Sub Art needed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message


DOCUP -> Sub Art needed (1/8/2017 1:57:54 AM)

Does anyone want to try some sub art? One sub is a US Navy Sub cruiser the other is German U boat XIB.

[image]local://upfiles/35564/00BB17C604674F43BB91809319E01CFF.jpg[/image]




John 3rd -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/8/2017 4:25:27 AM)

Holy cow. THAT is scary...

Displacement 13,500T??!!




DOCUP -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/9/2017 12:03:10 AM)

Yes, a large beast would probably wouldn't of really worked. I like this one. But, from what I have found the USN was looking for a sub with long range, for recon, and with big guns to interdict shipping. The navy rejected several for not having armor or torpedo protection.

[image]local://upfiles/35564/AEF515588C4E4A3E932076F5168952A1.jpg[/image]




Big B -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/9/2017 12:10:00 AM)

Actually, if I were in your shoes, I would PM TOMLABEL.
He did ALL of the submarines for this game, - I haven't chatted with him in a few weeks, but he's a helluva Sub & Ship artist...and he specializes in subs.

He may have the time and inclination


B


quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Does anyone want to try some sub art? One sub is a US Navy Sub cruiser the other is German U boat XIB.





DOCUP -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/9/2017 12:30:59 AM)

Thanks Big B. I will do that.




John 3rd -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/9/2017 4:01:08 AM)

Excellent suggestion Brian. Tom does GREAT work!

DOCUP: Ask him for an Argonaut with hangar! Pretty please...




Big B -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/9/2017 4:10:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Excellent suggestion Brian. Tom does GREAT work!

DOCUP: Ask him for an Argonaut with hangar! Pretty please...




Well, being an insider - I know who did what [;)][:D]




John 3rd -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/9/2017 3:33:34 PM)

Yaaaa...MISTER INSIDER...I see how you are!
[sm=00000030.gif]




DOCUP -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/10/2017 2:00:30 AM)

PM sent. John I'll let you know.




John 3rd -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/10/2017 4:28:21 AM)

Great!




TOMLABEL -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/11/2017 2:25:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Actually, if I were in your shoes, I would PM TOMLABEL.
He did ALL of the submarines for this game, - I haven't chatted with him in a few weeks, but he's a helluva Sub & Ship artist...and he specializes in subs.
B


Hi Joe - PM sent.

John and Brian - Too much credit there! Would be happy to give the requests a go!

Thanks!

TOMLABEL

PS - Brian, sent you a PM but it was full. I'll be in touch via email soon.




DOCUP -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/12/2017 12:37:41 AM)

Thanks TOMLABEL




John 3rd -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/12/2017 3:19:14 AM)

Greatly appreciate it.




oldman45 -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/12/2017 7:51:47 PM)

Hope to see the finished product, always had a soft spot for the super subs.




Revthought -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/12/2017 8:05:43 PM)

Cruiser submarines were such a marvelous idea. Let's put 8 inch turrets on a submarine! Of course, things that really need to not have holes in them, because they travel under water, slinging shells and fighting it out with surface combatants... what could go wrong? Just look at Surcouf and all the problems she had with range finding... some naval planners weren't think straight.




John 3rd -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/12/2017 11:08:29 PM)

Looking back on it they were a totally STUPID idea; however, that was not apparent at the time. No one knew.

Just like what happened with CV design. The Hybrid CV-Cruisers SOUNDED like a good idea...




Revthought -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/13/2017 2:21:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Looking back on it they were a totally STUPID idea; however, that was not apparent at the time. No one knew.

Just like what happened with CV design. The Hybrid CV-Cruisers SOUNDED like a good idea...



Fair enough, I mean they would of made some sense--if you could work out the range finding--as commerce raiders prior to the point where the convoy system had been developed and torpedoes were reliable. The problem was they were conceptualized at a point when designers should have known better.

Like I said, they would have been terrible surface combatants for many reasons. For example, you couldn't armor them and any dedicated surface combatant they would "fight" would most likely be armored. This exacerbated the problem that, while most surface combatants could survive some hits in a fight, the submarines could not. Plus range finding, the lack of height on the mast meant that the effective range of those "big guns" was a lot shorter than a surface combatant.

And finally, especially after knowing torpedoes work, from a design philosophy perspective you are designing a submarine that trades in its chief advantage--stealth--to fight under less than ideal conditions on the surface (see above).

Cruiser carriers get more of a pass for me because, when they were being conceptualized, it was really unclear how potent naval air power was going to be and CVs as a concept had not yet been proven with combat experience.

Speaking of which, I think battleships get a bad rap. Even at the end of the Second World War they were still very potent weapons platforms, and had a place as actual naval combatants and not just bombardment ships; however, their use as such really depended on air parity which no longer existed; AND at the end of the war it just made more sense, at least to the USN, to ensure that air parity at sea was never again possible.

Then of course, the development of the anti-ship missile made the idea of naval artillery as fleet anti-ship weapon comical... but now we've got rail guns, so that may be changing. [8D] Then again, while we might someday see "big rail gun" ships, we will never again see armored warships--no armor ever made is going to stop a 50kilo tungsten slug travelling in excess of mach 5.

Maybe someday we will see space ships that hearken back to the castles of steel.

/derail over!




John 3rd -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/13/2017 4:42:33 PM)

Loved the book 'Castles of Steel!' Well written and an excellent resource.

The rail gun does provide the opportunity of a 'big gunned' ship being built again. Cannot deny that thought at all.




DOCUP -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/14/2017 3:36:15 AM)

Nice comments John.

Ok, let's talk sub AC. I know John has a US version of the Glen. I was looking at the stats of the Glen and the SOC Seagull. The Seagull is just a tad bigger than the Glen. I'm thinking the Seagull would fit, plus the US sub is longer and wider than it's Japanese counterparts. The SC 1 is slightly bigger the the Seiran.

Any thoughts?




cardas -> RE: Sub Art needed (1/14/2017 8:14:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought
The problem was they were conceptualized at a point when designers should have known better.


I don't think that's entirely fair. Even with a convoy system you still most likely have single ships moving about somewhere. With a bigger ship you'd probably also get a more stable platform to shoot from so the lighter guns which merchantmen often were outfitted with would thus be more readily outranged. In addition you'd imagine such a submarine would have longer range and therefore put a larger area in danger.

In the end even simply forcing them to always convoy is a victory, although granted, one that might be achieved without having a super gun-submarine.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.929688E-02