Historynerd

Oh, alright then. At least people won't have reason to complain that a ship plays that much differently than the one preceding it.

I do not wish to object to the OP's objection, as he is perfectly in the rights; his competence in such affairs is much greater than mine, so I would be foolish to try such a thing, nor do I wish to do so. I would just like to point out that, while such a regulation exists in the Royal Navy, it seems to me that the Regia Marina did not have one, as moustaches were perfectly allowed. Just to prove my point, here is a photograph of Admiral Domenico Cavagnari, Chief of Staff and Undersecretary for the Navy for many years: I hope this can prove useful to the developers, when it will be time to introduce the Regia Marina in the game.

Um... perhaps, but let's keep in mind that the "fast battleship" concept tended to couple the best of both worlds, the battleships' power and protection with the battlecruisers' speed. The G3 battlecruiser was a deliberate step in that direction (besides, battlecruiser classification only regarded speed at that point, disregardind the relative amount of protection). Anyway, there is one nation that might have a separate BB and BC line, namely Germany, I think. The Omaha was also built as a scout cruiser, the role that destroyers eventually took up as their own, yet she sits in the cruiser line. Besides, other than historical roles, if we look at their characteristics (firepower too good, maximum speed of just 25 knots) we see that the Actives would really be unsuited for the DD classification...

I don't understand, why would it be unfair? And how, by comparison, is unfair for the current Japanese BB line to have both BBs and BCs? I don't think that the Active class can be put together with destroyers... too big and powerful, and too weak torpedo armament.

On the technical side, it seems that we can call Edgardo Ferrati our own Italian Lord Fisher...

The theory of the "armoured cruiser-killer", which would outrun and outgun it. That is undisputable. The part in which the battlecruiser would instead serve as a fast wing of a battlefleet is much more controversial in its outcome, I think.

I'm not trying to win any argument, I was trying to get my point across, but I evidently failed. Too bad. In any case, I was not trying to belittle you or anything for your typing, I was encouraging you to try to be more precise, because I had trouble reading what you wrote, and I imagine that the same happened to anyone who did read your posts. That's it; I won't say a thing more.

Indeed.

I suppose you didn't understand that perhaps learning to fly planes from ships and landing them always on ships, and having ships dedicated to this task, is an important step towards developing naval aviation... I am not talking about credit, I am talking about evolution; I am simply saying that British didn't come up with their ideas out of the blue, but by judging and examining what was happening in the world. That's it, nothing more. You didn't get it, didn't you... Military strategy: "a set of ideas implemented by military organizations to pursue desired strategic goals" Military tactics: "the science and art of organizing a military force, and the techniques for combining and using weapons and military units to engage and defeat an enemy in battle" See the difference? I'm saying that the tactics were pretty much the same, but the strategies were different, because the situation in the Mediterranean was different than the one in the Pacific ocean. And please learn to type a little better, I could hardly make out what you said. Anyway, we are ending up OT.

I put forward examples that show that other powers were studying naval aviation and dedicated vessels, so it's kind of hard to claim a total and complete British preminence here based only on a few instances; it's obvious they had a big part in it, of course, but not that everything came from them and everyone just copied them. I have no problem in acknowledging Parsons' revolutionary breakthrough with the steam turbine, though. Some naval historians have put forward the idea that the IJN's use of cruisers at Tsushima, coupled with other examples (i.e. the engagement of Pacocha in 1877, in which HMS Shah engaged the monitor Huàscar), seemingly proved that a ship with big armament and negligible armour could stand up against well-armed and well-armoured opponents, which would play a part in the acceptance of Lord Fisher's theories that "speed is the best armour". You can agree or disagree, but I find it an enticing theory. The attack on Taranto was copied more on the tactical level than on the strategic level, given that the situations in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific were quite different. It was the confirmation that a torpedo attack, with proper equipment, was viable even in shallow water. Anyway, my point was to say that everything is connected, and even the British looked around to see how things played out, because even them could not afford not to do that.

Whoa, slow down a bit... The dreadnought concept, although realized in the United Kingdom first, was being studied around the world, with both the USN and the IJN deciding to pursue it at around the same time of HMS Dreadnought's design; moreover, the first one to lay out the concept in a public article was an Italian, colonel Vittorio Cuniberti. The battlecruiser concept, while undoubtedly a British invention, was derived from and influenced by many factors, including the then-recent example of the IJN's use of armoured cruiser in the battle line to make up for its relative scarcity of capital ships in the Russo-Japanese War, which seemingly confirmed that ships not as well protected as battleships could be used alongside them in such an engagement. The aircraft carrier's history is complex, and many nations intervened in outlining its evolution. The first takeoffs and landings of fixed-wing aircrafts took place on USN vessels; the first "seaplane carrier", the direct ancestor of the modern aircraft carrier, was a French vessel (the Foudre). The first purpose-built aircraft carrier to be launched and commissioned was the Japanese Houshou, although construction of HMS Hermes had begun first. In naval strategic thinking, as well as in everything else, a "new" concept always derives from the sum of what transpired earlier, and although for simplicity we tend to try and find someone who can be called "father" of said concept, it's evident to an accurate researcher that most of the times others, either before or in the same period as him, reached the same conclusions and championed the same concept.

Doesn't the upgraded Wyoming have some AA?

....You're right, I had confused the two data sets; however, it seems that the 14'' had very marginal better performance against deck armor. Anyway, the penetration edge of the 16'' seems rather small, so I believe that this does not compensate for their other defects.

I don't get it... at least something should be had, why not the two 76-mm AA guns (added in 1919)? They won't have any difference practically, so...

Do you know that in terms of armor penetatrion the 16-inchers were worse than KGV's 14-inch guns?

To me it seems strange... I think they just forgot to put the bar in, because it would have been rather pitiful and stuff.

Is it feasible, considering that such a design reminds me of the "double-twin" configuration of the quadruple French turrets? In that case, I'm not sure wheter it would be possible to do what you described without lowering the rate of fire...

The quadruple turret design is interesting... but with each two guns being so close together, I think that these would have suffered from some pretty bad dispersion...

Interesting... I wouldn't have thought of that.

I'm not sure that this counts as a "big deal"... I get that the Swedish Navy was a factor in the decision from some countries not to attack it, but frankly, IRL the Soviet Navy wasn't that big or efficient (a handful of old battleships and average cruisers, some destroyers and loads of rather mediocre submarines). Besides, I'm pretty sure the Germans didn't attack Sweden because they didn't want another country chafing under them, and because Sweden was already giving them all the iron they needed... EDIT: And Sweden also allowed for Germans to use their railways to transport their stuff, so...

If we talk about them being in the game, I have no problem whatsoever. If we talk about doing a whole tree with them... well, I pretty much don't see it.

Do you seriously think that a whole tree can be filled with just these designs? Sweden will probably have a place in a mixed tier, nothing more.

Right, sorry, I didn't remember. I corrected it as soon as I read your answer. I wonder why... was it a move to save some weight? I assume that superfiring turrets' barbettes could be quite heavy. Otherwise, I don't understand what else could be the motive; pretty much everyone had agreed that superfiring turrets were much more comfortable than the earlier wing-turret schemes, and were not a danger to other structures.

Actually, it seems that it has some 3-inch guns for AA protection... better than nothing I guess. It seems it will be in her pre-1925 configuration, as it was modernized that year with the cage masts replaced. We'll see how she is...

Wait a minute... on design G is the n. 2 turret not superfiring over n. 1?