Historynerd

...Do we have enough threads about torpedoes already? Sorry, but search is you friend; try and look around in the forum before opening a new thread that might be a duplicate.

Guys, perhaps you've already seen this, but this deserves a look!

HMS Incomparable was a rather unbalanced design, if we look at it objectively without letting ourselves be awed by her 20-inch guns. Besides, does the size make a gun a good weapon? Nelson's 16-inch Mark I guns were unsuccessful design that were surpassed, performance-wise, by the KGV's apparently tiny 14-inchers. So, there's that. Let's take a look around. Belt armor: 279 mm. Rather low. Deck armor: 102 mm. Again, not much. Speed: 35 knots. Yeah, sure, she would have undoubtedly been able to make such a speed. Seriously, this was nothing more than Fisher's obsession with speed and firepower, disregarding everything else. An obsession that turned out to be as being more pertaining to an abstract concept than to the real-life experience lived by the Royal Navy. If it comes... well, I'll shrug, it's not like I hate it. But if it doesn't come, I won't cry over it.

Yeah, but it still stands that I said something incorrect, and you said how things really are. Simple as that, no problem anywhere.

I stand corrected.

Didn't you notice how it didn't restore the same number of HP each time you used it? The logic is that heavy damage is not repairable at sea and would need a shipyard, so those HPs are lost to the player until the end of the match.

Actually Montana's guns were 406 mm... Just being picky...

In that case, was the damage you had been dealt with light? Because the ability does not work on HP caused by heavy damage, AFAIK.

What were you trying to repair?

Yeah... no problem here either...

That was the terror of their skippers and admirals more than their own, I think...

Isn't there a censorship system, to make sure one does not choose an offending or racist or something name?

How would you justify that? It was a corvette, and while it was still used, it was as a demilitarized hulk (used as a prison by the Ministry of Justice), therefore no longer part of the navy list. So it was not a problem.

Yes, I agree.

Yes, but destroyers weren't built to fulfill just one role.

Yes, I just meant to say that there are some roles in which light cruisers were not as effective as destroyers.

I'm not sure that a light cruiser could perform all those roles and excel at them... - Hunt DDs: if the DDs are faster, it can only hope to damage them and force them to slow down, because the light cruisers that IRL were designed to be faster than destroyers (like the early Condottieri in the Regia Marina) turned out to be unsuccessful and unbalanced designs. - Scout: absolutely, especially in the oceans and in less-than-calm seas, and considering that some also had floatplanes. - ASW: not good as DDs, you said that yourself; I've never read of a light cruiser having sunk a submarine during WWII, moreover, but I could be wrong. - AA suit: that depends on nationality, because some navies had effective AA weapons, others less effective ones. - Torpedo mounts: as above, you said it yourself; besides, by the end of WWII there was a tendency of removing the torpedo tubes from cruiser-sized ships. - Troop transports: I don't know any instance in which a light cruiser transported troops for offensive operation, although some were undoubtedly used to transport troops when common transport on merchantmen was not viable or when speed was of the essence. - Commanding squadrons: absolutely - Floatplanes: it pertains to their scout ability. So, in my opinion light cruisers were better suited at scouting operations and command ships for smaller squadrons, while destroyers were still better for ASW duties, the possible pursuit of enemy DDs and attacking with the torpedo. Submarines would be mostly "passive" scouts, because even surfaced they wouldn't be able to shadow an enemy ship; light cruisers and destroyer instead could, and can therefore be considered "active" scouts.

During the battle of Jutland it happened in rather normal circumstances, and it resulted in the torpedoing of a battleship (HMS Marlborough) and a battlecruiser (SMS Seydlitz), although both reached port. That is true; the secondaries are purposefully nerfed to give destroyer a chance, absolutely. Right. Basically all I wanted to say was that destroyers are not just anti-submarine escorts, but IRL were multipurpose ships that could perform in a variety of duties, including that of torpedo crafts.

That could be one solution...

I'd say... since it seems that the original design calls for a full complement of more or less 42 planes, which seem rather paltry compared to Ranger's 76... of course, the complement is based upon the planned aircrafts of the time (the Fiat CR.20, the Romeo Ro.1 and the Fiat BR.1), so perhaps some more could be squeezed in if we consider some other more modern aircrafts that could be presumably "navalized"...

I said "one of the roles", with the other one is attacking major warships with their torpedoes. The IJN destroyers are supposed to use their torpedoes' good range to attack from afar unsuspecting ships. Although their gun issues should be fixed somehow, I agree. No, I didn't prove your point; your point was something like this: Anyway, your latest claim is moot, because of some factors: in that same North Atlantic the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Hood had to leave behind the destroyers because the sea was too harsh for them to proceed at high speed; so, why send dozens of destroyers in harsh weather, risking to severely damage them, in search of an enemy that they could also miss in that liquid hell (searching for a ship, even a big one, was a tough job, as it was overall proven during the whole hunt)? why have them attack with the torpedo, risking damage and probably severe losses against excellent firepower, potentially throwing away precious destroyers, when there were battleships, built precisely for fighting other battleships and apt to absorb the damage, available? It would be like bringing asking a light infantrymen to face off against an armoured knight, while there are knights on his side ready to fight him. I can concur that destroyers were not meant to exclusively attack with the torpedo, because from the beginning they were to be multi-role ships; my point is that they could, and they did when the occasion was favourable. Pretty much what I try to do in game; when a battleship is busy engaging another one, I try to take advantage of that and torpedo it.

But the IJN warships were fitted with radar, albeit one of modest performance, and their lookouts were still of exceptional quality, so I believe that it is relevant to a degree. Moreover, these destroyers were not employed as escorts during that battle, but as torpedo crafts; some were damaged by gunfire from both sides while making torpedo runs. Anyway, you claimed that no destroyer had ever sunk a battleship alone; I provided you an example which proves that claim wrong. There also would be another one, valid to a degree: the SMS Pommern, torpedoed by HMS Onslaught the day after the Battle of Jutland, which blew up. It was a pre-dreadnought, though, so I'm not sure if by your standards it counts as valid... What do you want? A destroyer, all alone in the ocean, finding an enemy battleship sailing alone, and attacking it? Yes, because that could happen, by all means... Because every Navy would be delighted of sending a capital ship in wartime without escorts; absolutely. How about, I don't know... other destroyers? Smaller than major warships or even most merchantmen? Check. Powerful (which includes torpedo armament)? Check. Short range (because they had to be refuelled very often by oilers or by other warships)? Check. Because one of the roles of destroyers was to keep enemy destroyers off their own major warships.

I read it in Storia Militare. Do you think that something can come out of it, for the tech tree?

Hey, I just realized that there is a piece of Italy in Zipang! Did anybody take a look at the deck gun of the Mirai? I hadn't recognized it because I'm not very into modern weaponry, but I read it elsewhere and looked it up: it's a 127mm/54 "Compatto" made by Otobreda.