Wet Thrust for WW2

Is there a set of rules adapting Full thrust for WW2 Battle ships if there is
where is it and if there isn't then I am going to write a set.

I would like a copy of thos rules to

thanks chris "been watching too much victory at sea" pratt valen10@flash.net

> Neil Morgan wrote:

> Martin wrote:

> Martin Gaskell wrote:

Martin, Considering all the comparisons to 'wet navy' that fly around
in space, your effort was only a matter of time.   Good luck.

Bye for now,

> Martin wrote:

> Is there a set of rules adapting Full thrust for WW2 Battle ships

Hi

As stated Binhan did do a basic set of rules for WWII wet thrust.

I have them somewhere and will sendthem if u get me an  e-mail address
that works.

I am working on additions to these rules and would welcome any suggestions u
may have. I am also working on a strategic package to go with them mainly for
running a 'Hunt the Bismarck' campaign.

Cheers

> John at 20:56 02/11/97 -0800, you wrote:
... Its been done! If the archives are up again you will see that not only
were the rules done but a considerable time spent on an international
discussion as to the title 'wet thrust'!!

Jon (t.c.)
Sprayforming Developments Ltd. [production tools]
                                           made in
				      [prototype  times]
'The future is now'

> Martin Gaskell wrote:

Someone did come up with some 'wet thrust' rules a while ago. They may or may
not be linked into the Unofficial FT Page. I don't know
if I kept a copy or not. If I did, it's buried right now.  :-/

Mk

On Sunday, November 02, 1997 7:19 PM, Martin Gaskell
> [SMTP:Martin.Gaskell@onynet.co.uk] wrote:

Yes - commonly called 'Wet Thrust' WT (sic), Beautifully presented by
Binhan Lin [Binhan.Lin@UCHSC.edu]. Available in Portable Document Format PDF
format which can be read and printed from a free reader from adobe
http://www.adobe.com/acrobat/

I would have sent you a copy but your email address is *bogus*

sincerely

A gentleman on rec.games.miniatures.misc sent me a draft of his rules and some
ship lists. I'll see if I can't find it again and at least ship his address to
you. To my shame, I haven't tried them out yet.

The_Beast

> On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Martin Gaskell wrote:

> Is there a set of rules adapting Full thrust for WW2 Battle ships

I currently have version 1.06 of FT WW2 also known as Flank Speed or
previously Wet Thrust (but this particular name can be highly embarrassing so
FS was adopted) The current rules cover WW2 Pacific in terms of rules and
ships described. It currently only covers surface ships and aircraft,
submarines are still in the works. The modifications allow use of earlier
ships (post -WWI) but Allan Goodall tried a game with earlier ships and
decided that the rules needed further modifcation to fit that period.

After several test games it appears that 1) you need a tons of escorts -
the firepower of cruisers and battleships will shred escorts rather quickly
i.e. 20 5" guns of an Iowa class battleship with maximum hits will destroy 5
destroyers. 2) Planes have been toned down and it takes a
couple of dozen to make a consistent significant effect - last game 98
Fighter bombers / torpedo bombers were only able to score about 10 hits
on an Iowa, causing a threshold check but did not cripple it.

I will send a copy of the Word 6.0 file to you. it contains the rules
modifications and stats for about 20 Japanese/American ships - mostly
battleships and cruisers with a few destroyers. Rules for making the
conversions can be extrapolated from the given stats or I can e-mail
more detailed rules to you.

> On Sunday, November 02, 1997 7:19 PM, Martin Gaskell

How large is the ruleset? I would like a copy but don't want to overflow my
mailbox...

I somewhere on my hard drive still have the rules for this, and I did have one
problem that I would like to bring up. It may be just me, but I feel the ships
have to many guns. For example the Iowa class only had 3 main batteries, (and
IIRC) 10 secondary, and 24 or so tertiary batteries.
I think the game would have to go through a major re-write for this
so as it is it's just a pet peeve, and IMHO anyway. But I thought I'd bring it
up.

Randy "Creative Financing is the key to any venture. Right John?" R. Hood
(Ret.)

> On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 campbelr@dns.kunsan.af.mil wrote:

Status: RO

> I somewhere on my hard drive still have the rules for this, and I did
Actually the Iowa is rated at 9, 16" guns in three turrets which translates to
9 A batts in 3, 3 arc groups. The reasoning for giving the Iowa 9 A batts to
to be able to scale in larger and smaller calibres. For instance the 18" guns
of the Yamoto are rated at 2 18" guns = 3 A bats and earlier 14" guns are
rated at 3 guns for 2 A batts. This allows guns with similar range to be
grouped as similar batteries but allows differentiation between calibres since
the weight of fire will be different.

Also, late in the war, American ships did have an excessive amount of short
range firepower. The Iowa class mounts 9, 16" guns, 20 5" dual
purpose guns and anywhere from 40-100 40mm and 20mm AA guns.

Compare this to Post WWI battleships with 6-10 14" guns, 10-12 5-6"
secondaries and maybe 10-20 AA guns.

Another reason for assigning ratios close to 1:1 for guns to batteries is that
it makes some of the British designs easier to deal with. Center turrets need
to be modeled well since since an entire design concept was based on it. The
theory being that broadside weight was the critical factor, but to keep turret
size and weight down, the guns were distributed
along the length of the ship - front, middle and stern.  Most middle
turrets were double gunned although there are cruisers with triple mounts. If
the ratio of gun to battery was too high then these middle turrets would be
difficult to rate correctly.

Individual turrets are not marked for critical hits. You can't get a turret
hit and knock out all three guns on an Iowa. The best you can do is take them
out individually. I didn't think it was worth the extra effort to try to work
that particular factor in.

Therefore, the current rating system for batteries is a compromise between
detail and maintaining the simplicity of the FT system.

One common complaint is that it takes too long to pound a battlship while
cruisers and destroyers die very quickly. This is due to the low armor
(2
and 1 respectively) as well as the low tonnages of these ships. I still not
certain if it is necessary to adjust this since historically there
were very few Capital ship vs. cruiser/escort battles.  The instances
I've read about seem to indicate that destroyers that did close got ripped and
usually stayed a respectable distance away and let the big guys slug it out.

--Binhan

> Randy
For
> instance the 18" guns of the Yamoto are rated at 2 18" guns = 3 A bats

Binham, You might do well to consider the use of the 'AA' megabattery
to represent the 11-18" guns, the range is more comparible with
large calibers. (Assuming 1000 yards per inch.) Another advantage, It gives
four steps to divide the calibers between, rather than three. It would be
preferable to have the main guns mounted as close as possible to the real
world. Lets face it, a turret is a large armored box, and any penetrating hit
will kill of disable the crew of the turret, rendering the turret useless.
Center turrets exist because the theory states that "Six turrets with two guns
is defensively superior to four turrets with three guns." However! the reverse
is: "Four turrets with three guns is offensively superior to six turrets with
two guns." The three gun turret is superior of offense because it allows nore
firepower when closing with the enemy. The two gun turret is superior
defensively because a turret loss is only 16 percent of she ships firepower
not 25 percent as with the three gun turret.

Most ships did not try to close on battleships (during daylight), remember the
Captain signed out for the ship, and should he misplace or lose the ship it
comes out of his pay!

Bye for now,

On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Not giving up on implausible dreams - experience to
> extremes wrote:

> Someone did come up with some 'wet thrust' rules a while ago. They

http://www.swob.dna.fi/mini/gzg/wet-thr.pdf

PDF and editing by me. Otherwise it's what Binhan sent me quite some time ago.