Historynerd

As St. George's Day does not seem to be connected to any significant nautical event, I see no reason for a special event in-game.

To all those who mentioned it: - Ship capsizing instead of sinking upright was the norm, instead of the exception; simply because the ways through which the water could enter were located on one side more often than not, therefore causing a list on one side that eventually would have the ship capsize (and it could still take time for the ship to sink, as it would still have some buoyancy left, while a ship sinking upright would just slip under the waves). - Propellers still turning after a ship capsize is, again, a normal event in the case of sudden destruction; several English battlecruisers sunk during the Battle of Jutland were seen with their propellers still turning, as their stern sections were still floating. These are not a mistake. These are just as they should be.

Well, it looks like I've managed to garner some interest for the tree... apart from the predictable trolls (I have a dream...), people looked interested, and somewhat eager for such ships to come.

These ships never could perform as hybrids, as planes and trained pilots never arrived. In any case, they were converted out of desperation and acute need of carriers, but they nonetheless look too weak to perform well in either role. On paper it might look awesome, but in practice you have a ship that cannot fight it out against a battleship because of inferior firepower, and a ship that cannot match a proper aircraft carrier's planes. Either way, there's a good chance she would have ended up at the bottom of the ocean.

My impression was that the British were not exactly forced to fight in such horrible conditions; there were no imperative conditions that forced an attack on their part. Yet they attacked nonetheless, and they got whacked. Also, as pertains to the "crescent broadside of French warships", allow me to correct you: Of course, we must also consider the presence of shore batteries, that played a part in this. Victory is often obtained by capitalizing on the enemy's mistakes. If, for once, it was the British that bungled up, then kudos to the French commander that managed to get them all.

Why do you think that's the only naval battle inscribed in the Arc de Triomphe of Paris?

Well, don't shoot the messenger. I just don't know the place the OP was referring to, that's all.

I put my hands up, I know of that battle only because I read about it in The Mauritius Command, by Patrick O'Brian. I'm a slimy cheat...

Well, can it be described as a fault? From a pure historical point of view, it might, but history is not the only thing at play; the needs of building a national memory, the need to portray one's country as always being in the right, and consideration such as these, make it preminent to focus on the positive aspects of national history. One can discuss on the philosophical bases for such behaviours, but these are there nonetheless. What you mentioned above, the making of several movies about the exploits of the frogmen, is part of this. It was part of a mentality that favoured focusing on single, positive events that lessened any feeling of humiliation and inferiority over a war badly conducted and that ended painfully. Perhaps this is a generalization, but the mentality about preservation perhaps can be better acquired and understood in a nation whose navy has become a staple of its history; and it helps that said navy has a record of never failing to overcome its enemies, from the days of the Raid of the Medway. For navies whose history does not rest on such long traditions and whose record is much more varied, it's more difficult to gain the degree of sympathy and pride that the Royal Navy engenders in the British people and public officials.

I see what you mean, but there might also be another factor. After all, the Belfast and the Caroline are all mementos of wars that the Royal Navy fought and won; celebrations of victories. All the ships you've mentioned would've been mementos of a war that Italy lost; a war that brought painful consequences, and traumatic changes; they would've been remembrances of rather humiliating defeats. I would say that this was a rather big con. Monuments (among which are preserved ships) tend to concentrate on battles and wars won; I don't think there are many monuments in Britain remembering the Battle of Grand Port (the worst defeat of the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars), for example.

I am still grinding it, but I plan on keeping it. Part of it it's due to pure aesthetic reasons, I admit - her line is that of an Italian light cruiser. But gameplay-wise still is the biggest reason why I think she's a keeper. True, you have very weak armor (although I find that it does help last you a little bit longer if you get your bow straight to the enemy, it makes it a bit more difficult for them to destroy you), and the long reload makes you less effective against destroyers, you can't just spam HE at them like in the Omaha; however, the damage she can unleash is just splendid, these guns are really amazing. If you play in a support role (staying a little behind), you can really help your team carry the area and achieve superiority. Of course, it cannot happen everytime; there are times when you get focused and before you can say "OMG!" you have lost three quarters of your health. I recognize that this style is not for everyone; but it would be a dull game if everyone had the same inclinations, and the same strengths and weaknesses. So, I find it perfectly normal that this ship is somewhat polarizing. I find myself liking it, but I understand perfectly if others don't like it. In any case, I am having lots of fun with it. And if I can keep a funny ship, why shouldn't I?

Excuse me... but what location is "portsmoth"? The place where they keep mothballed ships? XD XD XD Sorry, I just couldn't resist!!

I am a bit skeptical that a twin, gyro-stabilized 90 mm mount would have been feasible to design, build and put into a ship, even a battleship. And wasn't the point of such a complicated design the fact that its ability to stay on target and rafe of fire would compensate for any such weakness, over the old twin 100 mounts that were beginning to be nothing but disgraces?

...Oh, have we already reached the point where the OP starts to accuse those who object to him of being mindless WG drones? Same ol', same ol'...

It's the first time I heard that the 90 mm mounts were supposed to be twin, and instead they became singles because of the looks. What references have you got?

Right. And, we should note, not for the lack of trying. From the time of the first prototypes to the end of 1945, pretty much all the navies tried and tried to fit submarines (even build submarines that would fit) among the battle fleets, only for such attempts to fail over and over again. With the technology available then, it was simply not feasible.

The Cadorna was quickly scrapped because at last it was recognized she was all but useless as a concept, and given her age she was on a very poor state. The Montecuccoli was modified to become a training ship; if I'm not mistaken, at least one of her turrets was removed. The Abruzzi survived mostly unchanged, but given that she and the Giuseppe Garibaldi, as Italy's best and most precious light cruisers, had been somewhat little exposed during the war, it didn't have that many battle honours to claim. Also, preserving her would have required something close to what was done for HMS Belfast (a ship of similar displacement and characteristics), which by my impression was not easy.

Wouldn't this cause even people whose ship sit around doing nothing, and then some enemy comes and happily sends it to the bottom, to get this reward?

Here you go:

...Aircraft carriers work differently from other surface ships. And it's easy to keep them spotted if they don't move, while in harbour. In this case, the Sciré says hi to HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Valiant and HMS Jervis.

Sorry for that! Well, Jordan does not seem to contest that... from his drawings, the path clearly goes through the admiral's cabin; which, we might add, looks rather huge! The difference in the angle is rather huge, though; the 25° figure is closer to the expected angle of fall for the range of the Massachusetts, too (around 22'000 m). Oh, well; live and learn.

As pointed out by someone to me, the old cruisers Bari and Taranto in WWII had a nickname that it's easy to understand: "Divisione Ruggine" (Rust Division).

Actually, it's a bit controversial, as it was discussed on an earlier discussion. It looks like they cited that on Wikipedia (the deck-mounted launchers) from an eminent source, but Friedman in his work says that this torpedo tubes were indeed submerged as on the other capital ships of the day.

And that's why you shouldn't promise to give a bonus to the builder if the ship manages a few knots more on trials, kids...

Um... forgive me, maybe Jordan forgets a few details, but in his book it's not mentioned that the 16-inch shell in question passed through where the 152 mm turrets were to be located. Here's an image detailing the path of the shell: I may well be wrong, but it seems to me that the shell penetrated the weather deck (I think that's what "pont-chateau" means) a bit far from the turret area (which should be around the circles that say "152 munitions trunk", I think). Therefore, even if the turret had been in place, the shell wouldn't have met it in its path. Or am I interpreting the figure wrong?