|
Post by tbr on Jan 26, 2022 15:52:38 GMT -6
archelaos - you are right to add the Averoff to the list - a most distinguished ship and a critical piece of naval history. tbr - yeah, that was a stupid mistake. No idea where that came from... I've never had the chance to see her remains, so I defer to your assessment. Still, she is the sole remaining example of her type, complete or not. Above decks she is rather enjoyable. But once you go below you miss all the elements that make a ship, not just a building that is a mock-up of one. What is there started with the ship, but IIRC between having served as some kind of assembly hall and the disarmament after WWII (the main guns are mockups) too much was lost.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 25, 2022 10:27:56 GMT -6
Ship types I wish we had (or had more of): Pre-WW1: no battleships survive except Mikuma. That's "Mikasa" and I would debate that she "survives". I've been there and, unlike HMS Victory, HMS Warrior, USS Constitution, USS Wisconsin as well as scads other museum ships, Mikasa feels dead. That is because she has not just been "concreted" ashore but also "decored", i.e. engine, munitins handling, crew accomodation etc internals have been mostly removed (exceptions are Togo's cabin, the wardroom and the radio room). Mikasa is a pale shadow of herself, the SSN turbine room installation that used to be in the Smithsonian National Museum of American History felt more alive.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 25, 2022 10:12:25 GMT -6
+1
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 21, 2022 10:11:51 GMT -6
The same thing happened about 25 years later with FGS "Deutschland" (though her historic relevance was also IMO insufficient). Luckily FGS "Mölders" is preserved though.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 21, 2022 10:09:53 GMT -6
The absolute worst was SMS Goeben. The last battlecruiser (the Kirovs notwithstanding), the last exemplar from the European dreadnought race. But for USS Texas the last capital ship of the dreadnought era. Available to become a museum ship at a time her historical significance was well known. I've heard that the Turks wanted an insane amount of money for her, so Germany declined, despite having interest in the ship.(Not sure if this is true, just what I've read in youtube comments) Such a shame. The insane amount of money was five years earlier, from the minimum required offer from anyone (including scrap dealers). They received no bids. The non-decision against making it into a museum in Germany was because a purely private initiative could not raise the money for the additional cost of the project (transport, restoration, slip/mooring etc.). The then government in Germany was unwilling to support this from the (funded) federal museum programs or via one of the existing (or a ne founded) foundation. That was mostly motivated by sheer antipathy to the military and Imperial Germany which overrode the any consideration of the actual substance.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 21, 2022 3:08:56 GMT -6
The absolute worst was SMS Goeben. The last battlecruiser (the Kirovs notwithstanding), the last exemplar from the European dreadnought race. But for USS Texas the last capital ship of the dreadnought era. Available to become a museum ship at a time her historical significance was well known.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 18, 2022 15:57:14 GMT -6
Had this happen once as well. The museum ship is treated as "in service" for mining and submarine events. If it is damaged it re-joins the fleet rolls for repair and becomes AF afterwards by default. You likely overlooked the damage event. To be clera, this is a bug, if a rare one.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 12, 2022 19:23:17 GMT -6
I hate all of this. If the target can reflect radar you can point a radar guided missile at it; this includes essentially all surface to air missiles. Terrier is bigger than Tarter. All three T's are surface to air missiles first and foremost; and cannot engage targets that are beyond the radar horizon of the launching ship (two exceptions, anti radiation talos missiles do not need the launching ship to do anything; nuclear missiles can also be ordered to detonate at a specific point beyond the horizon). Talos had a relatively long range of 80nmi which was great (at the time, for surface to air missiles), Long Beach shot down a couple MiG's with just one missile. +1 post 1970 "Western" Blue Water ASuW presumed the enemy to have been subjected to air attack. Some "medium" (compared to the Russian "heavies") SSM were to be used beyond the horizon, that's where Harpoon, anti-ship Tomahawk, Otomat and Exocet come in, mostly (presuming only surface combatant organic assets) directed by shipboard helicopters. But, until SSM could be "waypointed" into a simultaneous India time (mass attack arriving simultaneously), the dominating ASuW engagment would be within the horizon with SAM's (mostly SM-1 and, earlier, the "Ts") and guns, with the force in line abreast to simulataneously creat the horizon vs. the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 9, 2022 14:49:03 GMT -6
The link goes into some of it, I cannot offhand link to anything better online (i.e. not in print). I did read some primary sources however, including the 1920's German Navy "Jutland AAR", since I had access on my last active duty posting.
The main problem of the British (and, to some extent, the French) was the propellant, both its basic design and its more rapid deterioration. In practice the actual propellant onboard would always have aged somewhat of course...
The same deterioation affected the bursting charges of the Brits, it formed metallic salts in reaction with the shell's metal. Those salts were also somewhat volatile, leading to the British shels initiating before full penetration, which exacerbated their other design flaws. Those salts also made the shells more volatile in the magazine. The later "Greenboys" mitigated the design flaws and were also new production (i.e. were less "aged") so they did work way better, not that there were any occasions to proove that conclusively.
Looking at the last source one can see that the Germans had their own problems, but rather in the other direction, with a too high dud rate.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 7, 2022 5:42:23 GMT -6
One nitpick here, the main reason the British BC's destroyed was propellant chemistry, with burst charge chemistry at second place. Beatty's influence on safety procedures exacerbated matters but was not decisive. If there had been a longer (and closer) BB-BB engagement several RN BB's would have joined the BC's in exploding.
The propellant chemistry with its very rapid "burn" meant that British ship could "explode" from propellant burn alone (German ships arguably couldn't), i.e. without initiating the burst charges in the magazine. That did not happen every time "flash" occurred, but with a rather high probability. And it could and did happen in port during "normal" or "peace" operations as well. The burst charge chemistry was instable with the degradation products being more volatile. This lead to less penetration of the AP rounds (as they initiated earlier on average, i.e. before penetrating) and also gave a higher probability of the charges initiating as well when "propellant flash" happened. The BC fleet's safety practice only provided for a higher base probability of adverse happenings, but that was likely of less influence than the difference in armor between a RN BB and BC.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 6, 2022 10:22:05 GMT -6
I can get CVLs with A-B-Y triples for example via the joys of edits but I'm not sure what the AI will do with them...prob just treat them as rubbish carriers, which is fair enough to be honest as that's what everyone IRL thought and why the concept never really took off. It's a shame there's not a touch more leeway (at least for the player, I suspect the AI needs firm design boundaries to avoid some very odd efforts!) to allow us to experiment with some of the weirder "outlyer" designs... In RTW2 hybrid carriers would work quite well as "station ships" for the 1920s-1930s if they were treated like CA or BC in the battle generator and by "ship AI".
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 5, 2022 18:40:00 GMT -6
Hi gents, I just bought RTW2 and have a couple of questions.
First, how do you get asymmetrical turrets on a carrier? I have the asymmetrical superstructure and funnels figured out, but I cannot make the turrets work.
Second, how to disable the message about "Less than 50% fuel remaining"? I cannot figure out which option under the preferences tab to check/uncheck.
Thanks
Good of you to have made the jump! Enjoy!
The "less than 50% fuel" is very situational. Depending on sea area and tech it becomes very rare when you play longer.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 5, 2022 18:38:11 GMT -6
I've been trying to produce hybrid "Aviation Cruisers" in game. They were nearly a thing in the thirties... I build two similar ships, one a lightly armed cruiser, one a weak light carrier... And then mash them together in the edit. Call it a carrier (to make planes bit work) and ker-terrible-idea! If I can get one that works in actual combat I'll post it. You can do that if you class them as CVL's (exploiting the "go through ojections WAD/bug"). But CV, AV and CVL have settings (both general AI as well as targetting/gun use AI) which result in "hybrids" being pointless. You cannot get a flight deck to work (i.e. with airgroup) on anything but CV/CVL, even with save editing. Beyond a max of 6 (IIRC 8 for BB) Floatplanes on a combatant you get either non-skipable AV redesignation or "illegal design". So a Mutsu is (barely) doable and actually can work well in the 1920's and 1930's if you edit your FS to have torpedoes or heavier bombs or better air-to-air performance (all of it would be excessive).
Now, this brings me to an idea, a Mutsu style CA with a text-edited large FS airwing...
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 5, 2022 7:27:08 GMT -6
The feature is called a breakwater and it is to prevent excess water swamping the foc'sle deck area and to help guide it back overboard. It also protects the gun mount behind it by diverting some of the water's force. Even today warships get their forecastel guns damaged or even destroyed by heavy weather, and, relatively speaking, today's "A" mounts have higher freeboards and are lees "wet" than those in the RTW2 timeframe (exceptions like the Wielingen class notwithstanding, which for that reason has one as well).
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 2, 2022 14:55:29 GMT -6
I've made the change and will test later. But the issue is the statement: "if access to oil". I want to allow a nation without access, to develop synthetic oil. I am striving for autarky or economic independence or self-sufficiency. The Germans and the Japanese both did this. The one thing you could do is to manually edit the map file in the savegame at the approbriate time and provide the nations you want with oil in one of thier home regions.
|
|