Were heavy cruisers a mistake? An 8 inch gun has mild advantages over a 6 inch gun in range and armor-piercing, but puts way less metal downrange because a 6 inch shell is the heaviest you can expect a gunner to load manually. Would Japan have done better if she'd armed her CAs with 5x3 6 inch guns like the Brooklyn-class?
>>61485804>Would Japan have won if they had bigger guns on their boats?How is the Yamato design committee even still alive in 2024?
>>61485804It didn’t matter at all what size guns Japanese ships had.
>>61486174My question is would they have done better if they had smaller guns on their boats
>>61485804Would still get rekt by destroyer escorts with radar directed fire control.
>>61485804>Would Japan have done better if she'd armed her CAs with 5x3 6 inch guns like the Brooklyn-class?It wouldn't be a CA then. Also they did for a while.
Wrong photo but you can enjoy that one too anyway
>>61485804No. You're a retard if you look at how hard Japan got beat in the pacific and you genuinely ask:>but what if their CA were actually CL surely that would make a differenceAnd no, I'm not going to expound on that. Actually study instead of posing stupid fucking questions on a Congolese snake charming forum.
They didn't find Mogami really that useful and swapped the 6-inch guns to 8-inch.
Different tools for different purposes. Though the heavy cruiser category got mauled pretty badly by the naval treatises, resulting in most WW2 designs being both neutered and unbalanced, so perhaps more "light" cruisers might have been better than man of the heavy cruisers that did exist. A proper heavy cruiser by early WW2 would probably have been a slightly better Deutschland class (or in Germany's case just straight up the Deutschland class), while by late WW2 it'd probably be rather close to the Alaska class.
>>61486297It's a stupid question. It wouldn't have mattered at all. Japan didn't have enough fuel, ships, carriers, and experienced men to win.
japan would have been much better off making more effective AA guns for their ships
>>61486384Akizuki was too late and still had manual set fuses.
>>61486352CA and CL are meaningless terms encompassing more diversity than they separate. A Brooklyn or a Cleveland is a CL but has nearly the same role as a Takao or Myoko.>>61486360What's a proper heavy cruiser supposed to do? If it's taking on cruisers, then existing CAs had the firepower to do that already, and maybe CLs too? I suppose you'd want to improve the armor.
>>61486430CA probably had enough armor to take on any CL or DD, outrange them and enough speed to keep up with both. But all that was kinda pointless when aircrafts were the biggest threat by far.
>>61486430 CA and CL has nothing to do with tonnage, it’s a pure treaty definition. Heavy cruiser have 8 in guns and light cruisers have up to 6.1
>>61486430The treaty limits left more-or-less-compliant heavy cruisers rather lacking in their cruiser-fighting role, as they were largely limited to being light cruisers with slightly larger guns and an even more strained design to fit that (somewhat, sorta, please don't look too closely) within the tonnage limits. As such light cruisers could (as OP suggests) somewhat do their job. A proper heavy cruiser would still be built for the same task, but with more armour, even bigger guns (say 11" or 12" instead of 8"), engines sufficient to haul all of that around and enough tonnage to actually make a functional ship out of it all.
>>61485804>Would Japan have done better if she'd armed her CAs with 5x3 6 inch guns like the Brooklyn-class?/k/ invents Mogami-class?
>>61486531They refitted it for the actual war. Was that a stupid idea or no?
>>614865613 of the 4 ships were sunk by aircrafts, better idea would be refitting them with the 10cm DP guns and turn them into bigger Atlanta kek.
>>61486593With 10cm DP guns, you probably couldn't have done things like Savo Island and the other battles like it. Maybe 4x3 6-inch armament, try to get some DP capability on that, and use the saved weight from the extra turret to put on some more 10cms or 12cms on.
>>61485804No. The 8 incher is better than 6 incher because heavy cruisers of all nations are aesthetically superior to their light cruisers.The mistake is retarded soulless looking ships like the HMS Rodney, and shit like submarine spam
>>61486316>mutts are still inhaling the superman destroyer kool aid
>>61487016Even the Japs paid respect (albeit to another ship, Fletcher class DD) after the fight.
>>61487016>/k/ontrarian because yeah different so cool
>>61485804In these threads I always recommend Japanese Destroyer Captain. First hand account of a lot of WWII Naval engagements. Starts around the Soloman Islands Campaigns, iirc. I read it in 1968. My dad, and his 4 older brothers all were in the USN in WWII, in the Pacific. All survived. The one I saw the most was inPresident Kennedy's PT Boat Flotilla. T. 70.
>>61486961>heavy cruisers are aesthetically superior to their light cruisersNot all.
If looks alone could win a war, Japan would have won WW2.
Did the Russians have much in the way of warships? Any good designs?
>>61487965
>>61487965Only in World of Warships lmao. Impossible ships that has impossibly good armor and ship layout that only works in fantasy games, in real life they'd sink like the Vasa once in water (low freeboard, harder to hit in game, would take water and sink with very little waves).
>>61486357They planned to do that right from the start. The Mogamis were designed from ground up to sue the 8-inch two-gun turrets and the 6-inch three gun ones were installed at first to sidestep the naval treaties. The plan was always to switch them over.
USN CA's w/ 8 inch guns could penetrate a IJN battlecruiser's main belt at close range.Superior range and weight of 8 inch is also good for holding light fuck-o's at bay. See USS Salt Lake City at the Battle of the Komandorski Islands
We’re not technically talking about battleships, but still obligatory DO IT AGAIN CHING
>>61488627They were (battle)cruisers when built, and were still pretty much battlecruisers when sunk (ships with 8-inch belt armor shouldn't be called BB).
Got Alaska from a free Santa box last year. I love her so much.
>>61488779Based WoWs Legends enjoyer. I switched permanently from WoT console years ago after update 6.0 ruined that game. Haven't looked back since.
Got this from the event. Weird looking cruiser.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1938)
>>61485804>Were heavy cruisers a mistake? An 8 inch gun has mild advantages over a 6 inch gun in range and armor-piercing, but puts way less metal downrange because a 6 inch shell is the heaviest you can expect a gunner to load manuallyno; just invent power loading for 8" gunsthe problem is that WW2 took place in the window between 6" power loading and 8" power loading, so naturally modern 6" light cruisers with power loading and radar stole the show. in a way, it's like how pistol-calibre submachine guns were good enough that semi-automatic battle rifles didn't really have a major edge over them>>61486316radar directed cruisers would eat destroyers like Pringles>>61486430>What's a proper heavy cruiser supposed to do?Kill cruisers>If it's taking on cruisers, then existing CAs had the firepower to do that already, and maybe CLs tooa proper heavy cruiser i.e. a modernised one would shoot way faster, idiot>what does a machine gun do? rifles already shoot bullets>>61486518theoretically, a treaty cruiser could be built using 1944 tech that mounted say three 2x8" turrets with power loading and targeting radar>>61488613>at close rangeirrelevant>>61489272it's almost a hybrid cruiser / seaplane tender
>>61487885>If looks alone could win a war, Japan would have won WW2.Laughs in County Class. Yes the super elevating 8" turrets were retarded, but they're so pretty.
>>61489374looks like a cruise ship
>>61486961>retarded soulless looking ships like the HMS RodneyDie mad, werhb
>>61489447The requirement for long cruising range for trade route protection practically guaranteed a sleek design
>>61489339>Kill cruisersA cruiser built to destroy smaller cruisers? I've heard this concept done before in a manner that resulted in said cruiser killer cruisers having an absolutely overwhelming advantage in firepower when compared to their lesser counterparts rather than the mere two inches WW2 heavy cruisers had on WW2 light cruisers.
>>61485804useless without shells
>>6148949116 vs 90 shots per minute.8 14" vs 9 rapid fire 8".
>>61489483no I mean the big ass chimney looking funnels, and white paint that makes the portholes more visible makes it look like a cruise ship
>>61489374I respect your opinion, but it doesn't look pretty to me at all.
>>61489514A ship from the early 1910s, a ship from the late 1940s. For comparison, if the 16-inch turrets bongs were thinking about during the late 1940s had actually been built and had worked as well as bongs though they would, a contemporary fast battleship design to Des Moines could have put out between 18 (2 x 3) and 27 (3 x 3) 16" round per minute.>plus HMS Tiger was armed with 13.5" guns not 14"
>>61489339>radar directed cruisers would eat destroyers like Pringlesyeah, just like what happened in Chuuk lagoon with a stationary CL and a DD, kek.
>>61489272>Got this from the event. Weird looking cruiser.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1938)It has next to no shell armor so it will die very fast against any bb. Cruisers are the weakest class overall in world of warships.
8 inch guns are better because CA shoot from behind the screens but CL counts as screens. If you fill the CA with smaller guns too, they’ll sink all the enemies screens fast and then your DDs sink their capital ships with ‘pedos
>>61489374Based County enjoyer
take the fiji pill
I like Atlantas.We’re they good ships? Ehhh, not really. But I still like them.
>>61489374>Yes the super elevating 8" turrets were retardedwhats wrong with that? being able to fire both turrets while sailing directly to the enemy to close the range makes sense to me, shouldnt it be standard for all ship designs?
>>61489687go tell that to a napoli, stalingrad or schroeder.
i got the chikuma 2 as a random drop, honestly i hoped for economic bonuses since i don't collect japs, but it's still funny to have a rare ship when others are malding over the 1,5% drop rate and spending hundreds of $$ to get a chance of getting it.
>>61490464>whats wrong with that?Because they were designed with a maximum elevation of 70° so they could be used for anti-aircraft purposes. But the elevation and training mechanisms were too slow to do so.
>>61490577Got her in second try.
>>61485804In WW2, Korea and Vietnam 8" was considered the ideal ship to shore support weapon size. Big enough to kill harder targets reliably but not so big it risked your own nearby troops or had too low a ROF.
Someone else would always be able to build a bigger ship with armor practically impenetrable by six inchers. CAs were one tool in a big toolbox that needed to be used together to accomplish meaningful objectives. Even with air power being king, they were still a useful tool and anyone without them would have paid a price. That said, Japan had some very interesting doctrinal quirks because they knew they were working at a heavy disadvantage. Foregoing the already-mentioned and insurmountable industrial, logistic and resource problems, as well as the role of air power, the biggest mistake of the IJN, by a vast margin, was their lack of radar and attendant fire control improvements. Their cruisers could have mounted magic fun size 18 inchers and they would have lost to USN cruisers just as fast. They just could not hit a damn thing in comparison. As mentioned they did have doctrinal compensations for that reality, such as vastly superior torpedoes and very impressive night training, both of which got them victories early in the pacific at Guadalcanal; however, at that time the USN was very much still getting up to steam, and they - or at least a number of unfortunately appointed commanders - made some very stupid mistakes. So all that to say, the size of their main guns was just about the very last priority if one endeavored to unfuck their navy.
>>61489687I used to play that game a lot and yeah, cruisers fucking sucked even though it was my favorite type of ship to play. Especially the high tier USN ones, they are just useless.
>>61489603>thing happened once so it's not trueso the sinking of HMS Glorious means the end of aircraft carriers I guess>>61489491>mere two incheswell, that's the difference between being proof against 6" and 8" fire at effective combat ranges back thenconsider the reverse:>you mean to tell me that 6" cruisers will kill 8" cruisers simply by dint of pouring more (low power) shells and hoping it will batter the (better-armoured) heavy cruiser into submission, hoping not to get hit? this is Fishermania all over again, you're off your rocker!and yet that was the plan, and it worked>>61489687if you're a cruiser player in WOWS you resign yourself to either hunting destroyers, weaker cruisers, or gangbanging battleships while hiding behind the skirts of your own battleshipswhich is kind of fun and arguably close to IRL
>>61490604oh so the guns themselves were retarded trying to be dual purpose for their size. thought you meant there was a significant flaw to the turret layout itself
>>61485804my favorite cruiser, even if its more of an overgrown destroyerpity they overhauled the superstructure, looked a lot better in it earlier guise
>>61489473No, I'd rather die happy knowing that the Axis crafted some of the most beautiful vessels to ever grace the endless azure, instead of abominations like this.It is this exact disregard for aesthetics that led to the modern browning of "victorious" countries of WW2. In the end did you really win?
>>61492126CVs were the most soulless type of warships and they carried the naval battles in WW2, denying any kind of giant surface fleet action. It is what it is.
>>61489552best girl
>>61492205based
>>61492205>>61492219Why do people refer to ships as "she" anyway?
>>61492407>61492407>A ship is always referred to as "she" because it costs so much to keep her in paint and powder.~Chester W. Nimitz
>>61492154CVs facilitate single heroic pilots to accomplish feats on the naval battlefield, as opposed to capital ships where every subsystem has multiple people on it who must work in unison. CVs are inherently fascist.
>>61492407ships are filled with seamen
>>61492474CV crews still need exceptional coordination and timing too, Japs messed up big time at Midway, reloading planes with bombs on the flight deck when Americans were dive bombing.
>>61485804They were conceived and built for WW1 scenario but it turns out in WW2, you couldn't realistically have an Emden scenario where a cruiser escapes into the open ocean and wrecks havoc on shipping while resupplying in neutral ports.
>>61492548>Bismarck was supposed to be giga Emdem the whole time
>>61492154don't reply to bait, moron
>>61485804>would Japan have won if it radically changed one of the only consistently effective elements of its navy?Sure is a mystery
it's funny how all ww2 naval threads turn into some bongoloid fantasy realm where ships are having huge open water battles when in reality basically every engagement was getting gangbanged by aircraft or a knife fight in the dark where none of the shit they were designed to do actually mattered.
It's funny how warriorturd is such a coward even online he often doesn't actually reply but just adds a random post in the middle of the thread that doesn't tag anyone.
>>61492930>coping so hard you have to invent some boogeyman because only one person could possibly have anything critical to say about the eternal *nglob-britannia r-rules the waves....
>>61492991lmao gottem
>>61492918Getting ganganged by aircraft is one thing, but the knife fights in the dark happened in WW1 and were conceived of and prepared during ship design and doctrine formulation.Naval battles are chaotic affairs, more chaotic than land battles I'd say, and nighttime increases the chaos up to 11, it's why they're so kino.
>>61493355yeah but none of the battles had ordered battle lines of cruisers and shit like people are talking about. fleets just ran into each other and got lit up at point blank ranges or sunk by torpedoes. the only thing that really mattered then was radar.
>>61493397And that's how South Dakota class proved its armor and resilience while Kongo Class got absolutely rekt.
>>61493397>none of the battles had ordered battle lines of cruisers and shit like people are talking aboutonly because of the great effort (and resources) expended by all sides to make such a battle infeasibleit's like thinking, "thieves always break in through a window, they never try to open my door, this must mean it's pointless to lock my door">fleets just ran into each otheronly cause you're not paying attention to the extensive scouting activity that took place before the great naval battles of WW2>and got lit up at point blank rangeslol no>the only thing that really mattered then was radaronce again, you're fixating on one element of the whole machinery of the battle fleet, and not on all the other parts which were necessary to make it workAxis naval radar by and large was inferior to Allied naval radar and that became one of the major success factors for the Allies. it being a missing element on one side is what made it stand out to you. if both sides had radar and the Axis fleets were missing an effective screen, then you would be fixating on that
>>61493465Except South Dakota shit itself in fear so hard that it became a cripple.Meanwhile, SUPERIOR CAROLINA CLASS BVLL fears no gook, jap, nip, slant-eye, or chink.
>>61486174Nice reading comprehension
>>61493595Well bad things tend to happen when pelted by 14-inch shells, at least she did her job being a shell magnet and pulled all the attention on her while nobody noticed USS Washington.
>>61493545what are you coping about now? there were literally cases where destroyers got so close to bigger ships that they couldn't depress their main guns enough to hit them. radar was important because without it you can't see in the dark and everyone ends up shooting anything that turns on a searchlight. the battle that these ships were designed to fight literally never happened.
>>61493800Only battleships were optimized to fight in line formations in daylight. Cruisers were not.
>>61492918Having you considered the fact that it is precisely due to the dominance of airpower during daytime, that most surface engagements occured in the dark?
>>61489339>>at close range>irrelevantExcept it was at Guadalcanal you stupid cunt.
>>61493800>copingdid you discover that one word and use it all the time like a kid with his first bad word?> there were literally cases where destroyers got so close to bigger ships that they couldn't depress their main guns enough to hit themoh really? so fucking build a destroyer-only fleet and use them and only them all the time then, eh?> radar was important because without it you can't see in the dark and everyone ends up shooting anything that turns on a searchlightradar was important because one side didn't have it so it became a decisive factor, moronif it had been something else, then that something else would have been the decisive factor. like if the Japs had showed up with oodles of radar but nothing bigger than 4" guns you'd be sitting here whining that guns are the real decisive factor, not radarTHAT'S what I'm saying, try to get it through your thick skull before replying>the battle that these ships were designed to fight literally never happened.>Savo Islandoh yeah, this one battle out of all the battles in WW2 fought in the maritime equivalent of a fucking phonebooth is representative of all the naval battles that could possibly be fought in WW2, everidiot
>>61494112and here's this other mongoloid with the same attitude, or is this you also?it's irrelevant for two reasons; firstly because Guadalcanal was the exception in naval battles, not the rule, it was rare for fleets to get forced into a slugfest in a tiny patch of ocean hemmed in by islands; and the second reason is that ALL GUNS penetrate better at close rangethe discussion here is about 6" vs 8" and if you put a 6" gun at point blank range against the side of a Kongo it would have punched through as well, but that means fuck-all in the anticipated general usage of WW2 warships
Why do people sperg the fuck out in EVERY thread on this board?
>>61493713Nah, South Dakota didn’t get disabled by Kirishima. She did it all on her own
>>61494277I would sell myself into slavery to the MIC to see the US return to Great White Fleet
>>61494133having a melty? guns barely mattered in ship to ship combat. the majority of ships sunk in ww2 were by torpedoes. and since you can't read that maps is for the battle of guadalcanal, not savo island which was 3 months earlier in the same place. >>61494167>it was rare for fleets to get forced into a slugfest in a tiny patch of ocean hemmed in by islandswrong. all 4 battles fought around ironbottom sound were at night and at close range. the only other battleship vs battleship engagement of the war was also at night in surigao straight. the "anticipated general usage" never actually happened.
>>61494296too bad, now pay for my zumwalts and indipendence class, serf
>>61488613Anon, the Kongos were a 1910s design, they were designed closer to HMS Dreadnought and their main opponents would be armored cruisers like the Tennessee class. Even if you go for the earliest American CA, it was still designed a whole decade after the Kongo hit the water.
>>61494366The Majority of Ships sunk in WW2 were Merchant vessels, Small escorts and cruisers, who in large, lacked protection against torpedoes. You are also ignoring that Nations were incredibly conservative with battleships in WW2, even when compared to WW1, mainly because they were strategic assets comparable to CVNs in cost and availability. The Washington Naval Treaty is the true culprit the lack of Battleships engagements, they were simply irreplaceable national treasures.
>>61494366>guns barely mattered in ship to ship combatretard confirmedno more need be said
>>61485804Not if your Navy is expected to fight Battlecruisers and you have not battlecruisers of your own in the 1930s. So the USN still building 8 inch gun cruisers makes sense. Brits discontinued 8 inch cruisers though there was some thought to 9.2 inch cruisers.It's just the Japanese who are puzzling because they should have known the advantage of 6 inch guns.
>>61494715>It's just the Japanese who are puzzlingthere are typically three components to a fleet action: destroyers, cruisers, and battleshipsie the torpedo boats, the screen, and the capital shipsthe Japs spent all their money building the torpedo boats and the capital ships (which in WW2 includes aircraft carriers) and had none left over for the cruiser screen, which is why their cruiser arm was hilariously underdeveloped compared to the RN and USN
>>61494778IJN heavy cruisers were pretty competent, it's their light cruisers that were lacking, bad at surface combat, bad at AA screening, outgunned by majority of other cruisers and perhaps even some larger WWII destroyers.IJN wanted to use them like big DDs at night for torpedoes it seems.
>>61494778Their destroyers were also kind of ass excepting the torpedos.
>>61495033To be fair you shouldn't expect your DDs to engage anything with guns in broad daylight without the rest of your fleet also being there and doing a far better job at that.
>>61494906>IJN heavy cruisers were pretty competentyes, but they didn't have many of them, and they got it in their heads that fewer and bigger ships were betterin the end they only had maybe fifteen "pure" heavy cruisers, and the two Tone-class which are practically hybrid cruiser-seaplane tenderslooking at for example the Takaos, it does make me wonder, what if they had built two ships of half the displacement instead, could they have doubled their cruiser fleet?>IJN wanted to use them like big DDs at night for torpedoes it seems.because most of their light cruisers were of the interwar type like Omahas and Danaes, in terms of the gun-torpedo ratio. only the Aganos were more modern, they couldn't afford more.>>61495033>Their destroyers were also kind of assthey had decent guns and good torpedoesit's "only" lack of radar, ASW, and AA that makes them inferior to British and American destroyers
>>61495093If your destroyer’s guns aren’t good at AA, they cannot be called “decent”
>>61495123So by your logic all the american DDs during the early stages of the war weren't decent because of a gap in their abilities product of a certain torpedo problem then?
>>61485804Carriers and destroyers for sea control. Submarines to interdict enemy shipping where the carriers and destroyers can't be. The rest is landing ships and the supporting artillery for those landing ships.
>>61495123that would mean only American destroyers are "decent", which is not how I would use the wordAmerican destroyers being exceptionally good at AA makes them a tail-end case when looking at all the navies of the world at the time
Stupid question time (and no, im not reading the thread to see IF my answer is here):When people talk about battleships, especially WW1-era and onwards (post-dreadnaught, if you will), i see them mention "armor" on ships and "armor piercing" for ammo. Did this really matter? wouldn't a direct hit from a fucking 152mm (6 inch) shell or BIGGER fuck the ship up with sheer concussive force (if it doesn't somehow penetrate)? Doesn't heavy armor make a boat sink? Did ships REALLY have armor that could withstand those shells?
>>61495177YupDependsDependsYup
>>61495211Actually changing answer three from>Dependsto>No
>>61495177Ships are actually stupidly resilient to damage, even with very little armor. A boat is a series of watertight metal boxes that can be repaired and pumped empty of water. Ships can survive a lot without sinking.Airplane bombs, especially 500-1000lb bombs do way more damage than any battleship shell. Catastrophic damage can cause a ship to break in half and sink in a few minutes.
>>61495173> that would mean only American destroyers are "decent"Correct
>>61495177>Did this really matter?Yes.>wouldn't a direct hit from a fucking 152mm (6 inch) shell or BIGGER fuck the ship up with sheer concussive force (if it doesn't somehow penetrate)?Not fast enough to compensate for not being armour-piercing. That is, if you're shooting high-explosive shells and your enemy is shooting armour-piercing shells, you will do some damage to him but he will do far more damage to you and therefore sink you faster.>Doesn't heavy armor make a boat sink?Not if you build your boat big enough so that it floats enough so that it can carry enough armour. Which is why how much armour, guns and equipment a ship can carry is highly dependent on the size of the ship, i.e. how much air does the ship hold. Basic buoyancy principle.>Did ships REALLY have armor that could withstand those shells?Yes.You have to understand that what you think of as armour-piercing today, ie a shaped charge, was only invented in the middle of WW2. Battleship armour-piercing shells were basically hardened solid shot with a little bit of explosive, in contrast to high-explosive shells which had larger cavities to carry more explosives with. It was still yet feasible to armour ships against such shells.The death of the battleship was not just the rise of carrier aircraft; it was also the development of shaped charges. Theoretically with shaped charge shells, even destroyer guns can penetrate battleship armour belts.
>>61495211>>61495223>>61495219i am seriously having a hard time picturing any kind of watercraft that has any kind of mobility - and is able to withstand a fucking 152mm shell. that is an absolute fuck ton of momentum flying at something - even if it didn't have any explosive or charge. this is kind of blowing my mind, considering we clearly see what kind of damage the same shells do on land.
>>61495245Do you have brain damage?
>>61495238i am >>61495245thanks for the comprehensive answer dude
>>61495245Almost every ship in this thread has armor that can protect against 152mm shells, depending on the range and angle of attack. These are large vehicles that can take quite a large amount of damage, you can look up what 6" and 8" shell damage looks like on these.
>>61495245Ships are huge. Cargo mostly moves by ship because you can move 120,000 tons of cargo through the Panama canal and sail it around the world at 30kts for very little fuel use.
I wish the German Atlanta were real.
>>61495296What's with the fleur-de-lis on the bow?
>>61495305Wiesbaden's coat of arms.
>>61495245>thanks for the comprehensive answer dudecheers>that is an absolute fuck ton of momentum flying at somethingwell, that's partly what's so fascinating about battleships. it's an absolute fuckton huge ship clad in an absolute fuckton of face-hardened warship steel. and yes, it will shrug off a 6" diameter slug of steel launched at it at 3,000 feet per secondthis is my current desktop image
>>61494516>>61494670out of 1.8 million tons of non-merchant japanese ships sunk by the usa only 277,817 tons were from surface vessels of any type. we can easily go over the cause of sinking for all of their large ships since they didn't have that many.yamato: aircraftmusashi: aircraftnagato: nukedmutsu: self destructedise: aircrafthyuga: aircraftfuso: torpedoedyamashiro: gunfire from battleshipskongo: torpedoedhiei: crippled by gunfire from a cruiser and then sunk by aircraftharuna: aircraftkirishima: gunfire from a battleshipfurutaka: gunfire from a cruiser and a torpedo from a destroyerkako: torpedoedaoba: aircraftkinugasa: aircraftnachi: aircrafthaguro: gunfire and torpedoes from destoyersashigara: torpedoedatago: torpedoedmaya: torpedoedchokai: aircraft and gunfire from an escort carrier lmaomogami: teamkilledmikuma: aircraftkumano: aircraftsuzuya: aircrafttone: aircraftchikuma: gunfire from a destroyer escort and then aircraftthis is every ship lost larger than a light cruiser not counting carriers since only the bongs were stupid enough to lose a fleet carrier to gunfire. as you can see ships lost to gunfire were a significant minority, and in every instance it was during a night battle. any talk about ships fighting gunnery duels on open water in battle lines is bogus since that type of battle literally never happened.
>>61495407>any talk of the USSR being a threat to NATO is bogus because it literally never happened
>>61495414why yes, getting autistic about an abrams vs t-90 fight is mostly meaningless since it turns out you can blow one up with a $400 drone.
>>61495447>$400 droneshould've said $20
>>61495177USS Johnston tanked a few Yamato's 18.1-inch shells due to them being AP and the DD didn't have armor to trigger the fuse. But in the end even just 18.1-inch holes (and other 6.1-inch from Yamato's secondaries) were very severe to a small ship and it sank eventually.
>>61495177>Did ships REALLY have armor that could withstand those shells?the USS iowa, a ship designed to have "good enough" armor rather than "ultra-thick" armor still has a 12in main belt, thicker than a king tigeranother thing to note is that battleships would have been throwing shells at each other from a distance of several kilometers and at engagement angles that were essentially random, you couldnt get a perfectly perpendicular angle on an enemy ship if you tried due to both ships doing evasive actions and the arcing nature of the shellsso you dont need to develop armor thick enough to stop an enemy gun at the muzzle, just good enough to resist shells at likely angles and ranges, the so-called "zone of immunity" where enemy guns are unlikely to penetrateso the the iowa would actually have been capable of penetrating the yamatos armor at close range, theoretically able to defeat the strongest and most well protected ship ever built on paperbut in practice, the iowa actually had a pretty good zone of immunity to its own guns, despite much thinner armor than the yamato (which it could theoretically penetrate) once the fall of shell, range, and natural angle is taken into account, it would have had trouble penetrating its own much thinner armor (and definitely would not have been able to reliably penetrate the yamato)which is why bombs are so deadly, they go through the deck armor instead of the belt armor, which was designed with the intent of stopping shells coming at a very low angle so it would skip over the deck armor and so was made very thin
>>61495469Do you think if naval staffs had known about how deadly bombers would get, they could have designed their ships in such a way that it wouldn't have been a big problem?
>>61495407I'm not sure what your point is, that gunfire is not important? That's bogus. Gunfire was a deciding factor in all engagement where ships got into gun range. Like I said earlier, daytime battles between battlelines are rare in WW2 because of dominance of air.
>>61495407You should specify "sunk by submarine/surface ship", instead of just saying "torpedoed/gunfire". Submarines claimed a big portion of the IJN due to their abysmal ASW.
>>61495447You're retarded. You can also blow one up with a $5 demolition charge at the right place.
>>61493397When they "ran into" each other, guess what formation they're in? Fucking line formation, retard. That's almost always the formation that the battle develops from since it allows ease of command and maneuver, as well as maximizing firepower output.Jesus fucking christ it's like I'm talking to a 14yo zoomer
>>61495407>ships fighting gunnery duels on open water in battle lines is bogus since that type of battle literally never happenedEvery surface battle in WW2 was ships trading gunfire and torpedoes on open water in line formations.
>>61495407This is akin to saying the offensive line in American football is useless because they don't score points.
>>61495729bomb defesne was mostly centered around active measures, like containing the blazeunlike torpedoes, bombs are only likely to actually sink a ship if it hits an ammo mag, otherwise it mostly just turns the ship into a blazing hulkit might be rendered so damaged it has to be scuttled, but it wont sink by itselfso bomb defense was mostly accomplished by carefully arranging the interiors and training the crew not to allow any bomb to actually cause a conflagration and to contain themthey actually saw torpedoes as the main killing weapon from aircraft since they actually could sink a ship with just one lucky hitand you see torpedo defense increase drastically during the war years, the north carolinas have 3-layered torpedo bulges to reduce the effect of torpedoes while also giving reserve buoyancy to counteract floodingbattleships are also just naturally more resistant to torps from their sheer size, they just have more space that needs floodingmodern ships dont have any belt armor, they are protected from bombs primarily through active measuresso they would have likely have just reduced belt-armor and figured out some ingenious way to cluster vital components such that a bomb wouldnt be able to hit all of them at once
>>61494167> exception in naval battles, not the ruleSo the campaign with the most numerous, tactically and strategically important surface battles of the entire fucking war is not worth considering. If you're such a fucking weeb, do the planet a favor and skewer your abdomen with le heckin forded steer kataner
>>61495737the point is that the difference between a 6 inch gun and a 8 inch gun or even as 14 inch gun was mostly was mostly meaningless since ships sunk by gunfire were a minority. it's like saying if the germans had chambered the g98 in a different caliber it would have done more than didly squat when most deaths in ww2 were caused by machineguns and artillery. every single ww2 navy thread ends up with "people" (*nglos) arguing about stupid shit like the definition of a battlecruiser or whether one ship was outgunned by another ship, but none of that shit really mattered when you look at the battles that actually happened. the actual most important things were radar, asw and aa capability, and crew damage control training.
>>61495906low IQ take. It's like saying 7.62 vs 5.56 was never irrelevant just because most people die by arty.
>>61495916was never relevant*
>>61495906>it's like saying if the germans had chambered the g98 in a different caliber it would have done more than didly squat when most deaths in ww2 were caused by machineguns and artillerythats an incredibly reductive way to look at thingsartillery only got most of the kills they did because the machine gun was holding the enemy in place to be shelledand the machine gun only got those kills because the infantry was protecting the machine gun and maneuvering the enemy into its firing arc in the first place
>>61495916what if I told you it's not>>61495928the point is that you and the people designing the weapons at the time were going off of assumptions of what the next war would be like that ended up being completely wrong. giant battleship guns were a more expensive version of volley sights on infantry rifles.
>>61495970>what if I told you it's notit actually is, which is why the change was made in the first place>the point is that you and the people designing the weapons at the time were going off of assumptions of what the next war would be likeno, they were designing weapons over how they would be more effective in their intended roleand since armored cruisers were armored, then the 6in gun wouldnt cut it and you would need to sail to dangerously close ranges to defeat them with your 6in gun while the 8in gun can do so from much further away
That's it I'll be spending hours deciding cruiser gun calibers tomorrow in RtW just to spite anon8" and 9" are the best btw, 10" is r*ddit6x2 turrets, 2 front 1 mid 3 aft, triple mount is for leftists
>>61495981>then the 6in gun wouldnt cut it and you would need to sail to dangerously close ranges to defeat them with your 6in gun while the 8in gun can do so from much further awaywhich ended up not mattering at all, because they completely missed on their predictions of what ww2 naval combat was going to be like
>>61495855I was thinking, like, making the deck thick enough that bombs couldn't burst through it. Also active measures, could that have been a hard counter if the ships were designed around secondary DP and tertiary AA armament instead of them mostly being crammed on during the war?
>>61496042yes the vt fuse was far more important than any big gun or armor
>small arms don't matter because artillerystop arguing it's going nowhere if that's your only retort
>>61496030>which ended up not mattering at allExcept it mattered a lot, because armored cruisers would be able to Shrug off 6in shells>>61496042You did see multiple armored decks late in the war, which were able to stop 250lb bombs used by the japaneseNot really enough to survive a coordinated attack, but it helped>could that have been a hard counter if the ships were designed around secondary DP and tertiary AA armament instead of them mostly being crammed on during the war?The 3in gun and 5in gun were prioritized after the war because they could hold VT fuzesYou also saw the .50cal dropped entirely, and the 20mm fall out of prominence in favor of the 40mm, to maximize first-shot kill probability against kamikaze attacks20mm was still retained in a small capacity, but mostly just as an afterthought because they could just be slapped on convenient locations no other gun would fitThe ultimate expression of this being the atlanta classWith 12x 5in guns, 16x 40mm guns, and 6x 20mm gunsThough practically everything afloat got their AA buffed throughout the war
>>61494516>The Washington Naval Treaty is the true culprit the lack of Battleships engagements, they were simply irreplaceable national treasures.Funny thing this didn't apply to carriers.
>>61495984>not going with 6 x 4 6" autoloader CAs backed by 32 torpedo tube CLst. someone who started with RtW1 back in 2016.
>>61496271>32 torpedo tubescome on real life kitakami had 40 tubes why can't you go higher
>>61496245>armored cruisers would be able to Shrug off 6in shellsgive 5 examples from real life battles. any example involving the shitalians will be disregarded.
>>61495729Yes. A fuckload of AA, like what US battleships had in 1944.North Carolina, for example, started the war with sixteen of the terrible 1.1" AA cannon and eighteen 0.50 cal machine guns. It ended the war with NINETY-SIX Bofors 40mm and Oerlikon 20mm cannon.>>61495889Just because Guadalcanal ate up so many cruisers, USN faggots have to make it such a big deal. It's all so tiresome.>>61496030>they completely missed on their predictions of what ww2 naval combat was going to be likeAnd USN faggots who only see the war in terms of 1942 are just as bad.Battleships and heavy cruisers are a product of the 1930s, and the early war was fought with them because nobody had enough operational carriers yet for them to matter. Even a Pacific War that began in mid-1939 would have been totally different, without the kind of massed strikes that we saw at Pearl and Coral Sea, and therefore the gunline would have been far more relevant.>>61496042>making the deck thick enough that bombs couldn't burst through itUltimately infeasible because by late WW2 fast bombers could carry massive bombs that would punch through any feasible deck armour.>>61496354>disregard these examples because I said so okayidiot
>>61496500this is just more bongoloid cope. yorktown was commissioned in 1937 and hiryu by 1939. just because your neighbors were total clowns doesn't mean your navy wasn't an expensive backwards looking mistake.
>>61496604>a commissioned carrier = fully operational with fully trained aircrew and aircraftMoron.
>>61496604>yorktown was commissioned in 1937and Ark Royal in 1937 as well, faggot
>>61496640ark royal only carried 50 planes to yorktown's 90 and half of them were biplanes. even hiryuu had more and far better planes while displacing over 4000 tons less.
>>61496721>half of them were biplanesFunny that you mentioned that, when originally commissioned, Yorktowns' air groups weren't all that much more free of biplanes. CV-6's air group during the summer of 1938 seems to have been 76 planes, out of which 43 were some flavor of biplane.>uss yorktown in 1940, still proudly carrying biplanes
>>61496721>ark royal only carried 50 planesnot counting deck parks, which could have increased its effective air wing from 54 to 65 or even 70>to yorktown's 90in reality, 62 at Coral Sea>even hiryuu had more and far better planesHiryu was operating biplanes in 1939, the D1A and B4Y bombers, and the A5M fighter, not the Zeromaybe even A4N biplane fighters, they were still in use at this timeand don't knock biplanes - the Fairey Swordfish flew about the same as the TBD DevastatorFaggot.
>>61489339>theoretically, a treaty cruiser could be built using 1944 tech that mounted say three 2x8" turrets with power loading and targeting radarBut why? The 10k ton treaty limit was a straightjacket even for light pre-war cruisers, so why try and cram a heavy cruiser into it long after the treatises are all dead and buried? Are you looking for a small and cheap destroyer bully (so maybe not really a CA...)? Wouldn't smaller and faster guns be better there? Fighting other cruisers? I have a feeling you'd want more armour there than you'd get on any sane 10k ton design.Remember, when people didn't care overly much about treaty limits the result was a 15k ton heavy cruiser with six 11" in guns entering service in 1933, and that from a country with an utterly gutted naval ship building industry.
>>61496844the Fairey Swordfish flew about the same as the TBD Devastatorso like shit? japs had the val and the zero by 1940 and america got the dauntless. bongs were still using the swordfish into 1942.
>>61497185cuz the British had absolutely nothing at all occupying their time and resources from 1939 to 1942, we all know that.Faggot.
>>61494366>the only other battleship vs battleship engagement of the war was also at night in surigao straightRetard confirmed, apparently none of the following happened:>Battle of North Cape>Battle of Cape Matapan>Battle of the Denmark Straits>Final stand of Bimarck
>>61496721>half of them were biplanesLaughs in Taranto
>>61497077>But why?We're talking about a theoretical timeline in which the rapid-firing 6" cruiser was not the choice, and instead a rapid-firing 8" cruiser was selected. So instead of developing rapid-firing 6" triple turrets the RN might have developed rapid-firing 8" turrets instead, as the USN did in 1944.>Fighting other cruisers? I have a feeling you'd want more armour there than you'd get on any sane 10k ton design.Just before war broke out the British did have plans for a new generation of treaty cruisers with late-30s tech. They could fit into a Countylike hull of 10,500 tons (ie close enough to fudge) eight 8" guns and 6" armour (resistant to long-range 8" fire), plus all the other usual bits and pieces.Theoretically if they had instead three rapid-firing 8" twin turrets on the shorter York/Exeter hull, they could have easily upped the armour to 7" (proof against 8" at regular combat range) within the 10kton limit.Theoretically this ship could fire sixty 8" shells a minute.
>>61497185>bongs were still using the swordfish into 1942.Yeah, imagine continuing to use a weapon that works! How stupid! Better phone your congressman and demand that the air force scrap the B-52 today. Fucking retard
>>61497185>america got the dauntless. bongs were still using the swordfish into 1942The British had the Fairey Albacore which despite being a 3-seater biplane was only slightly slower than the Dauntless, and in return had night attack capability and even a radar-equipped variant. It was used to great effect interdicting Rommel in the North African campaign.
>>61497522>>61497636it worked so well you took our corsairs to replace them even when they were killing their pilots. thanks for beta testing I guess.>>61497361>beat complete retards>think it means anything about actual battlesI told you any mention of shitalians would be disregarded>>61497469if you were the navy in 1939 and a time genie offered you 1960s 8" guns or 1945 5" guns you would be an idiot to not take the 5" ones.
>>61497750>Corsair replaced Hellcat, that must mean Hellcats = dogshit tierMongoloid forever and always
>>61497750>Corsairs>1942Watch the faggot squirm
>>61497750>The Corsair was a torpedo bomber>Denmark Strait involved Italy>Bismarck was ItalianThis is genuinely sad, 1/10 made me reply
>>61497750>if you were the navy in 1939 and a time genie offered you 1960s 8" guns or 1945 5" guns you would be an idiot to not take the 5" onesDepends on whether the time genie also provides information on how the war went / would go.If a genie appeared now and offered you a 2040s anti-hypersonic weapon and a 2060s anti-torpedo weapon, which would you pick?
>>61497469>We're talking about a theoretical timeline...I sure as fuck wasn't back in >>61486518>plus all the other usual bits and pieces.Sure, you can build a CA that's a better CA than a CL is. But the difference there is rather smaller than it would have been without treaty limits, and thus OP isn't entirely without a point when he doesn't see all that much reason for having 8" cruisers instead of just standardizing on 6". But without the treaty limits the average CA entering service in 1934 would probably be armed with and armored against 11" or 12" guns, giving it a much better margin against light cruisers and letting it be a more painful nuisance when supporting the big boys.
>>61497790that's the advantage of hindsight, which is the point that I've been trying to make. all of this going on about cruiser guns is pointless since the most useful gun of the war was the dp 5" with vt fuse shells.
>>61497805>the difference there is rather smaller than it would have been without treaty limitsWithout treaty limits the 6" cruiser as we got would not have been built either I thinkYou seem to think that a feasible 8" fleet cruiser would never have been built within the treaty limit, I'm showing that it's possible. The deciding factor was not treaties, but really that the Admiralty opted to go for rapid-firing 6" rather than 8", primarily on the basis that if the power loading was knocked out then manual loading was still feasible.
>>61497833In that case the superior choice would be the British Mark 26 6" or US Mark 16DP 6", dual purpose radar guided VT or SAP 6" guns with incredible RPMs
>>61486864Savo was won by DD torpedoes.
>>61489339>the window between 6" power loading and 8" power loadingwhat?>radar directed cruisers would eat destroyers like Pringlesask Adm. Ainsworth>irrelevantoh, you never heard of WW2
>>61497871>Without treaty limits the 6" cruiser as we got would not have been built either I thinkYeah, they'd probably have grown a bit too, but a CL being squeezed into 10k tons isn't as tight of a fit as squeezing a CA into the same coat, and so I don't think they'd have grown as much.>You seem to think that a feasible 8" fleet cruiser would never have been built within the treaty limitNo, I know it could largely be done. The various 8" cruisers they did build show that much better than your paper ship. But due to treaty limits they are not as distinct in capacity from the six inch CLs as they otherwise would have been (which also makes the distinction in role somewhat muddled).
>>61492518>flight deckHangar deck.
>>61493545>radarDumbass. Radar didn't work well when land was too close. Again, see Savo.
WWII US carrier hanger
>>61498597WWII bong carrier hanger
>>61498602Any questions?
>>61498607>Any questions?yes, what about deck parks?
>>61498453>one of the major success factors>one of the>one of the>one of the
>>61498602I can cherry-pick WWI vintage aircraft carriers too
>>61498386>Ainsworth>Kula bayYour point?>WW2 naval combat was only Ironbottom SoundWhat?
>>61498597>>61498602>>61498607>Too retarded to understand what an armored flight deck is
>>61498802>armored flight deckIsn't that the thing that increased the sink velocity of bong carriers? They always hit bottom swiftly.
>>61498802This ship's sink velocity was never tested, so we'll never know. We have much data on bong ships, fortunately.
>>61498890>>61498917>t. seething fartsniffer
>>61496805>that deckHow the fuck is that gonna work? Is it just for transport and the planes are gonna be hauled off with a crane?
>>61496271I started with RtW1 too, in fact it's all I've played. They have 3 games now? What the fuck
>>61486371yeah, but how big or small would they have had to make the guns so that all those other things didn't matter? you gotta think about the critical questions, anon.
>>614992619 inches in dual mounts for heavy cruisers
>>61489374>THIS WILL NOT APPEAR ON YOUR PHOTOGRAPHokay dude
>Imagine having all of your "arguments" so thoroughly debunked that you can only resort to mindlessly screaming about photograph copyrights
>>61496805Yorktown’s air group got better quickly. USN independent aircraft procurement was much better than the RAF “fuck the RN” policy.
>>61497361he meant Pacific
>>61497469You do appear to not know that rapid fire 8” was not extant until postwar, the installation was large and heavy, and the research and construction cost was high. Rapid fire Exeters? No way.
>>61498631Radar was not a success factor AT ALL in many battles.
>>61498732Ainsworth’s radar hin cruisers still were wrecked by no radar DD torpedoes.
>>61500801>Says war>Means PacificDon't make excuses for your own retardation
>>61500896talking about the sea war in the atlantic is like talking about the air war in the eastern front. >muh 109 best plane ever got a 400:1 kill ratio against slav retards
>>61500960>Y-you can't bring up things that prove I'm a trogoldyte who's mother drank heavily when she was pregnant b-because you just can'tBack to your hugbox
>>61489339>it's like how pistol-calibre submachine guns were good enough that semi-automatic battle rifles didn't really have a major edge over themWhat the fuck are you talking about?
>>61493355>and were conceived of and prepared during ship design and doctrine formulation.Never heard people coming up with 15 65cm torpedo tubes destroyers after WWI. Its even more funny, salvo torpedo fire was considered big threat during day battles too and put huge impact on doctrine and ship design (aka desire to fight gun battles at maximum possible range). Entire reason during Jutland battle Beatty was tiptoeing so carefully at max range and let Germans slip away its because he was expecting 100 torpedoes salvo reaching his line anytime... and it never came.
>>61501055US studies of WWII found that 90% of rifle fire wounds were inflicted within 200 meters, perfectly in the range of such SMG as PPSh. But boomers clinged to their 7.62 bolt rifle designed to fire at 2500 meters away targets.
>>61501218>15 torpedo tubes after WWI IJN did, and most of their destroyers had heavy torpedo armament, and if you count light cruisers they went nuts with 40 tubes per ship. Their long range torpedoes also had some degrees of success.
Best BC. Fight me.
>>61487885>If looks alone could win a war, Japan would have won WW2.true
>>61501465The Hayabusa is prettier
>>61500986retard *ngloid go shine your minor league trophy
>>61501439Emo bongou
>>61501999>still seethingTell us again how Bismarck was Italian
>>61497361>>Battle of North Cape>>Battle of Cape Matapan>>Battle of the Denmark Straits>>Final stand of BimarckWait, these little hair-pullings, of only minor importance even tactically, are being compared to real naval warfare?!?
>>61492629>>Bismarck was supposed to be giga Emdem the whole timeImpossible in the age of air reconnaissance and RADAR.
Yep, he's still seething
>>61501232Right, which is why we went from giving everybody a 7.62 to giving everybody a submachine gun. Dipshit
>>61500825>rapid fire 8” was not extant until postwarbecause as reiterated, the world went rapid fire 6" instead, and then the RN was busy with other stuffonce the brakes were taken off, the USN came up with rapid fire 8" promptly enough>>61500859Radar fire control, no.Radar surface search, very much.>>61502265Unironically yes. Look at the M4 carbine craze even in this day.
>>61501055The debate underlying 8" vs 6" in the 30s - which led to ships like the Town class and Brooklyn class - was that 8" had longer range and better penetration, but 6" was lighter and could be fired much faster. You could develop a fast power-loaded 6" triple turret and quickly slot that into the space for an 8" twin turret. The RN and USN therefore opted to build 6" cruisers that would hopefully make up the difference by quickly closing, showering the enemy in a deluge of smaller shells that would knock out key systems and weapons, while avoiding the slower shots of the 8" cruiser.hence the analogy to submachine guns vs bolt actions.
>>61502412fuck, wrong Edinburgh
>>61493800>radar was important because without it you can't see in the dark and everyone ends up shooting anything that turns on a searchlightRadar wasn't a magical 'I win' button in WW2, midwit. It provided blindfire capability, but it was still a shaky system that had trouble picking up and maintaining contacts, especially around landmasses. In Guadalcanal radar didn't save the USN ships from getting absolutely rekt in some night time engagements or, later on with newer systems, exhibiting questionable results like with the Iowa and Katori & Nowaki in Truuk lagoon. Most radar systems were also highly vulnerable to damage, with battleships known to knock out theirs with salvos from the main guns.
>>61502621>In Guadalcanal radar didn't save the USN ships from getting absolutely rektnot having the early warning from radar is what led to them being taken completely by surprise
>>61502638having an early warning is an insane edge but radar wasn't very reliable at picking up surface targets beyond even visual range. in Savo island and some other engagements off ironbottom sound radar picked up enemy vessels when they already had them visually sighted. in Tassafaronga radar contacts were maintained within Torp range of the destroyers and gunlaying had to be done visually with flares, radar assisted gunfire failed to hit anything. that battle is a great example because despite having a superior force with early warning and radars the US ships suffered a farcical defeat in a surface action with DD's and learned the threat of the long lance in one of the worst ways possible.
>>61502664skill issue maybe. that's what the official explanation for Savo Island is, isn't it?> radar wasn't very reliable at picking up surface targets beyond even visual rangeway better than nothing and provably able to find and hold contacts for hourssurface search radar was absolutely critical to sinking the Bismarck, and the battles of Cape Matapan and North Cape.
>>61502032tell us how the germs were any more deserving of respect than the shitalians
>>61501439why would i fight somebody who's right?
>>61502621> radar didn't save the USN ships from getting absolutely rekt in some night time engagementsA significant reason for that is that a lot of the American commanders didn’t bother trying to learn how to use it because they felt that it was a pointless boondoggle. That’s part of why Ching Lee was so successful, because he studied the shut out of RADAR, to the extent that he knew more about it than the operators themselves
>>61495093>looking at for example the Takaos, it does make me wonder, what if they had built two ships of half the displacement instead, could they have doubled their cruiser fleet?That requires the industrial capacity and/or financing and/or labour pool to build two hulls simultaneously (to say nothing of the logistical complexity of crewing/training/supplying two hulls), not exactly a luxury Japan had. Military procurement isn't like filling up tonnage on a wargaming roster.
>>61504379I know thatOne of the advantages of a smaller hull is that it could potentially be built in a smaller yard.>industrial capacity and/or financing and/or labour pool to build two hullsI think they could manage it>simultaneouslyone after another is also acceptable> logistical complexity of crewing/training/supplying two hullsunlike aircrew, ship's crew wasn't a problem I thinksupplies, yes, especially oilso while two sets of propulsion machinery, radios, guns etc would need to be procured instead of one, they would be of the smaller type i.e. machinery for a 8,000 ton warship instead of a 15,000 tonner which would be slightly more affordable than a straight duplication
>>61489527>no I mean the big ass chimney looking funnelsThey dramatically improved draft in the boiler rooms and put the engine smoke high enough that it wasn't interfering with gunnery anymore. A lot of heavier cruisers and battlecruisers got refit to lengthen their funnels in and around WWI for exactly that reason.
>>61490754It really didn't help the US that our torpedo fuses flat-out didn't fucking work for several years. >>61490952>>61494277pretty damn sexy both. The white-and-buff always wins in my book though. >>61494229we're spergs.
>>61495984>midAmidships main battery (i.e., centerline) turrets were quickly shown to be bad because steam lines running through the magazine affected shot placement.
>>61496269What? WNT did apply to carriers.
>>61497871>the Admiralty opted to go for rapid-firing 6" rather than 8"No. Britain wanted smaller 6" cruisers to cover their big Empire.
>>61506587>to cover their big Empire.they built both 6" and 8" trade protection cruisers, such as the Leander class and the County classthe 6" triple turret cruisers were fleet cruisers, intended to engage other warships especially in a fleet action.
>>61502685Posters are trying to tell you- land backdrops were the problem (even off Vietnam in the '60s). Your examples are open water.
>>61502362>M4 carbine is a submachine gunDon't you have a window to lick?
>>61505048>They dramatically improved draft in the boiler rooms>lengthen their funnels in and around WWIAnd then everyone went to forced draft blowers.
>>61506601>both 6" and 8" trade protection cruisersBecause they knew that a shooting war would be against 8" cruisers (WNT). They pushed hard for 6", which happened with LNT.
>>61506533Steam lines running through the magazine seem like an obviously terrible idea. Didn't they have to keep those things refrigerated to prevent ammunition cook-off?
>>61495970>giant battleship guns were a more expensive version of volley sights on infantry riflesgiant battleship guns were far cooler though
