VengefulChipmunk

Ship Tree Speculation

4 minutes ago, bellezza03 said:

Now that ship had serius dispersion problems. And not by shell quality , but such big guns being sooo close

And having all Main battery guns at the fore presented a problem.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eden_Earhart said:

Guadalcanal was a knife fight by all accounts, and the Japanese were punished hard for their lack of radar.


They still had effective night fighting tactics that the U.S. paid the price for in engagements like the Battle of Savo Island and the Battle of Tassafaronga (where radar was used to attempt a surprise attack). More importantly, they didn't learn from their mistakes quickly enough.

 

"The Americans were still unaware of the range and power of Japanese torpedoes and the effectiveness of Japanese night battle tactics. In fact, Wright claimed that his ships must have been fired on by submarines since the observed position of Tanaka's ships "make it improbable that torpedoes with speed-distance characteristics similar to our own" could have caused such damage, though Tanaka states that his torpedoes were fired at a range as short as three miles. The Americans would not recognize the true capabilities of their Pacific adversary's torpedoes (particularly the surface-ship-fired Type 93 "Long Lance") and night tactics until well into 1943."

 

To be fair, though, the Japanese weren't always good at capitalizing on their successes.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another premium, the Gunboat Okitsu, the ex-Italian minelayer Lepanto

Italian_Naval_minelayer_Lepanto_in_1938_

 

Armed with 2x 76.2mm L/40 AA, 10 Type 96 AA/A guns, and 36 Depth Charges with 2 throwers.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the Lord Clive, a monitor with a single 18 inch gun, two 15 inch guns, and some secondaries.
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another possible premium, HMS Belfast.

 

2013-08-19-12-07-29.jpg

^^ HMS Belfast today.

mpl1401.jpg

^^ as she was in WWII.

 

30 minutes ago, SeraphsWrath said:

How about the Lord Clive, a monitor with a single 18 inch gun, two 15 inch guns, and some secondaries.
 

 

I'd buy it :D

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good question would be where Battlecruisers would fit? Especially ones from late WW2 or even Cold War era ones such as the unfinished Stalingrad class. Some might fit in as good premiums such as the Lexington class or Alaska class(even though that was mostly considered just as a large heavy cruiser) but, not all could be used as premiums.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pappina said:

I think a good question would be where Battlecruisers would fit? Especially ones from late WW2 or even Cold War era ones such as the unfinished Stalingrad class. Some might fit in as good premiums such as the Lexington class or Alaska class(even though that was mostly considered just as a large heavy cruiser) but, not all could be used as premiums.

BC's would go in the BB line for nations that lack numbers in Battleships (Russia and Great Britain).

Edited by SqnLdrAhsokaTano
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pappina said:

I think a good question would be where Battlecruisers would fit? Especially ones from late WW2 or even Cold War era ones such as the unfinished Stalingrad class. Some might fit in as good premiums such as the Lexington class or Alaska class(even though that was mostly considered just as a large heavy cruiser) but, not all could be used as premiums.

 

The Battlecruiser is an interesting concept in its own right not sure how they would fit in game though. The Royal Navy's early Bc's introduced by the First Sea Lord John "Jackie" Fisher where designed with trade defense and economic warfare in mind. The idea was for a ship with large guns and good speed in order to be able to capture cruisers and AMC's (armed merchant cruisers) and destroy them with its large guns, However Bc's lacked armor which was the trade off for the Bc's speed. By the time WWI and the Battle of Jutland came around Bc's were serving as ships in the line of battle, something for which they were not designed to do as the RN found out at Jutland although some/most of the blame has to go to bad ammo handling and Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty who made a right mess of his job in my own opinion. It is also worth noting that lack of gunnery practice played a key role in the ammo handling issue.

 

In short Bc's are not built to be shot at by large guns so in game I see Bc's being a good counter for cruisers and the like

 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ghost_Rider12 said:

In short Bc's are not built to be shot at by large guns so in game I see Bc's being a good counter for cruisers and the like
 

problem is that BC are also not resistant to heavy cruiser guns.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ghost_Rider12 said:

 

The Battlecruiser is an interesting concept in its own right not sure how they would fit in game though. The Royal Navy's early Bc's introduced by the First Sea Lord John "Jackie" Fisher where designed with trade defense and economic warfare in mind. The idea was for a ship with large guns and good speed in order to be able to capture cruisers and AMC's (armed merchant cruisers) and destroy them with its large guns, However Bc's lacked armor which was the trade off for the Bc's speed. By the time WWI and the Battle of Jutland came around Bc's were serving as ships in the line of battle, something for which they were not designed to do as the RN found out at Jutland although some/most of the blame has to go to bad ammo handling and Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty who made a right mess of his job in my own opinion. It is also worth noting that lack of gunnery practice played a key role in the ammo handling issue.

 

In short Bc's are not built to be shot at by large guns so in game I see Bc's being a good counter for cruisers and the like

 

BRITISH BCs lacked armour...

3 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

problem is that BC are also not resistant to heavy cruiser guns.

germans were... their armour was up to 300mm which is pure battleship niveau... their smaller guns were compensated by them being normaly vastly better (amogn reasons better ammo) than the british

 

but tbf... Derfflinger etc. could also be called Proto-Fast battleships...

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ghost_Rider12 said:

In short Bc's are not built to be shot at by large guns so in game I see Bc's being a good counter for cruisers and the like

5 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

problem is that BC are also not resistant to heavy cruiser guns.

Some BC's, like HMS Hood, are often referred to as Fast Battleships.

Edited by SqnLdrAhsokaTano
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

Some BC's, like HMS Hood, are often referred to as Fast Battleships.

the Queen Elizabeths also were refered also as Fast battleships... that stuff became a bloody mess when BCs ended up being more and more armoured (like the german BCs even before Jutland) and Battleships getting faster (Yamato made 27 knots, Scharnhorst 31,5... the Iowa later on brought it to whoopin 33 knots which is faster than some cruisers)

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

BRITISH BCs lacked armour...

germans were... their armour was up to 300mm which is pure battleship niveau... their smaller guns were compensated by them being normaly vastly better (amogn reasons better ammo) than the british

 

but tbf... Derfflinger etc. could also be called Proto-Fast battleships...

 

As I said British Bc's were not built to attack battleships or to fight in the line of battle ect they were built with trade defense in mind in other words to kill Cruisers and AMC's (more often than not a converted fast cruise liner) from long range.

 

on the other hand German Bc's were built to fight gun battles and had the armor to do it. That said while the British shells were not all that good in WWI the guns fitted to the British Bc's could out range those of their German counterparts although the RN's Bc's lost this advantage at the Battle of Jutland due to the lack of gunnery training.

 

I found this a while ago its quite an interesting watch and does seem to be fairly accurate in some respects and does highlight some of the issues of Bc's.

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well technically all the post Washington treaty battleships can be considered as super fast battleships. Good balance between armor and firepower ( some had more ansld some less) and speed equal or superior to 30 knots. Japanese instead came in with another class of ships the super heavy battleships and as such in a 1 vs 1 they would have stomped pretty much everything else

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw at that thing about Jutland... nice typo at the Derfflinger (a beauty...) main armament... 395mm.... dang :D should be 305

 

btw i still wonder... what would've happened if the Bayernwould've been at Jutland... the Hochseeflotte would've had a Dreadnought that could go toe to toe with the QEs while having better ammo and same calibre guns

Edited by RohmMohc
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

btw at that thing about Jutland... nice typo at the Derfflinger (a beauty...) main armament... 395mm.... dang :D should be 305

 

btw i still wonder... what would've happened if the Bayernwould've been at Jutland... the Hochseeflotte would've had a Dreadnought that could go toe to toe with the QEs while having better ammo and same calibre guns

 

I still wonder what could have happened had someone not made a complete mess of his job but eh not much we can do about that now lol

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

btw i still wonder... what would've happened if the Bayernwould've been at Jutland... the Hochseeflotte would've had a Dreadnought that could go toe to toe with the QEs while having better ammo and same calibre guns

I'd argue that QE is superior to the Bayern Battleships, but the better shells didn't come until 1918, after the Battle of Jutland.

Edited by SqnLdrAhsokaTano
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

I'd argue that QE is superior to the Bayern Battleships, but the better shells didn't come until 1918, after the Battle of Jutland.

when i compare what's given on Navweapons it actually seems that the 38cm SK L/45 stil outperformed the later british ammo...

 

" 2) There is evidence to suggest that these guns achieved penetrations of 13.23 in (336 mm) at 21,872 yards (20,000 m) against World War I-era armor.

 

this is given for the greenboy/shells used in WWII for the BL 15"

20,000 yards (18,288 m) 11.7" (297 mm) 3.10"  (72 mm)
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

I'd argue that QE is superior to the Bayern Battleships, but the better shells didn't come until 1918, after the Battle of Jutland.

 

To be honest it doesn't really matter how good the ship is if it is not in the right place at the right time its useless. If the 5th Battle Squadron (on loan to Beatty due to one Squadron of Bc's off getting much needed gunnery training) made up of QE class BB's (at the time the most powerful warships afloat) HMS Warspite, HMS Barham, HMS Malaya and HMS Valiant had not ended up going miles out of their way the opening battle would have been a lot different why because unlike the Bc's the QE BB's gunnery was good but due to someones incompetence that was not to be.   

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

when i compare what's given on Navweapons it actually seems that the 38cm SK L/45 stil outperformed the later british ammo...

 

" 2) There is evidence to suggest that these guns achieved penetrations of 13.23 in (336 mm) at 21,872 yards (20,000 m) against World War I-era armor.

 

this is given for the greenboy/shells used in WWII for the BL 15"

20,000 yards (18,288 m) 11.7" (297 mm) 3.10"  (72 mm)

Even then, 297mm vs 336mm is very small in terms of Battleships, the QE was superior in both firing range and speed, being 2km faster, while the Beyern was smaller and had better armour protection. BL15 also I think, had a heavier projectile while the 15cm SK L/45 had a faster muzzle velocity.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SqnLdrAhsokaTano said:

Even then, 297mm vs 336mm is very small in terms of Battleships, the QE was superior in both firing range and speed, being 2km faster, while the Beyern was smaller and had better armour protection. BL15 also I think, had a heavier projectile while the 15cm SK L/45 had a faster muzzle velocity.

sometimes this makes the differences... e.g this means a theoretical penetration of the QEs belt at 20 km for the Bayern

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've talked about BB's, but not the other classes, DD and CL/CA. CV would be an interesting discussion point too.

 

 

Top US Destroyer will most likely be the Forrest Sherman-class, armed with 3 single mount 5"/54 Mark 42, 4 3"/50 Mark 33, 2 Mark 10/11 Hedgehogs and 4 533mm Torpedo Tubes.

 

Uss_Hull_DD-945.jpg

Edited by SqnLdrAhsokaTano
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.