R/C Naval Combat

I have been thinking about this ever since I first found this forum, has anyone tried making modern warships that operate in the same way? You would have far fewer guns, only one or two barrels, but the emphasis could be more on aiming those guns, etc. If you only have one single barreled gun to worry about, you can afford to add pan/tilt servos, etc. ?

Plenty of ships have rotation & elevation (depression); that's nothing new. Every ship of mine has both, for all main turrets. Cutting down on the number of armed turrets to 1 or 2, with only 1 barrel each, might help keep costs down & make the battle last longer with less damage. I don't know if I'd call that "Next Generation", though, at least as far as the combat is concerned.

I believe most people think of modern (post-WWII) ships as having missiles for main armament, which is true, but missiles are a real safety issue. Modern ships with guns only might be an interesting variation. I don't know of anybody doing that, but why not?

JM

I'd love to see a CG/CGN (non-VLS) using BB cannons for the missile launchers, too :)

I'm waiting for someone to show up with a modified Cleveland like the Little Rock or Springfield. Technically, I think they'd be legal to battle since they were launched before 1946!

Yeah, my uncle served on the Springfield. They'd be legal under MWC rules.

Dose that mean I can mount bottle rockets on mine seeing as it was refitted and made into a guided missile cruiser to deal with Cuba and than pound on the Vietcong as the CAG-1 [:)] than sadly removed to CA69 again till she was scrapped to make room for newer more modern ships dam technology [V]

The only question would be, would the missiled be considered the main battery or would the guns?

Both, say that the single missile launcher like on the FFG-7s counts as one barrel, the dual one like on most CGNs and CGs counts as 2. 3" and 5" (or whatever your Navy of choice uses) guns counts as themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Powder Monkey

Dose that mean I can mount bottle rockets on mine ...

---

just fyi, Bottle rockets wont penetrate 1/32" balsa, least not in the testing a did a year or two ago. But if they did manage to get inside they pretty much blow out the balsa from rib to rib, nice rectangular section which would be a pretty much instant sink.

If you shot a small ball bearing at a precise angle and direction, you could shoot longer ranges, hence simulating missiles?

LOL snipe you got to much time on your hands man

While some look nice, the general consensus in the model ship world (although i can't really vouch for combat) is that modern ships are ugly compared to those of older times. This might be a major factor in why there are not enough people interested to do it.

LOL Kenny, I feel the same way about WW2 ships vice predreads :)

Yes not much fun building a angled block

yuck! Predreds!

Honestly, if someone showed up to an event with a Ticonderoga or something similar with armed 5"/54's my vote would be "let them battle it". We do silly things like arm aircraft carriers with guns, have ww1 ships fight ww2 ships on somewhat equal terms, why not modern cruisers? As long as they were built under the same CBS standards as all the other ships, I see no reason to keep someone from battling a ship they like. This is why I also support people building hypotheticals like H-39, , Montana, Lion (brit BB) and the O-class battlecruisers. There are a lot of those ships out there that were planned, and actually ordered, but cancelled due to treaty or other reasons. I do not support monsters such as H-44 which were never realistically going to be built.

That's the rule we use in Treaty combat, if the ship was actually ordered by a government, it's legal. They follow the same CBS rules the rest of us have to, and are ships which for the most part are highly comparable to the ones really built anyways. I think we're such a niche hobby that telling someone who might be interested "no you can't build that" is a pretty bad idea. That's why although I dislike the idea of carriers in a gunfight with battleships, I support rules to arm them and make them viable. SO why not a Ticonderoga or some other missile cruiser? As long as it met acceptable safety regulations and has the same penetrable area as some other cruiser, why not?

Where I draw the line is "home made" designs. I think going out there and building the ultimate combat ship using springsharp or something similar to cram in every characteristic you want is more then a little wrong, and THAT I'd vote no to.

If someone showed up at a Region 3 MWC battle with a Ticonderoga, it'd be allowed to run. Not official for points, but I think we'd be happy to have another boat on the water.

Lion was NOT a hypothetical, her keel was laid, as was that of her sister ship Temeraire. They just weren't completed. (cos the brits ran out of money).
I consider ships hypothetical that never got off the drawing board, just some naval designers or politician's dream.

I've always considered anything not completed to be "hypothetical", such as the USN Colorado class USS Washington. Just a disconnect in terms :)

Looks like I am going to be the wet blanket on this topic.
Though it would be cool to see rockets flying across...
SAFETY! SAFETY! SAFETY!
I am thinking of the spectators and a rocket burning a few.
(I dislike legal entanglements.)
Also, I can picture one getting caught in a super structure, and setting the ship a blaze!
There were a lot of hours put into building that!
I believe that most clubs ban the use of pyrotechnics.

Maybe the rockets can be substituted with a cannon just like we do for aircraft carriers?