lol well life wouldnt be fun if we all didnt do something crazy once in a while. I seen some coiled mags that fit under the barrel it goes to and you just apply air on battlersconnection I think it was, If I could get by using that, I might not carry as many bb`s as others but I could squeeze them in I think lol. Ill check out the pictures to just see what all the parts look like might give me an idea on how I can arrange things differently than I thought about. The only thing I am thinking about is the rotating turrets, do the whole assembly rotate or just the upper half that the barrels fit to.
I agree with Gascan that it would be a bit crazy to try doing all 5 turrets on Texas in 1/144. However in 1/96.... Not that I will be doing it soon if ever. Too many other boats to build. Still gripped with a bit of monitor fever. Is it really madness or just eccentricity? []
I dont think its madness I think its striving to be different. 5 turrets on a 1/144th scale Texas would be something different. There are some I would like to build but one of them would be the first Texas but she was built in 1898 or close to that year so that is before the 1900 starting date lol.
Not so in Battlestations. We are working up a ruleset for predreadnoughts back to 1890 or so. As it will be part of the 1/96 group you should have plenty of room in Old Hoodoo. I had considered building that ship since I was curious to see how well the echelon turrets could be handled. The main issue right now is how to handle the armor. The compound armor of the early eras would give you a ridculously thick belt but less protective power than later ships. The 1890's Iowa would have a thicker belt than the 1940's, but no one would claim the armor was better.
Idont know the rules in the other clubs,but the north carolina eas laid down with 3 14 quad turrets. then japan refused to sign the treaty and they jerked the 14s and put in 9 16s. i would build it as laid down with 12 7/32 to a bbroadside
The Texas is a solid battleship, but I would strongly advise against building it for the NTXBG. It has several features that count against it ,especially for a rookie builder/battler. 1) It's very small for a battleship with that much firepower. Even a high-level builder would have difficulty building one that's both well-armed and reliable. 2) 14" mains translates to 7/32" ammunition. The smaller ammunition is significantly less capable of penetrating heavy enemy armor, especially after passing through water or at medium to long range. 3) Double turrets instead of triples or quadruples. Have you ever heard of "dispersion"? That's where shells spread out, reducing the damage potential of a broadside. Double turrets (even with an equal, or even slightly greater number of barrels) do significantly less damage than triples, and they cannot compare to the awesome quadruple. Anyway, if that hasn't talked you out of the Texas, then you need to contact the NTXBG. They have some of the best ship-builders in the world, and they can help you build your ship well.
Well I can understand all that. 7/32" ammunition isnt as big as 1/4" but what I like about the 7/32" is that I can always carry more ammunition in a smaller mag than I could with 1/4". I do agree though that I cant go running up against super battleships that has thick armor but the Texas would have thick armor itself since for NTXBG I would be allowed to run 1/8" armor. I would still have to pick my battles carefully though but any good captain knows which fights are in over their head or not. To be honest I was planning on using the Texas IF I could get it to work like I planned on axis convoy ships and destoryers and other small ships. Thats what Texas was used for in WWII was shore bombardment and convoy escort in WWII and WWI. Ive just always been more into the outdated technology than the newer. WWII battleships are built better but for some reasion I just feel it would be fun to battle a dreadnought up against battleships. I dont know if im going to be in NTXBG, Ive heard theres a group in Houston that battles once in a while but I still dont know. Im waiting on a email reply from NTXBG. Asked them about their combat rule about not using reverse out of the desginated port area. Doesnt make sense to ban the use of reverse during battle.
What doesn't make sense is to go tootling around the open seas at 24 kts in reverse! I guarantee you, that's never happened in 1:1 scale. JM
AMEN Next year we are going to try to ban reverse in any offensive or defensive manuver. It should only be used for braking and in a situation where you cant go foreward. I was just ram sunk by a 36 knot cruiser going in reverse to get a stern shot.I think that the sight of a yamato pulling a reverse wheely,is what turned me off to small gun completly.we are supposed to be simulating real combatas close as possible. 28 knots in reverse then full forward then full reverse. I DONT THINK SO
See I feel that isnt right. If I cant fix it where moving the stick all the way back is too fast I will then have to some how limit how far back i can move the stick back. Thats one reasion why I would be happy with this battleship only going a scale speed of 22 knots instead of bumping it up to 25 knots. Wouldnt look right. Especially if the ship started to plane some since the bow sweeps back at the top.
I think the reverse as used in fast gun is acceptable. No, it's not scale, but neither are gun performance, fire control, nor damage control. As most ships are in fact capable of something like a third of their ahead speed in reverse, I would say that the reason that reverse isn't used much in combat in real life is that with 1:1 scale weapons and ships there is not a tactical advantage to doing so. With 1:!44 scale weapons and ships, there is a significant tactical advantage to doing so. If there are clubs that want to ban reverse out there, I have no issues with them (their club, their rules, at least until I become Emperor . Realistically, in Battlestations (since we're still writing the rules), I think a super reverse would be harder to achieve, as with the bigger hulls, we will be seeing more hull effect, which reduces props' performance astern. For BaS purposes, I don't mind limiting reverse, but I do not favor a ban. In fact, I can recall a heavily damaged Hochseeflotte battlecruiser that made it home in reverse under it's own power, because flooding forward had made her too nose-heavy to drive normally. Bonus points for knowing which one without going to Wikipedia
It's important to distinguish between USING reverse to stop (or reduce) forward momentum & TRAVELING in reverse at any significant speed/distance. Also, you WILL NOT be happy with 22 kts once the shooting starts. You'll find yourself at a serious disadvantage & you'll want ever fraction of a knot you can get. A New York will not plane at 25 kts & will look fine under way. IMO, you need to make a decision where/with whom you're going to do battle & open some serious discussions with them ASAP. Fid out what's going to work well in that environment. Otherwise, it's like going to basketball players for hockey coaching. JM
Small floats generally don't work very well. They tend to get hung up & don't deploy (especially if the ship rolls while going down). Being small means they don't have enough buoyant force on them to overcome friction, etc. Also, small light things tend to get shot off in combat & when this happens to a float (believe me, it DOES happen) then you've got to stop & fix it. My preference is to use the entire superstructure as the float. The whole thing needs to come off anyway, for access to the inside. Making it slip off easily for a float also means that it slips off easily for access (that means, no screws or other fasteners to have to mess with & I can get inside very quickly & easily when I need to). I use short (about 3/8") alignment pins to keep it where it needs to be while above water. Since switching to this method, I've never had one fail to deploy or get shot off, either, since it's too heavy to move just from being shot. JM
The bind issue was the part I was trying to overcome experimentally. The midships turret on Utah does have some sheilding as the boat nests are just to either side. What I had considered is having a conical base to the turret that would normally be inside the barbette. Should give it a bit more mass and if the angle of heel isn't too great should pop out with no problem. There is always the option of a powered float too. Treat like a vertical gun with one shot and a very big bore. []
Remember the KISS Principle, & also the fact that Murphy's Law is always in effect. I don't understand what's "wrong" with using the superstructure as float, anyway, other than that people just like to jack around with stuff & make it more complicated than it has to be. It's got to come off anyway, for access to the insides, & it's heavy enough that it can't be shot off. I've never had one fail, & been sunk enough times to provide a reasonable statistical sample. It's hard to beat the "lift & set aside" method of interior access, compared to having to remove any number of screws or other fasteners. JM
To me, restricting it's use to non-combat maneuvering equals a ban. Like I said, I'm not kvetching about any club's rules except those I battle in
Oh, I do. Murphy and I are old companions. The superstructure float has no problems. The Utah just doesn't have much of that either. Not sure either if a cage mast will float. My destroyer uses a superstructure float. The galley section is one big boyant block.
