WWII Cruisers

Were heavy cruisers a mistake? An 8 inch gun has mild advantages over a 6 inch gun in range and armor-piercing, but puts way less metal downrange because a 6 inch shell is the heaviest you can expect a gunner to load manually. Would Japan have done better if she'd armed her CAs with 5x3 6 inch guns like the Brooklyn-class?

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

    >Would Japan have won if they had bigger guns on their boats?

    How is the Yamato design committee even still alive in 2024?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My question is would they have done better if they had smaller guns on their boats

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's a stupid question. It wouldn't have mattered at all. Japan didn't have enough fuel, ships, carriers, and experienced men to win.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yeah, but how big or small would they have had to make the guns so that all those other things didn't matter? you gotta think about the critical questions, anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            9 inches in dual mounts for heavy cruisers

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nice reading comprehension

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It didn’t matter at all what size guns Japanese ships had.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Would still get rekt by destroyer escorts with radar directed fire control.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >mutts are still inhaling the superman destroyer kool aid

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Even the Japs paid respect (albeit to another ship, Fletcher class DD) after the fight.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >/k/ontrarian because yeah different so cool

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Were heavy cruisers a mistake? An 8 inch gun has mild advantages over a 6 inch gun in range and armor-piercing, but puts way less metal downrange because a 6 inch shell is the heaviest you can expect a gunner to load manually
      no; just invent power loading for 8" guns

      the problem is that WW2 took place in the window between 6" power loading and 8" power loading, so naturally modern 6" light cruisers with power loading and radar stole the show. in a way, it's like how pistol-calibre submachine guns were good enough that semi-automatic battle rifles didn't really have a major edge over them

      radar directed cruisers would eat destroyers like Pringles

      CA and CL are meaningless terms encompassing more diversity than they separate. A Brooklyn or a Cleveland is a CL but has nearly the same role as a Takao or Myoko.
      [...]
      What's a proper heavy cruiser supposed to do? If it's taking on cruisers, then existing CAs had the firepower to do that already, and maybe CLs too? I suppose you'd want to improve the armor.

      >What's a proper heavy cruiser supposed to do?
      Kill cruisers
      >If it's taking on cruisers, then existing CAs had the firepower to do that already, and maybe CLs too
      a proper heavy cruiser i.e. a modernised one would shoot way faster, idiot
      >what does a machine gun do? rifles already shoot bullets

      The treaty limits left more-or-less-compliant heavy cruisers rather lacking in their cruiser-fighting role, as they were largely limited to being light cruisers with slightly larger guns and an even more strained design to fit that (somewhat, sorta, please don't look too closely) within the tonnage limits. As such light cruisers could (as OP suggests) somewhat do their job. A proper heavy cruiser would still be built for the same task, but with more armour, even bigger guns (say 11" or 12" instead of 8"), engines sufficient to haul all of that around and enough tonnage to actually make a functional ship out of it all.

      theoretically, a treaty cruiser could be built using 1944 tech that mounted say three 2x8" turrets with power loading and targeting radar

      USN CA's w/ 8 inch guns could penetrate a IJN battlecruiser's main belt at close range.

      Superior range and weight of 8 inch is also good for holding light frick-o's at bay. See USS Salt Lake City at the Battle of the Komandorski Islands

      >at close range
      irrelevant

      https://i.imgur.com/mFlGFwC.png

      Got this from the event. Weird looking cruiser.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1938)

      it's almost a hybrid cruiser / seaplane tender

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Kill cruisers
        A cruiser built to destroy smaller cruisers? I've heard this concept done before in a manner that resulted in said cruiser killer cruisers having an absolutely overwhelming advantage in firepower when compared to their lesser counterparts rather than the mere two inches WW2 heavy cruisers had on WW2 light cruisers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          16 vs 90 shots per minute.
          8 14" vs 9 rapid fire 8".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A ship from the early 1910s, a ship from the late 1940s. For comparison, if the 16-inch turrets bongs were thinking about during the late 1940s had actually been built and had worked as well as bongs though they would, a contemporary fast battleship design to Des Moines could have put out between 18 (2 x 3) and 27 (3 x 3) 16" round per minute.
            >plus HMS Tiger was armed with 13.5" guns not 14"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >radar directed cruisers would eat destroyers like Pringles
        yeah, just like what happened in Chuuk lagoon with a stationary CL and a DD, kek.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >thing happened once so it's not true
          so the sinking of HMS Glorious means the end of aircraft carriers I guess

          https://i.imgur.com/K2hwv5Y.jpeg

          >Kill cruisers
          A cruiser built to destroy smaller cruisers? I've heard this concept done before in a manner that resulted in said cruiser killer cruisers having an absolutely overwhelming advantage in firepower when compared to their lesser counterparts rather than the mere two inches WW2 heavy cruisers had on WW2 light cruisers.

          >mere two inches
          well, that's the difference between being proof against 6" and 8" fire at effective combat ranges back then
          consider the reverse:
          >you mean to tell me that 6" cruisers will kill 8" cruisers simply by dint of pouring more (low power) shells and hoping it will batter the (better-armoured) heavy cruiser into submission, hoping not to get hit? this is Fishermania all over again, you're off your rocker!
          and yet that was the plan, and it worked

          >Got this from the event. Weird looking cruiser.
          >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1938)

          It has next to no shell armor so it will die very fast against any bb. Cruisers are the weakest class overall in world of warships.

          if you're a cruiser player in WOWS you resign yourself to either hunting destroyers, weaker cruisers, or gangbanging battleships while hiding behind the skirts of your own battleships
          which is kind of fun and arguably close to IRL

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >>at close range
        >irrelevant
        Except it was at Guadalcanal you stupid c**t.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          and here's this other mongoloid with the same attitude, or is this you also?

          it's irrelevant for two reasons; firstly because Guadalcanal was the exception in naval battles, not the rule, it was rare for fleets to get forced into a slugfest in a tiny patch of ocean hemmed in by islands; and the second reason is that ALL GUNS penetrate better at close range
          the discussion here is about 6" vs 8" and if you put a 6" gun at point blank range against the side of a Kongo it would have punched through as well, but that means frick-all in the anticipated general usage of WW2 warships

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > exception in naval battles, not the rule
            So the campaign with the most numerous, tactically and strategically important surface battles of the entire fricking war is not worth considering. If you're such a fricking weeb, do the planet a favor and skewer your abdomen with le heckin forded steer kataner

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >theoretically, a treaty cruiser could be built using 1944 tech that mounted say three 2x8" turrets with power loading and targeting radar
        But why? The 10k ton treaty limit was a straightjacket even for light pre-war cruisers, so why try and cram a heavy cruiser into it long after the treatises are all dead and buried? Are you looking for a small and cheap destroyer bully (so maybe not really a CA...)? Wouldn't smaller and faster guns be better there? Fighting other cruisers? I have a feeling you'd want more armour there than you'd get on any sane 10k ton design.
        Remember, when people didn't care overly much about treaty limits the result was a 15k ton heavy cruiser with six 11" in guns entering service in 1933, and that from a country with an utterly gutted naval ship building industry.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >But why?
          We're talking about a theoretical timeline in which the rapid-firing 6" cruiser was not the choice, and instead a rapid-firing 8" cruiser was selected. So instead of developing rapid-firing 6" triple turrets the RN might have developed rapid-firing 8" turrets instead, as the USN did in 1944.
          >Fighting other cruisers? I have a feeling you'd want more armour there than you'd get on any sane 10k ton design.
          Just before war broke out the British did have plans for a new generation of treaty cruisers with late-30s tech. They could fit into a Countylike hull of 10,500 tons (ie close enough to fudge) eight 8" guns and 6" armour (resistant to long-range 8" fire), plus all the other usual bits and pieces.
          Theoretically if they had instead three rapid-firing 8" twin turrets on the shorter York/Exeter hull, they could have easily upped the armour to 7" (proof against 8" at regular combat range) within the 10kton limit.
          Theoretically this ship could fire sixty 8" shells a minute.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >We're talking about a theoretical timeline...
            I sure as frick wasn't back in

            The treaty limits left more-or-less-compliant heavy cruisers rather lacking in their cruiser-fighting role, as they were largely limited to being light cruisers with slightly larger guns and an even more strained design to fit that (somewhat, sorta, please don't look too closely) within the tonnage limits. As such light cruisers could (as OP suggests) somewhat do their job. A proper heavy cruiser would still be built for the same task, but with more armour, even bigger guns (say 11" or 12" instead of 8"), engines sufficient to haul all of that around and enough tonnage to actually make a functional ship out of it all.

            >plus all the other usual bits and pieces.
            Sure, you can build a CA that's a better CA than a CL is. But the difference there is rather smaller than it would have been without treaty limits, and thus OP isn't entirely without a point when he doesn't see all that much reason for having 8" cruisers instead of just standardizing on 6". But without the treaty limits the average CA entering service in 1934 would probably be armed with and armored against 11" or 12" guns, giving it a much better margin against light cruisers and letting it be a more painful nuisance when supporting the big boys.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >the difference there is rather smaller than it would have been without treaty limits
              Without treaty limits the 6" cruiser as we got would not have been built either I think

              You seem to think that a feasible 8" fleet cruiser would never have been built within the treaty limit, I'm showing that it's possible. The deciding factor was not treaties, but really that the Admiralty opted to go for rapid-firing 6" rather than 8", primarily on the basis that if the power loading was knocked out then manual loading was still feasible.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Without treaty limits the 6" cruiser as we got would not have been built either I think
                Yeah, they'd probably have grown a bit too, but a CL being squeezed into 10k tons isn't as tight of a fit as squeezing a CA into the same coat, and so I don't think they'd have grown as much.

                >You seem to think that a feasible 8" fleet cruiser would never have been built within the treaty limit
                No, I know it could largely be done. The various 8" cruisers they did build show that much better than your paper ship. But due to treaty limits they are not as distinct in capacity from the six inch CLs as they otherwise would have been (which also makes the distinction in role somewhat muddled).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the Admiralty opted to go for rapid-firing 6" rather than 8"
                No. Britain wanted smaller 6" cruisers to cover their big Empire.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >to cover their big Empire.
                they built both 6" and 8" trade protection cruisers, such as the Leander class and the County class

                the 6" triple turret cruisers were fleet cruisers, intended to engage other warships especially in a fleet action.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >both 6" and 8" trade protection cruisers
                Because they knew that a shooting war would be against 8" cruisers (WNT). They pushed hard for 6", which happened with LNT.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You do appear to not know that rapid fire 8” was not extant until postwar, the installation was large and heavy, and the research and construction cost was high. Rapid fire Exeters? No way.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >rapid fire 8” was not extant until postwar
              because as reiterated, the world went rapid fire 6" instead, and then the RN was busy with other stuff
              once the brakes were taken off, the USN came up with rapid fire 8" promptly enough

              Radar was not a success factor AT ALL in many battles.

              Radar fire control, no.
              Radar surface search, very much.

              Right, which is why we went from giving everybody a 7.62 to giving everybody a submachine gun. Dipshit

              Unironically yes. Look at the M4 carbine craze even in this day.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >M4 carbine is a submachine gun
                Don't you have a window to lick?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the window between 6" power loading and 8" power loading
        what?
        >radar directed cruisers would eat destroyers like Pringles
        ask Adm. Ainsworth
        >irrelevant
        oh, you never heard of WW2

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Ainsworth
          >Kula bay
          Your point?
          >WW2 naval combat was only Ironbottom Sound
          What?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ainsworth’s radar hin cruisers still were wrecked by no radar DD torpedoes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it's like how pistol-calibre submachine guns were good enough that semi-automatic battle rifles didn't really have a major edge over them
        What the frick are you talking about?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          US studies of WWII found that 90% of rifle fire wounds were inflicted within 200 meters, perfectly in the range of such SMG as PPSh. But boomers clinged to their 7.62 bolt rifle designed to fire at 2500 meters away targets.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Right, which is why we went from giving everybody a 7.62 to giving everybody a submachine gun. Dipshit

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The debate underlying 8" vs 6" in the 30s - which led to ships like the Town class and Brooklyn class - was that 8" had longer range and better penetration, but 6" was lighter and could be fired much faster. You could develop a fast power-loaded 6" triple turret and quickly slot that into the space for an 8" twin turret. The RN and USN therefore opted to build 6" cruisers that would hopefully make up the difference by quickly closing, showering the enemy in a deluge of smaller shells that would knock out key systems and weapons, while avoiding the slower shots of the 8" cruiser.

          hence the analogy to submachine guns vs bolt actions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            frick, wrong Edinburgh

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Would Japan have done better if she'd armed her CAs with 5x3 6 inch guns like the Brooklyn-class?
    It wouldn't be a CA then. Also they did for a while.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wrong photo but you can enjoy that one too anyway

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No. You're a moron if you look at how hard Japan got beat in the pacific and you genuinely ask:
    >but what if their CA were actually CL surely that would make a difference
    And no, I'm not going to expound on that. Actually study instead of posing stupid fricking questions on a Congolese snake charming forum.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      CA and CL are meaningless terms encompassing more diversity than they separate. A Brooklyn or a Cleveland is a CL but has nearly the same role as a Takao or Myoko.

      Different tools for different purposes. Though the heavy cruiser category got mauled pretty badly by the naval treatises, resulting in most WW2 designs being both neutered and unbalanced, so perhaps more "light" cruisers might have been better than man of the heavy cruisers that did exist. A proper heavy cruiser by early WW2 would probably have been a slightly better Deutschland class (or in Germany's case just straight up the Deutschland class), while by late WW2 it'd probably be rather close to the Alaska class.

      What's a proper heavy cruiser supposed to do? If it's taking on cruisers, then existing CAs had the firepower to do that already, and maybe CLs too? I suppose you'd want to improve the armor.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        CA probably had enough armor to take on any CL or DD, outrange them and enough speed to keep up with both. But all that was kinda pointless when aircrafts were the biggest threat by far.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        CA and CL has nothing to do with tonnage, it’s a pure treaty definition. Heavy cruiser have 8 in guns and light cruisers have up to 6.1

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The treaty limits left more-or-less-compliant heavy cruisers rather lacking in their cruiser-fighting role, as they were largely limited to being light cruisers with slightly larger guns and an even more strained design to fit that (somewhat, sorta, please don't look too closely) within the tonnage limits. As such light cruisers could (as OP suggests) somewhat do their job. A proper heavy cruiser would still be built for the same task, but with more armour, even bigger guns (say 11" or 12" instead of 8"), engines sufficient to haul all of that around and enough tonnage to actually make a functional ship out of it all.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They didn't find Mogami really that useful and swapped the 6-inch guns to 8-inch.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They planned to do that right from the start. The Mogamis were designed from ground up to sue the 8-inch two-gun turrets and the 6-inch three gun ones were installed at first to sidestep the naval treaties. The plan was always to switch them over.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Different tools for different purposes. Though the heavy cruiser category got mauled pretty badly by the naval treatises, resulting in most WW2 designs being both neutered and unbalanced, so perhaps more "light" cruisers might have been better than man of the heavy cruisers that did exist. A proper heavy cruiser by early WW2 would probably have been a slightly better Deutschland class (or in Germany's case just straight up the Deutschland class), while by late WW2 it'd probably be rather close to the Alaska class.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    japan would have been much better off making more effective AA guns for their ships

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Akizuki was too late and still had manual set fuses.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Would Japan have done better if she'd armed her CAs with 5x3 6 inch guns like the Brooklyn-class?
    /k/ invents Mogami-class?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They refitted it for the actual war. Was that a stupid idea or no?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        3 of the 4 ships were sunk by aircrafts, better idea would be refitting them with the 10cm DP guns and turn them into bigger Atlanta kek.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          With 10cm DP guns, you probably couldn't have done things like Savo Island and the other battles like it. Maybe 4x3 6-inch armament, try to get some DP capability on that, and use the saved weight from the extra turret to put on some more 10cms or 12cms on.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Savo was won by DD torpedoes.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No. The 8 incher is better than 6 incher because heavy cruisers of all nations are aesthetically superior to their light cruisers.
    The mistake is moronic soulless looking ships like the HMS Rodney, and shit like submarine spam

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >heavy cruisers are aesthetically superior to their light cruisers
      Not all.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >moronic soulless looking ships like the HMS Rodney
      Die mad, werhb

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, I'd rather die happy knowing that the Axis crafted some of the most beautiful vessels to ever grace the endless azure, instead of abominations like this.
        It is this exact disregard for aesthetics that led to the modern browning of "victorious" countries of WW2. In the end did you really win?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          CVs were the most soulless type of warships and they carried the naval battles in WW2, denying any kind of giant surface fleet action. It is what it is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            CVs facilitate single heroic pilots to accomplish feats on the naval battlefield, as opposed to capital ships where every subsystem has multiple people on it who must work in unison. CVs are inherently fascist.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              CV crews still need exceptional coordination and timing too, Japs messed up big time at Midway, reloading planes with bombs on the flight deck when Americans were dive bombing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >flight deck
                Hangar deck.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            don't reply to bait, moron

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In these threads I always recommend Japanese Destroyer Captain. First hand account of a lot of WWII Naval engagements. Starts around the Soloman Islands Campaigns, iirc. I read it in 1968. My dad, and his 4 older brothers all were in the USN in WWII, in the Pacific. All survived. The one I saw the most was inPresident Kennedy's PT Boat Flotilla. T. 70.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If looks alone could win a war, Japan would have won WW2.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If looks alone could win a war, Japan would have won WW2.
      Laughs in County Class. Yes the super elevating 8" turrets were moronic, but they're so pretty.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        looks like a cruise ship

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The requirement for long cruising range for trade route protection practically guaranteed a sleek design

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            no I mean the big ass chimney looking funnels, and white paint that makes the portholes more visible makes it look like a cruise ship

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >no I mean the big ass chimney looking funnels
              They dramatically improved draft in the boiler rooms and put the engine smoke high enough that it wasn't interfering with gunnery anymore. A lot of heavier cruisers and battlecruisers got refit to lengthen their funnels in and around WWI for exactly that reason.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They dramatically improved draft in the boiler rooms
                >lengthen their funnels in and around WWI
                And then everyone went to forced draft blowers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I respect your opinion, but it doesn't look pretty to me at all.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          best girl

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            based

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/OGdqhYD.jpeg

            based

            Why do people refer to ships as "she" anyway?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >A ship is always referred to as "she" because it costs so much to keep her in paint and powder.
              ~Chester W. Nimitz

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              ships are filled with seamen

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes the super elevating 8" turrets were moronic
        whats wrong with that? being able to fire both turrets while sailing directly to the enemy to close the range makes sense to me, shouldnt it be standard for all ship designs?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >whats wrong with that?
          Because they were designed with a maximum elevation of 70° so they could be used for anti-aircraft purposes. But the elevation and training mechanisms were too slow to do so.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            oh so the guns themselves were moronic trying to be dual purpose for their size. thought you meant there was a significant flaw to the turret layout itself

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >THIS WILL NOT APPEAR ON YOUR PHOTOGRAPH
        okay dude

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If looks alone could win a war, Japan would have won WW2.
      true

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Hayabusa is prettier

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Did the Russians have much in the way of warships? Any good designs?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Only in World of Warships lmao. Impossible ships that has impossibly good armor and ship layout that only works in fantasy games, in real life they'd sink like the Vasa once in water (low freeboard, harder to hit in game, would take water and sink with very little waves).

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    USN CA's w/ 8 inch guns could penetrate a IJN battlecruiser's main belt at close range.

    Superior range and weight of 8 inch is also good for holding light frick-o's at bay. See USS Salt Lake City at the Battle of the Komandorski Islands

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, the Kongos were a 1910s design, they were designed closer to HMS Dreadnought and their main opponents would be armored cruisers like the Tennessee class. Even if you go for the earliest American CA, it was still designed a whole decade after the Kongo hit the water.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We’re not technically talking about battleships, but still obligatory DO IT AGAIN CHING

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They were (battle)cruisers when built, and were still pretty much battlecruisers when sunk (ships with 8-inch belt armor shouldn't be called BB).

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Got Alaska from a free Santa box last year. I love her so much.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Based WoWs Legends enjoyer.

      I switched permanently from WoT console years ago after update 6.0 ruined that game. Haven't looked back since.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Got this from the event. Weird looking cruiser.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1938)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Got this from the event. Weird looking cruiser.
      >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Chikuma_(1938)

      It has next to no shell armor so it will die very fast against any bb. Cruisers are the weakest class overall in world of warships.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        go tell that to a napoli, stalingrad or schroeder.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I used to play that game a lot and yeah, cruisers fricking sucked even though it was my favorite type of ship to play. Especially the high tier USN ones, they are just useless.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    useless without shells

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    8 inch guns are better because CA shoot from behind the screens but CL counts as screens. If you fill the CA with smaller guns too, they’ll sink all the enemies screens fast and then your DDs sink their capital ships with ‘pedos

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    take the fiji pill

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like Atlantas.
    We’re they good ships? Ehhh, not really. But I still like them.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i got the chikuma 2 as a random drop, honestly i hoped for economic bonuses since i don't collect japs, but it's still funny to have a rare ship when others are malding over the 1,5% drop rate and spending hundreds of $$ to get a chance of getting it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Got her in second try.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In WW2, Korea and Vietnam 8" was considered the ideal ship to shore support weapon size. Big enough to kill harder targets reliably but not so big it risked your own nearby troops or had too low a ROF.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Someone else would always be able to build a bigger ship with armor practically impenetrable by six inchers. CAs were one tool in a big toolbox that needed to be used together to accomplish meaningful objectives. Even with air power being king, they were still a useful tool and anyone without them would have paid a price. That said, Japan had some very interesting doctrinal quirks because they knew they were working at a heavy disadvantage. Foregoing the already-mentioned and insurmountable industrial, logistic and resource problems, as well as the role of air power, the biggest mistake of the IJN, by a vast margin, was their lack of radar and attendant fire control improvements. Their cruisers could have mounted magic fun size 18 inchers and they would have lost to USN cruisers just as fast. They just could not hit a damn thing in comparison. As mentioned they did have doctrinal compensations for that reality, such as vastly superior torpedoes and very impressive night training, both of which got them victories early in the pacific at Guadalcanal; however, at that time the USN was very much still getting up to steam, and they - or at least a number of unfortunately appointed commanders - made some very stupid mistakes.
    So all that to say, the size of their main guns was just about the very last priority if one endeavored to unfrick their navy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It really didn't help the US that our torpedo fuses flat-out didn't fricking work for several years.

      https://i.imgur.com/uZXPnju.jpeg

      my favorite cruiser, even if its more of an overgrown destroyer
      pity they overhauled the superstructure, looked a lot better in it earlier guise

      https://i.imgur.com/MhmAMkw.jpeg

      pretty damn sexy both. The white-and-buff always wins in my book though.

      https://i.imgur.com/VVhIJA3.jpeg

      Why do people sperg the frick out in EVERY thread on this board?

      we're spergs.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    my favorite cruiser, even if its more of an overgrown destroyer
    pity they overhauled the superstructure, looked a lot better in it earlier guise

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They were conceived and built for WW1 scenario but it turns out in WW2, you couldn't realistically have an Emden scenario where a cruiser escapes into the open ocean and wrecks havoc on shipping while resupplying in neutral ports.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Bismarck was supposed to be giga Emdem the whole time

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        was supposed to be giga Emdem the whole time
        Impossible in the age of air reconnaissance and RADAR.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >would Japan have won if it radically changed one of the only consistently effective elements of its navy?

    Sure is a mystery

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's funny how all ww2 naval threads turn into some bongoloid fantasy realm where ships are having huge open water battles when in reality basically every engagement was getting gangbanged by aircraft or a knife fight in the dark where none of the shit they were designed to do actually mattered.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Getting ganganged by aircraft is one thing, but the knife fights in the dark happened in WW1 and were conceived of and prepared during ship design and doctrine formulation.
      Naval battles are chaotic affairs, more chaotic than land battles I'd say, and nighttime increases the chaos up to 11, it's why they're so kino.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah but none of the battles had ordered battle lines of cruisers and shit like people are talking about. fleets just ran into each other and got lit up at point blank ranges or sunk by torpedoes. the only thing that really mattered then was radar.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And that's how South Dakota class proved its armor and resilience while Kongo Class got absolutely rekt.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Except South Dakota shit itself in fear so hard that it became a cripple.
            Meanwhile, SUPERIOR CAROLINA CLASS BVLL fears no asiatic, jap, nip, slant-eye, or chink.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Well bad things tend to happen when pelted by 14-inch shells, at least she did her job being a shell magnet and pulled all the attention on her while nobody noticed USS Washington.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, South Dakota didn’t get disabled by Kirishima. She did it all on her own

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >none of the battles had ordered battle lines of cruisers and shit like people are talking about
          only because of the great effort (and resources) expended by all sides to make such a battle infeasible
          it's like thinking, "thieves always break in through a window, they never try to open my door, this must mean it's pointless to lock my door"
          >fleets just ran into each other
          only cause you're not paying attention to the extensive scouting activity that took place before the great naval battles of WW2
          >and got lit up at point blank ranges
          lol no
          >the only thing that really mattered then was radar
          once again, you're fixating on one element of the whole machinery of the battle fleet, and not on all the other parts which were necessary to make it work
          Axis naval radar by and large was inferior to Allied naval radar and that became one of the major success factors for the Allies. it being a missing element on one side is what made it stand out to you. if both sides had radar and the Axis fleets were missing an effective screen, then you would be fixating on that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            what are you coping about now? there were literally cases where destroyers got so close to bigger ships that they couldn't depress their main guns enough to hit them. radar was important because without it you can't see in the dark and everyone ends up shooting anything that turns on a searchlight. the battle that these ships were designed to fight literally never happened.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Only battleships were optimized to fight in line formations in daylight. Cruisers were not.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >coping
              did you discover that one word and use it all the time like a kid with his first bad word?

              > there were literally cases where destroyers got so close to bigger ships that they couldn't depress their main guns enough to hit them
              oh really? so fricking build a destroyer-only fleet and use them and only them all the time then, eh?

              > radar was important because without it you can't see in the dark and everyone ends up shooting anything that turns on a searchlight
              radar was important because one side didn't have it so it became a decisive factor, moron
              if it had been something else, then that something else would have been the decisive factor. like if the Japs had showed up with oodles of radar but nothing bigger than 4" guns you'd be sitting here whining that guns are the real decisive factor, not radar
              THAT'S what I'm saying, try to get it through your thick skull before replying

              >the battle that these ships were designed to fight literally never happened.

              >Savo Island
              oh yeah, this one battle out of all the battles in WW2 fought in the maritime equivalent of a fricking phonebooth is representative of all the naval battles that could possibly be fought in WW2, ever

              idiot

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                having a melty? guns barely mattered in ship to ship combat. the majority of ships sunk in ww2 were by torpedoes. and since you can't read that maps is for the battle of guadalcanal, not savo island which was 3 months earlier in the same place.

                and here's this other mongoloid with the same attitude, or is this you also?

                it's irrelevant for two reasons; firstly because Guadalcanal was the exception in naval battles, not the rule, it was rare for fleets to get forced into a slugfest in a tiny patch of ocean hemmed in by islands; and the second reason is that ALL GUNS penetrate better at close range
                the discussion here is about 6" vs 8" and if you put a 6" gun at point blank range against the side of a Kongo it would have punched through as well, but that means frick-all in the anticipated general usage of WW2 warships

                >it was rare for fleets to get forced into a slugfest in a tiny patch of ocean hemmed in by islands
                wrong. all 4 battles fought around ironbottom sound were at night and at close range. the only other battleship vs battleship engagement of the war was also at night in surigao straight. the "anticipated general usage" never actually happened.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Majority of Ships sunk in WW2 were Merchant vessels, Small escorts and cruisers, who in large, lacked protection against torpedoes.

                You are also ignoring that Nations were incredibly conservative with battleships in WW2, even when compared to WW1, mainly because they were strategic assets comparable to CVNs in cost and availability.

                The Washington Naval Treaty is the true culprit the lack of Battleships engagements, they were simply irreplaceable national treasures.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >guns barely mattered in ship to ship combat
                moron confirmed
                no more need be said

                out of 1.8 million tons of non-merchant japanese ships sunk by the usa only 277,817 tons were from surface vessels of any type. we can easily go over the cause of sinking for all of their large ships since they didn't have that many.

                yamato: aircraft
                musashi: aircraft
                nagato: nuked
                mutsu: self destructed
                ise: aircraft
                hyuga: aircraft
                fuso: torpedoed
                yamashiro: gunfire from battleships
                kongo: torpedoed
                hiei: crippled by gunfire from a cruiser and then sunk by aircraft
                haruna: aircraft
                kirishima: gunfire from a battleship
                furutaka: gunfire from a cruiser and a torpedo from a destroyer
                kako: torpedoed
                aoba: aircraft
                kinugasa: aircraft
                nachi: aircraft
                haguro: gunfire and torpedoes from destoyers
                ashigara: torpedoed
                atago: torpedoed
                maya: torpedoed
                chokai: aircraft and gunfire from an escort carrier lmao
                mogami: teamkilled
                mikuma: aircraft
                kumano: aircraft
                suzuya: aircraft
                tone: aircraft
                chikuma: gunfire from a destroyer escort and then aircraft

                this is every ship lost larger than a light cruiser not counting carriers since only the bongs were stupid enough to lose a fleet carrier to gunfire. as you can see ships lost to gunfire were a significant minority, and in every instance it was during a night battle. any talk about ships fighting gunnery duels on open water in battle lines is bogus since that type of battle literally never happened.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >any talk of the USSR being a threat to NATO is bogus because it literally never happened

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why yes, getting autistic about an abrams vs t-90 fight is mostly meaningless since it turns out you can blow one up with a $400 drone.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >$400 drone
                should've said $20

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're moronic. You can also blow one up with a $5 demolition charge at the right place.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not sure what your point is, that gunfire is not important? That's bogus. Gunfire was a deciding factor in all engagement where ships got into gun range. Like I said earlier, daytime battles between battlelines are rare in WW2 because of dominance of air.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the point is that the difference between a 6 inch gun and a 8 inch gun or even as 14 inch gun was mostly was mostly meaningless since ships sunk by gunfire were a minority. it's like saying if the germans had chambered the g98 in a different caliber it would have done more than didly squat when most deaths in ww2 were caused by machineguns and artillery. every single ww2 navy thread ends up with "people" (*nglos) arguing about stupid shit like the definition of a battlecruiser or whether one ship was outgunned by another ship, but none of that shit really mattered when you look at the battles that actually happened. the actual most important things were radar, asw and aa capability, and crew damage control training.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                low IQ take. It's like saying 7.62 vs 5.56 was never irrelevant just because most people die by arty.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                was never relevant*

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                what if I told you it's not

                >it's like saying if the germans had chambered the g98 in a different caliber it would have done more than didly squat when most deaths in ww2 were caused by machineguns and artillery
                thats an incredibly reductive way to look at things
                artillery only got most of the kills they did because the machine gun was holding the enemy in place to be shelled
                and the machine gun only got those kills because the infantry was protecting the machine gun and maneuvering the enemy into its firing arc in the first place

                the point is that you and the people designing the weapons at the time were going off of assumptions of what the next war would be like that ended up being completely wrong. giant battleship guns were a more expensive version of volley sights on infantry rifles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >what if I told you it's not
                it actually is, which is why the change was made in the first place

                >the point is that you and the people designing the weapons at the time were going off of assumptions of what the next war would be like
                no, they were designing weapons over how they would be more effective in their intended role
                and since armored cruisers were armored, then the 6in gun wouldnt cut it and you would need to sail to dangerously close ranges to defeat them with your 6in gun while the 8in gun can do so from much further away

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >then the 6in gun wouldnt cut it and you would need to sail to dangerously close ranges to defeat them with your 6in gun while the 8in gun can do so from much further away
                which ended up not mattering at all, because they completely missed on their predictions of what ww2 naval combat was going to be like

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >which ended up not mattering at all
                Except it mattered a lot, because armored cruisers would be able to Shrug off 6in shells

                I was thinking, like, making the deck thick enough that bombs couldn't burst through it. Also active measures, could that have been a hard counter if the ships were designed around secondary DP and tertiary AA armament instead of them mostly being crammed on during the war?

                You did see multiple armored decks late in the war, which were able to stop 250lb bombs used by the japanese
                Not really enough to survive a coordinated attack, but it helped

                >could that have been a hard counter if the ships were designed around secondary DP and tertiary AA armament instead of them mostly being crammed on during the war?
                The 3in gun and 5in gun were prioritized after the war because they could hold VT fuzes
                You also saw the .50cal dropped entirely, and the 20mm fall out of prominence in favor of the 40mm, to maximize first-shot kill probability against kamikaze attacks
                20mm was still retained in a small capacity, but mostly just as an afterthought because they could just be slapped on convenient locations no other gun would fit

                The ultimate expression of this being the atlanta class
                With 12x 5in guns, 16x 40mm guns, and 6x 20mm guns
                Though practically everything afloat got their AA buffed throughout the war

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >armored cruisers would be able to Shrug off 6in shells
                give 5 examples from real life battles. any example involving the shitalians will be disregarded.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >giant battleship guns were a more expensive version of volley sights on infantry rifles
                giant battleship guns were far cooler though

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it's like saying if the germans had chambered the g98 in a different caliber it would have done more than didly squat when most deaths in ww2 were caused by machineguns and artillery
                thats an incredibly reductive way to look at things
                artillery only got most of the kills they did because the machine gun was holding the enemy in place to be shelled
                and the machine gun only got those kills because the infantry was protecting the machine gun and maneuvering the enemy into its firing arc in the first place

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You should specify "sunk by submarine/surface ship", instead of just saying "torpedoed/gunfire". Submarines claimed a big portion of the IJN due to their abysmal ASW.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >ships fighting gunnery duels on open water in battle lines is bogus since that type of battle literally never happened
                Every surface battle in WW2 was ships trading gunfire and torpedoes on open water in line formations.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is akin to saying the offensive line in American football is useless because they don't score points.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The Washington Naval Treaty is the true culprit the lack of Battleships engagements, they were simply irreplaceable national treasures.
                Funny thing this didn't apply to carriers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What? WNT did apply to carriers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >guns barely mattered in ship to ship combat
                moron confirmed
                no more need be said

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the only other battleship vs battleship engagement of the war was also at night in surigao straight
                moron confirmed, apparently none of the following happened:
                >Battle of North Cape
                >Battle of Cape Matapan
                >Battle of the Denmark Straits
                >Final stand of Bimarck

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                he meant Pacific

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Says war
                >Means Pacific
                Don't make excuses for your own moronation

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                talking about the sea war in the atlantic is like talking about the air war in the eastern front.
                >muh 109 best plane ever got a 400:1 kill ratio against slav morons

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Y-you can't bring up things that prove I'm a trogoldyte who's mother drank heavily when she was pregnant b-because you just can't
                Back to your hugbox

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                moron *ngloid go shine your minor league trophy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >still seething
                Tell us again how Bismarck was Italian

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                tell us how the germs were any more deserving of respect than the shitalians

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                of North Cape
                of Cape Matapan
                of the Denmark Straits
                stand of Bimarck
                Wait, these little hair-pullings, of only minor importance even tactically, are being compared to real naval warfare?!?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >radar was important because without it you can't see in the dark and everyone ends up shooting anything that turns on a searchlight
              Radar wasn't a magical 'I win' button in WW2, midwit. It provided blindfire capability, but it was still a shaky system that had trouble picking up and maintaining contacts, especially around landmasses. In Guadalcanal radar didn't save the USN ships from getting absolutely rekt in some night time engagements or, later on with newer systems, exhibiting questionable results like with the Iowa and Katori & Nowaki in Truuk lagoon. Most radar systems were also highly vulnerable to damage, with battleships known to knock out theirs with salvos from the main guns.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >In Guadalcanal radar didn't save the USN ships from getting absolutely rekt
                not having the early warning from radar is what led to them being taken completely by surprise

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                having an early warning is an insane edge but radar wasn't very reliable at picking up surface targets beyond even visual range. in Savo island and some other engagements off ironbottom sound radar picked up enemy vessels when they already had them visually sighted. in Tassafaronga radar contacts were maintained within Torp range of the destroyers and gunlaying had to be done visually with flares, radar assisted gunfire failed to hit anything. that battle is a great example because despite having a superior force with early warning and radars the US ships suffered a farcical defeat in a surface action with DD's and learned the threat of the long lance in one of the worst ways possible.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                skill issue maybe. that's what the official explanation for Savo Island is, isn't it?
                > radar wasn't very reliable at picking up surface targets beyond even visual range
                way better than nothing and provably able to find and hold contacts for hours
                surface search radar was absolutely critical to sinking the Bismarck, and the battles of Cape Matapan and North Cape.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Posters are trying to tell you- land backdrops were the problem (even off Vietnam in the '60s). Your examples are open water.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                > radar didn't save the USN ships from getting absolutely rekt in some night time engagements
                A significant reason for that is that a lot of the American commanders didn’t bother trying to learn how to use it because they felt that it was a pointless boondoggle. That’s part of why Ching Lee was so successful, because he studied the shut out of RADAR, to the extent that he knew more about it than the operators themselves

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >radar
            Dumbass. Radar didn't work well when land was too close. Again, see Savo.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >one of the major success factors
              >one of the
              >one of the
              >one of the

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Radar was not a success factor AT ALL in many battles.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          When they "ran into" each other, guess what formation they're in? Fricking line formation, moron. That's almost always the formation that the battle develops from since it allows ease of command and maneuver, as well as maximizing firepower output.
          Jesus fricking christ it's like I'm talking to a 14yo zoomer

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >and were conceived of and prepared during ship design and doctrine formulation.
        Never heard people coming up with 15 65cm torpedo tubes destroyers after WWI.
        Its even more funny, salvo torpedo fire was considered big threat during day battles too and put huge impact on doctrine and ship design (aka desire to fight gun battles at maximum possible range).
        Entire reason during Jutland battle Beatty was tiptoeing so carefully at max range and let Germans slip away its because he was expecting 100 torpedoes salvo reaching his line anytime... and it never came.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >15 torpedo tubes after WWI
          IJN did, and most of their destroyers had heavy torpedo armament, and if you count light cruisers they went nuts with 40 tubes per ship. Their long range torpedoes also had some degrees of success.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Having you considered the fact that it is precisely due to the dominance of airpower during daytime, that most surface engagements occured in the dark?

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny how warriorturd is such a coward even online he often doesn't actually reply but just adds a random post in the middle of the thread that doesn't tag anyone.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >coping so hard you have to invent some boogeyman because only one person could possibly have anything critical to say about the eternal *nglo
      b-britannia r-rules the waves....

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why do people sperg the frick out in EVERY thread on this board?

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I would sell myself into slavery to the MIC to see the US return to Great White Fleet

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        too bad, now pay for my zumwalts and indipendence class, serf

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not if your Navy is expected to fight Battlecruisers and you have not battlecruisers of your own in the 1930s. So the USN still building 8 inch gun cruisers makes sense. Brits discontinued 8 inch cruisers though there was some thought to 9.2 inch cruisers.

    It's just the Japanese who are puzzling because they should have known the advantage of 6 inch guns.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It's just the Japanese who are puzzling
      there are typically three components to a fleet action: destroyers, cruisers, and battleships
      ie the torpedo boats, the screen, and the capital ships

      the Japs spent all their money building the torpedo boats and the capital ships (which in WW2 includes aircraft carriers) and had none left over for the cruiser screen, which is why their cruiser arm was hilariously underdeveloped compared to the RN and USN

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        IJN heavy cruisers were pretty competent, it's their light cruisers that were lacking, bad at surface combat, bad at AA screening, outgunned by majority of other cruisers and perhaps even some larger WWII destroyers.
        IJN wanted to use them like big DDs at night for torpedoes it seems.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >IJN heavy cruisers were pretty competent
          yes, but they didn't have many of them, and they got it in their heads that fewer and bigger ships were better
          in the end they only had maybe fifteen "pure" heavy cruisers, and the two Tone-class which are practically hybrid cruiser-seaplane tenders
          looking at for example the Takaos, it does make me wonder, what if they had built two ships of half the displacement instead, could they have doubled their cruiser fleet?
          >IJN wanted to use them like big DDs at night for torpedoes it seems.
          because most of their light cruisers were of the interwar type like Omahas and Danaes, in terms of the gun-torpedo ratio. only the Aganos were more modern, they couldn't afford more.

          Their destroyers were also kind of ass excepting the torpedos.

          >Their destroyers were also kind of ass
          they had decent guns and good torpedoes
          it's "only" lack of radar, ASW, and AA that makes them inferior to British and American destroyers

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If your destroyer’s guns aren’t good at AA, they cannot be called “decent”

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              So by your logic all the american DDs during the early stages of the war weren't decent because of a gap in their abilities product of a certain torpedo problem then?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              that would mean only American destroyers are "decent", which is not how I would use the word
              American destroyers being exceptionally good at AA makes them a tail-end case when looking at all the navies of the world at the time

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                > that would mean only American destroyers are "decent"
                Correct

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >looking at for example the Takaos, it does make me wonder, what if they had built two ships of half the displacement instead, could they have doubled their cruiser fleet?

            That requires the industrial capacity and/or financing and/or labour pool to build two hulls simultaneously (to say nothing of the logistical complexity of crewing/training/supplying two hulls), not exactly a luxury Japan had. Military procurement isn't like filling up tonnage on a wargaming roster.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I know that
              One of the advantages of a smaller hull is that it could potentially be built in a smaller yard.
              >industrial capacity and/or financing and/or labour pool to build two hulls
              I think they could manage it
              >simultaneously
              one after another is also acceptable
              > logistical complexity of crewing/training/supplying two hulls
              unlike aircrew, ship's crew wasn't a problem I think
              supplies, yes, especially oil

              so while two sets of propulsion machinery, radios, guns etc would need to be procured instead of one, they would be of the smaller type i.e. machinery for a 8,000 ton warship instead of a 15,000 tonner which would be slightly more affordable than a straight duplication

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Their destroyers were also kind of ass excepting the torpedos.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          To be fair you shouldn't expect your DDs to engage anything with guns in broad daylight without the rest of your fleet also being there and doing a far better job at that.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Carriers and destroyers for sea control. Submarines to interdict enemy shipping where the carriers and destroyers can't be. The rest is landing ships and the supporting artillery for those landing ships.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stupid question time (and no, im not reading the thread to see IF my answer is here):

    When people talk about battleships, especially WW1-era and onwards (post-dreadnaught, if you will), i see them mention "armor" on ships and "armor piercing" for ammo.

    Did this really matter? wouldn't a direct hit from a fricking 152mm (6 inch) shell or BIGGER frick the ship up with sheer concussive force (if it doesn't somehow penetrate)? Doesn't heavy armor make a boat sink? Did ships REALLY have armor that could withstand those shells?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yup
      Depends
      Depends
      Yup

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Actually changing answer three from
        >Depends
        to
        >No

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ships are actually stupidly resilient to damage, even with very little armor. A boat is a series of watertight metal boxes that can be repaired and pumped empty of water. Ships can survive a lot without sinking.

        Airplane bombs, especially 500-1000lb bombs do way more damage than any battleship shell. Catastrophic damage can cause a ship to break in half and sink in a few minutes.

        Actually changing answer three from
        >Depends
        to
        >No

        i am seriously having a hard time picturing any kind of watercraft that has any kind of mobility - and is able to withstand a fricking 152mm shell. that is an absolute frick ton of momentum flying at something - even if it didn't have any explosive or charge.

        this is kind of blowing my mind, considering we clearly see what kind of damage the same shells do on land.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do you have brain damage?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Almost every ship in this thread has armor that can protect against 152mm shells, depending on the range and angle of attack. These are large vehicles that can take quite a large amount of damage, you can look up what 6" and 8" shell damage looks like on these.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ships are huge. Cargo mostly moves by ship because you can move 120,000 tons of cargo through the Panama canal and sail it around the world at 30kts for very little fuel use.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >thanks for the comprehensive answer dude
          cheers
          >that is an absolute frick ton of momentum flying at something
          well, that's partly what's so fascinating about battleships. it's an absolute frickton huge ship clad in an absolute frickton of face-hardened warship steel. and yes, it will shrug off a 6" diameter slug of steel launched at it at 3,000 feet per second

          this is my current desktop image

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ships are actually stupidly resilient to damage, even with very little armor. A boat is a series of watertight metal boxes that can be repaired and pumped empty of water. Ships can survive a lot without sinking.

      Airplane bombs, especially 500-1000lb bombs do way more damage than any battleship shell. Catastrophic damage can cause a ship to break in half and sink in a few minutes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Did this really matter?
      Yes.
      >wouldn't a direct hit from a fricking 152mm (6 inch) shell or BIGGER frick the ship up with sheer concussive force (if it doesn't somehow penetrate)?
      Not fast enough to compensate for not being armour-piercing. That is, if you're shooting high-explosive shells and your enemy is shooting armour-piercing shells, you will do some damage to him but he will do far more damage to you and therefore sink you faster.
      >Doesn't heavy armor make a boat sink?
      Not if you build your boat big enough so that it floats enough so that it can carry enough armour. Which is why how much armour, guns and equipment a ship can carry is highly dependent on the size of the ship, i.e. how much air does the ship hold. Basic buoyancy principle.
      >Did ships REALLY have armor that could withstand those shells?
      Yes.
      You have to understand that what you think of as armour-piercing today, ie a shaped charge, was only invented in the middle of WW2. Battleship armour-piercing shells were basically hardened solid shot with a little bit of explosive, in contrast to high-explosive shells which had larger cavities to carry more explosives with. It was still yet feasible to armour ships against such shells.

      The death of the battleship was not just the rise of carrier aircraft; it was also the development of shaped charges. Theoretically with shaped charge shells, even destroyer guns can penetrate battleship armour belts.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i am

        [...]
        [...]
        i am seriously having a hard time picturing any kind of watercraft that has any kind of mobility - and is able to withstand a fricking 152mm shell. that is an absolute frick ton of momentum flying at something - even if it didn't have any explosive or charge.

        this is kind of blowing my mind, considering we clearly see what kind of damage the same shells do on land.

        thanks for the comprehensive answer dude

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      USS Johnston tanked a few Yamato's 18.1-inch shells due to them being AP and the DD didn't have armor to trigger the fuse. But in the end even just 18.1-inch holes (and other 6.1-inch from Yamato's secondaries) were very severe to a small ship and it sank eventually.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Did ships REALLY have armor that could withstand those shells?
      the USS iowa, a ship designed to have "good enough" armor rather than "ultra-thick" armor still has a 12in main belt, thicker than a king tiger

      another thing to note is that battleships would have been throwing shells at each other from a distance of several kilometers and at engagement angles that were essentially random, you couldnt get a perfectly perpendicular angle on an enemy ship if you tried due to both ships doing evasive actions and the arcing nature of the shells
      so you dont need to develop armor thick enough to stop an enemy gun at the muzzle, just good enough to resist shells at likely angles and ranges, the so-called "zone of immunity" where enemy guns are unlikely to penetrate

      so the the iowa would actually have been capable of penetrating the yamatos armor at close range, theoretically able to defeat the strongest and most well protected ship ever built on paper
      but in practice, the iowa actually had a pretty good zone of immunity to its own guns, despite much thinner armor than the yamato (which it could theoretically penetrate) once the fall of shell, range, and natural angle is taken into account, it would have had trouble penetrating its own much thinner armor (and definitely would not have been able to reliably penetrate the yamato)

      which is why bombs are so deadly, they go through the deck armor instead of the belt armor, which was designed with the intent of stopping shells coming at a very low angle so it would skip over the deck armor and so was made very thin

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do you think if naval staffs had known about how deadly bombers would get, they could have designed their ships in such a way that it wouldn't have been a big problem?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          bomb defesne was mostly centered around active measures, like containing the blaze
          unlike torpedoes, bombs are only likely to actually sink a ship if it hits an ammo mag, otherwise it mostly just turns the ship into a blazing hulk
          it might be rendered so damaged it has to be scuttled, but it wont sink by itself
          so bomb defense was mostly accomplished by carefully arranging the interiors and training the crew not to allow any bomb to actually cause a conflagration and to contain them

          they actually saw torpedoes as the main killing weapon from aircraft since they actually could sink a ship with just one lucky hit
          and you see torpedo defense increase drastically during the war years, the north carolinas have 3-layered torpedo bulges to reduce the effect of torpedoes while also giving reserve buoyancy to counteract flooding
          battleships are also just naturally more resistant to torps from their sheer size, they just have more space that needs flooding

          modern ships dont have any belt armor, they are protected from bombs primarily through active measures
          so they would have likely have just reduced belt-armor and figured out some ingenious way to cluster vital components such that a bomb wouldnt be able to hit all of them at once

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I was thinking, like, making the deck thick enough that bombs couldn't burst through it. Also active measures, could that have been a hard counter if the ships were designed around secondary DP and tertiary AA armament instead of them mostly being crammed on during the war?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              yes the vt fuse was far more important than any big gun or armor

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes. A frickload of AA, like what US battleships had in 1944.
          North Carolina, for example, started the war with sixteen of the terrible 1.1" AA cannon and eighteen 0.50 cal machine guns. It ended the war with NINETY-SIX Bofors 40mm and Oerlikon 20mm cannon.

          > exception in naval battles, not the rule
          So the campaign with the most numerous, tactically and strategically important surface battles of the entire fricking war is not worth considering. If you're such a fricking weeb, do the planet a favor and skewer your abdomen with le heckin forded steer kataner

          Just because Guadalcanal ate up so many cruisers, USN homosexuals have to make it such a big deal. It's all so tiresome.

          >then the 6in gun wouldnt cut it and you would need to sail to dangerously close ranges to defeat them with your 6in gun while the 8in gun can do so from much further away
          which ended up not mattering at all, because they completely missed on their predictions of what ww2 naval combat was going to be like

          >they completely missed on their predictions of what ww2 naval combat was going to be like
          And USN homosexuals who only see the war in terms of 1942 are just as bad.
          Battleships and heavy cruisers are a product of the 1930s, and the early war was fought with them because nobody had enough operational carriers yet for them to matter. Even a Pacific War that began in mid-1939 would have been totally different, without the kind of massed strikes that we saw at Pearl and Coral Sea, and therefore the gunline would have been far more relevant.

          I was thinking, like, making the deck thick enough that bombs couldn't burst through it. Also active measures, could that have been a hard counter if the ships were designed around secondary DP and tertiary AA armament instead of them mostly being crammed on during the war?

          >making the deck thick enough that bombs couldn't burst through it
          Ultimately infeasible because by late WW2 fast bombers could carry massive bombs that would punch through any feasible deck armour.

          >armored cruisers would be able to Shrug off 6in shells
          give 5 examples from real life battles. any example involving the shitalians will be disregarded.

          >disregard these examples because I said so okay
          idiot

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            this is just more bongoloid cope. yorktown was commissioned in 1937 and hiryu by 1939. just because your neighbors were total clowns doesn't mean your navy wasn't an expensive backwards looking mistake.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >a commissioned carrier = fully operational with fully trained aircrew and aircraft
              Moron.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >yorktown was commissioned in 1937
              and Ark Royal in 1937 as well, homosexual

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ark royal only carried 50 planes to yorktown's 90 and half of them were biplanes. even hiryuu had more and far better planes while displacing over 4000 tons less.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >half of them were biplanes
                Funny that you mentioned that, when originally commissioned, Yorktowns' air groups weren't all that much more free of biplanes. CV-6's air group during the summer of 1938 seems to have been 76 planes, out of which 43 were some flavor of biplane.
                >uss yorktown in 1940, still proudly carrying biplanes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >that deck
                How the frick is that gonna work? Is it just for transport and the planes are gonna be hauled off with a crane?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yorktown’s air group got better quickly. USN independent aircraft procurement was much better than the RAF “frick the RN” policy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >ark royal only carried 50 planes
                not counting deck parks, which could have increased its effective air wing from 54 to 65 or even 70
                >to yorktown's 90
                in reality, 62 at Coral Sea
                >even hiryuu had more and far better planes
                Hiryu was operating biplanes in 1939, the D1A and B4Y bombers, and the A5M fighter, not the Zero
                maybe even A4N biplane fighters, they were still in use at this time
                and don't knock biplanes - the Fairey Swordfish flew about the same as the TBD Devastator

                homosexual.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the Fairey Swordfish flew about the same as the TBD Devastator
                so like shit? japs had the val and the zero by 1940 and america got the dauntless. bongs were still using the swordfish into 1942.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                cuz the British had absolutely nothing at all occupying their time and resources from 1939 to 1942, we all know that.

                homosexual.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >bongs were still using the swordfish into 1942.
                Yeah, imagine continuing to use a weapon that works! How stupid! Better phone your congressman and demand that the air force scrap the B-52 today. Fricking moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >america got the dauntless. bongs were still using the swordfish into 1942
                The British had the Fairey Albacore which despite being a 3-seater biplane was only slightly slower than the Dauntless, and in return had night attack capability and even a radar-equipped variant. It was used to great effect interdicting Rommel in the North African campaign.

                it worked so well you took our corsairs to replace them even when they were killing their pilots. thanks for beta testing I guess.

                >the only other battleship vs battleship engagement of the war was also at night in surigao straight
                moron confirmed, apparently none of the following happened:
                >Battle of North Cape
                >Battle of Cape Matapan
                >Battle of the Denmark Straits
                >Final stand of Bimarck

                >beat complete morons
                >think it means anything about actual battles
                I told you any mention of shitalians would be disregarded

                >But why?
                We're talking about a theoretical timeline in which the rapid-firing 6" cruiser was not the choice, and instead a rapid-firing 8" cruiser was selected. So instead of developing rapid-firing 6" triple turrets the RN might have developed rapid-firing 8" turrets instead, as the USN did in 1944.
                >Fighting other cruisers? I have a feeling you'd want more armour there than you'd get on any sane 10k ton design.
                Just before war broke out the British did have plans for a new generation of treaty cruisers with late-30s tech. They could fit into a Countylike hull of 10,500 tons (ie close enough to fudge) eight 8" guns and 6" armour (resistant to long-range 8" fire), plus all the other usual bits and pieces.
                Theoretically if they had instead three rapid-firing 8" twin turrets on the shorter York/Exeter hull, they could have easily upped the armour to 7" (proof against 8" at regular combat range) within the 10kton limit.
                Theoretically this ship could fire sixty 8" shells a minute.

                if you were the navy in 1939 and a time genie offered you 1960s 8" guns or 1945 5" guns you would be an idiot to not take the 5" ones.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Corsair replaced Hellcat, that must mean Hellcats = dogshit tier
                Mongoloid forever and always

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Corsairs
                >1942
                Watch the homosexual squirm

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The Corsair was a torpedo bomber
                >Denmark Strait involved Italy
                >Bismarck was Italian
                This is genuinely sad, 1/10 made me reply

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >if you were the navy in 1939 and a time genie offered you 1960s 8" guns or 1945 5" guns you would be an idiot to not take the 5" ones
                Depends on whether the time genie also provides information on how the war went / would go.
                If a genie appeared now and offered you a 2040s anti-hypersonic weapon and a 2060s anti-torpedo weapon, which would you pick?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                that's the advantage of hindsight, which is the point that I've been trying to make. all of this going on about cruiser guns is pointless since the most useful gun of the war was the dp 5" with vt fuse shells.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In that case the superior choice would be the British Mark 26 6" or US Mark 16DP 6", dual purpose radar guided VT or SAP 6" guns with incredible RPMs

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >america got the dauntless. bongs were still using the swordfish into 1942
                The British had the Fairey Albacore which despite being a 3-seater biplane was only slightly slower than the Dauntless, and in return had night attack capability and even a radar-equipped variant. It was used to great effect interdicting Rommel in the North African campaign.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >half of them were biplanes
                Laughs in Taranto

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I wish the German Atlanta were real.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What's with the fleur-de-lis on the bow?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wiesbaden's coat of arms.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's it I'll be spending hours deciding cruiser gun calibers tomorrow in RtW just to spite anon
    8" and 9" are the best btw, 10" is r*ddit
    6x2 turrets, 2 front 1 mid 3 aft, triple mount is for leftists

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >not going with 6 x 4 6" autoloader CAs backed by 32 torpedo tube CLs
      t. someone who started with RtW1 back in 2016.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >32 torpedo tubes
        come on real life kitakami had 40 tubes why can't you go higher

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I started with RtW1 too, in fact it's all I've played. They have 3 games now? What the frick

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >mid
      Amidships main battery (i.e., centerline) turrets were quickly shown to be bad because steam lines running through the magazine affected shot placement.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Steam lines running through the magazine seem like an obviously terrible idea. Didn't they have to keep those things refrigerated to prevent ammunition cook-off?

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >small arms don't matter because artillery
    stop arguing it's going nowhere if that's your only retort

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    WWII US carrier hanger

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      WWII bong carrier hanger

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Any questions?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Any questions?
          yes, what about deck parks?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I can cherry-pick WWI vintage aircraft carriers too

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/copVog2.jpeg

      WWII bong carrier hanger

      https://i.imgur.com/t6fp0jJ.jpeg

      Any questions?

      >Too moronic to understand what an armored flight deck is

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >armored flight deck
        Isn't that the thing that increased the sink velocity of bong carriers? They always hit bottom swiftly.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This ship's sink velocity was never tested, so we'll never know. We have much data on bong ships, fortunately.

          >t. seething fartsniffer

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This ship's sink velocity was never tested, so we'll never know. We have much data on bong ships, fortunately.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Imagine having all of your "arguments" so thoroughly debunked that you can only resort to mindlessly screaming about photograph copyrights

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Best BC. Fight me.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Emo bongou

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      why would i fight somebody who's right?

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yep, he's still seething

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