannons are firing into the same quadrant, they must be in separate turrets. All quadrants may be covered. ------ Ugggg... That's aweful! "Separate turrets!" Wonder why they decided on that! ?? Well you can just have both front turrets rotate... To be honest however, most MWC members have fixed their cannons. My NJ cannons will rotate, but Iowas are not bound by the above rule... Their rule is hokey too, but not quite as bad: Iowa MWC Units: 8 Yamato, Iowa, Richelieu, Vanguard, and Rodney classes: These ships may carry a maximum of four sidemount cannons with a maximum of two firing cannons covering any specific side. When two cannons are firing into the same quadrant, they may be mounted in a single turret. All quadrants may be covered.
SRK, there are four different Model Warship Combat clubs in California, using two different rulesets. The Big Gun clubs are the South Coast Battle Group (Los Angeles) and the Western Warship Combat Club (San Jose, my club). The Fast Gun clubs are the Southern California Rapid Attack Patrol (SCRAP, also in Los Angeles) and the Cal-Neva Combat Club (recently lost its pond near Sacramento, currently battling near Reno). Looks like you are near Los Angeles, so you get to choose which ruleset you want. Personally I would recommend the South Coast Battle Group. I skippered a Big Gun Scharnhorst, and it was a ferocious beast of a battleship. That, and every now and then the WWCC and SCBG visit each other for inter-club competition, and I'd love the chance to sink... er, meet you
Depends on what your definition of battleship is Scharnies have 11" main guns, as did many BB's active during the war, and they had armor built to BB standards (i.e. to resist the weapons they employed)... I say they are Of course, opinions are like...
LOL They are absolutely battleships. The British are the only ones who called them battlecruisers; and since they even called the Vanguard a "fully armoured battlecruiser" their definition seems to rely solely on speed. Mike D
No contest about the armor, no question about the speed... I contest the caliber. Name another WWII "super dreadnaught" with 11" mains. INFACT, according to the warship registry database (which is not necessarily complete)... There are only 4 "battleships / dreadnoughts / predreadnoughts" with 11" main guns: Erzherzog Karl (1906) Sverige (1917) Westfalen (1909) Deutschland (1906) --> Not WWII "pocket battleship" I say the Scharny is a BC because in 1939 when she was commissioned her guns were severly out matched by every other WWII battleship. Moreover, I think the next smallest gun to be used on a WWII Battleship is KGV with her 14". To gain speed you must sacrifice weight, the british lost weight by removing armor... The scharny lost weight by diminuishing her guns (actually BB guns were just not available at the time...)
Deutschland was a WW2 pocket battleship ... your just looking at the wrong one. try the one commissioned in '33, later renamed Lutzow as Hitler feared the loss of a ship that bearing the namesake of the fatherland would damage morale.
the ship JS is talking about is here http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/pre-dreadnought/sms-deutschland.html wiltch was completed October 1906 in 1906 like he said and it had 11" guns' and 2 of its sister ships served in ww2. Now about the scharnhorst i do agree that she was lacking in arrment but the gremans classed her as a BB and so dose every book that i can think of at the moment. the only place i have seen her classed as a BC is on the MWC website.
