Battlecruisers

File: EurdHAA3.jpg (55KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 512x512px

>>30499810
Kongou was literally the only Japanese battleship that didn't embarrass itself in WW2.

>where they a British meme that managed to foll some customers? Is it generally a good idea to make a glass cannon that big?

Germany had different ideas about how to make a battlecruiser.

And the battlecruisers seem to have a much better fighting to posturing ratio than dreadnoughts.

File: bongo.jpg (155KB, 1024x723px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x723px

Kongou makes me hard as diamonds.

>>30500090
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4ongdjMgfs

>>30499810
They were fine for what they were designed for: fucking up cruisers.

Problem was, they were almost battleship price. When fast battleships came along, they were worthless. There's a reason no-one built any post WWI, and those that survived the war were (mostly, looking at you Hood) substantially rebuilt for WWII.

They were tactically misused. They made sense for the RN because of the fact the RN always liked quantity over power, which stemmed from the fact they had to operate all over the world at all times in the days of the Empire.

They were supposed to be able to outgun anything that could keep pace or out run them and still be able to outrun contemporary battleships, what they were not supposed to be was used in the line of battle, such as it still was, against heavier ships.

They were obsolete in concept by the time technology allowed actual battleships to reach close to or over 30 knots. The British kept some in service because they didn't have the money, and they had treaties limiting their options. I'm fairly sure the Japanese modernized theirs into almost-battleships with heavier protection that what they were designed with.

>>30500234
British BCs were also modernized.

Well I know for a fact in the battle of jutland it seems the whole british saying "speed will be our armor" failed pretty hard.

What was it the magazines on three BC's went up. Then again it didn't help they were missing equipment and not following safety procedure.

German design philosophy was different however. More armor instead of speed and they seemed to survive because of that.

>>30500219
>When fast battleships came along, they were worthless.
This. There was a window between the initial fast battleship concept and that concept technology being able to produce battleships with the speed to escort fleet carriers at speed in which battlecruisers were useful both as the fastest raiders and CV escorts early in WWII, but that usefulness fell off once enough of the fast BBs started in the late 30's came online. There was just no use for them once it was possible to build both the armor AND speed into a ship, rather than having to chose one or the other.

Interestingly, the Alaska class by the USN late war, which can arguably be designated a BC in the early dominance of naval aviation, was almost entirely built as a CV AA escort. Fast enough to keep up with the fleet carriers, carrying almost as much AA as an Iowa and still maintaining a respectable primary armament of the best 12" guns ever mounted on a naval platform with excellent FC. If you follow closely the build process of the Alaskas, you can see how BC doctrine changed as the ramifications of mature naval aviation changed the face of naval warfare. First, they were primarily commerce raiders and cruiser/destroyer hunters, then they started devoting a lot more tonnage to more and better AA plus FC. The end design was never usefully employed as an asset detached for hunting (their only hunting trip ended in failure due to lack of prey); only for AAA escort and shore bombardment. In the AAA role, they were known throughout the fleet as the best carrier escorts ton for ton in the USN.

For BCs operating detached and without substantial AAA in the age of naval aviation, we look at the Prince of Wales and the Repulse. The age of the detached cruiser hunter died some time during the interwar period.

Nowadays all ships are glass cannons because if you take an AShM or a torpedo amidships you're basically done.

>>30500312
>More armor instead of speed
Nope. More armor at the cost of the largest primary armaments. German BBs and CAs generally had slightly smaller primary armaments and relied on the best available FC, which for Germany was very good against the world standard in WWI and early WWII.

>>30500349
If a WWII ship took a modern AShM or torpedo, it'd also be at least a mission kill.

>>30500373

Well I stand corrected. Thanks fair anon.

>>30500312
Beatty was criminally incompetent, which didn't help.

>>30499810
Battlecruisers would do better if WW1 would be more "open" like WW2 was.

The reason why British even started the meme was that they've had tons of colonies spread all over the world, and as such having "faster" battleships that could go even 3 or 4 knots faster was worth a lot when trying to hunt a cruiser "somewhere there" or reacting on sudden happenings in colonies(like some big naval power joining on the opposite side) or any other scenario, really.

For Germans they were simply the largest commerce raiders that could be possibly made.

Later "battlecruisers"(often called just battleships or cruisers) like Scharnhorst, Dunrkerque or Alaska were closer to actual cruisers which kinda shows how the concept evolved "after Jutland".

Whether fast battleships killed them as a class or not - not exactly. There is that hypothetical scenario where somebody would strip armour of their gigantic battleships and use the "free" displacement to stuff bigger propulsion inside of them however the problem was - it wasn't really worth it. For such big ships going over that 30-33 knots they've ended up with was quite big strain on their hulls and such, so yeah, sure I can see "light Bismarck" going 40 knots but I doubt it'll serve more than decade.

>>30500494
That and you'd need more engine power to get that last seven knots out of it than you would to get the first thirty. (numbers not exact, but you get the point.)

>>30500373

So basically bongs put giant guns on top of a cans of explosives while germans made thier ships like armored snipers?

>>30500543
On top of the fact that the idea that they could increase the engine power without limits is also flawed - at some point the displacement and size would grow much faster than power and speed as happened with some pre-war destroyer class(Swift?) that was upsized to the displacement of light cruiser to achieve greater speed than contemporary destroyers, but it ended up being only minimally faster than said destroyers while having worse armament and similar armour. So what they've achieved was essentially shitty light cruiser.

If you can build a new battleship that is as fast as an old battlecruiser, what's stopping you from building an even faster new battlecruiser?

>>30500585
No, bongs propped their magazine doors open with bags of cordite, left more bags of the stuff lying around in the turrets, and wondered why a single hit to said turrets blew the ships apart.

Beatty was a madman.

>>30500640
see >>30500634
>>30500543
>>30500494

And in the end 28-33 knots(speed range of all fast battleships) was more than enough, to this day Aircraft Carriers are designed for 30 knots

>>30500640
The laws of physics.

>>30500585
>So basically bongs put giant guns on top of a cans of explosives
Not necessarily. The British ships had plenty of armor, and their BB armor design was still excellent (the morning after Jutland, Jellicoe reported 24 battleships still fully ready for combat - only 4 in need of repair. Sheer, on the other hand, required months to repair his capital ships).

However, British BC armor, while sufficient in quantity for BC designs of the time, contained flaws in the actual designed employment of the armor, leaving magazines vulnerable. Armoring a capital ship in those days was not just a matter of adding mass in the form of face hardened high grade steel, but also designing the incident angles against incoming fire from all distances. You have to make compromises; your ship may be very strong against distant plunging fire but more vulnerable to closer ranged flat trajectory shot, etc. Also, the British AP shell fusing was deficient - most of them exploded upon impact with armor belts, rather than penetrating inside and then detonating. German AP shells, on the other hand, were very well designed and very reliable in operation. That's probably the biggest difference.

>>30500660
Then find ways around. Ludicrously fast hydrofoil battleships when?

Alaska was not a BC, just a uselessly large cruiser.

>>30500634
>On top of the fact that the idea that they could increase the engine power without limits is also flawed
This. The confluence of hull form flow models, propeller design (both requiring very complex fluid mechanics calculations and not mature until the late 20th century, and even now still being refined and updated) plus engine power and how these factors produce an efficient top speed were in their infancy as design concepts. Naval architecture was only a short period away from designing steel ships with the same hull form concepts as age of sail wooden ships by WWI.

Even then, you might have a ship which is very, very fast but buries her nose in heavy seas because of the long, narrow bow (like the later Iowa class) or one with excellent speed characteristics but is also very "wet" because of the flat forward deck due to a design imperative to be able to fire directly over the bow at 0 degrees or less (British BBs of WWII having this characteristic for the most part). There are dozens of compromises to consider. No ship is just "fast"; there are always qualifiers depending on sea state, fuel efficiency (like Yamato's famously poor efficiency), etc.

File: Lun_Ekranoplan.jpg (57KB, 640x347px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x347px

>>30500694
Fucking never, because at that point you might as well build an ekranoplan.

>>30500694
It's a matter of reduced returns. No matter the hullform, once you reach a certain speed above a certain mass, the graph of increased SHP vs speed looks logarithmic. There's no hard limit, but you get to a place where you're doubling required power just to make another knot.

This is the reality of drag and fluid mechanics.

File: 1455057398195.jpg (266KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 600x600px

This is an educational and informative thread. Please continue.

>>30500748
Yamato burned 14 tons per hour hour cruising. It was an efficient boat.

>>30500727
This is arguable. She was designated a cruiser, but she had beefier primary armament than the Scharnhorst (1935, 11"), more primary broadside throw weight with much faster reload than the Dunkerque-class (1932), and well over three times the broadside throw weight of the next most heavily-armed cruiser (10,260lbs 3 times per minute VS 3,966lbs twice a minute).

There are many, many senses where the Alaska is neither a CA nor BC, and if you allow a changing definition of what a BC was as tactics changed (just like every other ship definition changed to a significant degree during WWII), an argument could be made that the Alaskas were the face of the BC in the naval aviation age.

>>30500373
>German BBs and CAs generally had slightly smaller primary armaments and relied on the best available FC, which for Germany was very good against the world standard in WWI and early WWII.

eh thats a questionable statement, for starters while german range finders were better giving them a better chance to find the range, the british had better and more widespread director control systems and fire control computers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Charles_Dreyer#Dreyer_Fire_Control_Table.

this meant that while the germans would find the range slightly quicker, the british would be able to hit more consistently once they had the range.

and for a BB to BB comparison the germans were inferior in all respects, their fire control was worse than the grand fleets (at jutland the highest accuracy was recorded by the british battleships) Their guns were inferior in penetration and destructive capability, the 11 and 12 inch shells failing to cause significant damage to british battleships (note battleships not battle cruisers) while even with defective ammo the british battleships were able to inflict heavy damage in a short space of time to the german ships, as the heavier slightly slower shells penetrated armor better and carried a larger bursting charge

>>30500823
Do you have a source for that? I'm having trouble confirming that. What speed is "cruising"; these mean very different speeds for independent or escort operations, for instance. For reference:

Iowas burned:
>14,267 gallons per hour, or 44.9 tons per hour turning 30.3 knots
>10,892 gph or 34.3 tph turning 29.1 knots
>6,569 gph or 20.7 tph turning 25.4 knots
>3,964 gph or 12.5 tph turning 20.6 knots
>2,200 gph or 7 tph turning 14.8 knots

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-BB.html
http://www.convertunits.com/from/gallon/to/tonne+of+oil+equivalent

Assuming you meant a cruising speed of around 15 knots, which is roughly transit standard for the time, the Yamato would be half as efficient as an Iowa. This is not as terrible as it might seem, as Iowas were remarkably fuel efficient for battleships (a radius of 16,630 miles range at 15 knots - 46.2 continuous days of sailing). Other USN BB fuel rates at 15 knots:

>USS Massachusetts BB59: 1,805 gph or 5.7 tph at 15.3 knots
>Indiana BB58: 1,699 gph or 5.3 tph at 15.3 knots
Note that both of the above are South Dakotas; there is variation with each class
>North Carolina class: 1,894 gph or 5.96 tph at 14.9 knots
>Colorado class: 1,854 gph or 5.8tph at 14.8 knots

Note that Yamato has roughly 2.5 times the fuel consumption of BBs roughly half its displacement (though still well armored and carrying main armaments nearly comparable in 16"/45 guns). Again, this is assuming you meant roughly 15 knots as "cruising".

>>30500846
Ship definitions didn't change at all during ww2. Alaska class was an overgunned, over large cruiser by the only definitions that existed.

>>30500694
see >>30501102
for a sense of how much extra fuel/shp is required just to push the Iowa another 5 knots faster. By 29.1 knots, she needs to burn another 10.6 tons per hour of fuel (30.9% of total consumption) just to make another 1.2 knots.

>>30501102
Combinedfleet.com
Jap cruising speed was something like 15 knot, which I think was the same as USN cruising speed.

>>30501119
>Ship definitions didn't change at all during ww2
anon...
Ship mission planning and design changed heavily during WWII.

>>30500494
>For Germans they were simply the largest commerce raiders that could be possibly made.

Ironically, if Graf Spee had been an actual battlecruiser instead of an over-gunned CA she probably would have mopped the fucking floor at River Pate.

>>30501141
So put a nuclear generator in the Iowa II.

She needs one for the railguns and lasers anyway.

>>30500640

What >>30500660 said, literally the laws of physics. That's why modern warships strain and struggle to break 40 knots at best; even the LCS has a secondary powerplant that's only job is to kick in to help push it to 45 knots. It's a simple matter of diminishing returns on investment as relates to engine power and ship hulls, for Physics reasons.

Which is why the best ways around it usually involve leaving the water entirely; witness the Hydrofoil.

>>30501181
>mfw Pegasus never
That was such a neat concept, shame it will never come to light again...

>>30500952
>eh thats a questionable statement, for starters while german range finders were better giving them a better chance to find the range, the british had better and more widespread director control systems and fire control computers

Dunno, from what I recall the Germans had very good fire control computers too by 1939:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-052.htm

>go looking for that old forum post
>navweaps people put it on their site for future reference

God bless these people and everything they do

>>30501168
Let's see those goalposts moving.

>>30501169
If Graf Spee was a battlecruiser the RN would have tailed it from port like they did with the Bismarck.

>>30501181

In theory could you make a hydrofoil the size of the iowa or would you need a nuclear reactor to get it fast enough to leave the water?

>>30501148
>Combinedfleet.com
I can't find any direct fuel consumption numbers on that site. One of the partner sites
http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=B1
cites her range at 7,200nm (8285.6 mi) at 16 knots, which is about half the Iowa's (16,090mi) at 16 knots, so I guess that roughly lines up.

Yamato had less bunkerage compared to Iowa (6,300 tons vs 7,892 tons), so that would be .76 tons per mile at 16 knots for Yamato, .49 tons per mile at 16 knots for Iowa. That's a 64% difference, so not quite double going by this metric, though this metric is notoriously unreliable as bunkerage heavily fluctuates between radius calculations. That's a "full" Iowa bunkerage load based on considerations of cruising radius and power of survival as affected by reserve buoyancy. I can't say the same for the Yamato bunkerage number.

>>30501119
>Ship definitions didn't change at all during ww2. Alaska class was an overgunned, over large cruiser by the only definitions that existed.

No. Fuck you. You want an overgunned, overlarge cruiser? Look at Graf Spee. That's literally what she was. I wish you autistic fuckbags would pack it in already. "B-B-UT THEY D-D-IN'T CALL IT A BC!" And they don't call Burkes cruisers either, but there's a difference between a nation's internal designation system - which often has a specific meaning according to their doctrine - and the generic term everyone else uses when comparing ships of different nations.

Please. PLEASE STOP THIS.

>>30501258
>In theory could you make a hydrofoil the size of the iowa

No.

No,you cannot.

>>30501263

Seems fair enough to me, especially accounting for slightly inferior Japanese technology in powerplants and their different operational requirements (i.e. they didn't have a colony planted right off the American coast to defend, but America had to reach the Philippines, and the presumption was that there might not be a refueling base waiting for them when they got there.)

>>30501170
Anon, you're not getting it. Read the following:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-029.htm

Some choice quotes on the nature of hull form and needed SHP/reduced displacement to reach additional speed:
>From the model testing, the Navy calculated that at a Trial Displacement of 53,900 tons (which is about 2,000 tons less than their 1988 fit) a speed of 32.5 knots @ 212KSHP (Designed SHP) could be accomplished.

>The Iowa's were constructed so as to permit a "designed overload" of 20%. This means that they could generate 20% over their designed power rating of 212KSHP without fear of damaging the engines. Based upon this and the results of the model testing, the Navy theorized that a lightly loaded Iowa at 51,000 tons could reach 35.4 knots at 254KSHP

>Now, the Navy also estimated that every 1,000 tons less in displacement would give an additional 0.25 knots of speed.

>Note that every doubling of SHP translates into an additional 4 knots of speed

>For that reason, I would guesstimate that 25% of this additional power is simply wasted in generating air bubbles around the blades
(cavitation increases as speed increases, no matter how efficient your screw design, meaning a huge portion of additional power is wasted on making bubbles)

>Note that every doubling of SHP translates into an additional 4 knots of speed.
(this for the Scharnhorst, but a good indicator)

>>30501292
No one ever called Alaskas battlecruisers anon, because they were cruisers.
Also the Alaskas were not some hypermodern aviation age vessels that you think they are. Just the opposite. They are a relic of the WW1 mindset where commerce raiding surface ships can actually disappear and keep hidden for months. They wouldn't have been built if the USN had the operational experience it did at the end of 1942.

>>30501231
I don't have time for this kind of autism. Have your ridiculous semantic argument with someone else.

>>30501258
No. The massive amounts of SHP needed alone would enter a fatal spiral of increased cavitation long before it hit 45 or so knots at an Iowa displacement level. That's before we even get into the added displacement required by all those water jet systems required.

>>30501170

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_speed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_resistance_and_propulsion

None of this really goes into detail as to why the economies of scale finally hit a steep wall at around 30-35 knots for big ships, but the numbers >>30501320 gave ought to give you an idea.

>>30501329
>No one ever called Alaskas battlecruisers anon, because they were cruisers.

I contend sir, that you are wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-class_cruiser
>The idea for a large cruiser class originated in the early 1930s when the U.S. Navy sought to counter Deutschland-class "pocket battleships" being launched by Germany. Planning for ships that eventually evolved into the Alaska class began in the late 1930s after the deployment of Germany's Scharnhorst-class battleships and rumors that Japan was constructing a new battlecruiser class.[7][D] To serve as "cruiser-killers" capable of seeking out and destroying these post-Treaty heavy cruisers, the class was given large guns of a new and expensive design, limited armor protection against 12-inch shells, and machinery capable of speeds of about 31–33 knots (36–38 mph, 58–61 km/h).

>>30501335
You claimed that ship definitions constantly changed during ww2, now you are backing away from it and babbling about something completely different. Sounds like you recognize your retardedness yet not man enough to simply admit that you were wrong.

>>30501403

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecruiser
>The goal of the design was to outrun any ship with similar armament, and chase down any ship with lesser armament; they were intended to hunt down slower, older armoured cruisers and destroy them with heavy gunfire while avoiding combat with the more powerful but slower battleships.

So let's fuckin review here.

1. They weighed in at 29,000+ fucking tons, whereas a CA weighs in at 10,000 (or 15k if you're a cheating Jap) and battleships tend to start around 32k.
2. Their EXPLICITLY STATED DESIGN GOAL was to counter the Deutchland-class cruisers, which, on account of their being overgunned, were often described as "pocket battleships."
3. Battlecruisers were explicitly designed in the first place to run down and clobber older armored cruisers, which, due to the prevailing designs of the era, were more like small battleships and sometimes even classified as such (Maine was classified as a "second-rate battleship" for instance.)

BY DEFINITION, IT IS LITERALLY A FUCKING BATTLECRUISER.

Also I'm not the anon talking about them being AA escorts.

>They are a relic of the WW1 mindset where commerce raiding surface ships can actually disappear and keep hidden for months. They wouldn't have been built if the USN had the operational experience it did at the end of 1942.

Considering the USN had a comprehensive scouting doctrine for their fleet carriers by 1936 or so (and the Akron/Macron experience in exercises) I doubt they were ignorant of this. Even if you find a foe, you still have to catch the fucker with enough firepower to sink him.

>>30501403
>I contend sir, that you are wrong.
I don't get it. Literally nothing in the long-ass paragraph you posted supports your claim. Why did you even bother?

>>30501425

slow down nigga, take a deep breath, read >>30501423 and take your meds while you wait

File: 1461639451305.gif (2MB, 206x223px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 206x223px

Ree

>>30501329
>No one ever called Alaskas battlecruisers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-class_cruiser
>They were officially classed as large cruisers (CB), but others have regarded them as battlecruisers

http://www.chuckhawks.com/battlecruisers.htm
>It is interesting to note that the German Admiralty (accurately) rated these ships as battlecruisers, where the Americans chose to call their similar Alaska class "large cruisers", and the Japanese called their equivalent B64 type "super cruisers"

>Since they were three times the size of a treaty cruiser, and over twice the size of a Baltimore class heavy cruiser, I would say those descriptions were stretching things a bit. However, the U.S. Navy went to great lengths to avoid using the word "battlecruiser" in connection with these vessels, despite the fact these ships are virtually perfect examples of the type. Note that they were assigned the abbreviated classification "CB"

>Jane's Fighting Ships refused to be taken in, they classified the Alaskas as battlecruisers.

>The Alaska's tactical roles were to include both chasing down, and serving as, commerce raiders in the vast Pacific Ocean. As cruiser killers, they would be able to over power enemy heavy cruisers, particularly in support of the fast carrier task forces
(the definition of a BC)

So, Jane's, the German high command and the Japanese all considered them either BCs or something much more than CAs. Finally, the Lexington class, which was classified as a BC, was to have a smaller broadside weight.

The Alaskas had a heavier broadside weight than several BBs and BCs of interwar design, and if you adjust for firing rate, they had a heavier broadside than the HMS Hood.

>>30501410
>constantly changed
No, I said design priorities and mission envelopes changed for every ship type during WWII. Nice straw man.

See >>30500846
>(just like every other ship definition changed to a significant degree during WWII)

>>30501437
Nothing in that post supports your claim either.
>Alaskas weighed a lot
Yeah, they were an oversized cruiser. We've gone over this.

>Their EXPLICITLY STATED DESIGN GOAL was to counter the Deutchland-class cruisers
So they were designed to counter other cruisers. Not seeing your point.

>Battlecruisers were explicitly designed in the first place to run down and clobber older armored cruisers, which, due to the prevailing designs of the era, were more like small battleships and sometimes even classified as such (Maine was classified as a "second-rate battleship" for instance.)
Pocket battleship was basically a WW2 meme, anon. Curb your austism and try to understand words in their historical context. The Deutschland class were weak enough to be hunted down by a treaty CA from the early 20s and a couple of light cruisers. Are you going to start calling the York-class Battlecruisers?

>>30501501
You do realize the post you made is still up in this thread, right?
>>30500846
Everyone, including yourself, can read and see that you claimed ship definitions were changing.

kongou dess

>>30501502
>So they were designed to counter other cruisers. Not seeing your point.

I literally spelled it out for you, you retarded fuckbag shitbiscut. Lemme copy-paste:
1. They weighed in at 29,000+ fucking tons, whereas a CA weighs in at 10,000 (or 15k if you're a cheating Jap) and battleships tend to start around 32k.
2. Their EXPLICITLY STATED DESIGN GOAL was to counter the Deutchland-class cruisers, which, on account of their being overgunned, were often described as "pocket battleships."
3. Battlecruisers were explicitly designed in the first place to run down and clobber older armored cruisers, which, due to the prevailing designs of the era, were more like small battleships and sometimes even classified as such (Maine was classified as a "second-rate battleship" for instance.)

BY **DEFINITION** IT IS LITERALLY A FUCKING BATTLECRUISER.

Unless you actually counter the core argument I have made I will assume you are either a shitty troll or a knuckle-dragging glue-sniffing retard, or both.

>>30501329
>Also the Alaskas were not some hypermodern aviation age vessels that you think they are. Just the opposite. They are a relic of the WW1 mindset where commerce raiding surface ships can actually disappear and keep hidden for months. They wouldn't have been built if the USN had the operational experience it did at the end of 1942.
You do realize you're talking about a CA/BC/CB whatever with the best per ton of displacement AAA throw weight per minute rating in the history of naval ship construction, right? Right?

That's literally a hallmark of late-war ship design.

>>30501502
I see you completely ignore >>30501476, where the British (Janes) and Germans both considered it a BC. Keep cherry picking, child.

>>30501554
You seem very impressed by your argument but honestly it's not very good.

File: 1457812000150.jpg (201KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 517x768px

>>30501588
>You seem very impressed by your argument but honestly it's not very good.

top-tier rebuttal bro, that'll convince everyone thanks

>>30501587
Yeah I completely ignore a post supported mainly by a Chuck Hawk blogpost. Are you surprised?

>>30501526
>You do realize the post you made is still up in this thread, right?
Yes. I do. I literally quoted it for you in the post you're replying to.
>Everyone, including yourself, can read and see that you claimed ship definitions were changing.
Yes, I said changing over the course of the war. You implied here >>30501410
>constantly changed
that they were fluctuating, which was not the case. Primarily in terms of AAA/secondary armament equipment and employment doctrine, just about every line combat surface vessel design and tactical employment changed over WWII. It was not a fluctuation, but a continuous progression towards more/better AAA/secondary DP armament and more refined escort protocols both against air and ASW. Finally, there was also the massive shift in BBs and CAs from surface warship hunters to primarily shore bombardment and AAA escort.

And that's it. I'm not wasting any more time on this autism. If you want to learn something, great. If not, REEEEEE on your own.

>>30501628
>a Chuck Hawk blogpost
Fine. When I get home tomorrow night, I'll snap you a fucking picture of the page in Jane's Fighting Ships, you autistic little shit.

>>30501320
So what you're saying is we need caterpillar/waterjet/magnetohydrodynamic drives in order to get a battleship up to 100 knots?

>>30501687
Nothing that large will ever go that fast in water. Ever. Now go read a book and shut the fuck up.

>>30501702
>Nothing that large will ever go that fast in water. Ever.
It did once. :^)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater

File: ProjectOrionConfiguration.png (151KB, 1160x496px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1160x496px

>>30501702

Would nuclear pulse propulsion work at sea level?

>>30501787
Jesus fuck. Is it wrong to wish catastrophic hand damage on another person just to see them stop posting?

>>30501787
No, because it rapidly stops being "sea level" when the fucking water gets vaporized.

File: yes for the love of god.jpg (106KB, 620x299px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 620x299px

>>30501816
>supercavitating BB

>>30500384
That's what he's saying modern ships are built as glass cannons because armor doesn't make sense against modern anti-ship weapons.

>>30500476
>"Safe ammo handling? Bugger that, MORE DAKKA!"

File: HMCS_BRAS'DOR.jpg (17KB, 300x209px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x209px

>>30500694
>What is structural problems?

>>30501476
It depends on wether you look at it from the perspective of their role or their construction specifics.

Role-wise, the Alaskas were an outgrowth of the battlecruiser idea, no contest-

Construction-wise, however, they're kinda special. BC designs are normally following battleship principles while sacrificng armor and/or guns to get more speed. The Alaskas meanwhile quite literally fit the large Cruiser moniker - their design was that of an enlarged cruiser, mirroring smaller US cruiser classes in things like internal layou and sterring setup quite a bit more than it did contemporary american battleships.

Overall, the Large Cruiser designation has a sound reason to exist - it just happens that in terms of tactical/operational concerns, there's no real difference between it and a battlecruiser, so it's really hair-splitting.

File: l_p0028865513.jpg (68KB, 650x680px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 650x680px

I rabu kongou-chan!

File: 1467564739698.png (580KB, 630x840px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 630x840px

>>30502781
>Liking old hags
Shit taste, Chink.

>>30501229
by 39 they had decent ones, although not outstanding, in ww1 they had slightly better rangefinders and ranging techniques, but notably inferiority in terms of fire control and director firing

File: Laughing_Admiral.jpg (49KB, 720x457px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 720x457px

>>30502954
>WW2 surface kriegsmarine

File: 1458590989424.jpg (94KB, 666x1000px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 666x1000px

>>30502986
I could've made an elaborate shitpost explaining how they were actually good.

But I know it's not true, you know it's not true and /k/ knows it's not true. Still they made the sexiest fucking ships compared to the rest. Well, Yamato was an exception of course.

>>30503006
>Good
>Getting boxed into the Baltic and still fucking up interdiction
>Getting smashed off south america
>Doing so poorly Hitler orders you to scrap your shit or act as shore-bombardment for the land war in russia

At least they did better than pasta ships.

>>30503050
Pasta ships managed to exist until 1943 unlike the Krauts.

>>30503050
Hey now, the pastas at least had a few actions in which they did batshit crazy stuff. Like having a fucking glorified DE charge at and chase off a taskforce of three cruisers and five destoyers all by itself.

File: __bismarck_and_roma_euro_2016_and_kantai_collection_drawn_by_kinosuke_sositeimanoga__ef31930f01aa07ed81956574d6bc7300.jpg (57KB, 600x664px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x664px

>>30503068
>>30503095

They where still mostly a joke (like most of the Italian armed forces) that survived only because they hid behind germany's skirt. Their frogmen where good though.

>>30503149
...in the med it was more like the Germans hiding behind the Italian's skirts. Not exactly a lot the krauts had there outside of commandeered freighters and barges that the Italians had to guard for them.

>>30503149
Germany didn't have a navy in the med. Italians held the Med ocean while the KM took potshots at straggling cargo ships.