R/C Naval Combat

I have been looking around the site lately and found this ship that i found very Neat looking

ship.http://www.rcnavalcombat.com/RCNavalCombat/warshipregistry/ViewShip.aspx?ship=Alaska

And acording to my calculater... 1 inch on the model is twelve feet on the real ship. So... The ship is 67.41 inches long and 7.5 inches long... But i think i did something wrong A battle cruiser cant be that long... right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by pew-pew-pew

The ship is 67.41 inches long and 7.5 inches long... ?

---

Well i wouldnt know the answer to you question but i did find somthing wrong. the ship is 67.41 in long and 7.5 inches long. You mean the ship is 7.5 inches wide right?

Oops... Yeah thats what i meant, Seems a little large for a battlecruiser...

"battlecruiser" refers to the design purpose of the ship. A battleship is designed to fight enemy battleships. A cruiser is designed to hunt enemy merchant vessels, as well as scout for the battleships. A battlecruiser is designed to hunt enemy cruisers.

The Alaska was the American design response to Japanese heavy cruisers like the Mogami and Takao. It was bigger, had really big guns, and was well-armored against cruiser-size guns. Unfortunately most of its intended targets were sunk by the time it was completed, but it still meets the design definition of a battle-cruiser.

By the way, does anybody know the fastest speed the Alaska class was ever recorded going, in trials or in action? Navsource lists it as 33 knots, but that's fleet speed. It most likely could go faster than that, and if it could that'd make it a great ship for Big Gun combat.

Are there any hulls out there for it?

quote:

---

By the way, does anybody know the fastest speed the Alaska class was ever recorded going, in trials or in action? Navsource lists it as 33 knots, but that's fleet speed. It most likely could go faster than that, and if it could that'd make it a great ship for Big Gun combat.

---

Not a Clue... but by the average speed of a battlecruiser, It should be faster that that..

everything i fount on all the web sites i use said 33 knots with one saying in bracktes (exceeded in service) too bad nothing says that would be a scary ship

Someone made one for a school design project. He modeled the whole thing in CAD, made a fiberglass hull, and used a CNC machine to make the superstructure. I don't know if he finished it or battled it. Some photos are available on the Big Gun discussion group on Yahoo. You may need to be a member to view them. If you can't see them, I'll copy a few over.
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/BigGunsModelWarship/photos/browse/bde2

Looking at the pictures, it follows more cruiser design conventions than battleship conventions. Instead of two skegs that contain two of the four prop-shafts like the modern battleships have, there is a single skeg along the centerline. This suggests that there was probably a single rudder, like cruisers, though I don't know for sure (battleships had two). I just checked the MWCI shiplist, which confirms that it has a single rudder. The shape of the stern seems to be a mix between a battleship stern and a cruiser stern, though looks more square like a cruiser to me. Wikipedia offers more analysis about how it is closer to a cruiser than a battleship.

Depending on its speed, it may be a decent ship in big gun combat. It has a decent battleship-sized armament, with medium weight armor, 4 shafts and 1 rudder. If it is 34+ knots it would be faster than most battleships, and it may be able to hunt other heavy cruisers. It won't be able to make very tight turns, but will rely on long, relatively straight runs up to, then past the target before turning around and coming back. With medium weight armor, it shouldn't stand up against other battleships for long, instead focusing on the smaller vessels or pulling hit-and-run attacks on the bigger ships. It would really fill the role of a battlecruiser: bringing heavy firepower to any area of the pond quickly, but lighter armor prevents it from standing up to battleships for long. It all comes down to its maximum speed. It must be faster than the Iowa (33kts) in order to be able to fulfil the role I have described.

I don't know how well it would work in fast gun, but heres my best guess. It is rated 4.5 units and 24 seconds. This should be compared to the North Carolina (6 units, 24 sec) and Iowa (8 units, 24 sec). With only one rudder, it will not turn very well. It has the same speed as several larger ships. It can carry sidemounts. I would think that a NC would fight just as well, but have a much better armament with its extra 1.5 units. It would cost slightly less to arm the Alaska, but no fiberglass hulls are commonly available (that I know of), so you would have to make one yourself. The biggest advantage it has over NC is that it is almost 10 lbs lighter, though Alaska is actually longer. If you really want a ship that is easier to handle, look for a smaller 3.5 unit cruiser. If you want something with proper battleship power, the NC is a good choice.

NC is a very nice ship. But what you're saying is that an Alaska Is just not a very good ship overall?

alaska would come into its own in treaty combat where its speed would make it a super cruiser

P^3, it's long and turns very slowly. Big target.

If you wanted to generate a system for rating ships the results for battleships/battlecruisers might look like this:

Ship Factor
Bismarck 150
Tirpitz 143
Nagato (B) 140
North Carolina 121
Yamato 120
Vanguard 118
Iowa 117
Richelieu(b) 112
Richelieu 98
King George V 86
Littorio 85
Kongo (B) 77
Scharnhorst 68
Scharnhorst (L) 63
Kongo 63
Tiger 62
Derfflinger 55
Lion 51
Dunkerque 46
Hood 44
Renown (B) 33
Renown 28
Alaska 27
Furious 22
Courageous 20
South Dakota 126
Nelson 123
Q. E (B) 113
Q. Elizabeth 99
Revenge (B) 95
Fuso (B) 91
Fuso 91
Iron Duke 89
Hyuga (B) 89
Hyuga 87
Revenge 83
Von Der Tann 80
Nagato 79
Gangut (B) 76
Pennsylvania(B) 71
Invincible 71
West V. (B) 71
Tennessee (B) 71
Colorado (B) 66
New Mexico (B) 66
Gangut 66
Pennsylvania 65
C. Di Cavour(L) 65
Andrea Doria(L) 64
Indefatigable 64
Tennessee 61
Colorado 61
New Mexico 60
Moltke 56
Yavuz 56
Al. Latorre (B) 54
Seydlitz 53
Al. Latorre 48
Agincourt 44
Baden 154
Westfalen 150
Konig 135
Helgoland 128
Kaiser 127
Viribus Unitis 108
Erin 96
Bellerophon 85
Neptune 84
Hercules 84
Dreadnought 84
Orion 83
Saint Vincent 82
Rivadavia 81
Texas(B) 78
Imp. Maria 76
King George V 76
Nevada (B) 75
C. Di Cavour 70
Andrea Doria 70
Texas 70
Arkansas (B) 70
South Carolina 69
Nevada 66
Espana 65
Dante Alighieri 62
Arkansas 61
Florida (B) 59
Bretagne 54
Florida 49
Delaware 48
Kawachi 44
Courbet 43
Minas Gerias 41

WHAT?

I second the "WHAT?"...

Given that some ships are beter than others, it should be possible to generate a number to go with that concept. Sort of like a stock index or something of the sort.

Basicly take all good number put them on top of a fraction, then put all the bad number on bottom.

"good" numbers would be firepower and some factor for speed.

"bad" numbers would be manuverabilty (larger # is worse, due to big turning circle)

The above is result for battleships and battlecruisers. Larger numbers for the "factor" are beter.

So a Bismark, should be about twice as effective as a Kongo.

It is not exact in the real world, but provides a quick and easy method to evulate what would be the effects of different set-ups, or changes to rules.

If you look for Alaska- you will note that it is amonst the lowest of the capital ships.
Also note the list is sorted by speed. (24, 26 and 28)

Woot Go North Carolina!

Wait... NC Out ranks Yamato? Honestly That Doesn't sound right...

Could you show us and example of how you got those numbers?

quote:

---

Originally posted by pew-pew-pew

Wait... NC Out ranks Yamato? Honestly That Doesn't sound right...

---

If you figure that it's a list based on fast gun characteristics, it actually does make sense. Despite the 2 extra guns, I haven't seen a Yammer defeat a North Carolina in single combat. Seen an NC beat a Yammer several times.

I love the Yamato (have considered building one multiple times), but them's the facts. Not saying I agree with everything on the list, but I think overall, it's a reasonable approximation of fast gun combat capability.