What other naval campaigns would you like to see using the Distant Guns! engine?

[FJ88]

I doubt Iowa could win the 1vs1 match with Yamato.
She got good chances MAYBE in bad weather and night conditions, where the superiority of USN radar and FCS could really tell the last word.

But in shiny wheather the extremely good optical based FCS of Yamato was equal to USN FCS. And due to bigger immunity zone and larger caliber main guns, the Yamato would definately win.

Care to reference where you got that the optics of the Yamoto were better?
Every competent source of the subject I have read states that by 1944 USN fire control systems were vastly superior to the Japanese.
And the USN 16 inch shell actualy had better anti armour capabilities than the IJN 18.1 inch shell.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

Not to mention twice the rate of fire...

 

[solops]

There were a number of small to medium sized engagements using pre-dreadnoughts in South America prior to WWI. They would be perfect for this engine. Chile, Argentina, Peru and others had a number of conflicts using ships purchased from the major powers as old ships were replaced by newer models. There is an excellent two-volume history from the US Naval Institute called "Battleships" that details the pre-dreadnought era.

Correction: That was "Battleships in Action" by H. W. Wilson. It is a two-volume set. Volume I deals with armored ship actions in the American War Between the States, the Danish War of 1864 (including an account of the Battle of Lissa), the Franco-German War of 1870, the war between Chile and Peru, the Brazilian Civil War, the Japan-China War in of 1894 (incl the Battle of the Yalu, fought under 3000 yards), the Spanish American War, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 (6 chapters) and the Balkan Wars of 1911 and 1912. Lastly there is a chapter on battleship disasters. All in all there are 308 pages of great armored ship and pre-dreadnought BB actions that took place before WWI. Volume II is devoted almost entirely to WWI. Remember, these books are just about the NAVAL battles.

There is LOTS of material here for the Distant Guns engine.

 

[Bloodstar]

Hi all, glad to be here, yesterday finally purchased DG after three days evaluating the demo; I've been waiting for it for almost a year and I like it very much so far.

My favourite period for a new campaign would be the one that took place in the Adriatic Sea during the 1866 Italian - Austrian conflict and ended in the climatic battle of Lissa when Italian Navy suffered a bitter defeat while supporting an anphibious operation against the fortified island of Lissa. This period is quite interesting because it represents the first confrontation between two comparable fleets of ironclads, when ramming manoeuvres were still regarded as decisive actions and the battleships sported both steam engines and sails.

My idea is that the campaign would be very interesting because many times the Austrian fleet tried, without success, to lure the Italians to battle performing many raids near Ancona harbour, the most important Italian base in the Adriatic Sea.
It would be enough to plot an interesting (hypotetical) campaign if we assume the Italians more ready to accept or search for battle.

The main forces in both navies were composed of ironclads, yet many ships were still wooden vessels with sails, so if wind is not modeled in DG, this would be a problem.

Regards
J

Heard about that battle, Issa is now called Vis... Yugoslav army also had base there... Lastovo island had German submarine base in WW2...


Mario

 

[KGB]

Not to mention twice the rate of fire...

Iowa

USN 406mm MK-7 guns.
rate of fire - 1 salvo each 30 seconds.
1225 kg MK-8 AP shell.
maximum range - 38720 meters.

main belt - 307mm (equivalent to 343mm),
deck armor - 147mm to 179mm.

speed - 33knots.


Yamato

IJN 460mm Type 94 guns.
rate of fire - 1 slavo each 45 seconds.
1330 kg AP shell.
maximum range - 42050 meters.
main belt - 410 mm.
deck armor - 380mm to 200mm.

speed - 28knots.


So, as u can see, the pure numbers show us that Iowa had no chances in the conditions of pure artillery duel with Yamato.

 

[Xylitol]

Im looking forward to see some WW1 campaigns. As many have already said WWI was the golden time of battleships and so would make good campaing in this engine.

 

[jethro]

Hi Mario, thanks for your attention.
Lissa has been a major ironclads battle indeed, and one of the fiercest ever. Austrian Admiral Tegetthoff (still regarded as one of the greatest admirals in history) divided his ironclads divisions in three wedge formations seeking the chance to ram the enemy ships (he was a strong supporter of ramming manoeuvres), so the two fleets engaged in a furios short range gun and ram combat while Italian divisions, led by Admiral Persano were still forming their battle lines coming from coastal support to the landings (moreover Italian doctrine was centered on long range artillery engagement so they have been caught in a very difficult moment and without the chance to show their true firepower...).

The most important Italian ironclad, "Re d'Italia" after a wrong manoeuvre, remained motionless in the middle of the fray and was rammed from the Tegetthoff's flagship, "Erzherzog Ferdinand Max", sinking in few minutes; another Italian "armored" gunship simply blew up. The Italian admiral wasn't onboard the "Re d'Italia" though, cause he transferred himself on the newly arrived rammer "Affondatore" just before the battle, (thus destroying the Italian chain of command, because not all the skippers had been informed in time...)
This is one of the few episodes in history in which a major battleship rammed another peer one in a big battle.

The Italian wooden ship divisions led by Admiral Vacca were never committed to engage (on the contrary, Austrians ones played an important role in the battle); eventually Vacca stated he didn't receive the order to attack (so would be interesting to simulate a "what if" scenario with all ironclads and wooden vessels joining the battle).

This battle has been studied for ages in all the naval colleges at least until RJW and WW1.

In the end, in my opinion this remains one of the most interesting periods in the ironclads era (they weren't still true pre-dreadnoughts models, yet they were very fascinating vessels).

Regards
Carlo

 

[jethro]

Yamato vs Iowa

Hi KGB, thanks for this interesting data (406 and 460 mm guns firing more than one shot in a minute is really impressive...), but are you sure that Japanes optical fire control systems were better than US ones (edited my post)? ...And any data about the accuracy of the guns themselves at long range (many times the bigger ones aren't very accurate...)? Think that Iowa class BB were far better in this field.
Really don't think that sheer gun caliber and armor belts would really matter so much in a real encounter...
Just my idea of course; it's a big pleasure to exchange some ideas!

Regards
J

 

[KGB]

Hi KGB, thanks for this interesting data (406 and 460 mm guns firing more than one shot in a minute is really impressive...), but are you sure that Japanes optical fire control systems were better than US ones (edited my post)? ...And any data about the accuracy of the guns themselves at long range (many times the bigger ones aren't very accurate...)? Think that Iowa class BB were far better in this field.
Really don't think that sheer gun caliber and armor belts would really matter so much in a real encounter...
Just my idea of course; it's a big pleasure to exchange some ideas!

Regards
J

You are right, the salvo from all main caliber guns of Yamato covered the circle of 560 meters in diameter if firing at maximum angle and with full charge.
Unfortunatelly, I have no data about the shells dispersion of MK-7 Iowa guns, but I think the numbers are almost identical. Maybe little less, due to long barrel of USN guns.

But, the amount of armor Yamato got covering conning tower, FCS and range-finder posts, the front, upper and back sides of main caliber turrets, the armoring of deck above and the belt near engine rooms, powder magazines and other important zones was more (and in many ways - significally more) than Iowa had.

The range-finders of Yamato were 15 meters long, and each main caliber turret got its own periscope. The electronic systems, which were added to Yamato and Mushashi in May 1944 were worse than USN systems, but due to best optics the Yamato firecontrol systems were almost identical to those functions that Iowa got.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

Gentlemen, I think we are off topic in this thread discussing Iowa and Yamato. Do allow me to suggest reading the excellent Nihon Kaigun web page. It is full of information about the Japanese Navy in WWII. Take a look at the "World's best Battleship" special feature in which you will find Iowa, Yamato and several other BBs compared.

 

[jethro]

Thanks KGB, ok, if I understand correctly, you are only taking into consideration optical range finders, so I shouldn't consider radar controlled gunnery when reading your conclusions.

I joined the post thinking that radars were considered, so I stated I was sure US BB had big accuracy advantages in a long range artillery duel (leaving apart the inherent gun accuracy).

Now I have a question: were opticals better than radars in a daylight battle?
I ask because I think that the only way to be sure on who has a real advantage is to compare the two BB as complete weapon systems.

Beg your pardon if my statements may be very naive, I like naval history but I'm not an expert.

Regards
J

 

[jethro]

Hi Nelson, ...ok, if anyone can be so kind to give me a brief answer to my last question I'll stop posting on the Iowa-Yamato topic.

Cheers
J

 

[KGB]

Thanks KGB, ok, if I understand correctly, you are only taking into consideration optical range finders, so I shouldn't consider radar controlled gunnery when reading your conclusions.

I joined the post thinking that radars were considered, so I stated I was sure US BB had big accuracy advantages in a long range artillery duel (leaving apart the inherent gun accuracy).

Now I have a question: were opticals better than radars in a daylight battle?
I ask because I think that the only way to be sure on who has a real advantage is to compare the two BB as complete weapon systems.

Beg your pardon if my statements may be very naive, I like naval history but I'm not an expert.

Regards
J

Briefly speaking, the fire control systems of Iowa and Yamato in daylight and good wheather were even. In bad wheater, at night, and so on - the Iowa FCS was superior, due to relying on radar instead of optics, though USN optics was also good.

PS: Sorry for off-topic guys.

 

[jethro]

Thanks KGB, very interesting, so it seems that Yamato was deadly as she looked...

Regards... and yes, sorry for off-topic gents
J

 

[Daedalus]

I doubt Iowa could win the 1vs1 match with Yamato.
She got good chances MAYBE in bad weather and night conditions, where the superiority of USN radar and FCS could really tell the last word.

But in shiny weather the extremely good optical based FCS of Yamato was equal to USN FCS. And due to bigger immunity zone and larger caliber main guns, the Yamato would definitely win.

I have to disagree with you on this, not only was the Radar and FCS better the speed and construction of the ship better.

One of the things they found after the war was the quality of the steel in the Yamato.
The ship was sunk because of this. Even with the water tight compartments the ships sides and fore and after decks where penetrated by bombs and torpedo's easily.
I am not saying this just because I want the Iowa to be better because we built it here.
I am big into the study of the types of War Ships and how they would fight and who would win. Other than lucky hits , and that did happen. Like the Hood.
BB Ships from Italy where of very good quality, but most of them where caught in port and pounded by large bombers and sank.
Either way it would have been a great fight between them and the larger guns on the Yamato would have taken out a lesser ship with ease.

 

[Bloodstar]

Hi Mario, thanks for your attention.
Lissa has been a major ironclads battle indeed, and one of the fiercest ever. Austrian Admiral Tegetthoff (still regarded as one of the greatest admirals in history) divided his ironclads divisions in three wedge formations seeking the chance to ram the enemy ships (he was a strong supporter of ramming manoeuvres), so the two fleets engaged in a furios short range gun and ram combat while Italian divisions, led by Admiral Persano were still forming their battle lines coming from coastal support to the landings (moreover Italian doctrine was centered on long range artillery engagement so they have been caught in a very difficult moment and without the chance to show their true firepower...).

The most important Italian ironclad, "Re d'Italia" after a wrong manoeuvre, remained motionless in the middle of the fray and was rammed from the Tegetthoff's flagship, "Erzherzog Ferdinand Max", sinking in few minutes; another Italian "armored" gunship simply blew up. The Italian admiral wasn't onboard the "Re d'Italia" though, cause he transferred himself on the newly arrived rammer "Affondatore" just before the battle, (thus destroying the Italian chain of command, because not all the skippers had been informed in time...)
This is one of the few episodes in history in which a major battleship rammed another peer one in a big battle.

The Italian wooden ship divisions led by Admiral Vacca were never committed to engage (on the contrary, Austrians ones played an important role in the battle); eventually Vacca stated he didn't receive the order to attack (so would be interesting to simulate a "what if" scenario with all ironclads and wooden vessels joining the battle).

This battle has been studied for ages in all the naval colleges at least until RJW and WW1.

In the end, in my opinion this remains one of the most interesting periods in the ironclads era (they weren't still true pre-dreadnoughts models, yet they were very fascinating vessels).

Regards
Carlo

Thanks Carlo, nice description!


Mario

 

[BlackVoid]

Getting back to the topic: I would like to see the current campaign fixed first and the interface improved.

Then enable multiplayer for the campaign.

Then I would love to see a WW1 campaign with the Med included.

After that hopefully there will be a Pacific campaign with carrier battles.

 

[Porkchop]

My personal prefrence would be a quailty "age of sail" game. All the games developed for this period had been dissapointing. WWI and WWII are all well and good, but firing at each other from 10-15 miles away isn't my idea of fun. Rolling your sleeves up and getting in close is more the ticket. What about ancient naval? Nobody seems to have touched this one yet.

 

[jethro]

Thanks Mario, it was only a brief and way incomplete description (don't want to be a competitor for Wickipedia...) just to explain why I find the second half of 19th Century so interesting for naval warfare: it was an age of transition, the old and the new lived side by side and few were sure to know what was going to happen in the future.

Cheers
Carlo

 

[Commodore Rob]

BB Ships from Italy where of very good quality, but most of them where caught in port and pounded by large bombers and sank.

Erm the Swordfish at Taranto were not big bombers