Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Rumble68

British line up

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[052D]
Players
5 posts
2,530 battles

Love to see a full line up of british ships ie destroyers, carriers, and heavy cruisers.

as we had the biggest fleet in the world theres not much of a showing on the game.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
14,639 posts
10,869 battles

I would love the sun going up every day the next few weeks. Can somebody tell that to the people responsible to make sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[052D]
Players
5 posts
2,530 battles

there's not even hms vanguard in the line up witch was a actual ship, no county class cruisers or dido class .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
41 posts
1,828 battles
On 2018-05-31 at 12:32 AM, Rumble68 said:

Love to see a full line up of british ships ie destroyers, carriers, and heavy cruisers.

as we had the biggest fleet in the world theres not much of a showing on the game.

 

Hi Rumble68. Good that you started this thread.. I try to help you soon.

 

Here is a Good Link:

http://www.worldnavalships.com/royal.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
On 31/05/2018 at 3:07 PM, Rumble68 said:

there's not even hms vanguard in the line up witch was a actual ship, no county class cruisers or dido class .

 

Yes. And we're missing 100% of France's destroyers, 100% of Italian battleships and destroyers and about 90% of their cruisers too. We have no spanish vessel, no dutch vessel either, despite them regularly scoring in or near the top 10 largest fleets between 20 and 50.

I could have understood if you had asked for destroyers or carriers specifically. But you're asking for more BBs and cruisers where other nations - with far more interesting vessels - don't even have whole branches or trees at all.

 

Leave some place to diversity and other nations. You're complaining that the might of the British fleet is not shown enough IG ; go say that to the Italians. Gee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AWF-]
Players
1,196 posts
6,468 battles
19 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

 

Yes. And we're missing 100% of France's destroyers, 100% of Italian battleships and destroyers and about 90% of their cruisers too. We have no spanish vessel, no dutch vessel either, despite them regularly scoring in or near the top 10 largest fleets between 20 and 50.

I could have understood if you had asked for destroyers or carriers specifically. But you're asking for more BBs and cruisers where other nations - with far more interesting vessels - don't even have whole branches or trees at all.

 

Leave some place to diversity and other nations. You're complaining that the might of the British fleet is not shown enough IG ; go say that to the Italians. Gee.

 

However, and this is quite interesting, we do not have ANY high-tier UK premiums. I really do not know why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
2 hours ago, von_Boeg said:

 

However, and this is quite interesting, we do not have ANY high-tier UK premiums. I really do not know why.

 

Yeah, but there are already 4 TVII UK BB. Besides, I wouldn't be that surprised about TVIII+ UK ships being scarce. Honestly, can you quote that many candidates ? For BBs, yeah, Vanguard. Sure. That's one. I can't even think of any cruiser that'd deserve that high a tier. Even for destroyers, whilst there may be a couple more candidates, I highly doubt we could find more than five in total, for all TVIII, IX, and X - and you gotta consider one of them will need to be a non-premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AWF-]
Players
1,196 posts
6,468 battles
1 hour ago, LastButterfly said:

 

Yeah, but there are already 4 TVII UK BB. Besides, I wouldn't be that surprised about TVIII+ UK ships being scarce. Honestly, can you quote that many candidates ? For BBs, yeah, Vanguard. Sure. That's one. I can't even think of any cruiser that'd deserve that high a tier. Even for destroyers, whilst there may be a couple more candidates, I highly doubt we could find more than five in total, for all TVIII, IX, and X - and you gotta consider one of them will need to be a non-premium.

 

Well, as far as I understand it neither Stalingrad nor Kronstadt served, so I do not see the problem.

 

However, there are plenty of ships that could be interesting, among them some DDs, but also quite a few CVs. The thing is, you can also make one ship tech tree and have one of the ships as premium.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
12 minutes ago, von_Boeg said:

Well, as far as I understand it neither Stalingrad nor Kronstadt served, so I do not see the problem.

 

Yeah, but they still started building some of them. Even then, high-tier british candidates are very rare to non-existant in BB, CA, CL and DD.

As for splitting classes, sure, you can do that. Though if you ask me that's lame. Look at Hipper and Eugen. You're basically buying the exact same ship. WG just copies the ship, rename it, and asks 40€ for it. It's disgusting, especially considering -once again - so many original class in various nations aren't in the game yet. They could work on introducing the hundreds of interesting and different vessels that all had their specificities. But no, copying a ship to milk money out of it is a better way for them to spend their time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AWF-]
Players
1,196 posts
6,468 battles
30 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

 

Yeah, but they still started building some of them. Even then, high-tier british candidates are very rare to non-existant in BB, CA, CL and DD.

As for splitting classes, sure, you can do that. Though if you ask me that's lame. Look at Hipper and Eugen. You're basically buying the exact same ship. WG just copies the ship, rename it, and asks 40€ for it. It's disgusting, especially considering -once again - so many original class in various nations aren't in the game yet. They could work on introducing the hundreds of interesting and different vessels that all had their specificities. But no, copying a ship to milk money out of it is a better way for them to spend their time.

 

Yeah I agree with the money-milking aspects, but I would also like a British money-maker...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Beta Tester
672 posts
4,807 battles

Still waiting for HMS Dreadnought...:fish_sleep:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[052D]
Players
5 posts
2,530 battles

The british aircraft carriers had big advantage over other nations in having armoured flight decks love to see them come into the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
19 hours ago, Rumble68 said:

armoured flight

 

19 hours ago, Rumble68 said:

big advantage

 

This is highly debatable. Either way I would not have employed "big"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
404 posts
3,247 battles
On 07/06/2018 at 3:37 PM, Rumble68 said:

The british aircraft carriers had big advantage over other nations in having armoured flight decks love to see them come into the game.

In WWII, yes the armoured box design was a huge advantage if your carrier was being bombed or Kamikaze'd. I remember reading about HMS Indomitable (I think), on one of the Malta convoys, it may have been Op Pedestal actually. Anyway, two Italian planes managed to get really close to the carrier as they fooled the lookouts by dressing them up like Sea Hurricanes. They both dived on the carrier and dropped two AP bombs a piece. Instead of penetrating of damaging the deck, the bombs simply bounced off, fell overboard and exploded harmlessly in the sea.

And then there were the Kamikazes. While the US unarmoured carriers got mauled by Kamikazes, any Royal Navy carriers took relatively minor damage, with any deaths being from fires or shrapnel. It's no wonder that the American Midway class adopted an armoured deck, it was simply a better idea.

In WoWs, I'm not sure if they will be any more useful than unarmoured flight decks. Sure, you might shrug off more HE and perhaps Battleship AP at range, but in the end if a carrier is spotted it is as good as dead.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
29 minutes ago, Centurion_1711 said:

It's no wonder that the American Midway class adopted an armoured deck, it was simply a better idea.

 

Actually, believe it or, not, but Midway's armored deck was built with the idea that she might meet surface gunships such as cruisers or battleships and was therefore designed first and foremost against heavy shells that may fall on it. In concept, it has nothing to do with britishg armored deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
404 posts
3,247 battles
3 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

Actually, believe it or, not, but Midway's armored deck was built with the idea that she might meet surface gunships such as cruisers or battleships and was therefore designed first and foremost against heavy shells that may fall on it. In concept, it has nothing to do with britishg armored deck.

That's interesting, and yes I suppose they were quite different concepts. What I meant was that the Illustrious class acted as a "proof of concept" when compared to the damage that unarmoured carriers took. HMS Illustrious took quite a beating in 1940 (I believe it was the heaviest bombing raid on a carrier in the entire war), and the armoured deck has to take much of the credit for how she stayed afloat. It was penetrated by bombs, but that box design helped to contain the explosion.

Compare this to basically all Japanese carriers, especially at Midway where Dauntlesses from the US carriers hammered them to the bottom, or to how USS Enterprise had to retire from the front line when hit by a Kamikaze (see also USS Franklin, nearly sunk by SAP bombs). The armoured deck seems to be quite attractive all of a sudden. But as you say, the Midway class were following a different train of thought when being designed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
2 hours ago, Centurion_1711 said:

That's interesting, and yes I suppose they were quite different concepts. What I meant was that the Illustrious class acted as a "proof of concept" when compared to the damage that unarmoured carriers took. HMS Illustrious took quite a beating in 1940 (I believe it was the heaviest bombing raid on a carrier in the entire war), and the armoured deck has to take much of the credit for how she stayed afloat. It was penetrated by bombs, but that box design helped to contain the explosion.

Compare this to basically all Japanese carriers, especially at Midway where Dauntlesses from the US carriers hammered them to the bottom, or to how USS Enterprise had to retire from the front line when hit by a Kamikaze (see also USS Franklin, nearly sunk by SAP bombs). The armoured deck seems to be quite attractive all of a sudden. But as you say, the Midway class were following a different train of thought when being designed.

 

I honestly think you're jumping to conclusion by saying that armoured flight deck suddenly became popular and that's because of the british. First of all, the one other instance of armoured flight deck not from UK I can think of at the time is Taiho, decided far before the Japanese could have even known about the possible success of such a feature  - mainly because her design was validated before these possible successes could have even happened. On the contrary, the americans decided against such flight decks on the Essex, and on their remodels, even after - Midway would remain a rare breed. And so would the UK carriers.

 

Also, yes, I do compare this attack on Illustrious to the kamikaze ones carried our on Enterprise since you quoted these in particular. Yes, Enterprise was forced to back and repair... and, er, so was Illustrious. Also, Illustrious' full repair lasted more than 6 months, while Enterprise's repairs for her kamikaze attacks latsed one and three months.

Sure, the comparison is not the best to be made, but you quoted it in particular, so I went for it and I'm kinda missing the point - unless you're trying to show me that this whole armored deck thing was actually only mildly effective if at all.

 

Besides, I'd like to comment on "the heaviest bombing of the entire war". Where the hell did you read that ? If you count in number of aircrafts, definitely not. In number of bombs released, probably not. In number of bombs hit ? Maybe closer - though it's not our fault if your heavily armored carried was less good at dodging~ - but still probably not the heaviest. And even if it was - other carriers in the war may have taken less bombs at a same time or same amount but less powerful, but also took torpedoes at the same time. How do you compare that ? I that sense, Hornet and Yorktown were probably much more shaken than Illustrious would ever be.

 

In the end, I don't know if the armored flight deck was useful or not - and if it was, it was probably marginally effective anyway, nothing revolutionary. But even so, when I think of the damage taken by the US carriers, I see how americans kept afloat burning wrecks beyond the realms of possible, with splendid damage control, but also sturdy designs as a whole, refusing to sink for days even, without a single man aboard to help them, despite torpedoes, gunfire, bombs, suicide aircrafts, or even all at the same time. And then I turn to UK carriers, and I see a puny little increase in thickness that sacrifices other specs to mitigate the damage of barely half early-war bombs.

Sorry, I'm unimpressed.

 

Hornet may have sunk, but her performance was far beyond anything Illustrious could hope to offer. And she was far from an isolated case.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[052D]
Players
5 posts
2,530 battles

Taiho was launched years after british carriers with there armoured decks.

The british fleet was under attack from land based aircraft wich included high level heavy bombers of both german and Italian airforce..

illustrious had a 2,200 lb bomb that that judy bomber dropped as it dived on the carrier exploding near rhe water line causing damage to the hull but she carried on operations, formidable was hit buy two kamikaze with in days and was still operational.

not sure where you get the six month figure from, during operations in the med she recived over six 1,100lb bomb hits five days after that she took a bomb from a ju87 

, she went into malta for repair and was bombed in the harbour getting more hits.

The armoured deck saved her no doubt.

Still need more uk ships in the game loads of us and japanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
3 hours ago, Rumble68 said:

Taiho was launched years after british carriers with there armoured decks.

But the armored deck concept was decided and validated far before the Japanese could even have known the British ones specs or overall successes.

 

3 hours ago, Rumble68 said:

The british fleet was under attack from land based aircraft wich included high level heavy bombers of both german and Italian airforce..

illustrious had a 2,200 lb bomb that that judy bomber dropped as it dived on the carrier exploding near rhe water line causing damage to the hull but she carried on operations,

 

I am pretty sure these were covered already. I made no discrimination regarding the type of attacking aircraft when I studied the bombings' effects.

 

3 hours ago, Rumble68 said:

formidable was hit buy two kamikaze with in days and was still operational.

 

Now THAT is a very approximate version of reality. The first kamikaze never even hit her - the only damage were from the explosion's near-miss, not even in direct contact with the carrier (and which still managed to pierce that beloved armored deck). The second one failed its attack and barely grazed a part of the flight deck, causing nothing more than a big old fire and damage to equipement, but only superficial scratchs on the carrier itself.

These events are not relevant when studying the ship's toughness and damage resistance, since little offensive power actually hit the carrier at all.

 

3 hours ago, Rumble68 said:

ot sure where you get the six month figure from

 

The Illustrious & Implacable Classes of Aircraft Carrier 1940–1969, Neil McCart

 

3 hours ago, Rumble68 said:

during operations in the med she recived over six 1,100lb bomb hits five days after that she took a bomb from a ju87, she went into malta for repair and was bombed in the harbour getting more hits.

 

She went to Malta for temporary repairs, expecting larger repairs in the very near futur.

 

3 hours ago, Rumble68 said:

The armoured deck saved her no doubt.

 

It may have, but its overall efficiency remains marginal in my eyes. What I'm saying is that it's absolutely not a given that another carrier with no armored deck wouldn't have survived the same attack ; similarly, a carrier with armoured deck could also have been sunk by an attack of similar power, as it has been proven that the bombs could bypass the provided defense and thus cause more extensive damage to the ship.

 

3 hours ago, Rumble68 said:

Still need more uk ships in the game loads of us and japanes.

 

There are loads of US and JP vessels for a reason. The UK fleet was, in WWII, not as important as in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester, Players, Sailing Hamster
1,902 posts
3,681 battles
12 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

 

 

Now THAT is a very approximate version of reality. The first kamikaze never even hit her - the only damage were from the explosion's near-miss, not even in direct contact with the carrier (and which still managed to pierce that beloved armored deck). The second one failed its attack and barely grazed a part of the flight deck, causing nothing more than a big old fire and damage to equipement, but only superficial scratchs on the carrier itself.

These events are not relevant when studying the ship's toughness and damage resistance, since little offensive power actually hit the carrier at all.

 

 

 

 

There are loads of US and JP vessels for a reason. The UK fleet was, in WWII, not as important as in the past.

 

Well not quite correct. Formidable was hit on the 4th May, and the 9th May. Both were direct hits.

 

The first hit was from a Zero that released it's bomb before hitting just adjacent to the island. I'm sure you have seen the hole it created, and it was only a few inches wide, and the bomb had exploded fully. Formidable would be landing planes again by 17:00, while she had been hit at around 11:31. The spalling that had cut a steam pipe and limited her speed was found, and by the next day, Formidable was back up and running at full pace. 

 

The second hit didn't get through the armoured hangar deck, as it should be called, except for knocking a rivet out. It hit the aft deck park, a bit further aft than the previous hit, and destroyed 7 aircraft, and caused some fires. This bomb seemed to only partially detonate.

 

Compare this or the other strikes on RN carriers by kamikazes, to the hits on Enterprise, Bunker Hill, or Franklin, the armoured carriers have their fair share of problems, the kamikaze strikes left Formidable with very few operational aircraft, but the ship remained on station, in situations similar to that of some USN Carriers. These events are relevant because it is what happened, and can be compared with other similar strikes. 

 

Less dominant, but not much less important. Someone had to control the Atlantic afterall.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,064 posts
6,701 battles
2 hours ago, Trainspite said:

Less dominant, but not much less important. Someone had to control the Atlantic afterall.

I still do think the importance of the RN was overblown quite a bit.

 

Sure, they had a lot of ships. But they had a load of very old and obsolete ships with obsolete equipments. Hood still carrying the useless anti-aircraft rockets at the time of her sinking is a textbook example.

I'm not saying the RN wasn't powerful. Compared to the german they were clearly superior, but compared to the French and the Italians, it's another thing. They had more ships, sure, but French and Italian did better when it comes to the state-of-the-art, most modern ships.

 

US/IJN having more ships ingame than the RN really doesn't surprise me. What irks me more is that we still don't have a single silver Italian tech tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
4 hours ago, Trainspite said:

Well not quite correct. Formidable was hit on the 4th May, and the 9th May. Both were direct hits.

 

The first hit was from a Zero that released it's bomb before hitting just adjacent to the island. I'm sure you have seen the hole it created, and it was only a few inches wide, and the bomb had exploded fully. Formidable would be landing planes again by 17:00, while she had been hit at around 11:31. The spalling that had cut a steam pipe and limited her speed was found, and by the next day, Formidable was back up and running at full pace. 

 

The second hit didn't get through the armoured hangar deck, as it should be called, except for knocking a rivet out. It hit the aft deck park, a bit further aft than the previous hit, and destroyed 7 aircraft, and caused some fires. This bomb seemed to only partially detonate.

 

Compare this or the other strikes on RN carriers by kamikazes, to the hits on Enterprise, Bunker Hill, or Franklin, the armoured carriers have their fair share of problems, the kamikaze strikes left Formidable with very few operational aircraft, but the ship remained on station, in situations similar to that of some USN Carriers. These events are relevant because it is what happened, and can be compared with other similar strikes. 

 

Dyou have data on that ? I cannot find anything reliable about the first kamikaze hitting anything with more than a scratch done and its bomb did explode some time before contact. As for the second, yeah, "theorically" it did hit, although you can't say the angle at which it crashed was nearly as potent as some other kamikaze attacks known.

Overall, Formidable was subjected to  far less direct damage than in some other attacks, due to the angle and location at which the forces of impact and/or explosion were received.

 

4 hours ago, Trainspite said:

Less dominant, but not much less important. Someone had to control the Atlantic afterall.

 

I was not talking geopolitically, but combat-wise. RN hardly had any "great" vessel in terms of offensive and defensive ability.  Their carriers were okay but mainly shone because their opponents had no carriers at all. Their capital ships were for most old and weak on several points, even the most advanced ones. They had a couple of correct light cruisers classes with no real advantage, and a larger amount of obsolete or weaker cruisers. Their destroyers, similarly, were all decent ships for duties such as patrol or ASW missions, but hardly had anything to offer in actual combat or anything else for that matters.

I'm not denying that the RN had great admirals & sailors, great training, great doctrine or whatever, or that they won the war and crushed their opponents at sea in Europe. But you gotta admit the vessels themselves don't have much to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
404 posts
3,247 battles
1 hour ago, LastButterfly said:

I was not talking geopolitically, but combat-wise. RN hardly had any "great" vessel in terms of offensive and defensive ability.  Their carriers were okay but mainly shone because their opponents had no carriers at all. Their capital ships were for most old and weak on several points, even the most advanced ones. They had a couple of correct light cruisers classes with no real advantage, and a larger amount of obsolete or weaker cruisers. Their destroyers, similarly, were all decent ships for duties such as patrol or ASW missions, but hardly had anything to offer in actual combat or anything else for that matters.

I'm not denying that the RN had great admirals & sailors, great training, great doctrine or whatever, or that they won the war and crushed their opponents at sea in Europe. But you gotta admit the vessels themselves don't have much to offer.

I guess blame the Admiralty for following Naval treaties to the letter. The heavy cruisers were weaker than, say, the Takao class, because they actually tried to stay within weight limits. Anyway, after a few refits and they weren't too bad, their radar was key in pursuing the Bismarck and the AA was alright (except for the Cornwall and another CA that were sunk near Ceylon by the Japanese, but that was 1942 so the AA was poor). However, the Crown Colony and Town class light cruisers were very nice designs, they served well and I can't recall any major flaws with them. They outgunned and had better armour than any German or Italian light cruiser, not to mention more guns and better AA. Sure, they don't outclass the Brooklyn or Cleveland class, but then the US Navy was the probably the strongest in the world by then, so no real surprises there.

The KGV class could have been a world class Battleship, had the Admiralty not gone with 14" guns. They were certain that the latest treaty (the Washington Naval Treaty?) would prevent any capital ships getting guns larger than 14". But the Japanese pulled out, so the US activated the escalator clause and redesigned the North Carolina class for 16" guns. Britain didn't have the money or the time to refit the KGV's with bigger guns, not that any were available. It is a real shame, because the KGV's hull was quite well armoured and it had acceptable speed, just unreliable, weak main guns. Other capital ship mistakes include the Nelson class' 16" guns, which fired a lightweight shell at high velocity. They had bad accuracy and poor barrel life, all because somebody wanted to copy the German way of thinking from WWI. The Royal Navy really only had the 15"/42's as proper world class BB guns, yet they were all mounted on WWI designs that were just a bit lacking compared to Roma, Bismarck, Nagato, South Dakota etc.

Still, you can't deny the RN's strength in numbers. It forced Langsdorff to scuttle the Graf Spee, overwhelmed Bismarck and forced the Italians to play it very defensive in the Med. Quantity has a quality all by itself, it's the reason why the allies won the war in the sky and on the sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,054 posts
2,939 battles
2 hours ago, Centurion_1711 said:

I guess blame the Admiralty for following Naval treaties to the letter. The heavy cruisers were weaker than, say, the Takao class, because they actually tried to stay within weight limits. Anyway, after a few refits and they weren't too bad, their radar was key in pursuing the Bismarck and the AA was alright (except for the Cornwall and another CA that were sunk near Ceylon by the Japanese, but that was 1942 so the AA was poor).

 

I guess trying to stick to treaties even when it's clear they're crumbling was a flaw of Britain, but once again, I am not searching for reasons. There are causes for sure, but the result is the same whatever they are : the ships are overall unimpressive.

Heavy cruisers are Britain's largest flaw because - hey, let's be honest. Which heavy of the RN had its keel laid after 1930 ? Honestly, I don't think there are any. The Rn didn't stick to treaties with this one, they abandonned the whole concept of heavy cruisers. No wonder they were unimpressive before the Zara, Algérie, Hipper, Tone and New Orleans that came after. On the side of heavies, bu 1940, the RN was outclassed and outdated because they had nothing younger than 10 years old.

 

2 hours ago, Centurion_1711 said:

However, the Crown Colony and Town class light cruisers were very nice designs, they served well and I can't recall any major flaws with them. They outgunned and had better armour than any German or Italian light cruiser, not to mention more guns and better AA. Sure, they don't outclass the Brooklyn or Cleveland class, but then the US Navy was the probably the strongest in the world by then, so no real surprises there.

 

Lights are where the RN can put some sort of a fight - that and destroyers, in a way - I'll give you that. But I really wonder about the example you took. I don't see how a Town or Crown Colony had better armour than any foreign light cruiser. And opposing vessels certainly aren't numerous - the Germans lagged behind on CL overall effectiveness, and so did the Japanese. Overall, talking light cruisers by that time is basically pitching the French, the British, the Americans and the Italians. As you already mentionned, the US basically outclassed everyone, so even with the best performances, the UK would only ever be second on the list (fun fact : A Crown Colony belt was actually thinner than that of Atlanta).
But then there's the French and the Italians we have to oppose. And with those, while the British wins by a landslide when it comes to technology - radar, sonar, this type of stuff - and overall seaworthiness/range of action, regarding actual combat capaibilities, that it, offensive and defensive strength and weaknesses, which you specifically mentionned, the winner is far from obvious.

 

Firstly - to get them out of the way - British torpedoes were very comparable, in terms of power, range, and speed to the French ones. In fact, before Torpex was introduced, they actually lost on the power side. Italian ones were sub-par in all categories, especially power, and only achieved better speed at an extremely close range. so if one ever wants to mention torpedo power as a British advantage - it was not. I mean, not over the French at least.

 

Regarding armor, the reverse applies : the most well-armored french light cruiser had a similar belt but lost in terms of thickness and efficiency on all other categories, from bulkhead to barbettes, turrets and deck, basically everything. The French cruiser was more prone to damage. On the contrary, however, the climax of the Condottieri serie basically had better and better-performing armor in pretty much every way. Thicker belt, thicker bulkheads, better enclosed and thus more difficult to reach vital parts, especially engine and magazines, because the barbettes and turret were better too. Italian modern Cls were just better better armored than even the Town-class - even by ignoring any potential effect of the very unique use of a thin decapping plate before the belt.

 

Then come the guns. Once again, the British soon enough would get their radars to get a massive aiming advantage at night, during manoeuvers, in bad visibility, and overall quicker reaction time. They didn't get that technology right away tho and either way you specifically mentionned "outgunned" which refers to sheer power.

In terms of rate of fire, the French  reached a decent 5 in average, which was the maximum of the Italian guns, while the British confortably maintained 6rpm during combat. While they could even reach higher by staying in the preferred loading angle, that would restrict the range between 7 and 10km, and the crew would tire quicker, so the advantage, while real, remains slight.
French AP shells had an advantage of sheet weight, whilst the Italians achieved better penetration thans to their velocity, something that the lesser effeicient semi-armored piercing of the UK cruisers could not achieve as well even with their apparently prised ballistic caps.

The Italians lose on the bursting side of things, with their shells containing far less explosive. However, the French had similar quantities to that of the British, exceeding their power thanks to a slightly powerfuler explosive - although the advantage is so low that we can call it a tie.

 

All in all, the only real advantage would be number, with the British climbing up to 12 barrels while the Italians reached 10 and the French 9. I suppose that's what you based your "outgunned" on. With rate of fire close, power same, and penetration power less, I admit I would have called it "slightly outgunning"... if the British gun hadn't suffered from a worse dispertion than the foreign ones.

Granted, I know you'll tell me the dispertion problem the triple mounts suffered were correct back in 1937/38, and they no longer had patterns as large as 500m at 20+km. But still, they remained far from the less-then-100m pattern the Italians achieved at 18km and below with their AP, and the French gun was also slightly more precise than the Uk gun. Shooting more doesn't mean much if you miss more.

 

Now I'm not trying to say British CLs were bad. Actually, I merely proved that the question of who had the best CL in Europe at the time has to be studied a bit more in depth. The British had their advantage with their guns - in rate of fire and number - but had their flaws - in penetration and dispertion. The same went for others (Italians were precise and penetrated well but lacked power and rate of fire, for example).

So, yeah, there's no question that British CL were good - at least the recent ones. They lacked "major" flaws, but I'm trying to point out they don't have a definitive advantage either that'd give them any edge. And in the end, they - like everyone else - lose to the US anyway.

 

2 hours ago, Centurion_1711 said:

The KGV class could have been a world class Battleship, had the Admiralty not gone with 14" guns. They were certain that the latest treaty (the Washington Naval Treaty?) would prevent any capital ships getting guns larger than 14". But the Japanese pulled out, so the US activated the escalator clause and redesigned the North Carolina class for 16" guns. Britain didn't have the money or the time to refit the KGV's with bigger guns, not that any were available. It is a real shame, because the KGV's hull was quite well armoured and it had acceptable speed, just unreliable, weak main guns. Other capital ship mistakes include the Nelson class' 16" guns, which fired a lightweight shell at high velocity. They had bad accuracy and poor barrel life, all because somebody wanted to copy the German way of thinking from WWI. The Royal Navy really only had the 15"/42's as proper world class BB guns, yet they were all mounted on WWI designs that were just a bit lacking compared to Roma, Bismarck, Nagato, South Dakota etc.

 

Now that's - no xD. When KGV started to be built - her keel was laid in 37 if I'm correct - the British were more than aware that the treaties had already been broken in terms of caliber, all because of the Italians. The Italians never hid their intention to build 381mm-armed battleships, and several times the british tryied, before the Littorios were laid down, to have thei lower the caliber - to no avail. When KGV was drafted, the French response had already been made public, and it was crystal clear that the whole Europe was shifting towards 380mm guns. Yet, the british chosed an inferior caliber, and that wasn't because of the treaties. You can't say they were caught unaware by the Japanese pulling out, because other countries had already increased their BB main guns caliber. The descision to arm her with 356mm was made willingly and conciously, in full knowledge of the current state of things regarding battleships.

 

Now about KGV's hull being well armored - in what way ? I man, sure, by British standards. Her main belt was a big block of metal, unrafined, in a similar way to Yamato's - except that it hardly showed any angle and was much thicker. She had the weakest belt of all, the thinnest, with no angle, no longitudinal bulkhead, no turtleback, no additional armored plate - nothing.

The same goes for her deck. One real protective layer, above the citadel, and thinner outside - but overall always thinner than any foreign of the same era.

Her upper belt was non-existant. Her bulkheads were barely in the norm. Her blisters were outclassed by designs of the exact same era.

 

Honestly, I'm going quickly because I don't have the time right now to make a full theorical study coupled with historical damage effect studies. I will if you want - but I'd love to know where you consider she was welle armored. For what I remember and have looked up, she was inferior, by a fair margin, on basically ever aspect of armor and defense.

 

I can accept the "acceptable speed" though once again it was the weakest of her era.

 

You want an advantage of KGV ? Here is one :

You could almost build three of her with the money of one Iowa. At least, she was cheap~ That's all I can really think of.

 

also what's up with "WWI designs were just a bit lacking compared to Roma, Bismarck, Nagato, South Dakota" ? They... were more than " just a bit lacking" xD

 

3 hours ago, Centurion_1711 said:

Still, you can't deny the RN's strength in numbers. It forced Langsdorff to scuttle the Graf Spee, overwhelmed Bismarck and forced the Italians to play it very defensive in the Med. Quantity has a quality all by itself, it's the reason why the allies won the war in the sky and on the sea.

 

Ah, yeah, strength in number. But you see, here it boils down to the ship itself, not the fleet. We're in a game, no-one requests for "175 Fletcher" (though I believe wargaming would be more than happy to copy-paste them as long as everyone's ready to by them for 60 bucks each).
People just request "that ship" because the class (or particular ship) pleased them. Sure, back in the war, the UK had its advantage - but once again, I was talking about the individual strength of each royal-navy design. And for now, I maintain my stance : their strength are lacking, and when they have one, it's mostly "rather balanced" or "no big flaw". Which is a good thing, but it also means they have no real advantage and as such they feel more bland, thus why I think we probably don't need to multiply them before other countries with designs with bigger flaws, but also advantages, more specialized, or simply less bland, get their share.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×