|
battleships is forts we taught to swim
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
Best Bi Geek Squid posted:battleships is forts we taught to swim You're joking, but...
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
What a wild fight
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
The Kriegsmarine probably regrets awarding the munitions contract to the Nerf Corporation
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Well now that was a slugging match.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
I makea de pasta i sinka de nazis ohhhhhhh kommy5 posted:...I suggest looking at the brackets. ACTUAL anti-italian discrimination
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
Battle #19: HMS Vanguard vs USS Tennessee The Standards did incredibly well in round 1, but they're going to come up against some much stiffer opposition in round 2. Tennessee is tough, but Vanguard may just be even tougher. In fact, Vanguard is probably the toughest ship in the competition behind only Yamato. All except for one thing...the British, for some baffling reason, decided to use papier-mache for her conning tower armor in lieu of steel. Any hit to her conning tower will likely punch through it... Tennessee has the same lunkhead features of all the standards, but also has a high end radar, which probably really helped her upset Nagato. Both ships will struggle to really hurt the other at anything other than very close range, so this looks a bit like a good old fashioned slugfest. Tennessee will be incredibly tough to put down, and the ability to Just Keep Firing seems to have a lot of value in these fights...  Probably the finest sea-boat of the battleship era.  *tuba noises*  Vanguard deals damage at 29.1 km, on her third salvo. Her gunnery has consistently been the best we've seen so far.  All of these big holes in Tenn's deck were put there outside of 28km...a fine return for that long range.  Tenn doesn't open up until around 25km, but her gunnery at that range is also solid. The 14" standards volume of fire is always quite good.  A 14" shell thuds into Vanguard's belt from a range of 24km.  Tenn is taking an absolute beating. We've just crossed 20km, and she's been hit by 34 15" shells. Both towers and her #1 turret are damaged, though functional.  Tenn loses one turret...  And another.  But she's still putting high-quality fire onto Vanguard. Vanguard's armor soaks it up, though, for the most part.  Flooding begins to become an issue for Tenn. The ships are now inside 15km, and Vanguard isn't missing the mark very often. Her shells aren't doing catatrophic damage individually, but the sheer number of hits is whittling down Tenn in a hurry. Tenn takes a round to the conn, but aside from hurting her accuracy, she doesn't seem dramatically affected.  Tenn loses a third turret.  And her list becomes more severe...  Water washes over her deck. The vanquisher of Nagato is in deep trouble.  And finally, the tough old battlewagon rolls over and heads to the bottom, her topside a wreck and nearly all of her insides full of water.  I was bracing myself for another Standard upset here, and am legit surprised how one-sided this was. I think it demonstrates that the Homer Simpson boxing approach to battleship fighting might get you through lighter armored opponents, but when you come up against someone as tough or tougher than you are, and who can shoot this well, you're kind of screwed. Tenn hit Vanguard with a good number of heavy shells, but did no serious damage and hardly impacted her fighting ability at all. That said, it took around 90% of Vanguard's magazine to sink Tennessee. She was a tough girl.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
Someone explain the tuba jokes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
Standards are fat as gently caress, because they can be with a speed requirement of only 21kts, and from an armour efficiency perspective the closer you are to a sphere the better. Also the reason Vanguard has only light armour on the conning tower is because the British decided after Jutland that medium armour is useless, and armouring the coning tower sufficiently to withstand modern projectiles is too much weight too high up, so it was better to just go for splinter protection only. On the whole I think they got that right, I can't think of any British ship who lost a fight because of damage to her upperworks, and by doing so they saved a significant amount of weight and, more importantly, stability, since a giant armoured block 50 feet above deck level is obviously not ideal from a sea keeping perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
If I recall correctly, they found that captains were overwhelmingly commanding their ships from the bridge and not the conning tower anyway, because they wanted to be able to see what was happening out there. If the conning tower really only protects a couple guys in there responding to the captain's shouted orders, it's not worth the armor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Also the reason Vanguard has only light armour on the conning tower is because the British decided after Jutland that medium armour is useless, and armouring the coning tower sufficiently to withstand modern projectiles is too much weight too high up, so it was better to just go for splinter protection only. On the whole I think they got that right, I can't think of any British ship who lost a fight because of damage to her upperworks, and by doing so they saved a significant amount of weight and, more importantly, stability, since a giant armoured block 50 feet above deck level is obviously not ideal from a sea keeping perspective. Sort of yes. Many of their previous battleships had their conning towers armored with heavy armor to the level of the belts, for example the QE's have 13" for both the belt and the CT instead of medium armor. However, after experience at Jutland, they found that this is not enough, as when you have a relatively small room, even if it is very heavily armored, when a large-caliber shell hits it everyone inside is going to be incapacitated or dead from the shock alone, even if there is no penetration. Luckily, this did not impact them materially because another thing they found at Jutland is that no self-respecting British captain is going to step inside the conning tower during a fleet action, because you can't see from there, and by the standards of behaviour of the time, the captain can't very well hide under armor when those under his command will have to brave the enemy shells outside it. Every single ship at Jutland was led from the flying bridge for the entire duration of the fireworks. So after the battle the ship design guys collected AARs from the leadership and basically went: "These things cost an arm and a leg in displacement and stability, no-one thinks they actually work, and even if they believed they would work, they still wouldn't be used. Delete."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:Someone explain the tuba jokes? The American standards are slow, fat and ugly WW1 era battle wagons that punched above their weight in the first round. At this point they're facing newer, sleeker, better looking opponents. Hence tuba music for the slow, fat, middle-aged guy that showed up to the dance. Edit: Colorado has a very legit shot to advance thanks to the North Carolina's cowardice letting it be pitted against a French cruiser killer. Ice Fist fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Jan 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:
Colorado is fine on her own merits!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Colorado is fine on her own merits! Especially if she isn't done dirty again and gets the radar and fire control the majority of the class got.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
Is it just me, or did New Mexico seem to have done better against Yamato than Tennessee did against Vanguard?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
Another victory for accuracy. I was beginning to wonder if something about the game engine was favouring Standards, but those consistent long-range hits are a serious ace up Vanguard's sleeve. I wonder if we'll see Vanguard against Yamato. That would be one heck of a sight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
Finesse beating good ol' American herp derp fat assery cannot be forgiven! Iowa avenge us!  Also I realize that putrescent aircraft carriers and their dishonorable carrion swarms are not part of this discussion but I saw a headline the other day that CV-63 Kitty Hawk (the lovely Kitty) just got towed out of the mothball fleet to be scrapped. She's too fat for the Panama Canal so she has to go all the way around South America to come back up and get scrapped in Texas. Score +1 for the standards being able to fit through the Panama Canal on the way to their own scrapping. Wait, I think I did this wrong...
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
Fabulousity posted:Finesse beating good ol' American herp derp fat assery cannot be forgiven! Iowa avenge us! Fun fact: No US carriers have been able to transit the Canal since we started building them with angled decks. They were going to build the Nimitz-class so that with some extensive preparation it could fit, but eventually somebody realized that it would take less time to go around the Horn than to pack it up, squeeze through, and unpack again. I can't find records as to which US flattop was the last to transit, but I get the impression it would have been round about the Korean War. Probably an Essex-class. Lemniscate Blue fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jan 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
Regarding the Standards, Wikipedia says they were all built to fit certain tactical characteristics, so they could all work together as a unit, and that those characteristics were all-or-nothing armor scheme, all main guns on the centerline in fore and aft turrets with no amidships guns, designed range of about 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km) at economical cruising speed, top speed of 21 knots (39 km/h), and tactical turn radius of 700 yards. I understand the all-or-nothing armor, and expect the last three were just "all these ships can do the same maneuvers and operations", but what's the particular advantage of all centerline fore and aft guns? Is it just a guarantee that every gun will be available for a broadside without crossdeck firing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 03:48
|
|
|
There were... interesting gun arrangements during the early dreadnought era, including but not limited to wing turrets, offsetting turrets for cross-deck fire, the abomination that was the Nassau, and so on. The US went in on superfiring turrets real early.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 03:51
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:There were... interesting gun arrangements during the early dreadnought era, including but not limited to wing turrets, offsetting turrets for cross-deck fire, the abomination that was the Nassau, and so on. I hear you're interested in crimes against man and god. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I hear you're interested in crimes against man and god. Why. How. How did you have 17 inch guns and build a badnought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Regarding the Standards, Wikipedia says they were all built to fit certain tactical characteristics, so they could all work together as a unit, and that those characteristics were all-or-nothing armor scheme, all main guns on the centerline in fore and aft turrets with no amidships guns, designed range of about 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km) at economical cruising speed, top speed of 21 knots (39 km/h), and tactical turn radius of 700 yards. I understand the all-or-nothing armor, and expect the last three were just "all these ships can do the same maneuvers and operations", but what's the particular advantage of all centerline fore and aft guns? Is it just a guarantee that every gun will be available for a broadside without crossdeck firing? I would guess that it's to simplify the work involved in designing, building, and maintaining the ships. Picking a single "style" of ship makes it easier to gather and retain expertise in that type of design. There's a lot of ways you can screw up a battleship. Trying to put stuff too close to the big guns, putting the vents in the wrong place (far too many Royal Navy ships had the vent stack in front of the observation platforms  ), putting too much weight high up...if you can say "look, we want another one of these ships, except fix X, Y, and Z", you're much more likely to come up with a good design, than you are if you say "we're going to do a blank-slate re-imagining of what a battleship can be."Something that ties into this is that building a battleship is a multi-year endeavor, and depending on where you are in history, you might have multiple years' worth of designs in production at the same time. That can leave you in the un-enviable position of recently having discovered a serious flaw in your ship designs, and not being able to get ships with fixes for it for another 2-3 years, because the ships currently in production are too far along to fix.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Why. How. How did you have 17 inch guns and build a badnought. The 17 inch guns displease you? Then perhaps you would like 18 inch guns!  (These aren't mine BTW, to be clear)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
No, no, I love 17 inch cannons, they are the ultimate hipster caliber.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 04:25
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Regarding the Standards, Wikipedia says they were all built to fit certain tactical characteristics, so they could all work together as a unit, and that those characteristics were all-or-nothing armor scheme, all main guns on the centerline in fore and aft turrets with no amidships guns, designed range of about 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km) at economical cruising speed, top speed of 21 knots (39 km/h), and tactical turn radius of 700 yards. I understand the all-or-nothing armor, and expect the last three were just "all these ships can do the same maneuvers and operations", but what's the particular advantage of all centerline fore and aft guns? Is it just a guarantee that every gun will be available for a broadside without crossdeck firing? Centerline fore and aft is basically just the best arrangement, hence why all capital ships eventually converged on it (unless you discount the all-forward schemes, which I would call variations on the theme). Amidships guns have terrible firing angles and are more likely to damage the superstructure. Wing turrets require structural compromises (you want something as heavy as a turret, which weighs about as much as a destroyer, to sit more or less directly on the keel) and sometimes interfere with the armor scheme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 06:13
|
|
|
those standards were tough ol botes. this is a good thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 06:19
|
|
|
I for one love the tuba noises, and would love to see a fleet battle between a force built around later standards and something of their contemporaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:Sort of yes. Many of their previous battleships had their conning towers armored with heavy armor to the level of the belts, for example the QE's have 13" for both the belt and the CT instead of medium armor. However, after experience at Jutland, they found that this is not enough, as when you have a relatively small room, even if it is very heavily armored, when a large-caliber shell hits it everyone inside is going to be incapacitated or dead from the shock alone, even if there is no penetration. All of this is true. However, in this game every captain is assumed to be in the conning tower so Vanguard's up the creek somewhat. You take like a 25% penalty to gun accuracy for losing the conning tower.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 11:12
|
|
|
For the edification of the thread, I present Navweaps’ essay surveying the Standards as a broad category. It goes into many of the design philosophies and why they were built the way they were, plus a look at their actual battle damage. (Mostly bombs and torpedoes, but they held up pretty well.) http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.php
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
The captains of this game assume being head of boat means you have to be located right at the highest bit. A downfall for many.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
bibliosabreur posted:For the edification of the thread, I present Navweaps’ essay surveying the Standards as a broad category. It goes into many of the design philosophies and why they were built the way they were, plus a look at their actual battle damage. (Mostly bombs and torpedoes, but they held up pretty well.) "Evaluating the performance of the "Standard Type" is frustrating. None of these ships ever managed to take a heavy shell hit in battle." This is the kind of attitude we need around here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
I wonder if it's worth changing the design for Vanguard for this reason. It'd be silly for it to get sunk because the game assumes the captain is in a place where he'd never be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Gort posted:I wonder if it's worth changing the design for Vanguard for this reason. It'd be silly for it to get sunk because the game assumes the captain is in a place where he'd never be. It is really an interesting decision the RN made, I love this sort of thing ex post facto. I *think* every other ship outside of KGV and Vanguard has a con armored more or less in line with the rest of the citadel. I don't know where other navies intended their captains to station during a battle but the con was obviously designed as the nerve center of the ship during a fight, so it makes sense for him to station there. I get the impetus to want to stand tall on the quarterdeck under enemy fire as past generations' captains did, but at the same time, if you can properly control the fight from an armored position I think ultimately you're increasing the chances for your crew's survival, even if they're not lucky enough to fight from inside the citadel. I don't really know the impact on seakeeping and whatnot that heavily armored cons had, maybe that effect was more severe than I'm imagining. That said, if I'm a sailor or soldier or any other kind of fighting person, keeping my command team alive and in the fight and making smart decisions is one of the best ways to help me get through the fight alive, even if I'm at more direct risk than they.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:The captains of this game assume being head of boat means you have to be located right at the highest bit. Being head of the boat is a really lovely job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Being head of the boat is a really lovely job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
hotseat.png
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It is really an interesting decision the RN made, I love this sort of thing ex post facto. How do you feel about tank commanders operating unbuttoned? The armored conning tower has much the same problems with visibility as the buttoned-up tank turret. It also doesn't have room for very many aides, so commanding from it will impose penalties to your situational awareness, information processing, and communications. It is very definitely a trade-off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:How do you feel about tank commanders operating unbuttoned? The armored conning tower has much the same problems with visibility as the buttoned-up tank turret. It also doesn't have room for very many aides, so commanding from it will impose penalties to your situational awareness, information processing, and communications. It is very definitely a trade-off. I feel like this comparison is somewhat of an oversimplification. The captain in the conning tower can still get data from sources outside of the tower, especially radar arrays and lookouts. I can accept that it would be more challenging to convert that data into a useful situational report when you're inside the tower than when outside of it, but you wouldn't be as blind as a buttoned-up WW2-era tank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:58 |
|
|
The CIC was invented during WW2 to solve this sort of problem, after the clusterfucks in the Solomon Islands. It's a room deep in the ship with all sorts of displays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 19:14
|
|
