I can't switch to warthunder i have 1500 hours on wows and i have all the italian ships in the game that i managed to get without spending a single cent. Too much effort, too much time, i don't want to do it again on another game
I gave up on WT after they "upgraded" the damage model so that 12.7s slice wings off like they are made of cardboard and sets them on fire, and now that any attempt to fly home with a partially destroyed wing just results in the same uncontrollable barrel roll
Sap are good, the biggest problem for me are the frickhueg citadels. Italian ships are always targeted first because people know they can be smoked with a single broadside.
Wows is a much better ship game than WT right now, and probably for the rest of time. Gaiisraelite cares little for the naval portion of the game and probably only keeps it around because pay pigs will play it
>tfw amagi got cucked by kanto >tfw akagi, atago and takao got cucked by WNT >tfw never gonna see the only class of 30 year-old, desperately refitted and rebuilt, but ultimately obsolete "fast battleship" who all fell in battle against a vastly superior enemy force
the US should have at least spared a Fubuki class or something, damn.
Arguably could have if Pearl Harbor hadn't happened and removed the dreadnought battle line as an option in the Pacific.Though the nature of boiler and turbine improvements in the interwar years meant speeds were going to increase to fast battleship levels regardless. The main reason you see dreadnoughts and dreadnought armored cruisers/battlecruisers in WWI is because the boilers were just not as efficient at that point, so ships required a lot more of them to reach those higher speeds. A smaller but also important factor, many ships were still coal fired going in to WWI, and many of those that did come out of the yards running on oil had been a compromise to be able to store and run on either fuel, or originally designed for coal but swapped to oil late in the design process. Carrier supremacy is honestly overstated though due to the American experience in the Pacific, whereas battleships, even old ones, remained important in both the Med and the North Sea.
To my knowledge it was primarily logistical constraints that kept the standards out of the early war. There weren’t enough oilers to go around to keep them supplied in the western pacific, which is why you didn’t see any at Guadalcanal. Remember of the five most modern American dreadnaughts, only California and West Virginia were really knocked out at Pearl Harbor. Tennessee, Maryland, and Colorado only required relatively minor repairs or simply missed Pearl Harbor entirely.
That is the case historically, but there's other factors if Pearl somehow doesn't happen. If Pearl doesn't happen, the battle fleet is still intact from the start. No repairs, no lengthy transfers from the Atlantic needed. Kimmel, not Nimitz, is still in command of the Pacific fleet. The USN's institutional bias towards the battle fleet as the decisive arm of naval combat is not brutally and violently checked. Carriers are still considered raiders and scouts for the main fleet.
The only real question is, would the logistical reality of only being able to operate a few carrier fast task forces, or the battle line, push Kimmel into favoring carriers for their flexibility until more oilers become available? Also worth wondering, does the US carrier force and overall intact Pacific fleet cause the Japanese to advance more cautiously outside of their initial conquests? Do they no longer go for Wake Island, or New Britain, and instead build up forces in the Philippines and Marianas due to the threat of the Pacific fleet? A lot to mull over there.
Weren’t battlecruisers just a cope for not being able to build battleships for whatever reason?
Hmm, interesting. The only quibble I have is that submarines do not do colonial presence missions, but I pretty much agree. SSN = battlecruiser, SSBN= battleship.
[...]
If you are talking about the runup to World War I, I think battleships and battlecruisers cost about the same to build, and the higher fuel consumption of battlecruisers may have made them more expensive to operate.
is correct here, battlecruisers were just as expensive if not more so that actual battleships. Reason being that they had to be bigger and have a shitload more boilers than a regular battleship in order to reach their higher top speeds. Nations that couldn't build a dreadnought couldn't build a battlecruiser.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Carriers are still considered raiders and scouts for the main fleet
The USN was going to build enough carriers to match the number of battleships 1 for 1 even before Pearl. The world recognised the importance of carriers by the mid-late 30s. I don't think it would have changed USN doctrine at all.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Only from the 1940 Two-Ocean Navy act, procurement from the 1934 and 1938 naval expansion acts had been overwhelmingly in favor of battleships. Also worth mentioning, none of the 1940 act ships would be in service until the middle of 1943. There's a lot of hard lessons the USN learns in 1942 that influences how that new fleet gets employed. If Pearl Harbor doesn't happen, the wakeup call for the US that massed carrier air power can both be effectively coordinated against an enemy and be effective enough against battleships to supercede their role as the decisive arm of the fleet has to happen elsewhere. Also worth mentioning that aircraft development was improving by leaps and bounds at the end of the 1930s. What was top of the line in 1939 was obsolescent in 1941, and the most experience that flag officers had with carrier aircraft was the early-mid '30s biplanes. US carriers were still carrying biplanes (albeit newer models) for the final Fleet Problem in the Pacific prior to WWII.
Saying the world recognized the importance of carriers is incredibly reductive and glosses over a lot of stuff. It's not as simple as airplane > battleship shell. For the Japanese, naval air power was heavily pushed because they couldn't build battleships at the rate the US or UK could, and even though the US hadn't built to its treaty limits pre-war the Japanese battle line was horribly outnumbered. So both carrier aircraft and land-based naval strike bombers were developed to close the gap, along with submarines, torpedoes, and night-fighting tactics. In Europe, a mix of weather and geography greatly reduced the efficacy of carriers, and as a result battleships remained incredibly important for control of the sea lanes as they were both more survivable in the face of land-based air power and could operate in all weather.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>procurement from the 1934 and 1938 naval expansion acts had been overwhelmingly in favor of battleships
only because the existing battle line was extremely outdated, with the newest ships otherwise being the Colorados
basically a whole new battle fleet was being built during this time, and its composition was 2x NorCals and 4x SoDaks. Theoretically they would be matched by five Ranger-class carriers, but this turned out to be 1x Ranger, 2x Yorktowns, and 1x Wasp. The only actual ship added by the 1938 Act was Hornet, because the USN already possessed 15 battleships. The Iowas would have replaced older scrapped battleships. While aircraft carrier numbers were being built up and old battleships retained in service, necessarily task force compositions would be limited: if including Hornet, the USN would have 15 battleships, 5 fleet carriers and 2 light carriers.
The RN had similar restrictions and a similar Treaty-restricted fleet of 15 battleships and 7 carriers; in the late 30s the RN ordered 5 KGV battleships and 6 Illustrious carriers.
Thus by the late 30s, before the Two-Ocean Navy Act, before Taranto and before Pearl, aircraft carriers were being procured in quite large numbers. In part this would provide older battleship squadrons with CV cover, but also they could be used to form a modern fast striking force of battleships and carriers in at least equal strength.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>only because the existing battle line was extremely outdated
That was the case for everyone, and the Standards compared well (excepting Nevada and Oklahoma) to everyone's 1910s-20s construction save for maybe the Nelsons. Their speed was really their only drawback.
>Thus by the late 30s, before the Two-Ocean Navy Act, before Taranto and before Pearl, aircraft carriers were being procured in quite large numbers
Granted it's treaty-constrained, but how can you make that claim? If you look at total numbers, because after all nobody threw out their WWI-era battleships since they were in reality still useful and dangerous, carriers still made up a much smaller portion of the fleet. If you look at tonnage, battleship tonnage constructed far exceeded that of carriers. Carrier aircraft, while improving rapidly, were nowhere near the level of effectiveness that the world would see in 1941 and onward. Your claims also ignore real-life experience, where both the RN and the USN in the interwar years found carriers to be excellent raiders and excellent scouts, but also to be extremely vulnerable. Which is why battleships were kept as the decisive arm for as long as they were, and US carriers especially were operated in a dispersed manner that precluded the kind of mass strike coordination that the US would experience at Pearl and would also be necessary for carriers to actually inflict appreciable damage to an enemy fleet.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>carriers still made up a much smaller portion of the fleet
I just showed the numbers up there are at least 3:1 if not approaching 2:1 counting light carriers. And assuming the Treaty had held at early 1939 levels, light carriers would be eventually replaced by fleet carriers, just as WW1 BBs would be replaced by modern BBs.
In practice, second-line squadrons would be made up of 3-4 BBs and 1 CV, allowing fleets to concentrate modern BBs and CVs in one "Kido Butai" type formation. The RN did it, the IJN did it, the USN would have done it if not for Pearl.
>battleship tonnage constructed far exceeded that of carriers
Because of the USN need to replace legacy BBs. Contrast the RN's construction programme.
>Carrier aircraft, while improving rapidly, were nowhere near the level of effectiveness that the world would see in 1941
The RN was gimped by the RAF, but the Wildcat, Zero, Dauntless, and Val are excellent aircraft.
>Which is why battleships were kept as the decisive arm for as long as they were
They were kept as close escorts all the way to 1960, but the carriers were regarded as the future decisive striking arm - it was only logical. The bottleneck was number of hulls.
>that precluded the kind of mass strike coordination
No, the USN consciously decided to disperse for protection on the logic that a counterstrike might only find one carrier instead of the whole shebang.
The RN had too many commitments and too few carriers to mass carriers. Ultimately the IJN was first to implement the tactic. But we can see from the building programmes and air wing compositions that carriers in significant numbers considered essential to future naval fleet battles.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>I just showed the numbers up there are at least 3:1 if not approaching 2:1 counting light carriers is
1/4 to 1/3 of the fleet's capital ships. That is objectively a much smaller portion compared to the battleships.
>Because of the USN need to replace legacy BBs
You're aware that the RN still had Renown and Repulse, along with the whole R class and some un-modernized Queen Elizabeths floating around right? Where does this idea come from that the Brits didn't also want to replace their old and slow dreadnoughts?
>Contrast the RN's construction programme.
Could you point me to where those last 2 Illustrious class were ever actually ordered? Because I can only find the details for the 4 that were actually laid down and completed. Compared to the 5 King George Vs laid down in 1936-7.
>the Wildcat, Zero, Dauntless, and Val are excellent aircraft.
The Wildcat and Dauntless both were not in actual service on carriers until 1941. US carriers were kicking around with Brewster Buffalos and some even still carried F3F biplanes into 1941, as well as SBU Corsairs. The A6M likewise only entered very limited service in mid 1940. Which reinforces my point, the effectiveness of 1940-41 aircraft was leagues beyond what flag officers trained with in the '20s and '30s. In a hypothetical "no-Pearl Harbor" scenario, why does Kimmel completely flip-flop on his own experience if he's trying to get a fleet action with the Japanese?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>SBU Corsair in 1941
Thats always puzzled me; why they not employed Vindicators earlier? It was inferior to a Dauntless, but more modern than biplanes.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>That is objectively a much smaller portion
1/3 is close to 1/2. If you're looking for carriers to outnumber battleships, that wasn't going to be the case. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that carriers were the long-range strike force and everyone knew that.
>the Brits didn't also want to replace
The whole point of the naval treaties was to put the brakes on a naval arms race. The instant war looked likely they laid down the KGVs and Illustriouses.
>where those last 2 Illustrious class
Modified builds with war experience as the Implacable-class.
>my point, the effectiveness of 1940-41 aircraft was leagues beyond what flag officers trained
I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
Yet the continued development of these aircraft informed fleet design. It was a no-brainer; if land-based aircraft could have such impact, so could fleet-based.
>In a hypothetical "no-Pearl Harbor" scenario, why does Kimmel completely flip-flop
Not sure what you mean.
>the carriers were regarded as the future decisive striking arm
Due to war experience, arguably a somewhat biased experience from the USN being able to outbuild any other nation on the planet and primarily fighting a foe with anemic anti-aircraft abilities. But they learned hard and bloody lessons from the Kido Butai first. There is zero evidence that any flag-level officer other than Yamamoto prior to Pearl Harbor considered carriers to be the new decisive arm of the fleet.
>the USN consciously decided to disperse for protection on the logic that a counterstrike might only find one carrier instead of the whole shebang.
This is true. But it doesn't refute the fact that it also prevented the US from achieving the same coordination that the Kido Butai could, and by extension, precluded the kind of mass needed for an air strike to be more than a raid.
>But we can see from the building programmes and air wing compositions that carriers in significant numbers considered essential to future naval fleet battles.
So now you're backtracking. You've gone from "they knew all along carriers were going to supercede battleships", to "carriers were considered as important as battleships", to "they knew carriers would play a vital role in future fleet battles". Yes they knew from the Fleet Problems that carriers would be the eyes and ears of the fleet, replacing regular cruisers in that role. They also knew they needed fighter cover to keep the enemy from finding their own fleet. They also knew carriers, thanks to their speed and range, could perform deep raids on enemy installations. But they also knew carriers were incredibly vulnerable. Which is why any flag officer of the interwar period was thinking with battleships when he was thinking about a major fleet action with the enemy. The USN could not then, and could not until the Essex swarm of the mid-war period, deal with an enemy battle fleet with air power alone.
>There is zero evidence
IMO, the importance attached to carrier building in the 30s strongly says otherwise.
>by extension, precluded the kind of mass needed
It doesn't. It merely meant the USN needed to tweak either its doctrine or its operational procedures. You can't deduce intent from a wienerup.
>the carriers were regarded as the future decisive striking arm
Due to war experience, arguably a somewhat biased experience from the USN being able to outbuild any other nation on the planet and primarily fighting a foe with anemic anti-aircraft abilities. But they learned hard and bloody lessons from the Kido Butai first. There is zero evidence that any flag-level officer other than Yamamoto prior to Pearl Harbor considered carriers to be the new decisive arm of the fleet.
>the USN consciously decided to disperse for protection on the logic that a counterstrike might only find one carrier instead of the whole shebang.
This is true. But it doesn't refute the fact that it also prevented the US from achieving the same coordination that the Kido Butai could, and by extension, precluded the kind of mass needed for an air strike to be more than a raid.
>But we can see from the building programmes and air wing compositions that carriers in significant numbers considered essential to future naval fleet battles.
So now you're backtracking. You've gone from "they knew all along carriers were going to supercede battleships", to "carriers were considered as important as battleships", to "they knew carriers would play a vital role in future fleet battles". Yes they knew from the Fleet Problems that carriers would be the eyes and ears of the fleet, replacing regular cruisers in that role. They also knew they needed fighter cover to keep the enemy from finding their own fleet. They also knew carriers, thanks to their speed and range, could perform deep raids on enemy installations. But they also knew carriers were incredibly vulnerable. Which is why any flag officer of the interwar period was thinking with battleships when he was thinking about a major fleet action with the enemy. The USN could not then, and could not until the Essex swarm of the mid-war period, deal with an enemy battle fleet with air power alone.
>You've gone from "they knew all along carriers were going to supercede battleships"
"Supercede" is a word you used, not me. >"carriers were considered as important as battleships" >"they knew carriers would play a vital role in future fleet battles"
I still maintain this. It's not backtracking at all.
>The USN could not then, and could not until the Essex swarm of the mid-war period, deal with an enemy battle fleet with air power alone
I never said they would be alone.
As I said, battleships were needed as close escorts all the way to 1960.
You're thinking that I claimed "it was expected that carriers would make battleships extinct in the 30s", I didn't.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>the carriers were regarded as the future decisive striking arm
Due to war experience, arguably a somewhat biased experience from the USN being able to outbuild any other nation on the planet and primarily fighting a foe with anemic anti-aircraft abilities. But they learned hard and bloody lessons from the Kido Butai first. There is zero evidence that any flag-level officer other than Yamamoto prior to Pearl Harbor considered carriers to be the new decisive arm of the fleet.
>the USN consciously decided to disperse for protection on the logic that a counterstrike might only find one carrier instead of the whole shebang.
This is true. But it doesn't refute the fact that it also prevented the US from achieving the same coordination that the Kido Butai could, and by extension, precluded the kind of mass needed for an air strike to be more than a raid.
>But we can see from the building programmes and air wing compositions that carriers in significant numbers considered essential to future naval fleet battles.
So now you're backtracking. You've gone from "they knew all along carriers were going to supercede battleships", to "carriers were considered as important as battleships", to "they knew carriers would play a vital role in future fleet battles". Yes they knew from the Fleet Problems that carriers would be the eyes and ears of the fleet, replacing regular cruisers in that role. They also knew they needed fighter cover to keep the enemy from finding their own fleet. They also knew carriers, thanks to their speed and range, could perform deep raids on enemy installations. But they also knew carriers were incredibly vulnerable. Which is why any flag officer of the interwar period was thinking with battleships when he was thinking about a major fleet action with the enemy. The USN could not then, and could not until the Essex swarm of the mid-war period, deal with an enemy battle fleet with air power alone.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>There is zero evidence that any flag-level officer other than Yamamoto prior to Pearl Harbor considered carriers to be the new decisive arm of the fleet.
The evidence is the USN procuring like 40 new fleet carriers before Pearl Harbor.
1 year ago
Anonymous
There were only 18 total Essex class bud, compared to 6 Iowas, 5 Montanas, and the 6 treaty battleships. And the battleships represent a much larger percentage of Navy resources than the carriers do.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>battleships remained incredibly important for control of the sea lanes as they were both more survivable in the face of land-based air power
I don't really get this point. if you can't launch planes from a carrier because planes from a land base can shoot them down, can't the same land base also bomb your battleships? in the pacific there were instances where the japs withdrew their battleships because they were afraid of attacks from henderson field.
1 year ago
Anonymous
NTA, but adding a hundred Bofors 40mm, radar guidance, and fuze shells significantly improved the AA capability of a late-war battleship compared to a pre-war battleship.
1 year ago
Anonymous
> more survivable in the face of land-based air power
He seems to be saying that Battleships are less vulnerable TO land-based bombers. Which seems like an extremely dubious claim to say the least.
>whereas battleships, even old ones, remained important in both the Med and the North Sea.
I always found this interesting because air power launched from land is clearly much stronger than naval.
Also, the change to carriers pissed me off to no end. I liked how it used to be like a mini-RTS, not what it is now.
>Also, the change to carriers pissed me off to no end. I liked how it used to be like a mini-RTS, not what it is now.
Lol it's gotten SO MUCH worse with the subs. I spend a lot of time playing WoWs and WT; my advice is that you need to be willing to stay out of high tiers and you need to be able to adapt to avoid bad meta. That means switching lines or ship types when bad changes happen. You can do it for free but you must be flexible.
>battleships remained incredibly important for control of the sea lanes as they were both more survivable in the face of land-based air power
I don't really get this point. if you can't launch planes from a carrier because planes from a land base can shoot them down, can't the same land base also bomb your battleships? in the pacific there were instances where the japs withdrew their battleships because they were afraid of attacks from henderson field.
The assumption most made was that level bombing was going to be far more effective than it was. It takes good specific training and good specific equipment to execute torpedo and dive attacks on a moving target that’s shooting at you. Most land based squadrons just didn’t have enough of it to be effective.
At the beginning of the war iirc only the japs, the brits, and sorta the us had it, feel free to correct me on that though.
I argue that Aircraft Carriers are the modern battlecruisers. They are large, fast capital ships capable of both fleet actions and presence in distant waters that rely more on active, vice passive defenses and do best when their main battery (strike fighters) outrange the enemy.
Aircraft carriers are battleships in that they destroy everything afloat
Modern battlecruisers, it may be argued, are ships such as Kirov, Slava, maybe Type 55 which have a certain degree of defensive capability and massive firepower
I actually would argue that the modern attack sub is the closest battlecruiser in that it's designed to dissuade enemy commerce raiders and patrols by being a terror to most things, but is capable of evading engagement by the things it doesn't overmatch. Sure, a battlecruiser might do it by speed instead of stealth, but the base concept is surprisingly similar.
Hmm, interesting. The only quibble I have is that submarines do not do colonial presence missions, but I pretty much agree. SSN = battlecruiser, SSBN= battleship.
Weren’t battlecruisers just a cope for not being able to build battleships for whatever reason?
If you are talking about the runup to World War I, I think battleships and battlecruisers cost about the same to build, and the higher fuel consumption of battlecruisers may have made them more expensive to operate.
I am thinking more along the lines of Jackie Fisher's concept of a capital ship that can control the engagement range and deal destruction at a distance. RN dreadnoughts were to be concentrated in Home waters against Germany, whereas battlecruisers could be used both with the Grand Fleet and in the colonies. The latter is a closer match to the employment of Aircraft Carriers.
In a way, there are only two modern surface warships: battlecruisers and destroyers.
Aircraft carriers are deadly at all ranges, however.
In modern warfare, arguably Burkes and NATO frigates are comparable with cruisers. Only smaller ships like missile boats and corvettes are akin to destroyers.
Weren’t battlecruisers just a cope for not being able to build battleships for whatever reason?
Battlecruisers were a new design brought to you by the nutso who also invented the modern battleship - Jackie Fisher. It was a more radical development of the same idea, except that it drastically sacrificed armour for speed. He believed that it could hit battleships from a distance while sailing fast enough that it wouldn't be hit, itself. It was a bad idea of course, and eventually they packed on armour so battlecruisers evolved into fast battleships. But arguably, they were never a necessary evolutionary step - faster battleships were already being built.
In short, a battlecruiser is a battleship, but with the thinner armour and faster speed of a cruiser.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Fishers concept of the battle-cruiser never had them acting as battleships
Here's a quote from Addmita sir Reginald H.S Bacon (Fishers assistant) about what The design of the Invincible and future BCs
> The speed of the Invincible was definitely fixed at 25 knots. This gave her some margin over the German Transatlantic liners. Hitherto we had subsidized, for a huge annual sum, some of our own liners to fight those of Germany, in spite of the fact that they had never been designed to fight and were totally unfitted to do so. For weeks, however, discussion continued about the armament of the Invincible 9.2-inch versus 12-inch; but in the end the 12-inch gun won on the unanswerable plea that ships, of the size and tonnage necessary in order to build an Invincible, should have an additional use in being able to form a fast light squadron to supplement the battleships in action, and worry the ships in the van or rear of the enemy's line. They were never intended to engage battleships singlehanded; but they were designed to assist in a general action by engaging some of the enemy's ships which were already fighting our battleships.
The Life of Lord Fisher of Kilverstone: Admiral of the Fleet. Volume One. (1929) page 256
I am thinking more along the lines of Jackie Fisher's concept of a capital ship that can control the engagement range and deal destruction at a distance. RN dreadnoughts were to be concentrated in Home waters against Germany, whereas battlecruisers could be used both with the Grand Fleet and in the colonies. The latter is a closer match to the employment of Aircraft Carriers.
In a way, there are only two modern surface warships: battlecruisers and destroyers.
[...]
I argue that Aircraft Carriers are the modern battlecruisers. They are large, fast capital ships capable of both fleet actions and presence in distant waters that rely more on active, vice passive defenses and do best when their main battery (strike fighters) outrange the enemy.
Many interwar carriers were literally just converted battlecruisers
I'd argue that as they became the primary combatants, both concepts sorta merged into one. A carrier is a glass cannon, faster than most ships but also intended to fight it out with enemy carriers if necessary. Though optimally you'd use attack subs to counter enemy surface combatants.
>Many interwar carriers were literally just converted battlecruisers
Coincidence.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Not really. A carrier could use the same hull to fulfill a similar strategic role, without violating limit treaties.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I mean that if they had been battleships or heavy cruisers they'd have been converted as well; it was coincidence that many of them were battlecruisers
does go to show though, Jutland was by no means the "death of the battlecruiser" as some think
1 year ago
Anonymous
Actually, there was a provision in the Washington Naval Treaty that allowed for in-production BCs to be converted into carriers.
Anon, the Navy has reused ships' names over and over, with popular ones having half a dozen iterations all with various fates. Are you just now finding this out?
it's leagues better than wot. i managed to grind two whole branches in less than a week, with free premium, exp bonuses etc. none of that shit exist in world of tanks, or at least it ued tobe that way. took me years before i could get my first tier 10 tank (i'm f2p).
i left wot years ago because it was a farce, wows sucks but at least the ship models are gorgeous
I miss my RTS carriers. I do however appreciate respawning aircraft for the little I've played since
Old carriers could be satisfying but also very frustrating when you got games that just didn't work out. Japanese CVs just had better punching power. US low tier bled planes and then were out.
The new style isn't as rewarding for good play, and is definitely frustrating to go against, but things needed to be balanced. And frick the Soviet CVs. The entire damage system ensures they will ALWAYS still get through with their attack.
I wish they kept the RTS management but let you manually fly a squadron if you wanted. Unlimited planes wouldn't be needed if carriers could also use their guns as a backup.
I was having fun but the carrier update plus a stint of horrendous matchmaking made me quit. My winrate was so bad for a week it shouldnt have been possible even if I was torping teammates every game
Frickhuge ships were obsolete before WWII even started, but the political dickswinging still pushed towards bigger ships. It doesn't matter how you call them: heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, pocket battleships, you name it, they were still a lot of eggs in one single basket that could be swiftly lost by misfortune, moronness, or proper enemy action.
Still, I mained BBs in WoWS, before I burned out. The announcement of the big CV rework broke the camel's back. Frick WG really. And frick Gaijin too for being even worse.
>Heavy cruisers
Remained in service for decades after as carrier escorts, and modern "destroyers" are rapidly approaching them in size >Pocket Battleships
Just a scary term for the particularly well armed heavy cruisers Germany was fielding at the time >Battlecruisers
Became outdated as a classification once true fast battleships were possible.
Regardless of whatever reformer myths you may believe, large ships are much more capable than the amount of small ships you can build for the same price. Most of the time, the systems needed for a ship to do its job require a certain displacement to even fit. That means things like radar systems, sonar, and power plants.
Then you also have to factor in range. A 900 ton missile boat may be fine for coastsl defense, but if you try to use it out at sea you'll be stuck cruising at abysmally low speeds and you'll have to refuel constantly.
war thunder not only is a horrible inhuman grind - way worse than WoW, the naval gameplay in it is just horrible and un-fun.
its pretty much a completely unplayable game.
i never paid a cent in World of Warships and i got almost all countries and all ships - im showered with free bonuses, free premium account, battle pass etc.
Also, every time i hear my Satsuma fire her guns, i get an erection.
You and me both anon ;_;
High-angling in CL/CA rooms, and running half AA half high-angle AP in CL/CA/BB and all welcome rooms in the Atlanta and Oakland was stupid hilarious fun
>A battlecruiser MUST have less armor than any peer battleship, but MUST have larger
Then what makes it not simply "next-generation heavy cruiser"? >more numerous guns
no, because a Mogami-class cruiser is not a heavy cruiser
I submit that a battlecruiser must have less armour than a peer battleship, must have battleship-class main armament, and must be intended to fight with battleships in a fleet engagement, otherwise it is merely a heavy cruiser
Man, did these things just smell like sweat, piss, and shit when they were at their battlestations? Hopefully you can open one of those portholes and throw a bucket out, not sure what the upper tower fricks would do.
2x as bad if they were stationed in the Pacific.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Man, did these things just smell like sweat, piss...
When I went aboard Lexington about a decade ago it still did. Texas was less definable but still no rose
>and must be intended to fight with battleships in a fleet engagement
except the original designs werent, not really, they were intended to hunt cruisers, they were used in fleet actions but both the germansand british intended them t be used t cut the line f retreat in a fleet actin while the battle lines dueled
>they were intended to hunt cruisers
in a fleet action, as well as for trade protection
>cut the line f retreat in a fleet actin while the battle lines dueled
your "o" key is sticking, mate
yes and no, the purpose of a "fast wing" in a fleet action wasn't just to chase down fleeing ship, but generally also to lend firepower to wherever it was needed
in a fleet action, battlecruisers with their higher speeds could even choose to add their fire to the destroyer duel if they had nothing else to do - that is why they were equipped with quick-firing secondary batteries
a fleet line of battle could be very long, but with their greater speeds fast ships could reposition faster
>That question is the only qualifier for a BC IMO. You could also go with the brittish post ww1 definition and say "does it go faster than 25 knots?"
Which would make Yamato, King George V and South Dakota (etc) battlecruisers. I prefer your "is it supposed to go slugging it out with enemy battleships" take on it.
Before like 1914 there was basically no practical examples of submarine warfare. Fisher was also a proponent of getting massive amounts of subs because he predicted how useful they would be.
Even with subs in the water there is simply some target's a sub can not hit. Submerged a sub of that era is slow as shit and has a comparatively limited range. This means that ships like ocean liners (who were among the fastest ships in the sea) could simply ignore subs and even most cruisers by being that much faster. This is what caused the BCs requirement for speed. Because otherwise they would be unable to catch hostile ocean liners, who could either be transporting troops or hunting your merchant ships after being armed.
During ww2 the German U-boat crews were really frustrated at the ocean liners because they would just speed past them while they just looked on in impotent rage
What surprised me is that battlecruisers were often larger and heavier than battleships. That only underscores the difference between a true battlecruiser and a heavier heavy cruiser.
There was basically two schools of thought for BCs. First was the German approach with being a mid-point between heavy cruisers and Battleships. Then there was the British approach with having the speed of a cruiser and the guns of a Battleship. The British approach never really panned out and we ended up with Fast Battleships instead. Apparently all that armor doesn't slow a ship down.
Not that I can think of, the most that springs to mind is 6 which you can find on the Italia-class ironclad battleships and the Edgar Quinet-class cruisers
I love playing a Cruiser or Battleship with Spotter Planes, rushing mid like a mad c**t, disrupting and trading shots with the enemy forces converging on mid, then launching a Spotter Plane right before getting sunk.
I then switch to the Spotter Plane's view, sit back, pack a bowl of weed and smoke it while spectating the battle from my aimless Spotter Plane until it runs out of fuel or gets shot down. Cozy.
>Daisen is based on a series of battlecruiser design studies by Yuzuru Hiraga from 1916. >The point of these studies was to determine the kind of hull that would be required to reach a top speed of 35 knots on a capital ship. >The four designs all had a main battery of eight 410 mm guns in four twin turrets, completed by a large number of casemate-mounted 140 mm secondary batteries. >In all cases, the high top speed of 34.5 to 35 knots was achieved by powerful engines driving six shafts.
>Design I and II were the smallest with an overall length of 284 m and a 229 mm main belt. >The design I could reach 35 knots with 205 000 HP and had a standard displacement of 40 850 tons. >Design II could only reach 34.5 knots with 186 000 HP and had a standard displacement of 40 430 tons. >As for Design III and IV, they were much bigger with an overall length of 294 m and a main armor belt of 305 mm. >Design III could reach 35 knots with 215 000 HP and had a standard displacement of 44 500 tons. >Design IV could only reach 34.5 knots with 195 000 HP and had a standard displacement of 43 950 tons.
I think one of the reasons why I like Battleships I'd that there is theoretically no limit to how big they can get. Before rockets and missiles the ship's were just getting bigger and bigger as time went on. Imagine how stupid large they'd be if we continued making them. The guns big enough to shatter everyone's ear drums. Pic unrelated
The bigger it is, the heavier it is.
The heavier it is, the more water it must displace to float.
The bigger it is, the more water it displaces.
See where this is going? As long as there are more cubic metres of ship meant to sit under the waterline than there are metric tons of ship in total it will float. Icebergs can float around displacing more than ten million tons. (Anyone know what the USN's total displacement is?)
The problems are things like stability, just how deep its gonna go and maneuverability.
If you make MEGA BATTLE BOAT 10 000! With a super big displacement and whatever its gonna be sitting super deep in the water. This means you can do stupid shit like beach yourself in the middle of the ocean, for example dogger Bank can at places be as shallow as 15m.
Well there is really because they're also constrained by the size of the yards to build and support them and things like basins and slips are only realistically going to get so big. Practicality as well would suggest I don't imagine battleships would have actually got that much larger than they did. Things like H-44 which was only a thought exercise anyway with no real intention of ever being built, even if Germany could have I think are outside the realms of usefulness. Compare Yamato to A-150 for example, there's not really a whole lot of difference in size and I doubt battleships would have ever got much larger than that, even with the most ideal circumstances.
it's nice that brits get to see their navy again
>wargaming
I can't switch to warthunder i have 1500 hours on wows and i have all the italian ships in the game that i managed to get without spending a single cent. Too much effort, too much time, i don't want to do it again on another game
no one said play WT. WT is just as bad if not worse in many ways. But Wargaming is an even shittier company
I gave up on WT after they "upgraded" the damage model so that 12.7s slice wings off like they are made of cardboard and sets them on fire, and now that any attempt to fly home with a partially destroyed wing just results in the same uncontrollable barrel roll
I'm trying to enjoy bombers and I just can't. You have no hope in a B29.
Exactly this. I was maining the PBJ ground attacker and the b-17e's when the update dropped. Every plane turned into paper overnight. Fricking sucked
Engagements that last literally 0.5 seconds aren't fun or realistic
I couldn’t enjoy them years ago, lord knows what their like now.
OmG sAp bad WhYcAnT wE HAvE HE
Sap are good, the biggest problem for me are the frickhueg citadels. Italian ships are always targeted first because people know they can be smoked with a single broadside.
Wows is a much better ship game than WT right now, and probably for the rest of time. Gaiisraelite cares little for the naval portion of the game and probably only keeps it around because pay pigs will play it
best class
>tfw amagi got cucked by kanto
>tfw akagi, atago and takao got cucked by WNT
>tfw never gonna see the only class of 30 year-old, desperately refitted and rebuilt, but ultimately obsolete "fast battleship" who all fell in battle against a vastly superior enemy force
the US should have at least spared a Fubuki class or something, damn.
They were a dead end.
Ugh, what could have been...
Sadly, passing steam pipes through the Turret 3 spaces heated the propellant enough that those guns didnot group well with the rest.
Arguably, fast battleships were just an extension of the battlecruiser concept.
WW2 should have gone with super-dreadnoughts and battlecruisers instead of fast battleships.
Arguably could have if Pearl Harbor hadn't happened and removed the dreadnought battle line as an option in the Pacific.Though the nature of boiler and turbine improvements in the interwar years meant speeds were going to increase to fast battleship levels regardless. The main reason you see dreadnoughts and dreadnought armored cruisers/battlecruisers in WWI is because the boilers were just not as efficient at that point, so ships required a lot more of them to reach those higher speeds. A smaller but also important factor, many ships were still coal fired going in to WWI, and many of those that did come out of the yards running on oil had been a compromise to be able to store and run on either fuel, or originally designed for coal but swapped to oil late in the design process. Carrier supremacy is honestly overstated though due to the American experience in the Pacific, whereas battleships, even old ones, remained important in both the Med and the North Sea.
To my knowledge it was primarily logistical constraints that kept the standards out of the early war. There weren’t enough oilers to go around to keep them supplied in the western pacific, which is why you didn’t see any at Guadalcanal. Remember of the five most modern American dreadnaughts, only California and West Virginia were really knocked out at Pearl Harbor. Tennessee, Maryland, and Colorado only required relatively minor repairs or simply missed Pearl Harbor entirely.
That is the case historically, but there's other factors if Pearl somehow doesn't happen. If Pearl doesn't happen, the battle fleet is still intact from the start. No repairs, no lengthy transfers from the Atlantic needed. Kimmel, not Nimitz, is still in command of the Pacific fleet. The USN's institutional bias towards the battle fleet as the decisive arm of naval combat is not brutally and violently checked. Carriers are still considered raiders and scouts for the main fleet.
The only real question is, would the logistical reality of only being able to operate a few carrier fast task forces, or the battle line, push Kimmel into favoring carriers for their flexibility until more oilers become available? Also worth wondering, does the US carrier force and overall intact Pacific fleet cause the Japanese to advance more cautiously outside of their initial conquests? Do they no longer go for Wake Island, or New Britain, and instead build up forces in the Philippines and Marianas due to the threat of the Pacific fleet? A lot to mull over there.
is correct here, battlecruisers were just as expensive if not more so that actual battleships. Reason being that they had to be bigger and have a shitload more boilers than a regular battleship in order to reach their higher top speeds. Nations that couldn't build a dreadnought couldn't build a battlecruiser.
>Carriers are still considered raiders and scouts for the main fleet
The USN was going to build enough carriers to match the number of battleships 1 for 1 even before Pearl. The world recognised the importance of carriers by the mid-late 30s. I don't think it would have changed USN doctrine at all.
Only from the 1940 Two-Ocean Navy act, procurement from the 1934 and 1938 naval expansion acts had been overwhelmingly in favor of battleships. Also worth mentioning, none of the 1940 act ships would be in service until the middle of 1943. There's a lot of hard lessons the USN learns in 1942 that influences how that new fleet gets employed. If Pearl Harbor doesn't happen, the wakeup call for the US that massed carrier air power can both be effectively coordinated against an enemy and be effective enough against battleships to supercede their role as the decisive arm of the fleet has to happen elsewhere. Also worth mentioning that aircraft development was improving by leaps and bounds at the end of the 1930s. What was top of the line in 1939 was obsolescent in 1941, and the most experience that flag officers had with carrier aircraft was the early-mid '30s biplanes. US carriers were still carrying biplanes (albeit newer models) for the final Fleet Problem in the Pacific prior to WWII.
Saying the world recognized the importance of carriers is incredibly reductive and glosses over a lot of stuff. It's not as simple as airplane > battleship shell. For the Japanese, naval air power was heavily pushed because they couldn't build battleships at the rate the US or UK could, and even though the US hadn't built to its treaty limits pre-war the Japanese battle line was horribly outnumbered. So both carrier aircraft and land-based naval strike bombers were developed to close the gap, along with submarines, torpedoes, and night-fighting tactics. In Europe, a mix of weather and geography greatly reduced the efficacy of carriers, and as a result battleships remained incredibly important for control of the sea lanes as they were both more survivable in the face of land-based air power and could operate in all weather.
>procurement from the 1934 and 1938 naval expansion acts had been overwhelmingly in favor of battleships
only because the existing battle line was extremely outdated, with the newest ships otherwise being the Colorados
basically a whole new battle fleet was being built during this time, and its composition was 2x NorCals and 4x SoDaks. Theoretically they would be matched by five Ranger-class carriers, but this turned out to be 1x Ranger, 2x Yorktowns, and 1x Wasp. The only actual ship added by the 1938 Act was Hornet, because the USN already possessed 15 battleships. The Iowas would have replaced older scrapped battleships. While aircraft carrier numbers were being built up and old battleships retained in service, necessarily task force compositions would be limited: if including Hornet, the USN would have 15 battleships, 5 fleet carriers and 2 light carriers.
The RN had similar restrictions and a similar Treaty-restricted fleet of 15 battleships and 7 carriers; in the late 30s the RN ordered 5 KGV battleships and 6 Illustrious carriers.
Thus by the late 30s, before the Two-Ocean Navy Act, before Taranto and before Pearl, aircraft carriers were being procured in quite large numbers. In part this would provide older battleship squadrons with CV cover, but also they could be used to form a modern fast striking force of battleships and carriers in at least equal strength.
>only because the existing battle line was extremely outdated
That was the case for everyone, and the Standards compared well (excepting Nevada and Oklahoma) to everyone's 1910s-20s construction save for maybe the Nelsons. Their speed was really their only drawback.
>Thus by the late 30s, before the Two-Ocean Navy Act, before Taranto and before Pearl, aircraft carriers were being procured in quite large numbers
Granted it's treaty-constrained, but how can you make that claim? If you look at total numbers, because after all nobody threw out their WWI-era battleships since they were in reality still useful and dangerous, carriers still made up a much smaller portion of the fleet. If you look at tonnage, battleship tonnage constructed far exceeded that of carriers. Carrier aircraft, while improving rapidly, were nowhere near the level of effectiveness that the world would see in 1941 and onward. Your claims also ignore real-life experience, where both the RN and the USN in the interwar years found carriers to be excellent raiders and excellent scouts, but also to be extremely vulnerable. Which is why battleships were kept as the decisive arm for as long as they were, and US carriers especially were operated in a dispersed manner that precluded the kind of mass strike coordination that the US would experience at Pearl and would also be necessary for carriers to actually inflict appreciable damage to an enemy fleet.
>carriers still made up a much smaller portion of the fleet
I just showed the numbers up there are at least 3:1 if not approaching 2:1 counting light carriers. And assuming the Treaty had held at early 1939 levels, light carriers would be eventually replaced by fleet carriers, just as WW1 BBs would be replaced by modern BBs.
In practice, second-line squadrons would be made up of 3-4 BBs and 1 CV, allowing fleets to concentrate modern BBs and CVs in one "Kido Butai" type formation. The RN did it, the IJN did it, the USN would have done it if not for Pearl.
>battleship tonnage constructed far exceeded that of carriers
Because of the USN need to replace legacy BBs. Contrast the RN's construction programme.
>Carrier aircraft, while improving rapidly, were nowhere near the level of effectiveness that the world would see in 1941
The RN was gimped by the RAF, but the Wildcat, Zero, Dauntless, and Val are excellent aircraft.
>Which is why battleships were kept as the decisive arm for as long as they were
They were kept as close escorts all the way to 1960, but the carriers were regarded as the future decisive striking arm - it was only logical. The bottleneck was number of hulls.
>that precluded the kind of mass strike coordination
No, the USN consciously decided to disperse for protection on the logic that a counterstrike might only find one carrier instead of the whole shebang.
The RN had too many commitments and too few carriers to mass carriers. Ultimately the IJN was first to implement the tactic. But we can see from the building programmes and air wing compositions that carriers in significant numbers considered essential to future naval fleet battles.
>I just showed the numbers up there are at least 3:1 if not approaching 2:1 counting light carriers is
1/4 to 1/3 of the fleet's capital ships. That is objectively a much smaller portion compared to the battleships.
>Because of the USN need to replace legacy BBs
You're aware that the RN still had Renown and Repulse, along with the whole R class and some un-modernized Queen Elizabeths floating around right? Where does this idea come from that the Brits didn't also want to replace their old and slow dreadnoughts?
>Contrast the RN's construction programme.
Could you point me to where those last 2 Illustrious class were ever actually ordered? Because I can only find the details for the 4 that were actually laid down and completed. Compared to the 5 King George Vs laid down in 1936-7.
>the Wildcat, Zero, Dauntless, and Val are excellent aircraft.
The Wildcat and Dauntless both were not in actual service on carriers until 1941. US carriers were kicking around with Brewster Buffalos and some even still carried F3F biplanes into 1941, as well as SBU Corsairs. The A6M likewise only entered very limited service in mid 1940. Which reinforces my point, the effectiveness of 1940-41 aircraft was leagues beyond what flag officers trained with in the '20s and '30s. In a hypothetical "no-Pearl Harbor" scenario, why does Kimmel completely flip-flop on his own experience if he's trying to get a fleet action with the Japanese?
>SBU Corsair in 1941
Thats always puzzled me; why they not employed Vindicators earlier? It was inferior to a Dauntless, but more modern than biplanes.
>That is objectively a much smaller portion
1/3 is close to 1/2. If you're looking for carriers to outnumber battleships, that wasn't going to be the case. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that carriers were the long-range strike force and everyone knew that.
>the Brits didn't also want to replace
The whole point of the naval treaties was to put the brakes on a naval arms race. The instant war looked likely they laid down the KGVs and Illustriouses.
>where those last 2 Illustrious class
Modified builds with war experience as the Implacable-class.
>my point, the effectiveness of 1940-41 aircraft was leagues beyond what flag officers trained
I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
Yet the continued development of these aircraft informed fleet design. It was a no-brainer; if land-based aircraft could have such impact, so could fleet-based.
>In a hypothetical "no-Pearl Harbor" scenario, why does Kimmel completely flip-flop
Not sure what you mean.
>There is zero evidence
IMO, the importance attached to carrier building in the 30s strongly says otherwise.
>by extension, precluded the kind of mass needed
It doesn't. It merely meant the USN needed to tweak either its doctrine or its operational procedures. You can't deduce intent from a wienerup.
>You've gone from "they knew all along carriers were going to supercede battleships"
"Supercede" is a word you used, not me.
>"carriers were considered as important as battleships"
>"they knew carriers would play a vital role in future fleet battles"
I still maintain this. It's not backtracking at all.
>The USN could not then, and could not until the Essex swarm of the mid-war period, deal with an enemy battle fleet with air power alone
I never said they would be alone.
As I said, battleships were needed as close escorts all the way to 1960.
You're thinking that I claimed "it was expected that carriers would make battleships extinct in the 30s", I didn't.
>the carriers were regarded as the future decisive striking arm
Due to war experience, arguably a somewhat biased experience from the USN being able to outbuild any other nation on the planet and primarily fighting a foe with anemic anti-aircraft abilities. But they learned hard and bloody lessons from the Kido Butai first. There is zero evidence that any flag-level officer other than Yamamoto prior to Pearl Harbor considered carriers to be the new decisive arm of the fleet.
>the USN consciously decided to disperse for protection on the logic that a counterstrike might only find one carrier instead of the whole shebang.
This is true. But it doesn't refute the fact that it also prevented the US from achieving the same coordination that the Kido Butai could, and by extension, precluded the kind of mass needed for an air strike to be more than a raid.
>But we can see from the building programmes and air wing compositions that carriers in significant numbers considered essential to future naval fleet battles.
So now you're backtracking. You've gone from "they knew all along carriers were going to supercede battleships", to "carriers were considered as important as battleships", to "they knew carriers would play a vital role in future fleet battles". Yes they knew from the Fleet Problems that carriers would be the eyes and ears of the fleet, replacing regular cruisers in that role. They also knew they needed fighter cover to keep the enemy from finding their own fleet. They also knew carriers, thanks to their speed and range, could perform deep raids on enemy installations. But they also knew carriers were incredibly vulnerable. Which is why any flag officer of the interwar period was thinking with battleships when he was thinking about a major fleet action with the enemy. The USN could not then, and could not until the Essex swarm of the mid-war period, deal with an enemy battle fleet with air power alone.
>There is zero evidence that any flag-level officer other than Yamamoto prior to Pearl Harbor considered carriers to be the new decisive arm of the fleet.
The evidence is the USN procuring like 40 new fleet carriers before Pearl Harbor.
There were only 18 total Essex class bud, compared to 6 Iowas, 5 Montanas, and the 6 treaty battleships. And the battleships represent a much larger percentage of Navy resources than the carriers do.
>battleships remained incredibly important for control of the sea lanes as they were both more survivable in the face of land-based air power
I don't really get this point. if you can't launch planes from a carrier because planes from a land base can shoot them down, can't the same land base also bomb your battleships? in the pacific there were instances where the japs withdrew their battleships because they were afraid of attacks from henderson field.
NTA, but adding a hundred Bofors 40mm, radar guidance, and fuze shells significantly improved the AA capability of a late-war battleship compared to a pre-war battleship.
> more survivable in the face of land-based air power
He seems to be saying that Battleships are less vulnerable TO land-based bombers. Which seems like an extremely dubious claim to say the least.
>whereas battleships, even old ones, remained important in both the Med and the North Sea.
I always found this interesting because air power launched from land is clearly much stronger than naval.
>Also, the change to carriers pissed me off to no end. I liked how it used to be like a mini-RTS, not what it is now.
Lol it's gotten SO MUCH worse with the subs. I spend a lot of time playing WoWs and WT; my advice is that you need to be willing to stay out of high tiers and you need to be able to adapt to avoid bad meta. That means switching lines or ship types when bad changes happen. You can do it for free but you must be flexible.
I quit after subs were added to the normal pool of ships, I have subs.
The assumption most made was that level bombing was going to be far more effective than it was. It takes good specific training and good specific equipment to execute torpedo and dive attacks on a moving target that’s shooting at you. Most land based squadrons just didn’t have enough of it to be effective.
At the beginning of the war iirc only the japs, the brits, and sorta the us had it, feel free to correct me on that though.
Why is there a little plane with it? Where does the Shmarmhorse land???
What do you think the floats on the plane and the crane near the hangar are for?
I mean, it kind of did at first.
I argue that Aircraft Carriers are the modern battlecruisers. They are large, fast capital ships capable of both fleet actions and presence in distant waters that rely more on active, vice passive defenses and do best when their main battery (strike fighters) outrange the enemy.
Aircraft carriers are battleships in that they destroy everything afloat
Modern battlecruisers, it may be argued, are ships such as Kirov, Slava, maybe Type 55 which have a certain degree of defensive capability and massive firepower
I actually would argue that the modern attack sub is the closest battlecruiser in that it's designed to dissuade enemy commerce raiders and patrols by being a terror to most things, but is capable of evading engagement by the things it doesn't overmatch. Sure, a battlecruiser might do it by speed instead of stealth, but the base concept is surprisingly similar.
Hmm, interesting. The only quibble I have is that submarines do not do colonial presence missions, but I pretty much agree. SSN = battlecruiser, SSBN= battleship.
If you are talking about the runup to World War I, I think battleships and battlecruisers cost about the same to build, and the higher fuel consumption of battlecruisers may have made them more expensive to operate.
You have a very valid point.
Aircraft carriers are deadly at all ranges, however.
In modern warfare, arguably Burkes and NATO frigates are comparable with cruisers. Only smaller ships like missile boats and corvettes are akin to destroyers.
Battlecruisers were a new design brought to you by the nutso who also invented the modern battleship - Jackie Fisher. It was a more radical development of the same idea, except that it drastically sacrificed armour for speed. He believed that it could hit battleships from a distance while sailing fast enough that it wouldn't be hit, itself. It was a bad idea of course, and eventually they packed on armour so battlecruisers evolved into fast battleships. But arguably, they were never a necessary evolutionary step - faster battleships were already being built.
In short, a battlecruiser is a battleship, but with the thinner armour and faster speed of a cruiser.
Fishers concept of the battle-cruiser never had them acting as battleships
Here's a quote from Addmita sir Reginald H.S Bacon (Fishers assistant) about what The design of the Invincible and future BCs
> The speed of the Invincible was definitely fixed at 25 knots. This gave her some margin over the German Transatlantic liners. Hitherto we had subsidized, for a huge annual sum, some of our own liners to fight those of Germany, in spite of the fact that they had never been designed to fight and were totally unfitted to do so. For weeks, however, discussion continued about the armament of the Invincible 9.2-inch versus 12-inch; but in the end the 12-inch gun won on the unanswerable plea that ships, of the size and tonnage necessary in order to build an Invincible, should have an additional use in being able to form a fast light squadron to supplement the battleships in action, and worry the ships in the van or rear of the enemy's line. They were never intended to engage battleships singlehanded; but they were designed to assist in a general action by engaging some of the enemy's ships which were already fighting our battleships.
The Life of Lord Fisher of Kilverstone: Admiral of the Fleet. Volume One. (1929) page 256
I am thinking more along the lines of Jackie Fisher's concept of a capital ship that can control the engagement range and deal destruction at a distance. RN dreadnoughts were to be concentrated in Home waters against Germany, whereas battlecruisers could be used both with the Grand Fleet and in the colonies. The latter is a closer match to the employment of Aircraft Carriers.
In a way, there are only two modern surface warships: battlecruisers and destroyers.
Many interwar carriers were literally just converted battlecruisers
I'd argue that as they became the primary combatants, both concepts sorta merged into one. A carrier is a glass cannon, faster than most ships but also intended to fight it out with enemy carriers if necessary. Though optimally you'd use attack subs to counter enemy surface combatants.
>Many interwar carriers were literally just converted battlecruisers
Coincidence.
Not really. A carrier could use the same hull to fulfill a similar strategic role, without violating limit treaties.
I mean that if they had been battleships or heavy cruisers they'd have been converted as well; it was coincidence that many of them were battlecruisers
does go to show though, Jutland was by no means the "death of the battlecruiser" as some think
Actually, there was a provision in the Washington Naval Treaty that allowed for in-production BCs to be converted into carriers.
You mean 3?
They were really fricking asking for it with that name anyway.
Anon, the Navy has reused ships' names over and over, with popular ones having half a dozen iterations all with various fates. Are you just now finding this out?
It's a joke about not so invincible.
Yes
>Any battlecruiser fans on /k/?
Sure. I luurrves me some Iowa's
kys
I'm not going back to wow. The daily grind burned me out
it's leagues better than wot. i managed to grind two whole branches in less than a week, with free premium, exp bonuses etc. none of that shit exist in world of tanks, or at least it ued tobe that way. took me years before i could get my first tier 10 tank (i'm f2p).
i left wot years ago because it was a farce, wows sucks but at least the ship models are gorgeous
Don't grind. Buy ONE premium ship you like the most and play noting but that, it's much better that way.
I did, I got burned out anyway. Granted, if it wasn't 60gb I probably would've kept it installed but I have other shit I want to put on my pc
Also, the change to carriers pissed me off to no end. I liked how it used to be like a mini-RTS, not what it is now.
I miss my RTS carriers. I do however appreciate respawning aircraft for the little I've played since
Old carriers could be satisfying but also very frustrating when you got games that just didn't work out. Japanese CVs just had better punching power. US low tier bled planes and then were out.
The new style isn't as rewarding for good play, and is definitely frustrating to go against, but things needed to be balanced. And frick the Soviet CVs. The entire damage system ensures they will ALWAYS still get through with their attack.
I wish they kept the RTS management but let you manually fly a squadron if you wanted. Unlimited planes wouldn't be needed if carriers could also use their guns as a backup.
Assuming I went back to the game, what Soviet CV is a good one because all of mine are USN
Enjoy being sub food
Funny how the battlecruiser outlived the battleship and proved itself the superior ship type.
>Enjoy being sub food
I unlocked subs before I quit so I have some of my own. Maybe one day I'll go back
I was having fun but the carrier update plus a stint of horrendous matchmaking made me quit. My winrate was so bad for a week it shouldnt have been possible even if I was torping teammates every game
Frickhuge ships were obsolete before WWII even started, but the political dickswinging still pushed towards bigger ships. It doesn't matter how you call them: heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, pocket battleships, you name it, they were still a lot of eggs in one single basket that could be swiftly lost by misfortune, moronness, or proper enemy action.
Still, I mained BBs in WoWS, before I burned out. The announcement of the big CV rework broke the camel's back. Frick WG really. And frick Gaijin too for being even worse.
>Heavy cruisers
Remained in service for decades after as carrier escorts, and modern "destroyers" are rapidly approaching them in size
>Pocket Battleships
Just a scary term for the particularly well armed heavy cruisers Germany was fielding at the time
>Battlecruisers
Became outdated as a classification once true fast battleships were possible.
Regardless of whatever reformer myths you may believe, large ships are much more capable than the amount of small ships you can build for the same price. Most of the time, the systems needed for a ship to do its job require a certain displacement to even fit. That means things like radar systems, sonar, and power plants.
Then you also have to factor in range. A 900 ton missile boat may be fine for coastsl defense, but if you try to use it out at sea you'll be stuck cruising at abysmally low speeds and you'll have to refuel constantly.
war thunder not only is a horrible inhuman grind - way worse than WoW, the naval gameplay in it is just horrible and un-fun.
its pretty much a completely unplayable game.
i never paid a cent in World of Warships and i got almost all countries and all ships - im showered with free bonuses, free premium account, battle pass etc.
Also, every time i hear my Satsuma fire her guns, i get an erection.
Frick you star homosexual.
You should have to earn that gun sound by getting enough steel to buy Shikishima. Fricking power creep bullshit
Honorary battlecruiser.
Forgotten hope, and dreadnought admirals is only good naval games
I miss Navyfield
Don't worry, NF2 is right around the corner.
You and me both anon ;_;
High-angling in CL/CA rooms, and running half AA half high-angle AP in CL/CA/BB and all welcome rooms in the Atlanta and Oakland was stupid hilarious fun
I really enjoyed the French stuff, the AA was cracked. German was a lot of fun too, the range on the BBs was unreal
Z99s dominated blitz rooms forever, AW Nelsons and POWs with quads were a laugh in GB.
God I am so fricking old
Nakadashi French BBs and BCs
I like battlecruisers, but I prefer armored cruisers and dreanoughts.
A battlecruiser MUST have less armor than any peer battleship, but MUST have larger or more numerous guns than any of it's peer cruisers.
>A battlecruiser MUST have less armor than any peer battleship, but MUST have larger
Then what makes it not simply "next-generation heavy cruiser"?
>more numerous guns
no, because a Mogami-class cruiser is not a heavy cruiser
I submit that a battlecruiser must have less armour than a peer battleship, must have battleship-class main armament, and must be intended to fight with battleships in a fleet engagement, otherwise it is merely a heavy cruiser
>no, because a Mogami-class cruiser is not a heavy cruiser
They were post-1939
In the context of the post, I meant its original 5x3 6" build
My bad, please enjoy this photo (or don't it's entirely up to you)
cheers
Man, did these things just smell like sweat, piss, and shit when they were at their battlestations? Hopefully you can open one of those portholes and throw a bucket out, not sure what the upper tower fricks would do.
2x as bad if they were stationed in the Pacific.
>Man, did these things just smell like sweat, piss...
When I went aboard Lexington about a decade ago it still did. Texas was less definable but still no rose
>and must be intended to fight with battleships in a fleet engagement
except the original designs werent, not really, they were intended to hunt cruisers, they were used in fleet actions but both the germansand british intended them t be used t cut the line f retreat in a fleet actin while the battle lines dueled
>they were intended to hunt cruisers
in a fleet action, as well as for trade protection
>cut the line f retreat in a fleet actin while the battle lines dueled
your "o" key is sticking, mate
yes and no, the purpose of a "fast wing" in a fleet action wasn't just to chase down fleeing ship, but generally also to lend firepower to wherever it was needed
in a fleet action, battlecruisers with their higher speeds could even choose to add their fire to the destroyer duel if they had nothing else to do - that is why they were equipped with quick-firing secondary batteries
a fleet line of battle could be very long, but with their greater speeds fast ships could reposition faster
Heavy cruisers came from the design lineage of the light cruiser.
The BCs are from the Armoured Cruiser lineage.
As for what classifies as one... what was it made to do?
Is it meant to do the job of a BC. Those being. Commerce raiding/protection, cruiser hunting, screening and lastly supporting a battleline.
They were never to engage a BB directly without a friendly BB to draw fire
That question is the only qualifier for a BC IMO. You could also go with the brittish post ww1 definition and say "does it go faster than 25 knots?"
>That question is the only qualifier for a BC IMO. You could also go with the brittish post ww1 definition and say "does it go faster than 25 knots?"
Which would make Yamato, King George V and South Dakota (etc) battlecruisers. I prefer your "is it supposed to go slugging it out with enemy battleships" take on it.
what kind of idiot would use a cruiser for commerce raiding instead of a submarine?
Before like 1914 there was basically no practical examples of submarine warfare. Fisher was also a proponent of getting massive amounts of subs because he predicted how useful they would be.
Even with subs in the water there is simply some target's a sub can not hit. Submerged a sub of that era is slow as shit and has a comparatively limited range. This means that ships like ocean liners (who were among the fastest ships in the sea) could simply ignore subs and even most cruisers by being that much faster. This is what caused the BCs requirement for speed. Because otherwise they would be unable to catch hostile ocean liners, who could either be transporting troops or hunting your merchant ships after being armed.
During ww2 the German U-boat crews were really frustrated at the ocean liners because they would just speed past them while they just looked on in impotent rage
Worst game mode in War Thunder
Well, they're really good in Ultimate Admiral.
What surprised me is that battlecruisers were often larger and heavier than battleships. That only underscores the difference between a true battlecruiser and a heavier heavy cruiser.
Hallo.
Alaska's were huge.
Yeah
Weren’t battlecruisers just a cope for not being able to build battleships for whatever reason?
Not really a fan.
Which line first?
Also, these two are basically fast battleships at this point which is make sense.
St Vincent because those dual casemates on Schlieffen make me physically ill
I actually hate how St Vincent look.
There was basically two schools of thought for BCs. First was the German approach with being a mid-point between heavy cruisers and Battleships. Then there was the British approach with having the speed of a cruiser and the guns of a Battleship. The British approach never really panned out and we ended up with Fast Battleships instead. Apparently all that armor doesn't slow a ship down.
>85 replies in and nobody posts
You're slipping, 4chinz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington-class_battlecruiser
Vgh... what could have been...
The design with the 5 or 7 stacks was an absolute pigdisgusting monstrosity though
>he hates it
Has there ever been a ship that did 7 stacks?
Not that I can think of, the most that springs to mind is 6 which you can find on the Italia-class ironclad battleships and the Edgar Quinet-class cruisers
Higher resolution and uncropped if you want it
I thought 6 were in rows with 1 centerline.
I love playing a Cruiser or Battleship with Spotter Planes, rushing mid like a mad c**t, disrupting and trading shots with the enemy forces converging on mid, then launching a Spotter Plane right before getting sunk.
I then switch to the Spotter Plane's view, sit back, pack a bowl of weed and smoke it while spectating the battle from my aimless Spotter Plane until it runs out of fuel or gets shot down. Cozy.
>t. haven't played in years
>battlecruiser
aka "a shitty battleship"
>Daisen is based on a series of battlecruiser design studies by Yuzuru Hiraga from 1916.
>The point of these studies was to determine the kind of hull that would be required to reach a top speed of 35 knots on a capital ship.
>The four designs all had a main battery of eight 410 mm guns in four twin turrets, completed by a large number of casemate-mounted 140 mm secondary batteries.
>In all cases, the high top speed of 34.5 to 35 knots was achieved by powerful engines driving six shafts.
>Design I and II were the smallest with an overall length of 284 m and a 229 mm main belt.
>The design I could reach 35 knots with 205 000 HP and had a standard displacement of 40 850 tons.
>Design II could only reach 34.5 knots with 186 000 HP and had a standard displacement of 40 430 tons.
>As for Design III and IV, they were much bigger with an overall length of 294 m and a main armor belt of 305 mm.
>Design III could reach 35 knots with 215 000 HP and had a standard displacement of 44 500 tons.
>Design IV could only reach 34.5 knots with 195 000 HP and had a standard displacement of 43 950 tons.
I think one of the reasons why I like Battleships I'd that there is theoretically no limit to how big they can get. Before rockets and missiles the ship's were just getting bigger and bigger as time went on. Imagine how stupid large they'd be if we continued making them. The guns big enough to shatter everyone's ear drums. Pic unrelated
>there is theoretically no limit to how big they can get.
I mean eventually they'd just displace too much water to be able to float, right?
Catamaran hulls.
The bigger it is, the heavier it is.
The heavier it is, the more water it must displace to float.
The bigger it is, the more water it displaces.
See where this is going? As long as there are more cubic metres of ship meant to sit under the waterline than there are metric tons of ship in total it will float. Icebergs can float around displacing more than ten million tons. (Anyone know what the USN's total displacement is?)
The problems are things like stability, just how deep its gonna go and maneuverability.
If you make MEGA BATTLE BOAT 10 000! With a super big displacement and whatever its gonna be sitting super deep in the water. This means you can do stupid shit like beach yourself in the middle of the ocean, for example dogger Bank can at places be as shallow as 15m.
Well there is really because they're also constrained by the size of the yards to build and support them and things like basins and slips are only realistically going to get so big. Practicality as well would suggest I don't imagine battleships would have actually got that much larger than they did. Things like H-44 which was only a thought exercise anyway with no real intention of ever being built, even if Germany could have I think are outside the realms of usefulness. Compare Yamato to A-150 for example, there's not really a whole lot of difference in size and I doubt battleships would have ever got much larger than that, even with the most ideal circumstances.
Why are there no good boat games
There's only russian bias grinding games like wt and wows, and the latter is infected with cv and sub cancer
azur lane was amazing