|
I feel bagging exotic animals the Russians bought with their own money would make up for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I feel bagging exotic animals the Russians bought with their own money would make up for it. Oh yes I am sure some royal navy officers would happily help out in return for a gorilla or elephant or something to mount in their conning tower.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
British sympathy during the Russo-Japanese War was with the Japanese, who were a) buying British weapons and b) kicking Russian rear end. The Dogger Bank incident didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
The British and Japanese had already signed the Anglo-Japanese alliance, which was kind of a massive departure from prior British foreign policy in that it was a standing alliance with another power. It was very clearly targeted against Russian expansion in both the Far East and India / Central Asia. It didn't activate in 1904 because it only activated in the event of a two-power war against either of the signatories. But given global geopolitical context, the idea that there might be some kind of Japanese force deployed in the British Isles was not quite as insane as it first appears.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Battle #21: USS Iowa vs IJN Fuso Today the mighty Iowa heads back into action against one of the ships that she was built to kill. Fuso gave us arguably the most entertaining performance of the first round as she barely edged out her sister, but she's up against it here.  I'm interested to see how the NEW AI handles Iowa. There isn't much Fuso can do here, but I'm sure she'll represent the last of the pagoda mast ships with great honor and courage.  Had to rebuild Iowa after the patch. Ironically enough there isn't really a great model for her in the game yet.  Our (probably) last image of a pagoda mast. I love these ships and they really were quite great in their day, but they missed some significant upgrades just on the eve of the war.  Iowa hits with her first salvo, at what I think is a record range of 32.5km. Moreover, the 16" superheavy shells do terrific damage even in individual hits like this, unlike lighter calibers than are similarly accurate.  I'm pretty sure every one of Iowa's salvos straddled Fuso, but hits were kind of rare at long range. I think this was a bit lucky for Fuso, as those shells that did hit really hurt.  Fuso's long range gunnery was also quite good, but the handful of hits she landed were of absolutely no consequence to Iowa's half-mile of deck armor.  As the range closes and trajectories flatten, we see many holes in Fuso, in very bad places. She's taking on water and has engine damage, by far the most damage done at long range that we've seen in a fight so far.  Fuso finds a soft spot, putting a hole in Iowa behind her belt.  Iowa squares up. Her broadside is really something...shooting tight groups very accurately. As we'll see, this would prove to be pretty bad for Fuso.  Fuso's broadside is also really neat. I love the six turret layout, even if it is terribly inefficient. She's already close enough here to fire with her secondaries, which is actually probably in her favor as she can take some fire off her meaty belt armor.  Iowa fires the most destructive salvo we've seen thus far, with SIX rounds hittin Fuso simultaneously, and all of them penetrating...something. Fuso is hitting back, but her fire is bouncing off of Iowa wherever she hits.  The end is quick and ugly. Iowa puts another 5-6 shell salvo right into Fuso's side, and it creates massive flooding all along her length. That many penetrating hits that fast would overwhelm any ship, I think.  This was by far the quickest fight we've seen, partially due to Iowa being very lethal, and probably also partially due to new AI behavior. That hit rate is very impressive considering probably 2/3rds of Iowa's shots were outside of 20km. When she got inside 15km or so, she basically couldn't miss, and most of the time was hitting Fuso with multiple shells with each salvo. RIP pagoda masts. You were too good for this tournament. One way or another, Iowa has her first serious opponent up next: the winner of what is probably my most anticipated fight of the tournament so far: KGV vs HMS "the Mullet" Rodney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
oh man a side fight of Turret Supremacy would be fun, get Rio de Janiero/Sultan Osman-i Evvel/Agincourt up in here
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Re: Dogger Bank incident. It wasn't even the first time they opened up on Fishing boats, apparently they did the same to some Danish boats earlier in their voyage. But their shooting that time was somehow even more woeful and they completely failed to hit anything before they realised their mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 00:11
|
|
|
If there can be Russian ships in he Sea of Japan, then clearly there can be Japanese ships in the North Sea, it is perfectly logical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 00:32
|
|
|
Rip Fuso. But a better end than she got in real life
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
I'll take a dozen SUPER DESTROYERS
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I love the six turret layout, even if it is terribly inefficient. Also I love how this match resulted in the UI putting a little "??" next to that giant bulky pagoda mast. I agree, user interface, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 02:17
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:What do you mean by this? It certainly looks kind of weird, and no one else seems to have tried it, but what was wrong with this layout? Lots of weight in that turret farm, and you have magazine spaces that need protecting scattered all over the length of the ship instead of concentrated in 1-2 places.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 02:20
|
|
|
I love how the A turret can't rotate at all, because its back is snugged up against the superstructure. The C turret is also a nice touch, so you have superfiring turrets over superfiring turrets. And then there's a twin turret amidships for funsies. Thinking about it...how valuable was height in a warship towards the end of WW2? That is, were tall masts still important for spotting and fire control, or did you rely primarily on radar to detect and track enemies? I'm imagining a battleship that's more blimp-shaped, without the expanses of flat deck in that diagram, just smoothly rounded off except for the occasional blister for guns, fire control, radar, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
Disadvantages were already covered, but more turrets has one advantage - mostly that if you have a turret get damaged, it doesn't have as great an impact on your overall firepower. This was of interest seeing as how both Lion and Seydlitz survived major turret hits and continued to fight. Seydlitz suffered a devastating flash fire that destroyed two turrets, but survived and was able to continue on in the fight. Lion similarly had a turret hit and knocked out of action with a devastating fire and continued to fight. So clearly, with the proper design around isolation of magazines etc, taking a heavy caliber hit to a gun turret was survivable for the ship as a fighting unit. Therefore, there was some advantage to distributing the firepower among more separate turrets and magazines. So if you're figuring out how to design, say, a 12 gun main battery, six pairs of guns will give you the best survivability at the cost of some end-on fire, weight, and design complexity. It also allows a finer hull, as the turret rings are relatively small, which gives you advantages in top speed and power requirements. Fun fact: Rio de Janeiro/Sultan Osman-i Evvel/Agincourt had seven turrets which were named after the days of the week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
bewbies posted:
Is Iowa flipping the bird at Fuso with two turrets? Bad form.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 03:09
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Re: Dogger Bank incident. They opened up on a small Russian boat that was carrying Rozhestvensky's promotion from the Tzar too (and, again, all missed). Rozhestvensky managed to somewhat improve their gunnery by the end of the voyage, in that at least they could somewhat reliably hit something by that point (they actually landed the first hits at Tsushima), but it really cannot be understated just how horrible it was for most of the voyage. Probably the most absurd* part of the Dogger Bank incident was when the crew on one of the battleships started screaming that they'd been boarded. Like, even if you magic away all the issues of Japanese torpedo boats (or submarines, or minelayers) managing to be in the North Sea, that truly was a brave torpedo boat crew attempting to board a vessel whose crew outnumbered them 30-to-1. *: Ignoring Kamchatka, since anything that ship did will always be the most absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
Hmmm... Looking at the torpedo bulge, they clearly understood how the Mark 14 torpedo worked. So I'll give the design that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 03:22
|
|
|
Also, there was a followup to that 1940 Popular Mechanics article. Here's their Battlestar concept, from 1943. "Just put an extendo flight deck over the guns, that'll surely work."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:"Just put an extendo flight deck over the guns, that'll surely work." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
I think I've seen that movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
Metal Slug Is Real.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
I know we've all drawn stupid poo poo in the margins of our math homework but those are almost world of warships ready. When it comes to battleship height, it's a balance, you want the right amount of roll, you want to not capsize and so on, so you can't put too much weight up too high. Masts are comparably high and light and so not really your main problem. Turrets are incredibly heavy, up to roughly two or three thousand tons for those Iowa and Yamato ones, so you want them low but not too low because then they are permanently soaked and that's not much good either, low freeboard bad, low freeboard is also bad for your reserve flotation (here you may include a "lmao WoWS designs" if you wish) you want to group your turrets together so the heavily protected area isn't too large (but it must still include enough flotation reserve to deal with the non protected area being entirely flooded and a few flooding hits to the protected area) and that's why you see those sexy French ships with the all forward battery, shorter full armored section means a lighter ship (I'm not sure it's modelled in the game but those turrets are cut in half so only one half can get knocked out at a time, although the lack of simultaneous fire from a symmetrically opposed gun must gently caress the deflection something fierce) and so on. By the way the reason you see superfiring turrets first appear on ship's butts is because the rear is generally lower and so you avoid elevating so much loving weight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:When it comes to battleship height, it's a balance, you want the right amount of roll, you want to not capsize and so on, so you can't put too much weight up too high. Masts are comparably high and light and so not really your main problem. To be clear, I was asking if a battleship with no mast would be significantly disadvantaged in a post-WW2 context. I'm broadly familiar with the design challenges around stability and seaworthiness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
Oh, right. Those were halfway about the popular mechanics and whatnot designs anyway. Ahem. I guess it would, the radar also has to deal with the horizon and has to have clearance, bolting it on something that's already pretty high seems like a good idea. Also in a post war context, everyone had noted that radar was pretty loving good so I guess you'd want look outs and optical directors since everyone has got to be packing various countermeasures. SIGSEGV fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jan 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:So if you're figuring out how to design, say, a 12 gun main battery, six pairs of guns will give you the best survivability at the cost of some end-on fire, weight, and design complexity. It also allows a finer hull, as the turret rings are relatively small, which gives you advantages in top speed and power requirements. TooMuchAbstraction posted:To be clear, I was asking if a battleship with no mast would be significantly disadvantaged in a post-WW2 context. I'm broadly familiar with the design challenges around stability and seaworthiness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:*: Ignoring Kamchatka, since anything that ship did will always be the most absurd. You can't have that qualifier without explaining.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 05:32
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:I don't think this is necessarily true since six pairs of guns also means six holes in the citadel, six areas with an explodey magazine under them, and needing to spread out armor to cover a skinnier rectangle so it's thinner. WW2-era radar was good enough. Remember the horizon is about 10 miles and there were shots taken at 20-30k yards. Ships needed the rangefinders and later radar up high, including air search radar (because that also affects how far away you can pick up aircraft)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 05:36
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:You can't have that qualifier without explaining. Let's put it this way, after the Dogger Bank incident the repair ship Kamchatka got lost. During the time she was lost, clearly thinking the Russian Empire didn't have enough enemies after pissing off the British, she opened fire on ships belonging to the Swedes, the Germans, and the French. At one point, the ship also decided to signal to the fleet that she was under attack from 8 torpedo boats, and when other ships eventually noticed there was literally nothing near her refused to acknowledge the error and just stated that she'd altered course and they'd gone away. And that's still just in European waters - many more incidents involving that specific ship would occur on the voyage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:You can't have that qualifier without explaining. If you've got 10 minutes here's a good summery. But like Lord Koth said, she was partly responsible for the meme of the Russian Pacific Squadron thinking it was seeing Japanese torpedo boats in European waters and was responsible alone for three separate diplomatic incidents. This is also before it friendly fired the Aurora...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 07:40
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Let's put it this way, after the Dogger Bank incident the repair ship Kamchatka got lost. During the time she was lost, clearly thinking the Russian Empire didn't have enough enemies after pissing off the British, she opened fire on ships belonging to the Swedes, the Germans, and the French. At one point, the ship also decided to signal to the fleet that she was under attack from 8 torpedo boats, and when other ships eventually noticed there was literally nothing near her refused to acknowledge the error and just stated that she'd altered course and they'd gone away. And that's still just in European waters - many more incidents involving that specific ship would occur on the voyage. Didn't they also spam "anyone see torpedo boats?" the entire trip like a kid asking "are we there yet?" Efb
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 07:53
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:If you've got 10 minutes here's a good summery. Honestly this sounds to me like some Russian noble failson really wanted to play with boats but was widely recognized to be a failson and lacking the ability to just fire him for political reasons decided to try and place him where he would do the least damage. Which might actually be true. Imagine if this guy was in command of an actual warship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 09:22
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:I don't think this is necessarily true since six pairs of guns also means six holes in the citadel, six areas with an explodey magazine under them, and needing to spread out armor to cover a skinnier rectangle so it's thinner. At the time the ships were designed, most navies had not yet moved to an All-or-Nothing armor scheme for battleships. You're kind of retroactively applying thinking when you talk about a single armored citadel with uniform plating. Yes, the USN had developed AoN ships, but that was an exception and the effectiveness had not yet been practically confirmed. The IJN didn't design a ship with an all-or-nothing armor scheme until the Nagato class, which is two classes after Fuso and based on practical lessons at Jutland. Ultimately you are correct that the design ended up being sub-optimal, and the designers did struggle a lot with protection, but you have to view these design decisions in the context in which they were made without much practical experience. Jutland changed a lot of design thinking and sort of defined an optimal path. Before that, designers were trying to weight a number of different competing factors without a lot of data as to which would actually matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:At the time the ships were designed, most navies had not yet moved to an All-or-Nothing armor scheme for battleships. You're kind of retroactively applying thinking when you talk about a single armored citadel with uniform plating. Yes, the USN had developed AoN ships, but that was an exception and the effectiveness had not yet been practically confirmed. The IJN didn't design a ship with an all-or-nothing armor scheme until the Nagato class, which is two classes after Fuso and based on practical lessons at Jutland. Well, the fact that the designers weren't aware of those designs being subpar, doesn't mean they weren't subpar. Nobody sets out to build a poorly thought out battleship on purpose. Tomn posted:Honestly this sounds to me like some Russian noble failson really wanted to play with boats but was widely recognized to be a failson and lacking the ability to just fire him for political reasons decided to try and place him where he would do the least damage. Kamchatka's captain on the voyage and at Tsushima (where he was killed) was a Russian aristocrat, but apparently also a regular career naval officer who gradually rose from the rank of a junior torpedo officer to the rank of captain, and at least his father was also a captain in the Imperial Navy. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Jan 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The British and Japanese had already signed the Anglo-Japanese alliance, which was kind of a massive departure from prior British foreign policy in that it was a standing alliance with another power. It was very clearly targeted against Russian expansion in both the Far East and India / Central Asia. It didn't activate in 1904 because it only activated in the event of a two-power war against either of the signatories. Humerously alliance could have been activated by the fact that Montenegro also declared war on Japan at the time but nobody elected to notice, even at the peace table.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Kamchatka's captain on the voyage and at Tsushima (where he was killed) was a Russian aristocrat, but apparently also a regular career naval officer who gradually rose from the rank of a junior torpedo officer to the rank of captain, and at least his father was also a captain in the Imperial Navy. Hey, "got into the navy as a career through aristocratic and family connections and was promoted through the same" doesn't preclude "was an irredeemable dumbass that couldn't be fired due to said connections and everybody knew it." Though out of curiosity, do you have any further info about the guy? I took a skim of Google but they don't seem to record much about the Kamchatka's captain, at least in English sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Hey, "got into the navy as a career through aristocratic and family connections and was promoted through the same" doesn't preclude "was an irredeemable dumbass that couldn't be fired due to said connections and everybody knew it." Though out of curiosity, do you have any further info about the guy? I took a skim of Google but they don't seem to record much about the Kamchatka's captain, at least in English sources. I'd like to read more about him too, and also couldn't find English sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
Arbite posted:Humerously alliance could have been activated by the fact that Montenegro also declared war on Japan at the time but nobody elected to notice, even at the peace table. Oh yes because the British would need to help out because MONTENEGRO got involved
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
They were probably fishing for medals. Tell everyone you're under attack (and hope nobody can corroborate); then tell everyone you scared away the attacker, protecting the fleet with your barely-armed cargo ship. Then constantly
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, the fact that the designers weren't aware of those designs being subpar, doesn't mean they weren't subpar. Nobody sets out to build a poorly thought out battleship on purpose. right but it's much more interesting and useful to think about why people made the decisions they did rather than just saying "oh that's not as good" Arbite posted:Humerously alliance could have been activated by the fact that Montenegro also declared war on Japan at the time but nobody elected to notice, even at the peace table. I doubt it, for two reasons: 1. The Russo-Japanese war is pretty clearly covered by Article 1 and 2. Article 1 defines interests in China and Korea, and Article 2 states that if wars arise from activities in China and Korea that each power will remain neutral. I think you could define the Russo-Japanese war as such. 2. Power is capitalized, and would be taken to mean great power. There is no way that Montenegro would ever be considered a Power by either nation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 15:33
|
|