Are warships /m/?

>>15775982
The fancy tech kind, sure. Age of sail and earlier, not really. Modern stuff... eh, it's a stretch and /k/'s a far better fit.

File: 8e284c90-c258-11e6-9530-d89d6715223c_1200x.jpg (196KB, 1200x790px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1200x790px

Yamato needs a buff.

File: s511-64.jpg (543KB, 3000x1370px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 3000x1370px

>>15775982

Ever since I played Naval Ops/Kurogane no Houkou I've been hooked on warships. Of particular interest to me are some of the designs that were proposed but never built (A commonplace thing for many naval ships due to the costs of building one).

A good source for these is the US Navy "Spring Styles" books, which were effectively preliminary design sketches for various warships in the US navy. Unfortunately the only ones available online are #1 and #3.

http://www.shipscribe.com/styles/index.html

There's another mirror on another site but for some reason they removed book #1. I have no idea why.

Also, my waifu class, the Des Moines-class heavy cruiser. Features the largest fully automatic cannons ever built (I think). More information on the 8"/55RF Mark 16 here:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk16.php

And a video demonstrating the autoloader for both it and the 3"/50RF (The latter of which basically replaced the 40mm Bofors):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICifnf63lCs

File: page15-1051-full.jpg (125KB, 1250x960px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1250x960px

>>15776214

Also, some other designs not on ShipScribe:

Erie-class patrol gunboat.

File: Schnelle_GrosseKampfschiffe_4541_100dpi.jpg (677KB, 2362x1474px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 2362x1474px

>>15776229

GK4541, a proposed WWI German battlecruiser/fast battleship.

>>15776238

Another German oddity from The Dreadnought Project, the Tauchschiff (Dive ship).

Basically a U-boat on steroids, otherwise known as a U-cruiser (Or outside of German parlance a cruiser submarine).

The file's too large so I'll provide a direct link instead:

http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Projekt_50_1918/

>>15776265
That's insane for 1918.

File: USCGC_Owasco_(WPG-39).jpg (47KB, 867x739px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 867x739px

>>15776265

Not a general layout drawing, but only recently did I hear about the Owasco-class patrol gunboats.

I have a thing for cute little boats like these.

Playing cruiser is suffering.Virtually no armor but not as fast and agile like destroyer, guns are not as good as battleships.

File: ARP_Kongō_wows_main.jpg (904KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 1920x1080px

>>15776199
Is there still anyway to get Arpeggio ships?

File: 1215147407.jpg (308KB, 1500x1290px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1500x1290px

>>15776323

Cruisers are generally designed to prey on smaller ships. That's why there are multiple subclasses of cruiser (Scout, light, medium, heavy, large, battle) basically designed to blow up whatever is in the rung directly below.

Another word to note, battlecruisers should NOT be compared to battleships. They are designed for an entirely different role: to blow up other cruisers. Battleships are designed with the defense needed to survive direct hits from their own guns, and because they're generally slow as hell they're only useful against other battleships (Or shore bombardment). Battlecruisers have decent armor for a cruiser, but still lack the ability to survive their own attacks. Jutland was just a badly run battle, if the battlecruisers were used correctly they would've been far more effective.

Also worth noting is that the Iowa-class "fast battleships" are in fact battlecruisers - they had no chance of surviving their own guns, especially given that the 16"/50 Mark 7 was designed around "super-heavy" ammunition with near-equivalent penetration to the 46 cm guns used on the Yamato-class battleships.

That doesn't make them bad though, I actually like battlecruisers and I bet that if Iowa went against Yamato it'd actually win. It has equivalent power in its ammunition, is much faster, and most importantly has a much more advanced fire control system.

Japanese ships during WWII were generally overrated in my mind, unless they were destroyers (And possibly some submarines).

Also, a picture I didn't have in my own collection, of a submarine chaser. I've been looking for a similar class but I can't find it. Bah.

File: Naganami.jpg (385KB, 3035x1504px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 3035x1504px

>>15776377

Of course, when it comes to Destroyer designs the Japanese are winners, hands down.

The Type 98 "oxygen torpedoes" had several times the range of contemporary designs and were barely noticeable in the water. They also came in reload packs, which is unusual for most destroyers. A Kagero or Yuugumo class destroyer only technically had eight tubes, but could carry sixteen torpedoes total.

I think they should've combined the Yuugumo with the Shimakaze's propulsion system, but as people would say "It's the candle that burns twice as hot". Specifically, having 16 oxygen torpedoes + a high-pressure boiler? Recipe for disaster.

Also, because I suck I'm just ripping off Wikipedia.

File: Gridley_class__schematic_full.jpg (189KB, 1353x671px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1353x671px

>>15776402

By the way, my favorite US destroyer class is the Gridley-class, which is made even more interesting by the fact it's a treaty destroyer (And thus was subject to a stringent 1,500t displacement limit). On this tiny little boat they managed to stuff sixteen torpedoes and a propulsion system that got it up over 38 knots!

Unfortunately, top-heaviness made it unable to equip the 40mm Bofors guns, which were widely regarded as necessary against aircraft attack (Especially kamikazes).

>>15775982
Stick to sci-fi stuff here. Go to /k/ and /tg/'s Naval Wargame thread for modern, historical stuff.

FISHER DID NOTHING WRONG.

>>15776402
>"oxygen torpedoes"
Wonder if the original Godzilla movie was inspired by that name.

File: f6ea8260-15ec-11e7-a219-38eaa7374f3c.jpg (889KB, 1200x790px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 1200x790px

>>15776340
Not currently.

However, the Haifuri Harekaze and HSF Graf Spee are available for cash.

File: 168961.jpg (37KB, 225x350px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 225x350px

>>15776547

>>15775982
Not /m/ by our standards, but to a japanese they're definitely "mecha".

Although, when you think about it warships are really like IRL mecha. Massive mechanical monsters duking it out in a never ending arms race, a product of brand new engine technology and unparalleled for a century in their application of machinery to warfare. Unlike mecha they're usually crewed by hundreds, though steamers like 1860's HMS Warrior did have early "bridges" where the captain could control the ship from. The USS Monitor, built 1861, included a pilothouse, cockpit essentially, at the fore of the ship.

The monitor was my personal favorite warship, it and those of its style had a freeboard of a few feet and slunk around like 19th century subs in an age where naval tactics saw the inclusion of turret ships and broadsides, wooden iron and composite builds, tons of sizes and armor configurations, new mechanics and experimental designs. Masted cruisers, torpedo boats, gunboats, cruisers, citadel ships, battleships, ships of the line, floating batteries, and monitors fought together. I suggest Conway's 1860-1905 for a full review of the era.

>>15776700
Pretty much. Until WW2, they were the physical embodiment of a nation's technological, industrial & martial prowess. This pretty much held true even for Napoleonic era ships of the line.

Yeah, I always have pdf's of Conway's stashed in my tablet for leisure reading. Also Norman Friedman's stuff.

>>15776340
No, the contract between War Gaming and Arpeggio of Blue Steel expired back in December. War Gaming can't even touch them which is a shame since they redid the game's voice commands which the Arpeggio voices can't cover.

Königsburg and Nürnberg are best cruisers in the game. They have the best torp/gun/speed/armor ratio of the German tree and perhaps of all cruisers.

>>15778768
First game I had with my Konigsburg I got a Kracken and over 100k damage

>>15775982

No.

>>>/k/
>>>/his/

>>15778768

Sounds like bullshit to me, given that the Fargo class and Oregon City class outgun, outrun, and out-armor both according to real-life statistics.

And then there's Des Moines.

>>15779371
What if they add an extra cannon to it and call it a space warship?

>>15779371
>jets are /m/
>tanks and warships are not

What gives?

>>15779411
Fargo and Oragon class aren't in the game and the Des Moines is Tier 10 while Konigsburg is Tier 5

>>15778768
Königsburg is good but I don't know about Nürnberg, it's like the same ship but a tier higher.

File: img01455-20110327-1420.jpg (654KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 2048x1536px

>>15779565

What makes this even more weird is that people are starting to take tanks being /m/ for granted.

Maybe if we do things so zany they should be a work of fiction? Pic related

>>15779584

Do they at least have Baltimore and Cleveland? Because those classes are very similar and still outperform Konigsburg and Nurnberg.

File: 1*9yirFgXgcFzonGrD67PqfQ.png (2MB, 1200x797px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x797px

>there was literally only one time in human history that battleships fought each other in the way the class's designer envisioned

It's not fair, Jutland shouldn't have been a one-time thing!

File: plan_for_ussr_hybrid_battleship_carrier_by_yamato74-db3xzeh.jpg (95KB, 1023x470px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1023x470px

>>15779619

Also, KanColle Re-Class was an actual thing.

Proposed to the Soviet navy as well. Thank God it was never submitted.

File: usNkxNd.png (293KB, 915x1260px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 915x1260px

>>15779621

That in itself is even questionable, given that both sides were retards that confused battleships with battlecruisers.

Oh, and don't get me started on throwing Hood at Bismarck.

Also, a maximum battleship that for the most part outperformed Yamato.

File: Yamato_explosion.jpg (250KB, 590x698px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 590x698px

>>15779621
Aircraft carriers becoming a thing meant that there was absolutely zero reason to pit equal forces against each other anymore. The whole point of war is to win, and to do so in the most unfair way possible.

Why would you send a multi-million dollar capital ship out to do battle with another multi-million dollar capital ship, and risk losing it or at the least suffering heavy damage and casualties, when instead you could throw a few dozen planes worth a few thousand dollars apiece at it, and guarantee victory?

>>15779619
Yeah Baltimore and Cleveland are in the game, Cleveland is absolutely amazing in game

>>15779621
I know that the US managed to cross the Jap's T during the battle of Lyete Gulf. Although iirc the skirmish was a mostly one sided affair. Something like a half dozen US Battleships and a similar number of cruisers (plus a shitload of destroyers and PT boats) ambushed a couple of Japanese battleships and their escorts.

>>15779767
There was also when the USS Washington sunk Kirishima making the first and last time in history when a Battleship sunk another Battleship

>>15779793

I thought Kirishima was a battlecruiser.

...Sorry to cockblock you all.

>>15779797
The Kongos are considered Fast Battleships but you could also argue that they are Battlecruisers

>>15779797
First iterstion of Kongou was a battlecruiser.
Later she was refitted with extra shit that made her a fast battleship

>>15775994
Warships, tanks, and military aircraft have always been /m/.

>>15779876
>>15779885
Is there actually a hard and fast division between battleships and battlecruisers? I remember looking into it a rather long time ago and concluding that everyone just called their ships whatever they felt like.

>>15779888
Technically, yes, but the rare threads we've had have traditionally done ok at best. The last little while (this thread included) has been a nice change on that front.

>>15779908
Battlecruisers are basically ships with light armor of a cruiser but the guns of a Battleship. Battleships are just heavily armored ships with high caliber guns

>>15779885

>8-inch uniform belt once upgraded
>Still had 14-inch guns, which could easily penetrate the belt

Sounds like a battlecruiser to me. See: >>15776377

>>15779565

Jets aren't /m/, though. Jets are /k/.

I know /m/ is a "big tent" subject because mecha can literally be anything as long as somebody in the development team goes "hey, what if we did it with robots."

>what if we did the Romance of the Three Kingdoms
>BUT WITH ROBOTS

With the laissez-faire moderation we have (implying we have mods) we can talk about nearly anything, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily /m/. I like it this way, as when we pull our heads out of our ass and stop responding to the blatant shitposts we can have some really incredible discussions, but that doesn't mean every thing is mecha.

>>15779962
>>what if we did the Romance of the Three Kingdoms
>>BUT WITH ROBOTS
I'd watch the shit out of that.

>>15779988
SD Gundam Sangokuden

>>15779962
if it's mechanical it's mecha

>>15779908
IIRC battlecruisers had the armor of a cruiser but battleship-class guns. Basically an attempt to make them 2fast.

>>15780257
But what if it's not japanese?

>>15776214
What about Rule the Waves?

>>15779621
But that's not true. Aside from Jutland, there were a lot of naval battles between surface ships, including battleships, during the Pacific War and even during WW1.

>>15780330

Yeah but Jutland was the only time when it was the way envisioned where both sides would just make a line of their battleships/battlecruisers and bombard the living shit out of each other with not much else happening in the battle.

>>15780301

Yeah then it turned out to be a bad idea because it didn't make them fast enough AND now they would be essentially oneshot by battleship guns.

File: 1355962550431.jpg (86KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 640x480px

>>15779636
>Why would you send a multi-million dollar capital ship out to do battle with another multi-million dollar capital ship, and risk losing it or at the least suffering heavy damage and casualties

FOR GLORY!

>>15779636
If Galipoli has taught me anything, logic has no meaning to ship captains, it's all about their gut feeling.

>>15780302
Is western mecha a kind of mecha?

File: BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg (2MB, 2354x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2354x3000px

>>15780336

See: >>15776377

Battlecruisers have an entirely different role from battleships. Battleships are, well, just designed to dish it out in a giant line of battle. They're designed to be protected against their own guns, since chances are that's what the enemy has in their own battleships. This comes at the cost of speed; most battleships are slow as fuck compared to other vessels.

Battlecruisers, on the other hand, are never designed to go toe-to-toe with a battleship. The entire point of a battlecruiser is to chase smaller cruisers, such as large cruisers, heavy cruisers, light cruisers, etc and blast the shit out of them. Unfortunately people are apparently retards and they used battlecruisers so badly that they stopped claiming anything they built was a battlecruiser, even if it was (See below).

I define a battlecruiser from a battleship in that a battlecruiser doesn't have enough armor to survive being hit by its own weapons. Iowa is a battlecruiser, it has just over twelve inches of armor but its guns can penetrate sixteen. Compare to Montana which has the same guns but a sixteen-inch belt. Montana by that standard is a battleship.

The US just called Iowa a "fast battleship" because the name "battlecruiser" had such a bad rap, but as we can see - definitionally the most successful capital ship class is indeed a battlecruiser. Iowa was even used successfully as a battlecruiser against Katori, which just goes to show someone eventually developed a brain regarding their usage.

tl;dr battlecruisers should never be treated the same as battleships, Iowa is a battlecruiser.

>>15782292
Yeah and guess what, Britain paid the price because their battlecruisers were getting destroyed left and right at Jutland. They never should've given up the armor.

File: shot-17.08.16_01.23.46-0747.jpg (438KB, 1360x768px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1360x768px

Why does Konigsberg has two turret on the rear but only one on the front?

>>15782300

I honestly think they shouldn't have brought the battlecruisers to Jutland to begin with, unless they intended to destroy the cruisers and destroyers escorting the battleships (From which I understand were also virtually nonexistent).

Likewise they should've sent that King George V class to fight Bismarck and had Hood fight the heavy cruiser escorting it. Things would have worked out a lot better that way.

>>15782332

They expected that they would be being chased by other cruisers instead of following them.

Same reason why destroyers usually have the third turret in the rear. They're going so fast everything will have trouble keeping up. More power to the leader.

>>15776199
>Yamato
That overweight ugly bitch should just lay down and die.

>>15782387
You know you really shouldn't talk about yourself like that

>>15782292

Oh yeah, something worthy of note:

The 1934 "maximum battleship" (See: >>15779633 ) is also essentially a battlecruiser, but only by the technicality that it'd need a 20-inch belt (Which is literally impossible - the thickest Krupp cemented steel belt ever built was 16.5 inches) to survive its cannons.

In other words, maximizing a ship's performance would inevitably result in building a battlecruiser due to the constraints of working with armor. Does that mean it can't destroy literally any other battleship if both fired at each other nonstop? No.

>>15779627

Considering the USSR didn't even have the luxury of completing the Sovietsky Soyuz-class (including scrapping all work done on the hulls they had managed), I don't think it would've been that much of a worry.

>>15782492

Well the thing is that we were going to build them and send it to them, not have them build it ourselves.

Same policy used for many nations that lacked good shipyards but had enough money to have someone else build their ships (Commonplace in coastal defense ships).

So, basically we would have spent a shitton of resources to build the most powerful battlecarriers in existence, then mailed them to who would become our enemy in a mere eight years.

>>15782509

*not have them build it themselves

>>15782509
Could always do what Churchill did and tell the Ottomans— I mean, the Russians, that the ships are ours now.

>>15782723

Yeah, we can at least hope that happened in the majority of parallel universes.

The worrying thing, though, is that we didn't really view the Soviets as enemies until WWII was over. Granted, it would have taken years for them to be built so maybe I'm thinking too much in pessimistic fashion.

>>15782347
Can't they just make it 4x3?

>>15782785

That would increase the cost and displacement, and I'm pretty sure when Konigsberg was built there were still displacement limits on cruisers.

Most light cruisers within the treaty restrictions were 4 by 3s though, since it was intended that the instant the 155mm gun limit was lifted they'd swap all of the turrets out for 8-inch twins. The US was a rare example in that they just replaced the turrets entirely, using three 8in triple turrets instead of four 6in triples.

Hm, looking into Konigsberg now. Yeah, it was a treaty cruiser. I'm surprised they couldn't give it four turrets though, every other nation seemed to have little issue with it.

I bet it has something to do with the fact that German hardware was generally bad at managing weight. The armor schemes in particular were way heavier than they needed to be.

>>15779636

Should have brought this up earlier, but I'll do it now.

One of the reasons for aircraft carriers' rise to power wasn't necessarily because they were more effective than battleships (I mean, they were, but that wasn't the "primary" reason) was actually because carriers weren't put under a crapload of treaty restrictions like battleships were.

In fact, as far as anyone was concerned, there weren't limits at all on carriers. Meanwhile battleships had to have at most fourteen-inch guns (Which nobody except the British ended up obeying, so they changed it to sixteen inches) and had to displace 35,000 tons at most.

Same treaty also established that a ship counts as a capital ship if it has 10,000 tons displacement or higher, or has guns bigger than 8 inches in diameter. Capital ships were highly restricted so they just took all their heavy cruisers and gave them more 6in guns. Bamf, problem solved.

Part of the reason why large cruisers like the Alaska class were built was to take advantage of the fact the treaties had ended - everyone had loads of these treaty cruisers in their inventory, so they just needed something slightly larger to annihilate them all.

>>15782334
Here's the thing though, the germans made different battlecruisers used at Jutland, and I think what they did was sacrifice firepower instead of armor. Which meant they could withstand battleship armor but also destroy british battlecruisers.

>>15778768
Nurnburg is superior of the two; only due to having the HE 1/4 pen (IFHE) built-in without any fire-starting penalty aside from German flavor.

>>15775982
How does this game compare to World of Tanks?

Is it worth playing if I already like World of Tanks?

>>15783303
The only similarity to WoT is angling mechanics, and maybe certain overmatch mechanics. The rest of the gameplay is different enough, and the combat is a lot slower and more strategic.

No P2W gold ammo, but you can opt for Premium consumables, buy your way into tiers, or buy economy-boosting consumable flags to help speed your way up the XP/credit gain.

As to the last question; it depends. There's some WoT players who came to enjoy it, and others who hated it because it's much slower-paced.

>>15783303
It feels like an eternity to grind in WoT but in warships I actually feel like I'm making progress

>>15775982
CV needs buffs

>Arpeggio

I still can't get over how awesome the movie was

>beam saber VS drill
>Kongo chomp

>>15783072

I suppose when you think about it German battlecruisers made more sense than British ones because they had the armor and speed needed to chase and trade shots with smaller cruisers but still had at least enough firepower to legitimately destroy them. After all, an 11in gun still penetrates a 6in belt.

Still by no means effective against battleships though. I suppose it would be possible if you maneuvered correctly but dodging shells in a capital ship is difficult to say the least.

Wasn't there a battlecruiser that managed to dodge an absurd number of Japanese aerial torpedoes during WWII though, or am I just delusional? I know it still got sunk anyway, but the statistics still boggled me.

>>15783915

Looked it up.

Repulse managed to dodge 19 torpedoes before getting struck. Granted, it took only three more to sink, but that's still ridiculous.

File: HMS_Victoria_(1887)_William_Frederick_Mitchell.jpg (78KB, 800x551px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x551px

Let's build a ship with two big, five-minute reload guns and then lose it in a showoff peacetime manoeuvre. Truly, this is /m/.

>>15784164
GOODLUCK THUUUNDERCHIIILD

Just research Nurnberg Please tell me it isn't just a Konigsberg at a tier higher.

Also, is the German cruiser line even worth it?

File: wows-Battleship Game.png (15KB, 616x182px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 616x182px

>>15784712
>playing anything aside from BBs
I mean you could, but I hope you enjoy hiding behind islands and never using more than half your guns due to angling.

>>15784733
Battleships are too cumbersome for my taste.

File: 70161e6bb7e9.jpg (2MB, 3772x3010px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3772x3010px

>>15784164

Not a battleship, but apparently building ships around a single battleship turret wasn't too uncommon. They were typically used for shore bombardment.

File: 30 Oct 09 (4).jpg (759KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

759KB, 1600x1200px

>>15785299

And a much smaller version capable of operating on rivers.

File: nms-mihail-kogalniceanu-f-45-river-monitor.png (81KB, 1357x686px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1357x686px

>>15785305

This also calls itself a monitor, though it has two turrets rather than one.

anyone interested in Space Battleships and stuff?

https://galacticjunkleague.com/

>>15784712
See >>15783182.

And yes, the KM cruiser line is good enough; Hindenburg is almost a light battleship in some respects.

>>15782897
This helped with the historical development and maturity of aircraft carrier programs, but not their actual combat effectiveness. Post-Treaty battleships like the Yamato were helpless against aerial attack without any air support of their own.