|
Crazycryodude posted:Nuclear powered, railgun armed, 150k ton Yamato II will truly be a glorious sight The railguns will fire nuclear warheads, of course. The IJA will probably get jealous though. Can't let the IJN be the only ones responsible for nuclear deterrence. Maybe they could build some sort of giant, all-terrain bipedal walking tank, with a similar nuclear warhead launching railgun, or something...
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:The naval doctrines in this timeline are gonna be SO messed up. When are we gonna start mounting 16in guns on carriers? I mean if it's a spinal mount, you can go a bit bigger than 16"...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Wtf, wrong CL. You can't let all those ships escape!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Nuclear powered, railgun armed, 150k ton Yamato II will truly be a glorious sight 150kt? Meh.  Those are 16" turrets. 50x2 of them. https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2015/08/25/the-ratte-of-the-seas-500-000-ton-japanese-dreadnought-project/
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Caconym posted:150kt? Meh. My favorite part of the whole design is that it still had torpedo tubes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
42kt? gently caress me. Even if you had nuclear reactors that would be a challenge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Did somebody say 500 kiloton battlecarrier? (I'm the below deck 18" turrets) Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Rules the Waves - WWII Edition looking good!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Did somebody say 500kt battlecarrier? It's like a battleship collided with a catamaran aircraft carrier 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
goatface posted:42kt? gently caress me. Even if you had nuclear reactors that would be a challenge. One of the funniest things I ever saw was, back when I played World of Warships, their official forums had a 'ship designer' guy who would make long threads about how essential it would be for the USN to make a nuclear reactor battleship. Setting aside everything else about how stupid that idea is and for how many reasons, the real hilarity came in his insistence it would be most efficiently armed with 12 inch naval rifles for 'rate of fire' and 'weight saving'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Caconym posted:150kt? Meh. KANEEEEDA!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:One of the funniest things I ever saw was, back when I played World of Warships, their official forums had a 'ship designer' guy who would make long threads about how essential it would be for the USN to make a nuclear reactor battleship. I don't know if the basic premise is that silly. We have these insanely expensive carriers that haven't ever really been tested from a survivability standpoint at all. With naval railguns and directed energy weapons seemingly near future, a more hardened ship based around durability and missile defense/bombardment doesn't seem that crazy. Plus it had to be better than the ships were building without sacrificial anodes and no missiles or really weapons at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
The problem with 12" guns is that someone else will mount 16s and hit you while you cant hit back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The problem with 12" guns is that someone else will mount 16s and hit you while you cant hit back. Yes, but the bigger problem with 12" is that your shells literally cannot penetrate the enemy ship's belt or deck and their shells will punch right through your ship. Edit: It looks like a 12" and a 16" can reach out to the same exact ranges. The difference is the penetration issue ^^ Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:It's like a battleship collided with a catamaran aircraft carrier The Yamato and the Musashi serving as catamaran-pontoons for the Shinano flight-deck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The problem with 12" guns is that someone else will mount 16s and hit you while you cant hit back. I would suggest mounting 18.1" guns would obviate that problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Velius posted:I don't know if the basic premise is that silly. We have these insanely expensive carriers that haven't ever really been tested from a survivability standpoint at all. The point of a SINKEX is rarely to test the weapons being used to sink the target. The USN has a LOT of survivability data.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Of CVN's though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Did somebody say 500 kiloton battlecarrier? This is a three-way from that anime where the ships are anime girls, but in "realistic" form, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Of CVN's though? Not exactly CVNs but next best thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(CV-66)#Post_decommissioning_service http://cvn78.com/page26/page26.html 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Coffeehitler posted:This is a three-way from that anime where the ships are anime girls, but in "realistic" form, right? Its about as realistic as Hitler's landships wunderwaffen concept so yes.  Grey. My blue balls
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Is anyone knowledgeable about the Shinano or wargamed what that ship could do? The whole idea of the carrier seems neat, making a carrier around the Yamato battleship hull, but the thing got sunk before it did anything. I'm curious to what people's thoughts are about its effectiveness had it deployed earlier in the war, advantages/disadvantages, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:Is anyone knowledgeable about the Shinano or wargamed what that ship could do? It would have been tough, but it carried very few planes and was a huge fuel hog.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
The Shinano was big, but it still couldn't operate as many planes as fleet carriers built from the ground-up as carriers, such as the Shokaku, or Soryu, or even Taiho-class carriers. In an alternate universe, the Shinano would have been useful as a plane ferry: it could carry far more planes to shuttle them around in storage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
I think one of the plans for it was tha tit would be a big mobile maintenance bay. It could haul a lot of planes, fix them up and give them out to other carriers or airfields.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Yes, but the bigger problem with 12" is that your shells literally cannot penetrate the enemy ship's belt or deck and their shells will punch right through your ship. You're thinking too small. These 12" shells would obviously be propelled by nuclear explosions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
   The Pearl Run continues to be dangerous.   A rare Clunk!  Dammit.   Well hello dinner!  Let the feasting commence!  This is going to be one less invasion force.  Even the bad weather can't stop us!  And down they go!  The late Kates contribute. That ends the morning air attacks!  This is all of the the afternoon ones.....   An acceptable day.  Davy Jones is pleased.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Why did your TF withdraw? The ghost of mahan demands surface combat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Presumably a task force set to air attack of sea forces withdraws from any enemy surface contact on a (very simple and stupid) "protect the carriers" directive that ignores the relative threat of the surface fleet being contacted. E.g., doesn't matter that Grey had battleships and destroyers (and cruisers?) in that TF, there was at least one carrier and the enemy group has at least one warship (I see three destroyers in the screenshot) so the order is to pull back. I'm guessing, but that's approximately the level of obstinacy this game's interface seems to present to the player.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Presumably a task force set to air attack of sea forces withdraws from any enemy surface contact on a (very simple and stupid) "protect the carriers" directive that ignores the relative threat of the surface fleet being contacted. E.g., doesn't matter that Grey had battleships and destroyers (and cruisers?) in that TF, there was at least one carrier so the order is to pull back. Also unspoken in the previous question, how did this TF get within 24,000 yards?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Also unspoken in the previous question, how did this TF get within 24,000 yards? IJN_air_search_doctrine.txt
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Yes that. But also this is an ocean that tends to have randomly bad weather. In a pre-radar era it's totally plausible to blunder into a convoy you didn't previously spot due to thunderstorms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Why did your TF withdraw? The ghost of mahan demands surface combat. Obviously those three destroyers charged the IJN fleet and the fleet turned tail and ran. That's just what IJN does when three destroyers come at it, it's a bug in their programming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Obviously those three destroyers charged the IJN fleet and the fleet turned tail and ran.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
On one hand I kinda feel bad about how badly the AI is playing. On the other hand, you would probably need this level of utter carnage to give Japan a chance, so...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
have the papers back home started calling for Nimitz to be sacked yet
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Presumably a task force set to air attack of sea forces withdraws from any enemy surface contact on a (very simple and stupid) "protect the carriers" directive that ignores the relative threat of the surface fleet being contacted. E.g., doesn't matter that Grey had battleships and destroyers (and cruisers?) in that TF, there was at least one carrier and the enemy group has at least one warship (I see three destroyers in the screenshot) so the order is to pull back. The screenshot includes Ise or Hyuga (BB, tall superstructure and after mast, separated vertical funnel), Tone or Chikuma (CA, uppermost large ship with large raked funnel, four forward turrets, large boom on after mast), and one other heavy cruiser (lowermost large ship with two funnels, blocky superstructure, and three forward and two aft turrets). 7 March 1943 Italian torpedo boat Ciclone—you can probably guess by now—mined near Bizerte while rescuing survivors from another mined (merchant) ship in a field laid by HMS Abdiel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Speaking of Taffy 3, in WW2 was there ever a horrifying amount of sinking that occurred for an invasion fleet like we are seeing? Battle Off Samar is the only thing I can think of and that was just a narrow dodge from disaster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Presumably a task force set to air attack of sea forces withdraws from any enemy surface contact on a (very simple and stupid) "protect the carriers" directive that ignores the relative threat of the surface fleet being contacted. E.g., doesn't matter that Grey had battleships and destroyers (and cruisers?) in that TF, there was at least one carrier and the enemy group has at least one warship (I see three destroyers in the screenshot) so the order is to pull back. This is correct. Ron Jeremy posted:Also unspoken in the previous question, how did this TF get within 24,000 yards? The game's WEGO implementation breaks turns down into distinct phases of movement, then combat. There is also a notion of "reaction" movement that can happen. But in any case, it's an ordered set of steps that occur, not real-time spotting and reaction like you have in actual life, so while it works well overall sometimes you get weird stuff like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Donkringel posted:Speaking of Taffy 3, in WW2 was there ever a horrifying amount of sinking that occurred for an invasion fleet like we are seeing? Battle Off Samar is the only thing I can think of and that was just a narrow dodge from disaster. Uh that botched practice landing in England maybe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:00
|
|
