Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Sub Art needed

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Sub Art needed Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Sub Art needed - 1/8/2017 1:57:54 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3072
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Does anyone want to try some sub art? One sub is a US Navy Sub cruiser the other is German U boat XIB.




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


Posts: 17109
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Holy cow. THAT is scary...

Displacement 13,500T??!!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 2
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/9/2017 12:03:10 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3072
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
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.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/9/2017 12:10:00 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 4
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/9/2017 12:30:59 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3072
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Thanks Big B. I will do that.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 5
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/9/2017 4:01:08 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17109
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Excellent suggestion Brian. Tom does GREAT work!

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


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 6
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/9/2017 4:10:23 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

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

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 7
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/9/2017 3:33:34 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17109
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Yaaaa...MISTER INSIDER...I see how you are!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 8
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/10/2017 2:00:30 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3072
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
PM sent. John I'll let you know.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 9
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/10/2017 4:28:21 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17109
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Great!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 10
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/11/2017 2:25:13 AM   
TOMLABEL


Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by TOMLABEL -- 1/11/2017 2:38:31 AM >


_____________________________


Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 11
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/12/2017 12:37:41 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3072
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Thanks TOMLABEL

(in reply to TOMLABEL)
Post #: 12
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/12/2017 3:19:14 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17109
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Greatly appreciate it.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 13
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/12/2017 7:51:47 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Hope to see the finished product, always had a soft spot for the super subs.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 14
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/12/2017 8:05:43 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 15
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/12/2017 11:08:29 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17109
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
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...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 16
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/13/2017 2:21:04 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
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. 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!

< Message edited by Revthought -- 1/13/2017 2:31:06 PM >


_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 17
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/13/2017 4:42:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17109
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 18
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/14/2017 3:36:15 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3072
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 19
RE: Sub Art needed - 1/14/2017 8:14:06 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Sub Art needed Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.328