Hiya, folks. I've had some thoughts bouncing around in my head, and I think it's about time I let them out to bounce around the internet for a while. Here's what I've been thinking. Most Big Gun clubs suggest that you build ships from 1906 or later. This is all fine and dandy, but big guns on ships had been around for quite a while before that. These pre-dreadnought battleships (mostly) had a fairly uniform main armament of four 12" guns in two twin turrets. And a lot of these pre-dreadnought battleships looked pretty cool, with their pointy ram bows, side-by-side smokestacks, multiple secondary gun-decks, and complex rigging. They're also a little more uniform in size than battleships of later periods. I was also impressed by the idea behind Washington Treaty Combat, of being compatible with other formats with just a few tiny modifications. So I was thinking it'd be pretty cool to build some Big Gun predreadnoughts, with a few minor tweaks on the basic Big Gun rules. 1) armament: all barrels of any ONE caliber of gun, plus torpedoes. Torpedoes carry historical number of reloads. 2) armor: Big Gun standard, regardless of Krupp, Harvey, Steel, Iron, or kevlar-carbonfiber composite. It's still gotta be backwards-compatible with basic Big Gun. 3) speed: re-calculate speed chart to true scale speed, then drop the minimum to twelve knots. Get some variation, so the 18-knot boats go fast, and the 14-knot boats go slow, but fast enough that everyone doesn't get blown away when the wind picks up. 4) ramming: perfectly legal! Ramming was considered a legitimate tactic back then, so most ships had beautiful reinforced ram bows. It'd be a shame not to use them. 5) damage control: One pump at 30 GPH. Gotta keep it low enough that you can sink, even when your opponents only have two twin turrets. The idea is to have a sortie or two of only pre-dreadnoughts early in the morning, then pop the deck and flick a few switches and presto, legal to run in the rest of the day's festivities. So, what do you guys think?
I have been looking into involving Coastal Defence, Turret Ships, Barbette Ships, Broadsides IronClads, Masted Turret ships, Ironclad Ram- these were built just for ramming only. These would be 40 sec or slower ships in Combat X. So far it is looking very good for Combat-X format to utilize these vessels.I have more work to do in this area here but I am making progress. This list falls under the "Battleship" type ranging from the 1800s up to end of WW2. Be very interesting to use in Fast Gun or other formats.
With ramming permitted, what would you think of reducing the allowable impenetrable area at the bow (perhaps to be defined as: the area in front of the furthest forward location that a vertical line can be drawn that reaches from the deck to the bilge). That way somebody initiating the ram is a bit more likely to sustain damage and has a reason to weight the benefits and consequences of using the tactic.
I agree with lowering it, but that is too far, as they arent likely to just sustain damage, they could sink too. If you make it a big annoyance and not a end-all-be-all, then it will be popular and interesting, the reason for implementing it, if im right.
The rammer and ramee would both suffer damage. When Camperdown rammed Victoria both vessels were nearly lost. Admittedly under battle conditions both would have had their watertight doors closed.
The other thing I'm considering is the fact that, with sturdy 1/8" and 3/32" armor, it'll take a LOT to inflict ram damage. Even at true scale DSS speed, a 16-knot battleship won't be going all that fast. Heck, the screaming-fast 18- and 19-knot boats will take 30 seconds to travel 100 feet, and these aren't particularly heavy ships, either. Unless you've got a lightsaber duct-taped to your ram bow, the most damage you'll inflict is a dent and maybe scratched paint. Allowing ramming is more a way to shut people up about the inevitable collisions that occur during close-range fighting than it is a way to sink ships. And if it DOES get out of hand, I can just put a no-ramming clause in.
Maybe it'll take a lot to punch thru full-strength armor... but what about after you've had some time to put in a bunch of holes? I expect it wouldn't take much then So the ram wouldn't be a first-sortie war-winner, but could be more of a factor when one is low on ammo later
I remember reading that the Russians (I think) conducted ramming tests and concluded that a combat ram was unlikely between two ships that were under control and able to manuever. Of course at the combat ranges we use that could be different.
I'd say that if the Russians conducted tests where the ranges got cut to 1/10,000th of normal, they'd find more rams happening
Ah Ramming [}] The slippery slope to all my ideas has begun []. It might take a heavy hit to penetrate belt armor, but here is where more realistic scaling of armor should come into play. I'll admitt that I'm not up to speed on current armor in other rule sets. But under my set, it must be scale thickness in the proper location. In most ships, the armor is not thick near the bow/stern. A ship with a 12" belt may only have a 4-5" strake at the bow (if that). The armor should be weak near the bow, along with a minimum of inpenetrable area at the bow. Ramming another ship should be a calculated risk, especially if your ship is damaged and pumping as well. You should expect a good portion of your forward hull skin to cleaved off in the impact. In fact, under current rules, you might sink your own ship by ramming another. Thats why I added bulkheads to my rules, the number and type based on the actual ship. These bulkheads (which are expendable like the hull skin) can hold back a torrent of water that would overwhelm the pumps. The ship wont sink, but you'll lose speed and freeboard, along with manuverability due to having a waterlogged ship. However, the bulkheads aren't' a cure all, they can be shot with holes and leak, and they are intended to be flimsy, so that excessive pressure from water sloshing (steaming too fast) will cause them to leak or fail. On another note, my bulkheads also provide torpedo protection... even if a scale torp shreds a huge hole, it only opens up one compartment, which means a ship can be crippled but not sunk by one hit. Nearly all countries, not just Russia, eventually came to believe that anyship with propulsion and steering could evade or at least minimize the effect of a ram attack. Uss Katahdin, probably the last purpose built ram, was intended soley to ram crippled ships in the wake of a battle. If you start building predreads with scale props and rudders, I'd expect that most of them will handle like a supertanker, meaning even less of a chance of a well placed ram hit. Even if you don't agree with all I have just said, you probably agree that the current rules that penalize you for unintentional "bumps" is a bit excessive.
Somewhere, I read that two South American countries had a war where they both had old British Battleships with ram bows. After standing off and firing at each other without results, they decided to close in and use the rams. I don't think they were very effective either. Marty Hayes
I recall at the Battle of Iquique a Peruvian ironclad turret ship engaged a Chilean corvette. The battle drew to a close when the ironclad rammed the corvette. The corvette's captain attempted to lead a boarding action, but only two sailors followed and they were all killed. The captain is now a national hero in Chile. The ironclad backed up and rammed again, and the Chileans made another boarding attempt, but their ship was ultimately sunk by the second ram. [gossip]I heard that my older brother's friend's father is a distant relative of the Chilean commander who led the first boarding action to counter the ram.[/gossip] The only ram damage I have ever seen has been inflicted by high speed destroyers and cruisers with pointy bows. If a ship doesn't have both the speed and the pointy bow, it is not likely to cause ram damage.
That's pretty pitiful. Becoming a national hero just because you got killed by a gatling gun while the rest of the crew was smart enough not to try a direct attack.
You want to hear pitiful? This is a bit after the ships you are talking about. It may even be one of the last intentional ramming attacks. My bosses father and step father were both on board the USS Borie when it rammed a German U boat in 1943. The ship and the sub were stuck together for 10 minutes. From what the old man says none of ships guns would shoot down enough to hit the sub, so all they had was small arms fire. The subs crew was trying to get on deck to use machine guns. The crew of the Borie were throwing everything from old shell casings to c-rations down on the Germans. Eventually they got the ships apart and the battle could continue. when all was done the sub was sunk and the Borie was so badly damaged that it had to be abandoned, and sunk by friendly fire.
That is an amusing story. Did they become national heroes or win major medals for the action? Another battle that is interesting in the same meaning of the word was the "decisive action" by an Italian torpedo boat. Assigned to escort a convoy, but a large part of the convoy had to turn back due to technical issues before they were attacked by a British flotilla. This torpedo boat fired it's torpedoes (all of which missed) then sailed straight through the British force and escaped the area, abandoning convoy, which was scattered and mostly sunk. The ship was then called the "luckiest ship in the fleet," and the commander received a medal for it. Pretty decisive, huh?