|
zoux posted:Tons of people thought the ACW would be wrapped up by the end of 1861 See Afghanistan. 18 years and going.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:See Afghanistan. 18 years and going. *39
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
fat bossy gerbil posted:I’m looking for a good winter coat and I thought maybe something milsurp would be cheap and effective but I don’t know what’s good and what’s not. Someone who knows field dress got any recommendations? Depends on your climate region but the M85 Czech military parkas are great for cold weather in a dry environment and are generally fairly cheap. Comes with the big fish fur collar too! However due to their cheapness and quality they've gotten kinda rare and I'd suggest buying before it gets cold if you can find them in stock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Honestly if you are doing an Ace Combat style fake-history then reach back to WW1; a Jutland three parter 'the run south', 'the run north', 'clash of titans', has been sorely missing from naval games. Just use heavy cruisers for the battlecruiser portion and come up with a reason for Battleship lines to meet in the Pacific. Thanks for the suggestion! I'm not at all averse to stealing from other wars. It does feel like the Northern Europe section is getting a little top-heavy though.  I guess I could move Normandy to Italy and add it to the Mediterranean part of the campaign. Speaking of which, my current plot sketch for Normandy is roughly:
On a different note, my impression is that battlecruisers are basically battleships with thin armor. I mean, ship classification is a pretty fuzzy topic, but is that a dangerously invalid impression? At the moment I plan to group ships as DD destroyer, CA cruiser, BB battleship, SS submarine, CV carrier, plus transports, patrol boats, and amphibious craft. Organizationally it's easier for uneducated players if there aren't too many categories, especially of the ships that they themselves are allowed to build. Since you'll be allowed to decide how much weight to allocate to armor, you should be able to make a battlecruiser by just skimping on armor and not using up the resulting spare displacement on more guns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:On a different note, my impression is that battlecruisers are basically battleships with thin armor. I mean, ship classification is a pretty fuzzy topic, but is that a dangerously invalid impression? Nah that's pretty much the gist of it, with 'fast' being the attribute you gain in exchange for thinner armor. The idea was that they would be able to defeat enemy cruisers at ranges they couldn't match, and then if real battleships appeared they would be fast enough to escape from their heavier guns. Which works great until you throw them into the battleline. That said, the big BC losses at Jutland aren't just because their armor was thin, but because the British had lousy magazine safety discipline. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:15
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
the important part is the cruiser part, they're supposed to be fast think "overgunned armored cruiser with an all-main-gun layout" rather than "battleship but light"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:the important part is the cruiser part, they're supposed to be fast See, that description makes me think of the Deutschland cruisers, which were supposed to be able too heavily-armored for enemy cruisers to sink and too fast for enemy battleships to catch. But they were also smaller than battleships: 186m long with a 22m beam, compared to 235m long with a 30m beam for the Scharnhorst class of battleships. The O-class battlecruiser (also German) was 256m x 30m, so definitely more on a scale with battleships than with cruisers. I guess it's a question of whether you think of ships primarily based on how big they are or on what kind of armament they carry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
that costs more than a battleship the US finally figure out what a battle cruiser should be when they built the Alaska the by then the entire idea was obsolete
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
Yeah, the Alaskas fit pretty much all the battlecruiser jobs, although the trick with battlecruisers is they tend to end up in duels with the other guy's battlecruisers.KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:the important part is the cruiser part, they're supposed to be fast In a lot of details of construction and layout they are absolutely battleships but light. If they have to slug it out with heavy ships being light in either guns or armor is a lot of trouble. It's all well and good being fast, but if you're a generation behind in guns or armor, you can't trade shots without coming off way worse. Oversized cruisers look more like the Alaskas. Overgunned cruisers look like the Deutschlands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
you're thinking way too late, post treaty cruisers don't really make sense because a post treaty CA is an overgrown protected cruiser with heavier guns. The whole purpose of the goddamn thing was to outrun what it couldn't kill and to kill everything else. No purpose in a 23kn battlecruiser. look at Blucher vs Invincible and compare stuff like the fineness of the hull of Invincible to Dreadnought. It's a very different hull shape. It's an overgrown cruiser hull. I mean sure Invincible was both oversized and overgunned compared to hte biggest contemporary traditional CA designs, but that's a better description than "light Dreadnought"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
The smart thing about the Alaskas is they weren't given guns that would be of any use against a battleship, so there wasn't the temptation to use them like a battleship. they think that's what the early battle cruiser designers missed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
A fine hull and more engine are how a design gets speed. Armored cruisers before Dreadnought looked a whole lot like pre-dread battleships but finer and with more engine, dreadnought battlecruisers shared that relationship to their respective battleships. It's really weird and hard to draw lines between groups of ship classes, honestly. Design wise, it feels like late armored cruisers don't share much with protected cruisers other than a role. Post-treaty cruisers are a really weird treaty development, and they're probably more like protected cruisers even though they're their own thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:See, that description makes me think of the Deutschland cruisers, which were supposed to be able too heavily-armored for enemy cruisers to sink and too fast for enemy battleships to catch. But they were also smaller than battleships: 186m long with a 22m beam, compared to 235m long with a 30m beam for the Scharnhorst class of battleships. The O-class battlecruiser (also German) was 256m x 30m, so definitely more on a scale with battleships than with cruisers. They were just weird and the product of some unusual design parameters. They were interwar designs that predated the Nazi party, and so initially adhered to the demands of the Treaty of Versailles. The guns were big, but the engines were not, while the armour was pretty average, so the Deutschlands were actually quite slow and would only barely outrun a battleship. As the Nazis grew in influence, ensuing ships of the Deutschland class would mount thicker armour, though this never reached more than 4 inches and was still vulnerable to cruiser guns. The engines were not changed, and they remained slow. The Scharnhorsts were also weird. They were battleships, but just cut down slightly in every facet besides speed. They were essentially a part of an arms race and designed to juuust supercede the new Dunkerques that the French had dutifully laid down in accordance with treaty regulations. The Germans negotiated with the British to lift the naval restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles, in return for agreeing to limit their navy to 35% of the Royal Navy's total tonnage, and upon concluding the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, immediately began construction of the Scharnhorsts. The Brits did this unilaterally, which really pissed off the French because they'd spent a lot of effort and resource making a limited design in the Dunkerques, which the Nazis were then happily designing a counter to. In the long run though, the Scharnhorsts were really wonky ships that didn't really serve a great purpose. The French Navy took their gloves off with the Richelieus, while the line ships of the Royal Navy were all too much to handle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:They were just weird and the product of some unusual design parameters. They were interwar designs that predated the Nazi party, and so initially adhered to the demands of the Treaty of Versailles. The guns were big, but the engines were not, while the armour was pretty average, so the Deutschlands were actually quite slow and would only barely outrun a battleship. As the Nazis grew in influence, ensuing ships of the Deutschland class would mount thicker armour, though this never reached more than 4 inches and was still vulnerable to cruiser guns. The engines were not changed, and they remained slow. They make plenty of sense as the biggest baddest bastards in the Baltic, their original role. They make a lot less sense when a heavy cruiser can punch a shell through their armor and leave them to deal with the damage in South America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:See Afghanistan. 18 years and going. I was going to post the mission accomplished photo until i got to this page.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:There's the option of the later raids against Tirpitz and general coastal shipping in Norway, including the only time that one of Fisher's Follies sank a ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_Folly
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:the important part is the cruiser part, they're supposed to be fast Sea Lord Fisher: "what about a battle cruiser cruiser?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Furious_(47)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Is this the same fisher? Because fisher folly doesn't turn up a whole lot of pertinent stuff
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
What is with that whole Sea Lord title thing, anyway? Did the Queen win it off of Davy Jones in a high stakes backgammon match or what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 08:00
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What is with that whole Sea Lord title thing, anyway? Did the Queen win it off of Davy Jones in a high stakes backgammon match or what? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 09:29
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What is with that whole Sea Lord title thing, anyway? Did the Queen win it off of Davy Jones in a high stakes backgammon match or what? The old (pre-1964) Board of Admiralty consisted of between 12 and 16 members - the 'Lords of the Admiralty'. They were a mix of civilian politicians and senior naval officers, and the latter were known as the Naval Lords. It used to be that the senior member was always a Naval Lord while the majority of the other members were civilians, but after 1806 it was established that the Board would always be led by a civilian (The First Lord of the Admiralty) while the senior naval officer was the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty. In 1832 the Board of Admiralty (which was the RN's political and strategic management) was combined with the Navy Board (which performed the day-to-day management of the service) and the numbers were cut to the First Lord, four Naval Lords and one Civil Lord. Each of the Naval Lords was responsible for an aspect of the service - the First Naval Lord was the professional head of the navy and directed overall military strategy in wartime, the Second was responsible for manpower and training, the Third was responsible for ship design, construction and maintenance and the Fourth was in charge of the supply, victualling and medical requirements. In 1905, high on Edwardian imperial pomp and the Trafalgar centenary, the Naval Lords were retitled as Sea Lords. Jackie Fisher was the first First Sea Lord. In 1917 they added a Fifth Sea Lord with responsibility for naval aviation. In 1964 the separate administrations for each service (the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry) were combined into the Ministry of Defence and the Board of Admiralty was replaced by the Admiralty Board, which meets only once a year and then largely ceremonially, with most of the old Board's functions being taken by the Defence Council while day-to-day running of the RN is back with a revived Navy Board, which consists entirely of naval staff. With the creation of the MoD the Fifth, Fourth and Third Sea Lords were abolished, although of course their functional roles remain but without the fancy title or seat on the Board.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 10:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What is with that whole Sea Lord title thing, anyway? Did the Queen win it off of Davy Jones in a high stakes backgammon match or what? It's a Lord, right, who happens to deal with Sea stuff. See also the (former) Law Lords for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 10:07
|
|
|
Neat. Were they actually in the House of Lords?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 10:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Neat. Were they actually in the House of Lords? The Law Lords were. The Sea Lords aren't/weren't ex officio.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 11:12
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:On a different note, my impression is that battlecruisers are basically battleships with thin armor. I mean, ship classification is a pretty fuzzy topic, but is that a dangerously invalid impression? At the moment I plan to group ships as DD destroyer, CA cruiser, BB battleship, SS submarine, CV carrier, plus transports, patrol boats, and amphibious craft. Organizationally it's easier for uneducated players if there aren't too many categories, especially of the ships that they themselves are allowed to build. Since you'll be allowed to decide how much weight to allocate to armor, you should be able to make a battlecruiser by just skimping on armor and not using up the resulting spare displacement on more guns. Milo and POTUS posted:Is this the same fisher? Because fisher folly doesn't turn up a whole lot of pertinent stuff
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 11:23
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:On a different note, my impression is that battlecruisers are basically battleships with thin armor. I mean, ship classification is a pretty fuzzy topic, but is that a dangerously invalid impression? At the moment I plan to group ships as DD destroyer, CA cruiser, BB battleship, SS submarine, CV carrier, plus transports, patrol boats, and amphibious craft. Organizationally it's easier for uneducated players if there aren't too many categories, especially of the ships that they themselves are allowed to build. Since you'll be allowed to decide how much weight to allocate to armor, you should be able to make a battlecruiser by just skimping on armor and not using up the resulting spare displacement on more guns. Battlecruisers are complicated, and there's a lot of differing historical interpretations. A lot of people will argue that a battlecruiser is a battleship that's traded armour or weapons for speed. They'll also argue that battlecruisers were intended to fight cruisers, not battleships. I'd argue that this is false; battlecruisers were intended to fight battleships, and technical factors were relatively uninformative as to what was and wasn't considered a battlecruiser. The role prescribed for the battlecruiser in WWI doctrine was for the battlecruiser to act only with the battlefleet. They were to back up the scouting line of light cruisers, and destroy the enemy's scouting line. Once this had been done, the battlecruiser squadron would form a 'fast wing' for the main battleline during the main fleet engagement. This fast wing would try to outflank the enemy's line. If the enemy tried to manoeuvre to avoid the fast wing, they would put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the main battleline; if they ignored the fast wing to focus on the battleline, then the fast wing could cross the 'T' of the enemy line. The idea that battlecruisers weren't capable of fighting battleships comes from Jutland, where three British battlecruisers blew up following hits from thier German counterparts. These explosions were caused more by British carelessness with cordite than by anything inherent to the ships. Battlecruisers that didn't explode were capable of taking significant punishment. Tiger took 15 hits, more than any British capital ship bar Warspite (which took the same number of hits). She was still capable of fighting, and in better shape than Warspite. Lion took 13 hits, and despite her Q turret being burned out, was never at significant risk of sinking. The German ships proved similarly survivable, with Seydlitz and Derfflinger surviving 22 and 21 hits respectively, far more than any German battleship. As far as technical factors go, armour and armament played little part in what was considered a battlecruiser. As an extreme example, most historians will define a battlecruiser as being purely dreadnought-type ships, but the IJN considered their semi-dreadnought armoured cruisers of the Tsukuba class to be battlecruisers from 1912. The British battlecruiser Hood was as heavily armoured as any contemporary British battleship (and devoted a greater proportion of her displacement to armour than many previous battleship classes), and had the same 8*15in armament as the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge class battleships. In 1914, Admiral Jellicoe would attempt to persuade the Admiralty to reclassify the Queen Elizabeths as battlecruisers, to give the Royal Navy a decisive edge in battlecruiser numbers over the Germans. As far as most naval thinkers in the WWI era were concerned, the defining feature of a battlecruiser was that it was fast enough to fulfil the demands of the role. Complicating this is the fact that, by 1939, things had changed. Improvements in engine technology, combined with the increased size of battleships in this period, meant that every battleship built at this time had battlecruiser speeds. Meanwhile, you start to get ships like the French Dunkerques, German Scharnhorsts and American Alaskas (as well as a number of unbuilt Japanese, Dutch and Soviet designs). These are relatively large ships, with armour and armament comparable to the battlecruisers built in the run-up to WWI. These ships weren't intended for the classical battlecruiser role; they were never expected to fight modern battleships. Instead, they were mainly intended to fight either similar ships, or the smaller 'treaty' heavy cruisers that most navies had built in the 1920s-30s. While these ships are often considered to be battlecruisers, I prefer to use the term the USN used for the Alaskas - large cruisers. This is because they were intended to, and often did, fulfil cruiser roles; attacking trade (the Scharnhorsts), protecting it (the Dunkerques), or scouting (the Alaskas).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 12:26
|
|
|
Lightly armoured Dependent on speed instead of armour Works within a battlefleet Designed to take on enemy capital ships  maybe aircraft carriers are battlecruisers
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
Fangz posted:maybe aircraft carriers are battlecruisers I mean, as mentioned, early ones mostly literally were battlecruiser hulls, thanks to the Washington Naval Treaty 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
That trend didn’t end with the treaty days! Check out the forward half of these things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 12:50
|
|
|
But I think the most important question is... What is the tank destroyer-equivalent of naval warfare? Uboats?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
wonder what the title for the extremely dry history book about furries in the war on will be called https://twitter.com/robbyxpattz/sta...ingawful.com%2F
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 13:36
|
|
|
Greggster posted:But I think the most important question is... Torpedo Boats, surely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:wonder what the title for the extremely dry history book about furries in the war on will be called Modern Berserkers E: I think that's derived from bears, they used animal-specific names for what they wore - e.g. bear skins, wolf skins - but that's the name that stuck instead of idk ulf-whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:wonder what the title for the extremely dry history book about furries in the war on will be called The Wolf Went Over The Mountain
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
Greggster posted:But I think the most important question is... If you mean 'overly specific counter to a percieved threat that ultimately found usefulness doing other stuff', I'd say torpedo boat destroyers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:Battlecruisers are complicated, and there's a lot of differing historical interpretations. A lot of people will argue that a battlecruiser is a battleship that's traded armour or weapons for speed. They'll also argue that battlecruisers were intended to fight cruisers, not battleships. I'd argue that this is false; battlecruisers were intended to fight battleships, and technical factors were relatively uninformative as to what was and wasn't considered a battlecruiser. The role prescribed for the battlecruiser in WWI doctrine was for the battlecruiser to act only with the battlefleet. They were to back up the scouting line of light cruisers, and destroy the enemy's scouting line. Once this had been done, the battlecruiser squadron would form a 'fast wing' for the main battleline during the main fleet engagement. This fast wing would try to outflank the enemy's line. If the enemy tried to manoeuvre to avoid the fast wing, they would put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the main battleline; if they ignored the fast wing to focus on the battleline, then the fast wing could cross the 'T' of the enemy line. The idea that battlecruisers weren't capable of fighting battleships comes from Jutland, where three British battlecruisers blew up following hits from thier German counterparts. These explosions were caused more by British carelessness with cordite than by anything inherent to the ships. Battlecruisers that didn't explode were capable of taking significant punishment. Tiger took 15 hits, more than any British capital ship bar Warspite (which took the same number of hits). She was still capable of fighting, and in better shape than Warspite. Lion took 13 hits, and despite her Q turret being burned out, was never at significant risk of sinking. The German ships proved similarly survivable, with Seydlitz and Derfflinger surviving 22 and 21 hits respectively, far more than any German battleship. I think we are all getting two different factors confused - the first being "when Invincible was drawn, what was her intended use" and "how were battlecruisers actually used in WWI" Fisher's original intent was to build a super-cruiser that would lap up ACs like an anteater on an anthill. This implies deployment in a independent anti-commerce raider role. It's a AC but better. Invincible as such was not intended to fight in the line. This is what happened at the Falkland Islands, and was the BC working as originally designed. Now, you have a thing that is roughly the same displacement as a battleship, and has guns like a battleship, so you figure out a way to put its guns around the line of battle. Once you start putting it in the line (and tech gets better, and your opponents start building their own BCs), then you make it bigger, and more heavily armored, which reinforces its now-doctrinare usage as a Fast Wing of the Line of Battle. Plus, if there are BCs running around the world that can be tasked with killing your 12,000-15,000 ton AC, your most effective anti-commerce weapon is going to be a lot of light protected cruisers, AMCs, submarines, or a mix of the three because you can cover more sea with the same resources. The battlecruisers were more heavily engaged at Jutland so I'm not sure that it's totally reasonable to compare number of hits as a true measure of survivability. Warspite took almost exclusively hits from 12" guns and Tiger took hits from almost exclusively 11" guns. Warspite was also engaged at relatively short range, around 12,000-10,000 yards. Tiger was engaged at relatively long ranges, with the absolute shortest momentary range between the BCs being just under 13,000 yards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Sea Lords Ah, so just like Rock Lords.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
Greggster posted:But I think the most important question is... Torpedo boats, presumably. What two-letter abbreviation should I invent for submersible cruisers (like the Surcouf), submersible aircraft carriers, and flying battleships? I'm thinking SC, SV, and VB respectively. Granted that these are currently planned to only be used for boss missions, so a designation probably isn't required.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
When did regular soldiers make the switch from smoothbore muskets to rifled firearms?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Torpedo boats, presumably. SUC, SAC, FBB
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 15:26
|
|