I've always been fond of the Tillman study battleships... There were dudes in New York? that had a website about them... http://home.att.net/~wellsbrothers/Battleships/TillmanBB.html It still seems to be up... somebody neeeds to rope these guys into rcnaval combat... any version!! If you are going to allow hypotheticals.... why not the best! Mike
I'm in the second group Knight. For me I like the unusual and/or underrated. I can even trace the starting point for me it was the old Commodore 64 game of Tsushima. I would always play the Russians and would win with them occassionally.
Yeah I really like oddball ships or ships that never got the chance to show what they could do. I would really like to see some "what if" battles so I have allowed in my rules set such ships like the Normandie class, the original South Dakota class, the Lexington class BCs, the Italian Superdreadnoughts, the German Mackensen class BCs, etc. Under my rules set I'm working on for 1/72 scale, any ship laid down or in service between 1880 and 1922 is legal for construction ( in period fit of course ). Predreadnoughts and WW2 Fast BBs will never fit well together, period. But there were Predread BBs and Armored Cruisers at Jutland, so I think the above date range is a better fit for what I have in mind. I was kind of testing the waters to see if anyone would be stoked if allowed ( heck, even encouraged ) to build some of these never completed ships if WW2 fast BBs weren't allowed.
The Mackensens and the WW1 Graf Spee were fine looking ships. The battlecruisers were where the HSF had a real advantage. Of the hypotheticals you could also include the Tosa and Kaga to the mix. I guess the BC versions of the Akagi too. The real problem is of course documentation.
I have but I couldn't remember the class names at the time I was typing. At least a couple survived to become carriers, that might help with the documentation.
Tugboat, the class of French battleships you mentioned HAS been built in Big Gun before. The Normandie fought for two years, and it kicked butt and took names. However, I suspect that its performance in Big Gun combat had a lot more to do with the skipper and shipbuilder than the class of ship itself. I remember investigating that ship for Fast Gun combat. According to my calculations, it was 4.5 units. Hmm, a 4.5 unit dreadnought with twin rudders and four-barrel turrets... I can understand why the Fast Gunners don't allow it. Personally, I like the idea of hypotheticals. A few of them are pretty cool. These cool ships fill in combat roles that are otherwise overlooked in some navies. The rest of them fall short in actual combat effectiveness. For example, take a look at the Tillman battleships. Even if someone built the biggest, baddest, scariest Tillman battleship possible, at 1000 feet long, 80,000 tons, and with twenty-four 16"/50 guns in four six-barrel turrets, it is effectively useless. The ship is so large and slow that it will never be able to maneuver in battle on the pond. I could take ANY real battleship up against that thing, and empty my stern gun magazines into it without taking a single hit in return. A pair of torpedo-cruisers or submarines would put it down pretty quick, too. Heck, I could take a merchant ship and force it to run aground without putting myself in serious danger. Every absurdly powerful hypothetical I have seen also has an absurdly large weakness, too. In the end, it all balances out.
Kotori87, you touched on another interesting issue right there. My personal opinion is this, build ships they way they were originally, no enlarged rudders, drag props, or extra depth. Let the original design do the talking. In reality, everything balances out. If the ship was laid down, it should be allowed to fight. I'd even extend that to a few that weren't just to keep it interesting. I'm guessing Fast Gun didn't like the Normandies because they might beat up on some of the legendary "Fast Gun" ships of choice. They get a speed boost, perhaps larger rudders, etc, and get really formidable. Maybe I'm taking your original comment out of context. I'm getting out of the scope of my original post, but.... Under the rule set I created, I wouldn't have a problem with a "Tillman" being built... because everything balances out. Sure, it would have a massive amount of firepower, armor so thick in areas its unlikely most other ships could penetrate it, but it would be almost 14 feet long, weigh hundreds of pounds, need huge motors and massive amounts of power and CO2 to function. But it shows the relationship between displacement, speed, armor, and armament quite nicely. I relationship I'm trying to make much more realistic in scale. At a moderate displacement, any one increase in speed, armor, or armament will result in the reduction of the other two. Exagerate them all, and you have a white elephant. But to go into more detail I should really start another thread.
I think it's not being allowed has more to do with never being completed (at least for MWC), but I agree that it'd be great to see. I also agree that the great biggies are porky and easy prey for a skilled captain. I'd probably get my arse shot out from under me attacking one, but I know some people who'd do the job nicely. . . Note for Battlestations! people... the Normandies were in fact launched, which makes them legal under our rules, if you lean that way
Now, don't forget... if the cannons rotate and depress, then manuverability isn't quite as key as it is in the fast guns... I doubt the nice Tillman skipper is going to let you empty anything into his ship without turning one way or the other and returning the favor. Slip up, and the Tillman has a 12 bearing shot at you. That's much like a Nelson at either end. Or a rotating Kitikami fore and aft. Yeah, it's ridiculous I doubt seriously that the hobby will ever produce one. I thought of it once. Thought better of it I guess the best example of a ship allowed because it was laid down, but has poor documentation and little representation in the hobby is the Soviet BB for ww2 (soyuz)... The conway's pic is stark... I've seen more pics in different reference books. You know where the mains were, but that's it My guess is that the 28 knots is a hurdle for bigguns. I dunno, I think 1/96 scale would solve alot of the variety and "wallet" problems... as the smaller ships in 144 become the manageable ships in 96. Also, if you want to off the deep end in the arms race, and have a trailer and recovery crew... you can build the larger ww2 boats BBG (now MABG) came really close to starting in 1/96... Had there been even one 1/96 club... I think we might have tipped over Mike3
One of the nice things about Big Guns using thick armor and limited-power cannons is that you don't get as many holes from angled shots. A great big ship like any one of the Tillmans won't have a problem pointing its guns at an attacker. What it will have problems with is pointing its guns at an attacker, at a sufficient angle of impact to actually penetrate the balsa. In return, all a smaller attacker has to do is point his guns directly off the stern, and then turn the ship to aim the guns, and the Tillman will never have the speed or maneuverability to avoid it. Here's a question. What sorts of Hypotheticals are out there? Off the top of my head, the ones I can think of are the: Kreuzer P Kreuzer M Schlachtkreuzer O Spahkreuzer Z-52 H39-44 Montana South Dakota (pre-treaty) any of the Tillman battleships Alsace Normandie Gille Battlecruisers Ersatz Monarch Ersatz Bismark Dutch Battlecruiser Super-Yamato I know there's a bunch that I'm missing. Would anyone care to help me out here?
The plan is to use your maneuverability to avoid giving the Tillman a good angle for a shot on you while you take shots on him. As was mentioned before, if you slip up when attacking and give him a good angle, you will eat a nasty twelve-gun blast. Do that enough and you'll go down instead of the Tillman. Of course, that's what battle is all about, isn't it? Can you do what you want to do better than your opponent, can you take advantage of his mistakes and avoid making mistakes yourself?
Here is a list of "allowed" but never completed ships under the rules set I wrote for a yet unstarted club: Austria: Improved Tegetthoff Class BB* France: Normandie Class BB Lyon Class BB* Germany: Sachsen Class BB Mackensen Class BC* Ersatz York Class BC* L 20a Class* Great Britain: Hood Class ( whole class, not just Hood ) G3 Class BC* N3 Class BB* Greece: Salamis* Vasileus Konstantino ( French Bretagne class BB ) Italy: Caracciolo Class Japan: Kaga Class as BB Amagi Class as BC KII Class BB* No 13 Class BC* Russia: Imperator Nikolai BB Borodino Class BC* US: South Dakota Class BB (1920) Lexington Class BC Netherlands: Germania (1914)* * Reasonably accurate drawings and information must be club approved before construction. This list is of course only BBs and BCs, but the same rules apply to smaller ships and subs. Note all ships listed were laid down, or were suposed to be laid down in or before the 1922 cutoff date in my rules set. I really don't expect to ever see half of these ships built and battled... but.... if somebody whats to go to the time, trouble and expense to extensively research one of these unbuilt ships... and go to the time, trouble and expense to construct and battle one of these monsters in 1/72 scale, then they will be rewarded by not having to fight to get the ship on the "legal" list. Think of it as the RC Warship "escalator clause". [8D]
Funny how the WWII British "Lion" class slips thru everyones memory. They were laid, but never completed. Are they legal in your club?
The are a bit late for him. I believe that PreDread's rule set goes from 1880 to 1922. But for others they would probably be included.
Then we come to the vessels half battleship and half aircraft carrier. There was a book out years ago on vessels like this. The US were thinking about their Brooklyns in this form. The Russians through the US designers were thinking of a 1,000 ft BB/CV Had 12/ 16 inch guns and 60 planes. We have enough vessels to choose from without these.
i think that any ship which was laid down by whichever dates that are choosen should be allowed to sail. the ship being laid down means it was a legitimate design and was going to be build certain treaties and war movements may have caused it to cease however. i think if plans are choosen before this state there will be a much larger chance on inaccuracies. another thing to throw in the mix, what about ships which never technically existed? i have some australian government declassified photos of boats in action with armaments which didnt technically exist at the time. should these boats be allowed to be built?
I have a question. A company called Alnavco, which specializes in making 1/200th and 1/2400th metal models, made a H-39 version with 12/15 inch guns. I contacted them years ago and never had a return answer. In all the books I had there was no mention of this.Does anyone have any thing on this? Man what a vessel if one could arm it this way. It would give the Axis a 3rd ship with triple 1/4 inch guns that could be considered legal.
