Historynerd

I've read some bits about decapping plates, but there are a lot of people saying lots of things, and nothing that seems conclusive... it seems there were no tests that could prove that the concept was valid in all circumstances. Yet I think that, with its electronics, the Iowa-class battleships could fire at long ranges with good accuracy. Besides, from the beginning it was clear that they weren't being built to resist their own shells (which, if I'm not wrong, should be the thumb rule for any battleship worthy of this name) but to achieve higher speed in a stated displacement? Only the Montana-class were designed to defeat their own "super-heavy" 16-inch shells, if I got that correctly. Sure, it remains to be seen how the Iowas would have hold up, but I think that all in all its armor scheme made it quite better protected that Hood was.

Um... wasn't it 310 mm? Not that it changes much, but I want to get the number straight... Besides, even the increase in slope made it more efficient; you might confirm it or deny it, but on Wikipedia it says that this gave it an effective vertical thickness of 340 mm... And it had a de-capping plate, which might have helped somewhat, although I cannot be sure to what degree.

Well, yeah, but Mikasa is rather borderline in terms of game, as it is at Tier 2, while BBs start at Tier 3... and she is also a pre-dreadnought.

Alright, should have said that perhaps we have to draw a line between what happened historically and what is needed for an arcade game, and that having the guns actually have dispersion instead of having laser precision sits in this side of the line.

...Are you saying that you routinely get this close to an enemy ship?

Because historically it happened this way? Because historically BBs had even worse accuracy than what one could ever get here if RNG doesn't smile his way? Perhaps the RNG can be adjusted somewhat. But there is no way that it can be taken away. Sorry.

In other words, you want every salvo you fire in a BB to connect perfectly with where you're aiming.

Those guns performance-wise were inferior to many of the guns arming the new battleship classes built or designed immediately before and during WWII. What they had on their side was their very good reliability and the fact that their hitting power could still be considered good, although insufficient against the newer battleships.

...I won't even make the effort to decode what you wrote last. Not only you're rude, you type horribly. Go on, keep rambling on how mighty the RN was and how nobody would have survived a naval battle against them, and how Hood would have emerged triumphant, with 15- and 16-inch shells bouncing off her deck armor... I don't care anymore.

A speed advantage even of 10 knots does not count for "running rings". Especially if you are on a ship as big as a battleship, whose maneuverability could not surpass a given limit. And what I said for one battlecruiser is valid even for a battlecruiser squadron chancing upon an enemy battleship squadron.

What if Hood had been surprised by an enemy battleship, perhaps in adverse conditions of the sea and of the visibility, inside the range of the enemy's guns? Even if she had fled at her nominal top speed of 31 knots while the enemy would be sailing at 23 knots, it would still take some time to get out of range. In such a situation, she would have been at a severe disadvantage. That's one of the reasons why I think that the speed advantage, while theoretically allowing the chance to accept or refuse to engage at will, cannot be considered as an absolute tactical advantage, valid in all possible occasions.

There sure are lots of ships that might be used to have other lines in the US tree. However, I don't see how it could be possible that an armoured cruiser could stay at Tier 5...

The term "fast battleship" was subject to some changes during the decades. When first used about the Queen Elizabeth-class, it was referring to the fact that these ships could go over what was becoming the "standard" speed of a battleships, i.e. around 21 knots. After all, the first battlecruisers (the Invincible-class) could go at 25 knots at most. It's all relative to the period, especially in wartime when required performances can vary quite rapidly and the technical progress is accelerated.

You have a long history of the behaviour I have pointed out. It is in the forums and can be viewed by anyone, if looking for it. Um... isn't this a little off topic...?

What I meant was that it's impossible to have a calm and productive exchance of ideas, information and opinions with him. If you contradict him he'll refuse to acknowledge any of your points, but will keep repeating his. That's just not productive. If however with the use of the term "fanboy" I offended someone else, I apologize. It was not my intention.

I guess this is meant for me. I was not complaining; I was pointing out that what happened to the crew of HMS Hood is well known and well remembered. And, without making it a fault of these poor souls, its fame may have obscured other tragedies that happened on the same scale. I repeat, absolutely not their fault; it's just a suggestion, that there might be other tragedies and other such accidents that may be discussed, since this one has already been discussed at length (do a search, and look for all the topic open on the Hood). If you find it disgusting... well, I didn't mean to offend anyone. I only wished to say that there are other poor souls rotting away at the bottom of the sea who are not mentioned so often, and perhaps they deserve a little bit of attention too. Nothing else. And besides, are you suggesting that, to honor 9/11 or World War II, we should completely forgot the Holocaust or the Somme? Can't we honor all of them?

Like your previous interventions in other topics brought anything useful.... the pot calling the kettle black.

...And here comes the fanboy. Just ignore him, guys. It's impossible to have a discussion with him, he's just "Royal Navy über alles", and everything else doesn't make sense to him.

About fact verifications, one of the small issues that plagued in those days the works of these American authors was that they seldomly used Italian sources, relying instead on British or perhaps German ones.

Absolutely right. Same goes for those of my country, who nonetheless displayed considerable bravery and determination for all the thirty-nine months in which Italy fought its war against the Allies (to be honest, they did so also after the Armistice and until VE-Day, but apart from still existing risks it was a different situation in which the sea was no longer a major battlefield).

I know, but if in-game she sails under the White Ensign, how much of a Brazilian or a Turkish ship she might be considered?

That might be pretty much the historical reason, I'm afraid...

But if she's sailing as a British premium, how can she be considered part of either the Brazilian or Turkish Navy, if not ideally (but how many would be satisfied with that)?

Technically, even in the less accurate BB we might have in game, one is more accurate than any battlewagon was in any naval engagement...