Historynerd

I don't think that even if the system gets more realistic ships will just scratch each other... ramming might not have been always fatal, but it sure was no joke. Each time there was a high chance that the structures of the ship got compromised, even for a big ship against a smaller one.

I am still looking for the reference which I've seen (sorry, I have so much stuff I can't remember where it was exactly). But I found this that, although a different situation, I believe is compatible with what I've described: it details the speed trials of HMS Cossack, and while it admits that in shallow waters the initial power output needed is greater, the ship actually went faster than in deep waters because it later "rode the hump" (whatever that means, I'm no water physics expert). http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-091.htm

If you are in a DD, when there are very few ships (if any) capable of matching your speed, of course I'll run away. In a cruiser or in a battleship I'll try to ram.

Well, if I'm in such a situation, I think I'd do everything I could... so yes, I'd do it. Besides, I'd die anyway shortly after, so might as well do as much damage as possible, and ramming would still give him trouble.

Oh, I see. Thanks. Well, if you're at the end of your rope, and the enemy is foolish enough to get very close to you (say closer than 2 klicks)... I see no reason why i shouldn't try to take him with me, if I can. I was speaking before what it happened IRL.

It wasn't in the rivers, it was at the estuary of some, on shallow dephts; anyway, it was something I've read some time ago, and I'm now trying to find it again, so I can give a proper source.

Um... a ship can be holed and capsize without breaking in half... only if the main structures of the ship are compromised (because of an explosion of a certain magnitude, or perhaps because of the seawater pressure after the sinking) will the ship break in half.

I have always read in all sources that in wartime service the Iowas could reach a top speed of 33 knots... Just a thing, though: in some circumstances the place of the speed trials did matter in terms of the actual results. Somewhere I read that (before 1914) the British Admiralty was puzzled by the fact that either destroyers or torpedo-boats weren't as fast as it seemed during speed trials; they eventually got an answer in the fact that those took place in the estuary of rivers, where the shallow depth enabled them to reach speeds that out in the open couldn't be reached.

I knew that, I just wished to know which author or which report says that it was the Naganami that torpedoed the New Orleans.

Um... could you please cite a source where the name of the responsible of that is detailed? I can't find anything about it...

Could you please cite the source for this value?

I have had games whose reports after detailed that the secondary battery had used both types of ammo... so it does fire both AP and HE, I think.

Um... I think she got one of the worst cases in which a ship nevertheless managed to reach port... entire bow (with the forward 8-inch turret) gone, reduced to 2-knot speed, forced to sail backwards... somewhat surprised they managed to get her to a dock. I don't think that counts as sailing that merrily...

That's true; there are plenty of ships who had their bows destroyed (for example by torpedoes) which survived. And I guess that there is something to be said that it's kind of strange that even a glancing blow can destroy both ships (or at least seriously damage one at full health)... but can damage be varied accordingly to relative speed and angle without taxing too much the system? I'm no expert, so I can't know... shells are one thing, but ships...

If you are in such a condition, you should be aware that the enemy might try and ram you, and maneuver accordingly to deny him of this chance. It has happened to me, too, I was so busy trying to kill him off that he managed to close in and ram me, sinking both. It's all part of "situational awareness", I'm afraid.

Well, prepare to be vukked for your earlier post! :-P

Isn't it a rather moot point the whole debate on wheter Bismarck was scuttled or not? I mean, can't we just agree to disagree on what exactly happened there in the last minutes, and say that perhaps, if the crew did indeed scuttle the ship, it was because of the rainstorm of shells that had hit her? I mean, I don't think that they would have thought of it, had the ship not been surrounded by enemies and reduced to a hulk (regardless on when she would have sunk on her own). I mean, if we follow the same logic, I'd have to get mad over all the British ships whose fate is listed as "scuttled", leaving in second place the fact that they were crippled first by an Italian attack... but I don't. Anyway, since this is an HSM Hood discussion, isn't it also a moot point discussing the planned refit of the battlecruiser? The fact that it might have corrected the glaring flaw in her horizontal protection is sure notable, but the fact remains that she wasn't refitted yet when she sailed to engage Bismarck; she was still pretty much a WWI-vintage capital ships (regarding armour protection), and as such she fought. IMHO, it's a rather hollow point discussing hypothetical scenarios of a refitted Hood meeting Bismarck... that refit should have been done sooner, and for a number of reasons it didn't. The Royal Navy made a decision on a number of factors, and it turned out to be detrimental to the ship's ability to absorb this kind of damage, with a catastrophic outcome. However, it's easy to lament ex post facto what should have been done...

You already said pretty much everything. However, one thing was a rather good success: A-H submarines (including those ceded by the Germans) scored some pretty nice successes in the Mediterranean... the Entente merchant fleet suffered rather badly. It's little known, because everyone always thinks of the battle of the Atlantic and stuff, but in the Mediterranean too the U-Boats were a threat.

Well, yeah, things are foggy, but there is some people here in Italy who are still clinging to the sabotage hypothesis... while I am having some doubts.. I guess so. One of the reasons multinational empires are usually judged as anachronisms of the day, by some people.

Well, perhaps you're right, but with all the nationalistic tensions rising inside the borders, the economical situation going from bad to worse, and the tremendous losses suffered by the Army, it was an impressive result to hold on until 1918, instead of just collapsing at the first hard blow. Well, if for dreadnoughts we consider battleships, I'm not sure... we had HMS Audacious, lost to a German mine, then we have Leonardo da Vinci, which was probably sunk by A-H saboteurs; if we consider also battlecruisers, then we have to consider the Jutland losses.

It's not like both of them would have wished to do so. They were assigned to them, but with the obligation to scrap or sunk them; they couldn't rearm them and keep them in service. But yes, I think they wouldn't stay well within the French or Italian trees. But I am confident that a minor tree will arrive, eventually.

It will probably be in the minor nations' tree. However, I encourage you to use the search feature, because we already had a relatively recent Austro-Hungarian Navy discussion, and therefore this proposal would have been better poster there. http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/11751-austro-hungarian-navy/page__p__206593#entry206593

How about explaining the -1 somebody gave me? You don't agree with my personal impression, fine, but tell me as much; giving me negrep isn't going to do anything, nor prove that I am wrong.

Allow me an observation, wasn't their being the most accurate battleship guns in history based on their being slaved to radar and other technological doodads rather than the actual performance of the gun itself and their shells in the matter of physics? If that's the case, the situation here might be a little different... And of course, balance always comes on top.

While I acknowledge that the change is somewhat disconcerting, I personally feel that this is rather compensated by the long rudder shift time; considering that many BBs have slow turn rates for the turrets, it makes it difficult to keep the aim on the enemy, other than enhancing the chance that, by turning sharply to avoid torpedoes or something else, one might sail directly into an island or a friendly.