|
Megadyptes posted:I've wondered that before, and outside of the scope of the game but what's the V in CV mean? Cruiser Voler. 'To Fly' from French.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Megadyptes posted:I've wondered that before, and outside of the scope of the game but what's the V in CV mean? Aircraft carriers are ships designed primarily for the purpose of conducting combat operations by aircraft which engage in attacks against airborne, surface, sub-surface and shore targets. Contrary to popular belief, the "CV" hull classification symbol does not stand for "Carrier Vessel". The "CV" designation was originally derived from cruisers, since aircraft carriers were seen as an extension of the sea control and denial mission of cruisers. The "V" designation for heavier-than-air craft comes from the French verb voler (to fly).[8] Since 1935, "CV" has been a two-letter, unitary hull classification symbol meaning "aircraft carrier". Aircraft carriers are designated in two sequences: the first sequence runs from CV-1 USS Langley to the very latest ships, and the second sequence, "CVE" for escort carriers, ran from CVE-1 Long Island to CVE-127 Okinawa before being discontinued.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Figured this would be the best place to ask this, why did post Dreadnought battleships use the abbreviation BB? I understand needing to differentiate them from pre dreadnought battleships but why an additional B specifically? Does it mean Bigger? Better? Wouldnt BF for Battleship Fast or BH/BA for Battleship Heavy be more appropriate? The designation scheme changed. In US practice it became [type][subtype]. So BB is battleship battleship ie nothing to set it apart. DD is similar but then there's DL, which is destroyer leader, a bigger meaner destroyer with some overlap with light cruisers (such as the Japanese Kuma, the Italian Capitani Romani, and the French Mogador classes while in the US that'd be ships like the Porter and Somers classes). There's also DEs, which are destroyer escorts, which are corvettes or frigates in other countries' use and are slow, undergunned ships with a sonar, sub killing weapons and a price tag to be everywhere. So now that that's taken care of, it's time for the overlaps and fun oddities. BC and CB are nominally similar designations on the face of them but are very different in practice. A CB (the Alaska class) are big scary cruisers but they're still armored with the same type of armor scheme as a cruiser and in generally are scaled up cruisers. BCs are on the other hand battleships that are still putatively capable of standing on the battle line but are designed like battleships that gibe up in some aspect in return for speed. They're capable of cruiser missions but also have a role in the line of battle (theoretically). An Alaska is only the cruiser missions even if it's the meanest bastard around at them. Some designation for fast battleships probably makes sense, but it never got done. So now it's time for weirdnesses. If you've seen cold war and modern designations you know that subtype designations can be stacked at least now. So a cold war DLGN is a destroyer that is a leader, guided and nuclear subtype, in other words it's a big nasty destroyer with a primarily missile armament that can go across an ocean at flank speed like it's no big deal (which is why nuclear power is a big enough deal to be reflected in designation). Then there's carriers. CV makes no sense. All the good words for a subtype start in A but A is taken by armored cruiser and then the treaty-created heavy cruisers. Carriers are definitely a variety of cruiser early on because reasons to do with scouting roles and the state of carrier aviation in WWI. At the end of the day, somebody suggests V because of the French volpane, it's dark out, everybody's hungry and they just go with it. That's the best origin story I've heard from a good source. It's more important that it's kind of a gently caress it answer than the real source anyway. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
The royal navy doesn't bother with all that extra letters poo poo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennant_number#Post-1948
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Megadyptes posted:The royal navy doesn't bother with all that extra letters poo poo. Yep, and a whole bunch of navies have just names.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Megadyptes posted:I've wondered that before, and outside of the scope of the game but what's the V in CV mean? I don't remember exactly what word it stands for but from memory I think it means "heavier than air," as in it carried airplanes and not dirigibles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
pthighs posted:I don't remember exactly what word it stands for but from memory I think it means "heavier than air," as in it carried airplanes and not dirigibles. Since you raised the distinction, I might as well add that lighter-than-air flight is designated 'Z.' For example, Akron and Macon were ZRS-4 and -5 respectively, for airship, rigid, scouting. US Navy blimp squadrons took 'ZP' (airship, patrol), whereas airplane squadrons got VF (fighter), VB (bombing), VT (torpedo), etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Since you raised the distinction, I might as well add that lighter-than-air flight is designated 'Z.' For example, Akron and Macon were ZRS-4 and -5 respectively, for airship, rigid, scouting. US Navy blimp squadrons took 'ZP' (airship, patrol), whereas airplane squadrons got VF (fighter), VB (bombing), VT (torpedo), etc. they still get that, matter of fact there is a squadron with the designation VMFAT-401 (Airplane, Marine Corps, Fighter/Attack Training, specifically a Marine Corps training squadron for the F/A-18C/D)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
I always thought CV was from Crusier, aViation
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
From a random website: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-does-v-stand-for.htmlquote:The V means that it's a fixed-wing heavier-than-air squadron (as opposed to H for a rotary wing, i.e. helicopter, heavier-than-air squadron). Why V? It turns out that not even the Navy knows for sure, although its historians think it might have represented volplane, a French word for an aircraft sustained in the air by lifting surfaces as opposed to a bag of a gas that is lighter than air. In the beginning, since the usage predates helicopters by more than 20 years, it stood for heavier-than-air, period, with the designation for lighter-than-air being Z. It seems very likely that the Z is based on Zeppelin, the name of the Count who pioneered rigid airships before World War I, although the Navy applied it to non-rigid as well as rigid airships. See: http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/APP16.PDF Edit: Voler means to fly in French. pthighs fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jan 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Since you raised the distinction, I might as well add that lighter-than-air flight is designated 'Z.' For example, Akron and Macon were ZRS-4 and -5 respectively, for airship, rigid, scouting. US Navy blimp squadrons took 'ZP' (airship, patrol), whereas airplane squadrons got VF (fighter), VB (bombing), VT (torpedo), etc. Not to be confused with the deep striking "ZRP" designation: Airship, Rigid, Penetration 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Aircraft-carrier-designation-chat: It's worth noting that in the 1910s, '20s, and even into the '30s, there was enormous influence in aviation from the French language. I totally buy the Cruiser Voler story, if only for all the things in aviation that have French names, but even more obscure origination stories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Well, the good news is that my Confederate playthrough finally ended in the distant future of 1950. The actual Confednoughts proved a bit of a bust because none actually engaged in combat. We went to war with France another two times, one of which brought in the Yanks. That went well and resulted in the loss of Haiti and Grand Bahama to the Yanks and Frogs respectively. Still, we were unbowed and took advantage of the lull in fighting to step in when the Irish rebelled against the Brits while reconsidering our future plans. In the name of glory and Dixie, the stars and bars was raised over Dublin, Cork and Belfast! Within weeks the island nation was being concreted over and the locals inducted into the glorious purpose of the New Confederate Navy: All glory to the Submariners. By the end of the 30s, Ireland was a hub of activity, with submarines and light cruisers thundering down the slipways monthly. This caused jealousy amongst the other, far more powerful naval powers: While the US and UK had 20+ BBs each, the New Condeferate Navy was fielding 92 DDs and an utterly mind boggling 200 subs, a full order of magnitude larger than the next nearest navies. Out of sheer spite, I then hosted a naval conference that resulted in millions of BisonDollars of international warships being scrapped while leaving mine untouched. This led to a fascinating war with Germany in the 40s. Battleship engagements were entirely absent during this war, during which vast fleets of merchant ships were wiped from the seas. To my surprise, the Germans were the first to declare unrestricted warfare, blasting apart the Lusitania in an event that set the course for the next year, during which both navies managed to turn Lusitania into a verb. The Germans managed to streak ahead in the Lusitania stakes while Confederate Hunleys and vessels of the Unterseeflotte engaged in gun duels, presumably around a passing White Star Line ship that both were actively trying to sink. At one point we were losing a full 10 subs a month which were replaced within months with fresh batches of improved subs being thrown into the sea. On land, the the panzers were battling land ironclads in the jungles of east africa. Somehow. Eventually the German state collapsed as ships simply couldn't get to Germany proper thanks to the North Sea being now paved with trapped submarines, mines and the odd very nervous Cunard rep trying to persuade both sides that mass tourist death isn't doing them any favours internationally. Sadly, the peace terms didn't allow us to steal East Prussia, but the grand dream finally came true. The German colonies of West Africa, Southwest Africa and Tanganyika swapped one grey-suited conquerer for another in an event that was probably quite bad for the locals. Meanwhile, the far east was now open to us as distant Kiautschou Bay was also inducted into the glorious Confederacy. The remaining few years of my tenure ended quietly, and I eventually had a battlecruiser named after me despite everything. As of 1950, the Confederacy maintains it's tiny naval budget but is a world-spanning power with an ungodly fleet of top-notch submarines and light cruisers that can obliterate a nation's trade in minutes. I think it went well. In the meantime, I'm considering a new game in the far east. Initial ship design plans were produced in Ireland in order to be shunted through the time warp.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
What the gently caress is that. Can that 3x16 even fire? It's beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
A 10x 16" broadside is nothing to joke about 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
chrisoya posted:What the gently caress is that. Can that 3x16 even fire? It's to decapitate the Pagoda mast when the ship fails to sink the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
chrisoya posted:What the gently caress is that. Can that 3x16 even fire? Here's the thing: I have no idea. The two either side are the secondaries, so I'm wondering if the game is alright with that. If not, we'll replace it with some quad torpedo tubes or something.The downside is I'd need to test it out first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
I still need to try out a mass-sub campaign. Dedicate everything to whatever can shoot torpedoes. How many subs do you need to win a war in 6 months?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Somehow my favourite part of that absurd ship is the tiny mini turrets on top of the larger turrets in the side view picture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Somehow my favourite part of that absurd ship is the tiny mini turrets on top of the larger turrets in the side view picture. Hey, now, that's the one bit I do have precedent for:   Dunno-Lars posted:I still need to try out a mass-sub campaign. Dedicate everything to whatever can shoot torpedoes. No idea, but my fleet of 100-120 subs wiped a good couple of hundred German merchant ships out of the water in about a year. TacticalNecromancy fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Somehow my favourite part of that absurd ship is the tiny mini turrets on top of the larger turrets in the side view picture.   
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Needs a third turret to top it off
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
It's like a wedding cake made of cannons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Oh, so that's what low freeboard looks like. vv I think the large superstructure might be throwing me off but it doesn't look much higher than the height of the crew you see on the deck, at least at the bow. I guess ~2m isn't all that bad. vv TehKeen fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
On the Kearsarge? Doesn't look particularly low to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Wikipedia posted:Kearsarge had a very low freeboard, which resulted in her guns becoming unusable in bad weather.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
  low enough?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
That does look like a bit of a terror.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
when I first saw that second pic my mind skipped over the USS part and I thought it was just 'terror at sea' and I thought yup, sure is. Then realised that's the ship name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Terror_(BM-4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphitrite-class_monitor Kilonum fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Probably not a ship name the US will be reusing any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Megadyptes posted:
I've been on an Arleigh Burke in high seas and that was seriously terrifying to a landlubber like myself. This, I cannot even imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
See, when we build a monitor called 'Terror', we at least make sure it won't just plough straight into the seabed at top speed. Instead, we put everything on towers so that it tips over sideways slowly in a stiff breeze.  Still, the nice thing about absurdly low freeboard is that it gives you plenty of room to build porta-cabins or even entire shanty towns on top of the hull without compromising it. After all, it's already pretty much underwater. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Has there been any word on a sequel or anything?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Gave the official forum a quick skim, didn't see anything. I did find this however:
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:14
|
|
posted:
|
Version 1.31 now available.1.30 posted:Bug fixes 1.31 posted:* Fixed the B/CA graphics glitch with too thick/thin ships in the build window.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
That seems like a pretty sweet patch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
A firing arc indicator would be about the most useful thing possible for me. Vital for answering questions like 'is this arrangement of turrets even physically possible?'
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Wow, I suggested the turret firing arcs ages ago. Never thought they'd get around to doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Happy to see they're still working on the game. Hope they have new content in the works, even if it's monetized - I've gotten weeks out of this game and I'd like to throw more cash at the devs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 02:47
|
|