why are hybrids of everything always a failure? shouldn't versatility be a perk, rather than a hindrance?
why are hybrids of everything always a failure? shouldn't versatility be a perk, rather than a hindrance?
why are hybrids of everything always a failure? shouldn't versatility be a perk, rather than a hindrance?
because literally you have specialist roles that individuals can train effectively for one ship, more cheaply and effectively
by creating hybrids you actually decrease effectiveness overall
in the real world you have to be a master in X to even be remotely successful. Otherwise you're neither-nor.
Same shit in business.
>why are hybrids of everything always a failure?
They are?
>Posts something on the verge of being retired while its contemporary will be used for the foreseeable future
Yes it was a mistake. The US tried a multi-role warship once and it was a failure.
Never again.
Hybridization can become a liability. Battle-carriers are a hindrance as the entire point of the carrier is long range control and the ability to strike from safety, meaning the tonnage and space psent on guns, ammo, and related systems just leaves you with a shitty carrier.
A carrier exemplifies versatility in that it can sortie for almost any task on demand and are therefore more versatile than slapping a big frickoff gun on it somewhere.
If I were tasked with overhauling the USN I'd trade supercarriers for a much greater number of LHDs, America/Wasp equivalents, etc. Eggs, baskets, maintenance.
battlecarriers are also silly because at the precise time they became feasible they became pointless.
A carrier that gets within range of the enemy's guns has failed its mission.
that's not a carrier with guns, that's a battleship with a flight deck. its main purpose is to engage enemy ships and installments with the main battery, while the aircrafts provide superior AA and reconaissance capabilities to her and her fleet.
Quite a shit design for that too tbh. If I wanted to make a BBV I would probably go with a design that looked like a merge between a Richelieu and a late war Ise.
> 2 quad turrets in the front, a mini-flight deck + heavily armored hangar spaces in the back for operating 20-30 high-performance seaplanes, and a shitload of DP- and AA-guns in the middle
Sure, it is going to be pretty underwhelming BB for its size, and those twenty-something seaplanes aren't going to do shit against a proper CV, and it is most likely going to need a specialized airplane fuel tanker and airplane repair ship combo to follow it around (you most likely don't want to keep all that rather flammable avgas aboard a boat that is meant to be shot). In practice, you'd probably need two ships: a battleship that also tries to be a seaplane carrier, and an HMS Unicorn-style support carrier to back it up; and by that point, you'd probably be better off with a regular battleship (that can either be smaller but just as capable as the BBV, or the same size as the BBV but significantly better at being a battleship) and a CVL/CVS.
But you could make an even better battery if you got rid of the flight deck and just had an escort carrier do that for you with more planes
Everything from a light cruiser and up already carried at least 2 floatplanes for that express purpose
>hybrids of everything always fail
MBT's, strike fighters, and assault rifles are all hybrids of previously specialized roles and they work fine. Why a hybrid fails is generally situational, but usually boils down to the cost of losing effectiveness being greater than the gain in efficiency for whatever reason
This. Thread's over.
The reasons battle carriers and Aviation Battleships fail is that the roles don't mesh well together. Multirole can happen if the roles compliment each other.
versitility is fine if you combo the right perks . its called trial and error and nature does it now for a good amount of time . the goal isnt to creat one super man role
They can work and work well, but only with everything taken into account. The very concept of a dedicated 2fast4u interceptor (inb4 muh Raptor) died before the Cold War even ended because jet aircraft have gotten to the point where they can both achieve ground support and rek anything in the air. Helicopters by design can take on almost any role one could ask for, from ground support to transport to utility vehicle. The MBT takes in virtually everything about tank types of the last century and does it better than what nearly all of them did thanks to modern tech and designs. Ships on the other hand are an entirely different realm, where generalization can be an active detriment because unlike a tank or a heli or a jet there’s far more things going on at any given time, and it is much harder and costlier to train and develop a good crew to man a ship than it takes to get a good tank crew or even jet pilot, just from the inherent nature of having so many things go on by hundreds if not thousands of people all over. With a ship its far better to just have a vessel take on a dedicated role and do it well, it wouldn’t make any sense at all to have a carrier armed to the teeth with missiles and cannons for example since it takes away the entire point of a carrier. Trying to put a flight deck for an F-35 on a destroyer is moronic and it would be much better served with a helicopter. The issue is the scale of whats attempted, not the concept itself.
>doesn’t help the navy is running sailors to the bone either, but thats an entirely different discussion
hybrids are generally far more successful, anon. your car has both a cargo and a passenger compartment - it's reasonably sized (arguably) to be practical for a single person but can carry up to 5. your oven cooks at a range of temperatures instead of just one - and it even has a grill!
specialisation is only relevant when competition is fierce (e.g. in war). this is because good beats mediocre nine times out of ten for obvious reasons. if you can't afford to lose, and if the only use for the equipment is literally winning the competition...
and even then, although individual units will be specialised flexibility of the force as a whole is often very important.
this brings up an interesting point, ackshually. people talk about sports as if they're a meritocracy but they're clearly and obviously not. by the time you get to the elite level everyone competing is putting in their maximum effort. all the half-assers are weeded out. so if everyone is putting in 100% - if everyone has fully optimised every possible thing under their control, from diet to mindset to lucky underpants - then what's left to distinguish them? only genes, and other factors outside of their control.
fierce competition is the opposite of meritocracy. sure, the "un-meritorious" get weeded out at the lower levels and THAT part of competition works, but elite level sports is a circus freakshow not a competition. which one of these freaky fricks lucked into the body and the brain and the drug tolerance combo that lets them dominate this year?
it's similar with war. if both countries are all in then the only thing left that can decide the war is chance and circumstance. and yet if you resign yourself you will surely lose.
life's a crapshoot. i hate this gay planet.
i apologise for this post i'm experiencing high estrogen side effects due to steroids don't worry i just took a bulk dose of AI but i'm gonna be weird and moody for a while.
also i wonder if drones will make aircraft carriers less relevant. if you can just stick a frickhuge hangar of drones on every ship and shit them out using a catapult because lmaonopilot.
i guess they probably have the same maintenance requirements as planes though because... they're planes... so maybe not. or you could just have a "drone tender" that accompanies the fleet and is basically a floating factory.
I'd argue that cars and ovens are a great example of why hybridization sucks.
The average car is serious overkill for basic commuting or day-to-day shopping. And likewise the average car also sucks if you have a lot of cargo or people to move--a truck or van is much better suited to those jobs. Same with the oven. Yeah it's got a broiler in it, but built-in broilers are pretty shit tier compared to a proper grill or electric salamander.
>specialisation is only relevant when competition is fierce
Nah, it's always relevant. That's why single chads get away with driving 2-door coupes while big families have minivans to shuttle the kids around, and why movers use trucks and trailers instead of a fleet of hatchbacks.
>elite level sports is a circus freakshow not a competition. which one of these freaky fricks lucked into the body and the brain and the drug tolerance combo that lets them dominate this year?
This
That's why real pros who have their shit together don't get fazed by losing a competition - they know there's always another roll of the dice.
Drones are not yet that viable. And even then a drone aircraft carrier will still mog a fleet of hybrid drone carrier/frigates.
Might be
Hybrids are really only useful if they're sent out alone where the capability to do something outweighs the advantages of specialization. Hence why hybrids are so popular in video games where the average player isn't ordered around by a commander and is free to do whatever.
But because we have fleets/carrier groups, and other well commanded organizations, specialized ships are infinitely more useful.
to be frank this is how hitler would insist a carrier was designed
I can only imagine how annoying it must be to fix the top deck on the "battle carrier" ship, whenever it takes damage up top.
anon be honest with me
are you a WG marketer?
this is like the 4th post in the past week with a WoWS render as the op pic
Fun thing to play around with in video games, largely useless in real life
What game is that for?
rule the waves 2
read homosexual bottom right
Because second best just makes you the winning loser.
Depends on what.
When your hybridizing a concept that can fulfill similar purposes, Medium and Heavy Tanks, you come up MBT's which adequately fulfill the former's roles, if not surpass them.
When you try the same with contrasting roles, or they differ wildly in terms of operational functionality, Battleships and Aircraft carriers, you create a basketcase of what it's task and purpose actually is.
In the case of battlecarriers its because you have to antithetical classes being fused together. CVs need to keep their distance to safely launch and recover fighters and BB need to get much closer for them to shoot anything. Same reason you don't see DMR/LMG hybrids because their duties are so different trying to fuse them together makes something incapable of effectively doing either job. Of course when you have similar or complementary roles like fighters and bombers you see successful designs. A good hybrid doesn't try to stitch a cat and a dog together
>shouldn't versatility be a perk, rather than a hindrance?
military as a whole should be versatile, but its individual units are much more effective being highly specialized
>why are hybrids of everything always a failure?
Everything you know is already a hybrid of at least two things. You just want to hybrid hybrids. Most stuff, mil or other, is already quite versatile, but there's a limit to it.
Just look at a SAK: it combines all sorts of tools, but only the kind that are capable of being embedded into it. Never will a SAK have a pickaxe or an electric drill. Meanwhile, there are absurd "survival" multitools that try to be versatile but in the end serve no fricking purpose. You need to walk the fine line of versatility without going full moron.
Modern multirole jets are a fine example.
In your photo, carrying guns with a range of 20 miles severely impedes your aircraft capacity, fuel for aircraft, munitions for aircraft, and gimps in every way the operation of your weapon and sensor system which has a range of hundreds of miles.
>Prepare for take-off
>Crash into main battery because runway 2short
>Dual-purpose ship just became no purpose ship
They end up doing both things worse than two different dedicated things