Battlecruiser

Adequate armor but with big guns or thick armor but with rather small guns?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    any blow will disable the ship for further blows

    if this is a PrepHole question then kindly frick off to Wrong board

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I used a pic from a video game but no, I didn't intend to talk about the game itself.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      board gays such as yourself only deserve the rope

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Since we're threadomancy until 500posts and auto-deleting.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Thick armor with big guns

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But then that would be a fast battleship, not a battlecruiser.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A distinction without difference.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No their roles were different

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They fulfilled the same role.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >This thread is sponsored by World of Warships. World of Warships is the ultimate free-to-play MMO naval action game. Immerse yourself in thrilling naval battles and assemble an armada of over 600 ships — from stealthy destroyers to gigantic battleships. Change the look of your ship, choose upgrades to suit your play style, and go into battle with other players.
    >Redeem this World of Warships discount code to get 7 days of Premium Account absolutely free! Get access to all the features of Premium to enjoy the game to the fullest.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They make premium account sound so exclusive and rare and powerful. I have premium since early february and i have not paid a cent. Between missions, collections and containers, this game is way too generous compared to world of tanks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        history proved both to be a pretty goofy concept

        it's actually crazy how many gibs you get compared to other gacha games. whatever, i won't complain.

        I was playing since open beta (couldn’t get into the closed beta) and it’s depressing to think how far the game has fallen since the early days. The game now is both boring and enraging at the same time.

        the submarine nerf was nice, and hopefully they grow some balls and hit CV's too. Top tier is pretty ass but i've been having a lot of fun at lower tiers where cv's aren't as powerful and people camp less

        Didn't even give it a chance. I played beta World of Tanks and the nail in the coffin was when they turned all chat off. Talking shit via text was half the fun.

        wows has this with the added benefit of the playerbase being hilariously old, so it's just that much easier to wind people up.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        things that hindsight shows us actually mattered in ww2:
        >asw capability
        >aa capability
        >radar integrated fire control
        >torpedoes that actually worked
        >crew training in damage control and night fighting
        >aircraft capacity

        people talking about ww2 ships:
        >this one is clearly better because it has more armor
        >no this one is better because it had bigger guns

        what causes this? is everyone just disappointed that jutland 2 never happened or is it just angloid cope for wasting tons of money in the wrong shit? inb4 that one asshurt bong accuses me of being his boogeyman.

        I had thousands of gold in world of tanks from playing in a few tournaments and being in a clan

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >torpedoes that actually worked
          >radar integrated fire control
          These actually get talked about alot in WW2 circles. You've got to get off of Reddit. Don't read so much about Europe and read more about the Pacific.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            things that hindsight shows us actually mattered in ww2:
            >asw capability
            >aa capability
            >radar integrated fire control
            >torpedoes that actually worked
            >crew training in damage control and night fighting
            >aircraft capacity

            people talking about ww2 ships:
            >this one is clearly better because it has more armor
            >no this one is better because it had bigger guns

            what causes this? is everyone just disappointed that jutland 2 never happened or is it just angloid cope for wasting tons of money in the wrong shit? inb4 that one asshurt bong accuses me of being his boogeyman.

            I had thousands of gold in world of tanks from playing in a few tournaments and being in a clan

            he missed a whole thread started by a Tojoboo that was convinced that optical gunnery was superior to radar, lmao.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Everyone needs to brush up on the Battle of the Surigao Strait. The West Virginia, a supposedly "outdated" battleship, detected the Japanese force 23.8 miles away at night. The WV was able to fire accurately on enemy ships at long range in the dark because of her modern SK radar that was directly connected to her main battery. The Japs, waiting for visual rangefinding, got raped.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Here's West Virginia's report on the battle...https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/BB/bb48-Surigao.html

                Contact at 44,000 yards, firing solution at 30,000 yards, commenced firing at 22,800 yards with a hit on the first salvo.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the funny thing is that the japs would probably have lost surigao even if the american battleships weren't there. one of their battleships was sunk by the first torpedo salvo coming into the strait.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I know, but we are talking about specific type of warship here, not naval combat as a whole.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > more armor bigger guns
          BIG is GOOD. BIGGER IS GOODER!

          > capability
          SNR, Peak Power, Resolution, MTBF, Gyroscopes, Computers, Interference, Deflections, Tracks.....

          What is this sperg PrepHole crap, is this about fighting or is this about nerds?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >strawmanning

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What little fricks I gave about WoWS went away when they destroyed the camo economy and bonuses, but when I did play it there was a definite feeling of them trying to make a gacha game with ships via gibs. Which is fine, no one in their right mind is going to turn down free shit in their grindfest game, just interesting to see a different philosophy to that kind of thing between WoT and WoWS.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Really though, I only used a pic from WoWS because they have lots of cool color pics of WW2 Warships. I really didn't intend to talk about the game.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Kancolle promotion never ever

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What is that?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I was playing since open beta (couldn’t get into the closed beta) and it’s depressing to think how far the game has fallen since the early days. The game now is both boring and enraging at the same time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't even give it a chance. I played beta World of Tanks and the nail in the coffin was when they turned all chat off. Talking shit via text was half the fun.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The game is much the same as it's ever been. If anything there's a lot more diversity, you can find at least one ship for whatever niche you want, e.g. secondaries. The fricking WARSPITE and NAGATO used to "strong secondaries" ships. At least we no longer have perma-smoke DDs. I do still hate subs and CVs though.

      t. Open beta player

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Thin armor, small guns, huge displacement.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So... German?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yes, but with a crew that's actually competent.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i got the Repulse for free in a container once, very nice.
    Good for ranked matches.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >1.36 MB
    Logically, big guns, less armor. No point in having thick armor but can't sink anything your weight class.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >make a game inspired by WWII fleet actions
    >players beg for a class that historically could not work in said fleet actions
    >Pikachu face when said class has to be balanced to handheld levels to have any impact on a match
    Same thing's happening to shartthunder too

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >historically could not work in said fleet actions
      Says who

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i think he is talking either about submarines or carriers rather than bcs, bcs were there from the beginning

        Submarines would make more sense in context, since carriers kind of work ingame, while subs are shit. But on the other hand, nobody other than completer morons wanted or "begged" for submarines in the first place.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      WT sub event was fun simply for the screeching when dunking on them with the Catalina

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Scharnhorst wasn't a BC. But the WW1 German BCs proved to be survivable when the British ones weren't. They ended up being the super approach. The guns were still large enough to kill anything not a BB and they still had the speed. But the protection was good enough that when they did encounter BBs, as was inevitable, they didn't explode like a russian tank.

    The British BC concept only worked as long as they didn't encounter capital ship guns. But when BC squadrons were added to the grand fleet it was only a matter of time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >But the WW1 German BCs proved to be survivable when the British ones weren't.
      Unironically a skill issue tbh, the ones that followed proper ammo handling measures rather than going all in with lol lmao maximum shots per minute could take a decent amount of hostile fire and survive.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >German BCs proved to be survivable when the British ones weren't
      More due to Beatty's moronic ammo handling practices than strictly design.
      Von Der Tann had about the same armour that Queen Mary did. British battlecruisers matched German for protection, once they pried Fisher's moronic hands off the drawing board
      >The British BC concept only worked as long as they didn't encounter capital ship guns
      Fisher thought, wrongly, that they could kite the guns
      >they still had the speed
      British BCs were slightly faster

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, even besides Beatty's idiocy with shell handling, it's kinda hard to look good at taking hits when you have to compare to pic relevant. Because jesus christ, that damage control crew were miracle workers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Jellicoe did the same thing but got lucky few of his better armoured BB's took many turrent hits. In fact he circulated a memo stating rate of fire was the primary objective before the battle and high rate of fire drill had been an obession in the RN for centuries. (see book Castles of Steel) This inexorably led to the poor safety and magazine explosions. They had flash proof doors and manhole coverings but kept them open to get shells through quicker. This was only changed in 1917 after a review of Jutland demanding sealing of all bulkheads and doors in the turrets during battle.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >high rate of fire drill had been an obession in the RN for centuries
        That's as moronic as claiming that US damage control today is the way it is because of an obsession with ship protection for centuries
        >This was only changed in 1917 after a review of Jutland demanding sealing of all bulkheads and doors in the turrets
        Firstly, the problem is specifically the loading door, secondly, the rule to close the loading doors as soon as possible to minimise time open was already there, in force acrosst he fleet. The affected ship's captains violated it.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Was this thread made in response to the Alaska-class thread that's up right now?

    [...]

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, I just like battlecruisers.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fisher's idea of the battlecruiser was insane. The epitome of "This looks reasonable on paper" but then you realize that even under ideal circumstances (vs cruiser guns), having that little armor on a ship with large magazines is tempting fate for a fiery death.
    There will always be lucky ships and unlucky ships but the concept of the British BC was flawed. As evidenced by the final one, Hood, resembling more a fast battleship.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      didnt Hood also have a fatal design flaw where the bow wave at high speed would expose its rear below the water line essentially leaving open an unarmored section right to an ammo magazine?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        not at all, in fact Hood sat pretty low in the water

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I expect you're referring to the theory put forward by Drachinifel. Yes, it's true that when travelling at high speed there is a noticeable trough produced along Hood's side however the theory put forward by Drach that this is the most likely cause of her sinking is debatable since it entirely relies on the presumption that Hood was not answering her helm since the trough would not be present on the outside of her turn, only the inside. The formation of a trough isn't unique to Hood either but the placement of it and it's potential involvement in her sinking, while well reasoned by Drach is still quite debatable since a turn was ordered and her rudder is over.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone know why 11.1" (283mm)?
    Why not 11" or 280mm?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ask ur mom

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have horrible luck with battlecruisers in Rule the Waves because I'm too cavalier by nature. It's my style, of course, to close for higher accuracy.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    fricktons of pocket battleships for maximum butthurt.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Personally, I really like the Kongō class.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I hope this guy is paying you rent they way he lives in your head

    >torpedoes that actually worked
    >radar integrated fire control
    These actually get talked about alot in WW2 circles. You've got to get off of Reddit. Don't read so much about Europe and read more about the Pacific.

    maybe I just have bad timing but it seems like literally every ww2 navy thread I see is some autists arguing about things in an interwar context.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    post warships

    battlecruisers are surprisingly big, I envisioned them more like very big cruisers instead but they were even bigger than battleships

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >battlecruisers are surprisingly big,
      Did you imagine that putting on engines to make a ship go fast would not require a whole lot of engine space and tonnage dedicated to machinery?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I no shit imagined them to be like the Alaskas, which are 2/3rds the size of a battleship

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yeah, hood was the largest warship in the world by a fair margin for 20 years.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            God bless John Brown's for keeping such good photographic records

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              she was so photogenic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                She was, though I think Renown and Repulse were prettier still

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I love Renown with the mansion bridge

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Thick armor
    >Small guns
    >Immediately turn and run the moment you think there might be a proper battleship in the area

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    my collection is mainly British cruisers

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Aircraft carriers and submarines instead of sunken ornaments.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    historically Renown saw of scharnhorst and Gniesnau and was winning until they ran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_off_Lofoten

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Winning would imply there was an actual engagement between them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        renon fired at and hit both ships, thats an engagement, gneisnau was hit 3 timess and had her aft turret knocked out

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don't want to start a new thread, so I'll ask my question here.
    How did the Bismarck compare to the BBs in the Pacific? Excluding the Yamato's and the Iowa's, would the Bismarck-class have been the biggest swinging dick in the theatre?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not at all, the North Carolina's and SoDaks both mog Bismark.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        SoDak yes, North Carolina is a toss-up. It doesnt have the armor to stand up to bismarcks guns at any reasonable range, plus its slower and if i remember right the NorthCarolinas had a big problem with vibrations which prevented them from going full speed; not sure if they ever fixed that.

        Just on the American side, the nine BBs of the New Mexico, Tennesee, and Colorado classes would have been the main threat. The first two had twelve 14" each and the Colorados had 8 16" guns.

        All the WW1 standards are 10knots slower or more, so unless they could pull an ambush like Surigao straight they would be a non-factor.

        Realistically, The Yamatos Iowas and Sodaks would be clearly superior while everything else was either a toss up or straight up worse.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just on the American side, the nine BBs of the New Mexico, Tennesee, and Colorado classes would have been the main threat. The first two had twelve 14" each and the Colorados had 8 16" guns.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Forgot that only three Colorados were completed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So Bismarck had a 15-inch 51-caliber gun. Gunnery and radar aside, that's one of the best naval cannons of the war, right?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The Bismarck is a completely overrated ship. I can only assume its reputation has been boosted so high because of the usual nazi fetishism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I know an above-average amount about the Pacific BBs, and understand the needs of the Pacific War quite well. I'm trying to start to study the Euro BBs, and I'm trying to not judge them like I would the American and Japanese BBs. Europe had a much different threat environment than the Pacific.
            I look at the Bismarck, and I see a ship with what should be good guns, but its displacement seems much higher than it should be. I know nothing about its radar or gunnery quality.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It's equal to the nagatos, Carolinas, littorios, and KGVs

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >littorios, and KGVs
                you know nothing

                I know an above-average amount about the Pacific BBs, and understand the needs of the Pacific War quite well. I'm trying to start to study the Euro BBs, and I'm trying to not judge them like I would the American and Japanese BBs. Europe had a much different threat environment than the Pacific.
                I look at the Bismarck, and I see a ship with what should be good guns, but its displacement seems much higher than it should be. I know nothing about its radar or gunnery quality.

                >I see a ship with what should be good guns, but its displacement seems much higher than it should be
                that was the conclusion of the RN constructors analysing the Bismarck and Tirpitz as well
                due to German shipbuilding inefficency, it's at least 10% heavier if not more than what the RN would have achieved
                it's not a sign of incompetence; German capital shipbuilding was interrupted for about a decade after WW1, so they couldn't keep abreast of developments

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Explain why the Bismarck is significantly superior to a KGV

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why wasn't the Prince of Wales dealt with as well?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't understand what you mean

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it's not

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ok then explain why it's significantly worse, stop beating around the bush

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Bismarcks had roughly 15% less armour, yet the KGVs were 10% lighter
                also, British battleship armour was said to be of slightly better quality, besides the matter of pure thickness
                the KGVs mounted ten guns to the Bismarcks' eight, and this was mainly because the Germans did not develop a triple gun turret for the Bismarcks
                also the KGVs' 14" was said to be better than the British 16", and definitely the equal of any 15"; at any rate the Admiralty declared it the best battleship gun the RN ever fielded

                this is purely on the matter of guns and armour, which I remember off the top of my head; I confess I'd have to look up the other important points of comparison such as internal protection and subdivision, radar performance, and fire control

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                p.s. Tirpitz had a triple layer battery which is wasteful; i.e. instead of having a main gun battery and a secondary dual-purpose battery as the British and Americans did, she had a primary (15"), secondary (5.9") and tertiary (4.1") battery, this was because the secondary battery was not dual purpose and the tertiary battery is the main AA armament.
                Tirpitz also had a relatively small number of 37mm flak guns and nearly sixty 20mm guns, and that's it.

                in contrast, the North Carolina had twenty 5" dual purpose guns as the primary AA battery, up to sixty 40mm Bofors as secondary AA, and around forty 20mm as point defence AA.
                HMS Anson carried sixteen 5.25" DP guns, forty-eight 40mm, and eighteen 20mm.
                The American and British battleships had far better AA in other words.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >RN constructors
                Whose battleship masterpiece went down by a single IJN torpedo hit. Best to ignore them and their long history of creating iron coffins and explosive designs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Best to ignore you and your long history of shitting up the board with your bongphobic seethe.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                to be fair, a hit in a similar location would have fricked any ship, made worse by a DC mistake by a relatively inexperienced crew.

                the hit exploded under her hull by her prop shafts and warped several of them. the crew didnt realise how badly until they restarted and one prop shaft broke loose and tore through the bulkheads for its length.

                but that torpedo had to arrive within a 20ft length of the ship to achieve that effect and every other battleship ever constructed had a similar proportion of its propshaft exposed and a similar construction to the propshaft seals.

                the other torps that hit failed to breach the TDS though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >a hit in a similar location would have fricked any ship
                No, properly designed ships have properly designed/cushioned flexible shaft seals at every watertight bulkhead. You're repeating the lie that's been repeated for decades.

                Once a supposed watertight compartment flooded, water passed through the damaged shaft seal and flooded adjacent compartments, and so on, and on. Same as Titanic, actually. Ship's going down. Bad design.

                Proper designs exclude this.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >properly designed ships have properly designed/cushioned flexible shaft seals
                Which would have been wholly and utterly inadequate in this case, as the properly designed and cushioned flexible shaft seals failing in this case demonstrated quite succintly.

                You tried, Warriortard. It's time to seethe and run as usual.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Which would have been wholly and utterly inadequate in this case
                No, all the other ships, properly designed, didn't sink as a result of a single torpedo hit in this area. The inferior design sunk.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And btw, the shaft seal design failures were only exposed due to the design failure of inferior shaft supports, which should be cushioned and provide shock absorption for just such a common combat occurrence. So we have 3 massive blunders here, 2 in design, 1 in ship handling. No wonder that ship went down so easily, so fast, with such great loss of life.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Bismarck had four twin turrets instead of three triples like everyone else, plus that weird split secondary battery.
              Like the anon above pointed out, she’s almost a WW1 idea of a fast battleship, which tracks. In that sense, a modernized and refitted Hood would have been a pretty even fight, I would think.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think Hood vs Bismarck as is was a pretty fair fight

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                At least let the lady get a new pair of shoes after running all over the empire.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >its reputation has been boosted so high because of the usual nazi fetishism
            it's 1 part that, 1 part bongoloid cope that a ship that sank their super barge must have been good, and 1 part johnny horton

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              homosexual

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                seethe

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          no, yamato, nagato, iowa, douth dakota, north carolina, and colorado classes all had bigger guns. the only battleships with smaller guns were outdated ww1 crap like fuso and nevada. but then also

          things that hindsight shows us actually mattered in ww2:
          >asw capability
          >aa capability
          >radar integrated fire control
          >torpedoes that actually worked
          >crew training in damage control and night fighting
          >aircraft capacity

          people talking about ww2 ships:
          >this one is clearly better because it has more armor
          >no this one is better because it had bigger guns

          what causes this? is everyone just disappointed that jutland 2 never happened or is it just angloid cope for wasting tons of money in the wrong shit? inb4 that one asshurt bong accuses me of being his boogeyman.

          I had thousands of gold in world of tanks from playing in a few tournaments and being in a clan

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 5 and Mark 8

          "Used only on the USS Colorado (BB-45) class battleships, these guns were reconstructed from the original 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 1 weapons during the 1930s modernization of the battlefleet. The major difference from the Mark 1 gun was the redesign of the chamber to permit larger charges, a new liner with heavier taper carbon steel, liner-locking ring and locking collar. A later version, the Mark 8, was similar except that rifling was uniform and the bore was chromium plated for increased life".

          "These ships could not fire the "super-heavy" 2,700 pound (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 projectile, as that shell was too heavy and too long for their handling equipment. However, in the late 1930s they were given the 2,240 lbs. (1,016 kg) AP Mark 5, which was a heavier projectile with better armor piercing capability than the 2,110 lbs. (957.1 kg) AP Mark 3 that was originally issued. By 1942, these ships were also issued an HC projectile."

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not really; it was a pretty average modern 15" gun, not too bad in Europe, where only 16" guns were Nelrods or occasional visiting Americans, but not exactly what one would want in the Pacific, where there was a significantly large presence of 16" and larger guns thanks to the larger American presence and the Japanese being Japanese.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It was outperformed by the British 14"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In what way, exactly. Please, do provide some actual numbers. Comprehensive ones, not cherry-picked ones, if you feel up to the challenge.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lets bump this PrepHole thread again?

    The OP or faithful game owner shills(china/russia) are permabumping thread.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Adequate armor but with big guns
    this assuming you aren't required to build according to treaties imposed by other powers
    neither is a good choice now btw but I'm assuming you are asking what the meta was back then

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >neither is a good choice now btw but I'm assuming you are asking what the meta was back then
      He is asking based on what was physically and practically possible back then. There is a reason why, unless Fisher got involved, the British designs kept evolving towards mounting more armor as their German counterparts started to appear and the engine technology advanced.
      >a never-built british design from just before WW1 featuring almost 11 inches of belt armor

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Hood could be considered the ultimate British battlecruiser, and mounted, what, 12 inches?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          12" falling to 7" and then 5" and inclined at ~12 degrees giving increased effective thickness

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Where can I find more armor cutaways like these?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Depends what ships specifically you're looking for, R. A. Burt has some good ones in British Battleships 1919-1945 for example. Friedman is always a good source for US warships

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    were there any battleships or battlecruisers with raked funnels?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yamato

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Personally, I'd go with okay-ish armor and big guns but I get the idea of thick armor and small guns.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Royal Navy: These ships are meant to engage cruisers, and so anything larger encountered should be fled from
    >Kaiserliche & Kriegsmarine: These ships are valuable to us and the British have superior numbers, anything encountered larger than a cruiser should be fled from
    >If both sides are following their orders then neither force will ever engage.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >These ships are meant to engage cruisers
      wrong
      >anything encountered larger than a cruiser should be fled from
      wrong
      >then neither force will ever engage
      technically correct, but still wrong

      you have stumbled on the reason why set piece battles of any kind, land or sea, take place. it's because both sides believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can defeat their opponent. if one side doesn't think they can, they will simply refuse battle.
      the exceptions are if one side is forced to stay, e.g. when defending a strategic target, or both armies or fleets accidentally run into each other.

      Jutland is a fine example. the entire German strategy was to attempt to lure small squadrons of the British battle fleet into reach of the entire German battle fleet so that it could defeat the numerically superior British in detail. however the instant they realised they were facing the whole fleet, they tried to retreat and the battle turned into a long, long chase.

      to be fair, a hit in a similar location would have fricked any ship, made worse by a DC mistake by a relatively inexperienced crew.

      the hit exploded under her hull by her prop shafts and warped several of them. the crew didnt realise how badly until they restarted and one prop shaft broke loose and tore through the bulkheads for its length.

      but that torpedo had to arrive within a 20ft length of the ship to achieve that effect and every other battleship ever constructed had a similar proportion of its propshaft exposed and a similar construction to the propshaft seals.

      the other torps that hit failed to breach the TDS though.

      ignore him, he's a well-known troll.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >fleets accidentally run into each other.
        That's what makes reading about the Guadalcanal Campaign so interesting.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >asking me to choose between my two favourite ww2 ships
    Frick you too.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A battlecruiser should split the difference exactly between the armaments and armor of the battleships and cruisers of it's navy.

    An armored cruiser should be cruiser armaments with greater than cruiser Armor.

    Fast battleship is an insane term that is not descriptive and splits a difference so narrowly it's an affront to language.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *