Risuou

Submarines- Yay or nay?

Recommended Posts

Yes you are very correct, sonar wasn't the best and I honestly don't think people would want to be pinging with sonar all the time to locate a sub unless it was the last thing to take out. I just hope there isn't a dumb inside view of the sub because in a sub you could actually here the destroyer heading right above your head. I've played Silent Hunter 3 and the best thing you could do in a situation when you are about to get depth charged is to go like this: Ahead Flank then go either Right Full Rudder or Left Full Rudder. There is the problem also that the subs were used mainly by UK, USA, Japan & Germany. Russia really didn't use subs because who wants to go to Russia all that often? Only when they got those Typhoons they were owning but that was a cold war anyways back to the point. Sonar was like beeping, hydrophones were when you would listen for enemy engines but any kind of noise your crew makes can be heard on those things so that was a disadvantage and I doubt that Gaijin would add Silent Running if they did add submarines. Just the things I could mention for the time being but subs... first balance the naval part of the game then add the subs if they are going to.

What?! The bulk of the Soviet Navy was Submarines by the end of WW2. They saw a lot of action, to be honest, they were the majority of the Soviet Navies involvement during WW2. The Baltic and Atlantic fleets were mostly Submarines such as the Leninet class, the Shchuka class, and the Pravda class. The Pravda were considered more or less a failure, but were used as submerged transports to move good to hostile areas.  Not including the actions of Soviet Submarines in the Pacific.

 

The Dekabrist class along side the Shchuka class engaged German targets off Norway and sunk merchant tonnage. The Srednaya class ended up being the most successful with nearly 90,000 tonnage sunk including German war ships. The Soviet Union sunk nearly 200,000 tons of vessels during the war. Now that's not much compared to what Germany was sinking off England, but that's also because Germany wasn't importing nearly as much resources that could be choked off as easily, but make no mistake, those submarines hurt the import of resources such as Tungsten to Germany.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised that people in the West don't know about the Soviet submarine contribution to the war effort. Most don't even know of the British contribution, and they weren't "The enemy" following the end of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you go from top to bottom on Tonnage sunk by Submarine action, it goes like this.

 

Germany at 14.5 million tons sunk with a total of 1080 submarines lost in action including those scuttled as to not be captured. 14.1 million tons of this was merchant shipping.

USA at 5.63 million tons sunk with a total of 52 submarines lost in action. Roughly 5.1 million tonnes were merchant shipping.

Britain at 1.523 million tons sunk with a total loss of 73 submarines in action. Unknown how much is merchant only.

Japan at 1.028 million tons sunk with a total loss of 128 submarines in action. 803k tonnage was merchant shipping.

Soviet Union at around 426k tonnage sunk with a loss of 109 submarines. 210k or so was merchant tonnage

 

Then we hit a very touchy subject for some people and they don't like reading or hearing this one, and it's also a hot topic on many uboat forums.

 

Italy at 406k-650k tonnage, although sources claim nearly 1 million, but historical investigation found quite a few of the submarines were claiming kills that Germany claimed and claiming damaged vessels as sunk tonnage which later German targets sunk and due to their positions reported and analysis by the Convoy's being hit, they found it unlikely they achieved these kills. There were also a lot of accounts of multiple Italian Submarines claiming the same kill. With around 102k in the Med, and roughly 303k-450k tonnage sunk in the Atlantic. Due to these adjusted claims, the bloated kill rate of the Da Vinci is actually around 89k tonnage for the Atlantic Campaign and not the reported 120k and many others have also been adjusted in recent years due to research. This places Italy below the Soviet Union in terms of kills of vessels, but ties them with total tonnage or puts them above the Soviet Union. Another issue is that there isn't any definitive record of losses of Italian subs due to enemy action and its scattered from around 44 to as high at 68 losses. A lot of this is due to losses of Italian submarines due to critical issues with the early models that were poorly kept and outdated. As for the Indian Ocean campaign, there is also accounts of shared kills with German U-boats and due to this a lot of issues have come out.

 

Now part of this is also not entirely their fault, as generally speaking, if a vessel was aflame and listing heavily it generally was a kill, but due to the small payload and the poor performance of the Italian torpedo's at this stage in the war it wasn't uncommon for the Tankers to continue onwards with the damage and even in some cases putting the blaze out. The other issue was while they attempted to carry on the German's in later ambush would finish the vessel's off and that's where a lot of the issues with the total tonnage comes into play, especially since the Italian's were holding the southern sector of the BETASOM.

 

That being said, they did fairly well for systems dating back to the first world war with a lack of modern torpedo guidance equipment and other factors.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?! The bulk of the Soviet Navy was Submarines by the end of WW2. They saw a lot of action, to be honest, they were the majority of the Soviet Navies involvement during WW2. The Baltic and Atlantic fleets were mostly Submarines such as the Leninet class, the Shchuka class, and the Pravda class. The Pravda were considered more or less a failure, but were used as submerged transports to move good to hostile areas.  Not including the actions of Soviet Submarines in the Pacific.

 

The Dekabrist class along side the Shchuka class engaged German targets off Norway and sunk merchant tonnage. The Srednaya class ended up being the most successful with nearly 90,000 tonnage sunk including German war ships. The Soviet Union sunk nearly 200,000 tons of vessels during the war. Now that's not much compared to what Germany was sinking off England, but that's also because Germany wasn't importing nearly as much resources that could be choked off as easily, but make no mistake, those submarines hurt the import of resources such as Tungsten to Germany.

Well I said that because the russian navy really isn't that popular to study in the World War 2 but their army side of how Germany was going to invade Russia is something very excellent to read up on which was what I like to do. Their navy adventures to me seem kind of... boring to me so I don't really read up on them though Russia did subs near the end of the war which mean't the beginning was a very easy start for the Germans to get their tonnage before "Black May" came along decimating the submarine force of Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 milion tonnage of ships sunk is exaggerated, Italian subs sunk more or less 650k of tonnage, only 25k were warships.

If we count ships sunk by frogmen or manned torpedoes launched from submarines it makes 700k-750k sunk.

If we count even the ships damaged it makes around 900k-950k sunk or damaged (nearly all merchants).

 

One of the big problems with Italian subs is that they had the conning tower too big to operate in the Mediterranean (too visible even underwater and too long to dive) and it got reworked in all the subs.

Even the Germans u-boots that operated in the Med dwindled their conning towers.

Now, this was a problem only in the Med, because US subs, with conning tower as big, or bigger than Italian ones, didn't suffered the same problems.

This is due to the fact that Japanese were not very capable in anti submarine warfare and didn't protect their merchants, while British had already one year of war against u-boots and were ready with new tactics to fight Italian ones, less capable than the German counterpart.

 

Another problem was that British intelligence broke Enigma, allowing the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force to know were Italian subs operated. German officers based in Italy provided informations to Berlin about the movements of the Regia Marina and British intercepted these communications.

Transport submarines Romolo and Remo were sunk in this manner, but others as well.

 

I made a topic on Italian subs, with all ships sunk and other stats: where, how, name of ship etc...

[url]https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/238597-italian-submarines-successes/[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem was that British intelligence broke Enigma, allowing the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force to know were Italian subs operated. German officers based in Italy provided informations to Berlin about the movements of the Regia Marina and British intercepted these communications.

Transport submarines Romolo and Remo were sunk in this manner, but others as well.

If I remember correctly this is due to the Germans insisting that the Italians use the enigma machine, probably with claims that it is more secure and a better cypher. The funny thing is that while the enigma code was broken, the Italian one wasn't. The decision to force the Italians to use enigma was a major blow to the Axis efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly this is due to the Germans insisting that the Italians use the enigma machine, probably with claims that it is more secure and a better cypher. The funny thing is that while the enigma code was broken, the Italian one wasn't. The decision to force the Italians to use enigma was a major blow to the Axis efforts.

To be fair, for a long time even the British thought breaking the code was impossible. If it wasn't because of key incidents of machines and code books getting brought to the British, there is no telling how long it would have taken for them to break it even with Alan Turing working on his Turing Machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, for a long time even the British thought breaking the code was impossible. If it wasn't because of key incidents of machines and code books getting brought to the British, there is no telling how long it would have taken for them to break it even with Alan Turing working on his Turing Machine.

True, but it is still funny considering that the Italians had an unbroken code but switched to a broken code due to political pressure. They didn't know this at the time of course, but it's still amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all sides had subs in ww2 of varying effectiveness but the advanced german electric sub could hit 17 knots submerged and some of the german subs could do better than 20 knots under schnorkel but running diesel engines under water is also quite loud so the were easy to find on sonar.

so subs could be a very viable and unique playstyle as for tier v stuff then your moving into post war diesel electric and first nuclear sub entered service for the US in 1956. So end tier v could be early nuclear subs.

Edited by Craeshen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and some of the german subs could do better than 20 knots under schnorkel but running diesel engines under water is also quite loud so the were easy to find on sonar.

 

which ones ?

 

because the submerged speed, even on schnorkel, is far slower than while surfaced, due to the fact the submarine have a lot more drag ( complete hull, deck gun, conning tower, AAA weapons... + schnorkel obviously.... ==> cleaner design like type XXI to increase submerged max speed )

 

the best speed i have ever read with schnorkel were about 13-14 knots.  ( the XXi is even slower with diesels than with electrical engines, due to less horsepower  )

Edited by Vilab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

might have been a special case where that sub didn't have a deck gun mounted :dntknw:  all I know is I read it somewhere in a book but it's been years so it might be a modification that removes the deck gun or something like that in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

might have been a special case where that sub didn't have a deck gun mounted :dntknw:  

 

it wouldn't be enough to increase the submerged speed that much... 

 

it was probably one of the protos/papers with a new means of propulsion, like those

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but it is still funny considering that the Italians had an unbroken code but switched to a broken code due to political pressure. They didn't know this at the time of course, but it's still amusing.

We were really unlucky. Our convoy tried everything to reach Africa and after the survivors were accused to sabotage. Or when Italy copied American transmission and the capture of a German spy station made all the cover blow up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Seph, it was very easy to see the body of a submarine in the Pacific without a periscope up due to the color of the water and the light transition in the water. Then why were so many ships, carriers especially, sunk by submarines?

Yes in WOWS they did that, in this game, an aircraft can fly based on how much real fuel it has, not some set timer. So expect that player up in the air for a long time until either someone shoots them down or they go back to rearm/refuel, and I never said the 20mm hit them submerged, they were strafed as they were surfaced. Inaccuracy is still a factor, though.

Later in the war the aircraft just dropped depth charges and wing mounted mortar shells aka Hedgehogs to hit the Submarines.

 

Also, since you wanted to know about those "Torpedo's". Cut off date is 1951 on these torpedo's because so far the Dev's have stated the cut off date will be before the end of Korea and most likely before that due to the changes from Jet aircraft to prop based aircraft and the fact that Missiles will not be used.

 

So lets start with Japan

 

Submarine Torpedos

 

Type 92 (1932)

30 knots at 7km range

 

Type 95 Model 1 (1935)

47 knots at 12km range

51 knots at 9km range

 

Type 95 Model 2 (1942) (Larger Warhead)

47 knots at 7.5km range

51 knots at 5.5km range

 

Surface Torpedos

 

Type 93 (1933)

38 knots at 40km

42 knots at 32km

50 knots at 20km

 

Type 93 Model 3 (1942) (Larger warhead)

38 knots at 30km

42 knots at 25km

50 knots at 15km

 

Looks like a lot longer range for those surface torpedo's to me, but lets check over at UK and US next

 

British Commonwealth

 

Submarine Torpedos

 

Mark VIII (1925)

40 knots at 4.57km

 

Mark VIII Improved (1940)

45.5 knots at 4.57km

41 knots at 6.4km

 

Surface Torpedos

 

Mark XI (1928)

36 knots at 9.6km Still slower than the sub-surface (now that's a cool word) torpedo that came out three years ealier.
30 knots at 12.35km

 

Mark XI Improved (1941)

41 knots at 10km Compared to the 45.5 knots of the torpedo that came out one year earlier.
35 knots at 13.7km

 

So far it seems surface is at least keeping a 2x the range of submerged torpedo's, so lets hit up USA now.

 

US Navy

 

Submarine Torpedos

 

Mark 14 (1930)

46 knots at 4.1km Which is fast, for torpedoes.

31 knots at 8.2km

 

Mark 16 (1944)

46 knots at 6.4km Faster than the surface torps that you mention later.

46 knots at 10.5km (1953 version) Still Faster than the US Surface torps.

 

Mark 18 (1943)

29 knots at 3.65km

 

Mark 27 (1943)

12 knots at 4.57km (Homing torpedo)

 

Surface Torpedos

 

Mark 15 (1934)

45 knots at 5.5km

33.5 knots at 9.15km

26.5 knots at 13.7km

 

Mark 15 Mod 3 (1941) (Larger Warhead)

45 knots at 4.1km

33.5 knots at 8.2km

26.5 knots at 12.8km

 

Mark 17 (1944) (Surface version of Mark 16)

46 knots at 16.5km

 

So as you can see, with USA, it's not always 2x the range when you compare from Mark 15/14, but its nearly 2x the range.

 

What I'm seeing is that a lot of the sub-surface torpedoes are a whole lot faster than the surface torpedoes of similar years, up to 10 knots faster in extreme cases, and could be reloaded faster. (Okay, so it is a case of "can be reloaded after a very long time," instead of "can't be reloaded at sea," but...).

Edited by SeraphsWrath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Honestly, you guys can do exactly what they did on WoWS forums and continue to try to give reasons but the fact is, they are not going to be included. And you can be like the devs and continue to give reasons to ignore your player base, but the fact is, you're missing something important, and that is the crucial contribution of submarines to the outcome of WWII.

 

this crucial contribution of the submarines during WW2 was to strangle the ennemy's economy ( Britain was near to be about to fall in 1942 due to great success of the Wolf-Packs / the US subs greatly reduced the japan's merchant fleet )  the fact the Shinano, the HMS Barham... were sunk had no effect on the war, the fact HMS carriers were sunk had little effect on the war ( Malta didn t fall after all, and it was the main use of carriers in the european front,  the US won the war in the pacific, sending some more HMS Carrier would have had little to no effect....  ) Please, please clean this up. I'm not sure that I understand this. The Barham was a battleship, not a carrier. Also, the British carriers had GREAT effect in the Atlantic. After all, it was a squadron of Swordfish, launched from a carrier, that sunk the Bismark.

 

Out of all of the Submarines, only a handful would operate in game due to the speed limitations and be even further hampered by combat radius of their torpedo's and the size of the maps. Large maps mean more ambush spots.  

 

how many battles in submarine when the enemy simply don t come close enough to be hit ? How many battles in bombers occur when you can't get close enough to the enemy convoys to land a bomb strike before getting shot down?

 

 

The rare exception was with HMS Barham which they SAW IT ON THE SCOPE but the ASDIC crewmen was new and didn't know what he was looking at and took it as a false positive since only 1 DD was operating ASDIC at the time. Half of the WT player base in a nutshell.

 

but the player won't have to check all station at the same time, it would be auto, like gunners in bombers. That sounds rather OP to me. Also, it can't be auto. The wakes of friendly ships would obscure the ASDIC, so the sub-hunter would have to spread out from the main pack, making themselves a target to enemy surface warships and aircraft.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ that quote within a quote within a quote makes it hard to even get what you're talking about nor replying in return towards.

 

As for the Auto part for ASDIC, yes it can, and it will be in AB and in RB/SB it will be on but not as effective. That's exactly how they do multi-role sections of a vessel because they aren't going to model the asdic screen so you can stare at it and need to keep switching locations to the helm to control throttle and rudder and back to asdic to check the screen and use the hydrophone.

 

As for the wakes of ships obscuring ASDIC. That's only for the inner-war and very early war ASDIC's, which were all replaced by 1943, hence the extremely effective subkilling that started taking place once they got them. There is a reason why Germany nearly lost over 1000 submarines with over 95% from 1943 onward.

 

Also, a lot of you potato's keep bring up the Bomber concept without actually thinking about what you just said because of Dunning-Kruger. So lets break it down Barney Style as I would have to do for my Junior Marines that went full potato and made me have to do things like Safety Briefs.

 

1. A Strategic Bomber carries a payload far in excess of a fighter. They are far larger and in many cases they are slower, that isn't the case once we hit Jet Bombers as they manage a good payload and speed. They have a niche by having a massive payload to level a base. Now lets compare that to a submarine.

 

2. A Submarine is a fragile, low payload vessel with a limit top speed both surfaced and submerged to attempt to avoid WARSHIPS while engaging targets of opportunity. Surface vessels of Destroyer size and larger carry a payload as large and larger. Submarines are also very short ranged for targeting enemy vessels due to LoS while submerged using their periscope. This LoS is 4km range visual if the periscope is only 1 foot off the surface, but many could push them to nearly 1.5m above the surface to target up to 7km. Until the late 50s, They required a visual target to fire a torpedo except for homing torpedos which had an extremely limited range, speed, and very narrow scope of detection to protect the submarine from possibly having it loop on them. So if you want to avoid being seen nearly as easily, 4km gives you a very limited visual range to track and target a ship. Although to be fair, these limitations wouldn't be seen in game due to the fact that no game to date I have played has simulated the curvature of the earth and they are always flat.

 

You also love to bring up Torpedo "Speeds" in my quote above and completely ignored the range on torpedo's. Yes, to make up for the lack of range they attempted to speed up the torpedo at the first setting on the torpedo's for submarines. This also made it easier for them to track and hit a target and to attempt to hit a cruising speed target better before it broke away at it's maximum range. Mind you, basic algebra you learn in middle school tells you that if the maximum range of said torpedo is 4.5km and it moves 45 knots, you cannot fire at 4.5km and hit a target moving from you, as it will exceed that range before the torpedo makes it on target. That means, you would be forced to fire under that speed. 45 knots is 83kph. That's 1.383km per minute in travel time. That means it will take 3.254 minutes to reach a target at 4.5km. Think about that again. 3.254 minutes just to make it 4.5km. Say, the enemy vessel you're firing at is moving at 27 knots. That's 50kph or 0.834 km per minute. That means the vessel would move 2.71km in the time that you fired that torpedo. So you would literally have to be under 2km range to hit a warship moving at 27 knots moving away from you with that torpedo. Mind you, you're moving much slower submerged.

 

Now since I need to spell this out for you, I will.

 

Submarines don't fit within a time limit, match making, and capture and hold based game. Their primary attribute that makes them work well in a real life situation is Time. Time is what you do not have in a time limited game. Every other match making game with a time limit that has put in Submarines has had to exorbitantly buff them to make them work that it broke game play overall. Navyfield died when they brought in Submarines and Battlestations literally died over night until the modding community put in no-submarine modes to play because no one wanted to fight against Submarines firing torpedo's moving at 200 knots while moving at 25 knots submerged as if they were silent.

 

So hopefully now that I have spelled it out for you, you will understand. The only game I have seen that they would have worked in was called World War II Online. Also known as Battleground Europe when it had an expansion launched for it. Being that people literally spend hours laying an ambush for enemy tanks coming down to reinforce capture points as it's basically a world wide MMO that houses thousands of player fighting each other on the same battle field, the time limitation doesn't exist.

 

Yes, submarines had a huge impact killing merchant shipping and targets of opportunity. This isn't a game with merchant shipping where you win by killing off their supply ships. You win by killing all the other players and knowing how short ranged and limited your torpedo's are, people can just out right avoid you and keep away while killing the surface fleet, and if you're too far forward, they can just rush the cap points, take them, and you lose. Submarines just don't have a place in that style of game play. You can scream to the top of your lungs. It has been tried before and they all failed because they don't fit in this style of gaming. It's a fact. If you want a naval game with Submarines, get some buddies together, form a kickstarter campaign and develop a Naval MMO Ship game where there isn't any sort of match maker, it's just all out war and submarines will fit in because there isn't any time limit for an engagement to end, just actual war.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

(Azumazi)Honestly, you guys can do exactly what they did on WoWS forums and continue to try to give reasons but the fact is, they are not going to be included.

 

(Seraph sWraith ) And you can be like the devs and continue to give reasons to ignore your player base, but the fact is, you're missing something important, and that is the crucial contribution of submarines to the outcome of WWII.

 

(Vilab)this crucial contribution of the submarines during WW2 was to strangle the ennemy's economy ( Britain was near to be about to fall in 1942 due to great success of the Wolf-Packs / the US subs greatly reduced the japan's merchant fleet )  the fact the Shinano, the HMS Barham... were sunk had no effect on the war, the fact HMS carriers were sunk had little effect on the war ( Malta didn t fall after all, and it was the main use of carriers in the european front,  the US won the war in the pacific, sending some more HMS Carrier would have had little to no effect....  )

 

(Seraph sWraith ) Please, please clean this up. I'm not sure that I understand this. The Barham was a battleship, not a carrier. Also, the British carriers had GREAT effect in the Atlantic. After all, it was a squadron of Swordfish, launched from a carrier, that sunk the Bismark.

 

(Vilab) the Barham was a HMS battleship, one less or more wouldn't have changed the war in Europe / the HMS carriers which were sunk, had very little purpose in Europe, except for Malta and "the hunt for the Bismarck"  ( anyway, without the torpedo, the Bismarck became a target of such importance after it destroyed the Hood, it would probably have been bombed and bombed in French ports, damaging it and preventing it to go out ==> Tirpiz  )

 

(Azumazi)Out of all of the Submarines, only a handful would operate in game due to the speed limitations and be even further hampered by combat radius of their torpedo's and the size of the maps.

 

(Seraph sWraith )Large maps mean more ambush spots.  

 

(Vilab)how many battles in submarine when the enemy simply don t come close enough to be hit ?

 

(Seraph sWraith )How many battles in bombers occur when you can't get close enough to the enemy convoys to land a bomb strike before getting shot down?

 

(Vilab)there is a great difference between being shot-down in the first minutes of the battle and not reaching its target ; and spending 1 hours doing nothing but trying to find a target which may as well never come into torpedo range.   just think about the fighters which complains about the "runners" in RB and SB, and those have already "played" the game before the desperate waiting

 

 

(Azumazi)The rare exception was with HMS Barham which they SAW IT ON THE SCOPE but the ASDIC crewmen was new and didn't know what he was looking at and took it as a false positive since only 1 DD was operating ASDIC at the time.

 

(Seraph sWraith )Half of the WT player base in a nutshell.

 

(Vilab)but the player won't have to check all station at the same time, it would be auto, like gunners in bombers.

 

(Seraph sWraith )That sounds rather OP to me. Also, it can't be auto. The wakes of friendly ships would obscure the ASDIC, so the sub-hunter would have to spread out from the main pack, making themselves a target to enemy surface warships and aircraft.

 

(Vilab) Azumazi answered 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

even if Azumazi ended the Subject... 

Edited by Vilab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...HMS battleship...  HMS carriers...

 

Every time i read that i'm cringing. Its like saying ATM Machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time i read that i'm cringing. Its like saying ATM Machine.

 

I don't get it. 

 

Let's use humans for clarification. If "HMS" stands for "His/Her Majesty's Ship," and then the name of the ship, wouldn't that be like saying "His Majesty's Officer [Charles Edwardson]" or something like that? I mean I suppose it would be redundant if you included notations like "BB" or "DD," but so long as one is the title and the other is the name, it doesn't seem much unlike saying "Sir Patrick Stewart" or something like that. You always put titles before names, I don't get the redundancy. 

 

e.g. HMS Lion, His Majesty's Ship: Lion. 

Edited by starkwolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it. 

 

Let's use humans for clarification. If "HMS" stands for "His/Her Majesty's Ship," and then the name of the ship, wouldn't that be like saying "His Majesty's Officer [Charles Edwardson]" or something like that? I mean I suppose it would be redundant if you included notations like "BB" or "DD," but so long as one is the title and the other is the name, it doesn't seem much unlike saying "Sir Patrick Stewart" or something like that. You always put titles before names, I don't get the redundancy. 

 

e.g. HMS Lion, His Majesty's Ship: Lion. 

Your example makes perfect sense, but what Crag_r was pointing out (I think) was that saying HMS and then the ship class isn't grammatically correct. It would make more sense to say RN battleships, or RN Carriers. Likewise saying the HMS BARHAM, the his majesty's ship? 
On a tangent though HMS could mean a ship of the Swedish Navy, so saying RN instead of HMS in this respect stops any confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a tangent though HMS could mean a ship of the Swedish Navy, so saying RN instead of HMS in this respect stops any confusion.

Sweden's naval prefix is internationally recognised as HSwMS. The Dutch international prefix is HNLMS even though the local prefix was Hr Ms and now Zr Ms. This all has to do with the fact the Royal Navy was kind of a much bigger deal. And still is compared to any other European navy outside of Russia. So they got to have the HMS prefix in international circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it. 

 

Let's use humans for clarification. If "HMS" stands for "His/Her Majesty's Ship," and then the name of the ship, wouldn't that be like saying "His Majesty's Officer [Charles Edwardson]" or something like that? I mean I suppose it would be redundant if you included notations like "BB" or "DD," but so long as one is the title and the other is the name, it doesn't seem much unlike saying "Sir Patrick Stewart" or something like that. You always put titles before names, I don't get the redundancy. 

 

e.g. HMS Lion, His Majesty's Ship: Lion. 

 

The notion of it was saying HMS ...ship been used double in the word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMS battleship - HMS carriers

For clarification of terms for the Royal Navy:

 

Type of ship: Royal Navy/RN carrier/battleship/destroyer etc.

Class of ship: Classname-class (County-class, Nelson-class, Dido-class (Bellona group))

Individual ship: HMS Name (HMS Barham, HMS Sussex, HMS Warspite)

Edited by Lt_Cdr_Lowe
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.