Jump to content


HMAS Canberra

Battle of Savo Island

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

Fizwalker #1 Posted 05 May 2017 - 06:54 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 25
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

HMAS Canberra.... A ship that many have found wanting.  She was pummeled to a wreck before she could man her battle stations on the night of August 8-9 1942. Many things went wrong on that fateful night. Her crew wasn't among those issues. She served honorably and she deserves to be honored in this game. The USN recognized this in naming cruisers during the war and post war, Canberra.... Australia honored us in the same fashion.

 

ANZAC day just passed... I am American, and we couldn't have done what we did in the South Pacific without the men and women of Australia and New Zealand. Other than the words here... I don't know how to honor them like they ought to be.  However, a start would be to put HMAS Canberra in game. The USN honored this ship by naming cruisers and ships after its loss.... We can honor them by encouraging WG to help veterans of Australian and U.S. wars. If HMAS Canberra is added it is my sincerest wish that some of the profits be donated to helping those that have served both the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand.

 

We're all brothers, we all bleed red...and we all fought tooth and nail to be where we are. Lets honor those that made this happen. The HMAS Perth is in game.... Lets get the HMAS Canberra in game too.  

 

Thank you for reading this, and I hope you support this idea.  

 

Thank you for your time.

Very respectfully, 


Fizwalker


Edited by Fizwalker, 05 May 2017 - 07:33 AM.


1_2_8_9 #2 Posted 05 May 2017 - 07:39 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 227
  • Member since:
    04-26-2016
nice idea, never really thought about the Canberra being in the game as a premium.

 

[TEARZ] Deputy Commander

​5th Best Chapayev Player On NA (WR)

Current Ships: Gearing X, Montana X, Midway X, Des Moines X, Fletcher IX, Iowa IX, North Carolina VIII, New Orleans VIII, Ranger VII,, Myogi IV, Isokaze IV, Hosho IV, Zuiho V,, Khabarovsk X, Shchors VII, Budyonny VI, Derzki III, ​Minotaur X, Neptune IX, Fiji VII, Leander VI, Tirpitz VIII, Prinz Eugen VIII, Mikhail Kutuzov VIII, Sims VII, Belfast VII, Indianapolis VII, Scharnhorst VII, Saipan VII Blyskawica VII, Arizona VI, Murmansk V, Campbeltown III, Mikasa II


BladedPheonix #3 Posted 05 May 2017 - 07:50 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester

  • 5,522
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
might be able to be slotted for the Commonwealth branch. Though if it does get picked its going to be on the back burner, because WG wants to add more French lines and Italy before the year ends!:read_fish:

Ace_04 #4 Posted 05 May 2017 - 12:04 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,452
  • Member since:
    06-01-2015

Once WG models the Kent-class heavy cruisers for the Royal Navy, I see no reason that she wouldn't be inserted into the Commonwealth tree as a premium.

 

She has enough historical significance to justify it.

 

 


[-K-] Kraken

"In war, there are no atheists.  Both sides are asking God for help" - Cmdr. Terry Goddard


Rabidnid3 #5 Posted 05 May 2017 - 09:34 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 328
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

HMAS Australia is another candidate.

 

https://en.wikipedia..._Australia_(D84)



HMS_Formidable #6 Posted 06 May 2017 - 12:56 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,012
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

Canberra is easily out-matched by Australia when it comes to historical record.

 

But I guess her role in Guadalcanal may mean she has more marketability to a US audience.


http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


crzyhawk #7 Posted 06 May 2017 - 04:29 AM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,811
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 05 May 2017 - 07:56 PM, said:

Canberra is easily out-matched by Australia when it comes to historical record.

 

But I guess her role in Guadalcanal may mean she has more marketability to a US audience.

 

Might want to save Australia for the BC too

 



Rabidnid3 #8 Posted 06 May 2017 - 04:55 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 328
  • Member since:
    10-12-2016

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 06 May 2017 - 12:56 AM, said:

Canberra is easily out-matched by Australia when it comes to historical record.

 

But I guess her role in Guadalcanal may mean she has more marketability to a US audience.

 

Not sure that is a factor. They picked Perth rather than Sydney for the Australian CL.

HMS_Formidable #9 Posted 07 May 2017 - 07:11 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,012
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View PostRabidnid3, on 06 May 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

 

Not sure that is a factor. They picked Perth rather than Sydney for the Australian CL.

 

Perth sank with Houston.

Sydney had nothing to do with the US.

Therefore Canberra.


http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


crzyhawk #10 Posted 07 May 2017 - 06:06 PM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,811
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015
I doubt that the fact that Perth sank with the Houston has anything to do with it.  Is not Perth more famous in Australia too?


HMS_Formidable #11 Posted 08 May 2017 - 03:06 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,012
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View Postcrzyhawk, on 08 May 2017 - 03:36 AM, said:

I doubt that the fact that Perth sank with the Houston has anything to do with it.  Is not Perth more famous in Australia too?

 

Not more famous than Sydney in Australia, not by a wide margin.

She is certainly still known.

But Sydney's tour of duty in the Mediterranean where she sunk Colleoni and damaged Bande Nere and was involved in numerous engagements made her a 'hero' ship, even before the mystery of her loss (with all hands) against Kormoran.

But only hard-core US naval buffs would even be aware that there were more surface actions in the Med than in the Pacific.

 

The North American market would, however, have heard far more about Perth as she would have been rammed down their throats by being Houston's companion.

Put in context, the Australian market is only 26 million.

 

Thus the similar situation with Canberra at Savo (and the USN applied her name to one of their cruisers as commemoration).

HMAS Australia and Hobart's Pacific service (and to a similar extent HMNZS Achilles) tends not to be mentioned in US books, which is probably fair enough as they were usually just random components of any given Task Force.

 

For example, there's usually a response of incredulity on forums such as these when one mention's the British Pacific Fleet (or Task Force, as the case may be). This quickly devolves to flag-waving to maintain comfort zones.

 


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 08 May 2017 - 03:16 AM.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


crzyhawk #12 Posted 09 May 2017 - 12:12 PM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,811
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 07 May 2017 - 10:06 PM, said:

But only hard-core US naval buffs would even be aware that there were more surface actions in the Med than in the Pacific.

 

I'm pretty sure that those buffs would be wrong, and that there were more surface actions in the Pacific, by a long shot.


Hot_tamale25 #13 Posted 09 May 2017 - 01:05 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 151
  • Member since:
    02-06-2016

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 08 May 2017 - 03:06 AM, said:

 

Not more famous than Sydney in Australia, not by a wide margin.

She is certainly still known.

But Sydney's tour of duty in the Mediterranean where she sunk Colleoni and damaged Bande Nere and was involved in numerous engagements made her a 'hero' ship, even before the mystery of her loss (with all hands) against Kormoran.

But only hard-core US naval buffs would even be aware that there were more surface actions in the Med than in the Pacific.

 

The North American market would, however, have heard far more about Perth as she would have been rammed down their throats by being Houston's companion.

Put in context, the Australian market is only 26 million.

 

Thus the similar situation with Canberra at Savo (and the USN applied her name to one of their cruisers as commemoration).

HMAS Australia and Hobart's Pacific service (and to a similar extent HMNZS Achilles) tends not to be mentioned in US books, which is probably fair enough as they were usually just random components of any given Task Force.

 

For example, there's usually a response of incredulity on forums such as these when one mention's the British Pacific Fleet (or Task Force, as the case may be). This quickly devolves to flag-waving to maintain comfort zones.

 

Eh I don't agree with this. As an American and a Texan I never heard anyone talk about Houston or even ww2 naval battles. The only naval battles I remember even being touched on in school were Pearl Harbor and Midway. So we're talking about a very small subset of the American population who has heard of Houston and chances are if they've heard of Houston they are probably well educated about naval warfare in ww2 which means they know about Sydney. My theory is that WG planned to add the Town class cruiser HMAS Sydney at tier II so as to fight Emden and sell some starter bundle with the two ships. Even though Houston is tied with Exeter as my favorite ship I didn't buy Perth but I would have bough Sydney. As far as the Commonwealth tree goes I expect it to be made up of premiums, however there is a possibility of a gunboat DD line that serves as a DD split from the Royal Navy's DD line. As far as Sydney goes I wouldn't say it's impossible she shows up as a one time offer, kind of how we have Alabama but there are rumors that Massachusetts is coming



Phoenix_jz #14 Posted 09 May 2017 - 01:11 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,322
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View Postcrzyhawk, on 09 May 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

 

I'm pretty sure that those buffs would be wrong, and that there were more surface actions in the Pacific, by a long shot.

 

36 versus 55, in favor of the Middle Sea.


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


crzyhawk #15 Posted 09 May 2017 - 08:14 PM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,811
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015
Are you counting PT boat actions?  55 seems awfully high.


Phoenix_jz #16 Posted 09 May 2017 - 10:17 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,322
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View Postcrzyhawk, on 09 May 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

Are you counting PT boat actions?  55 seems awfully high.

 

I don't have the exact data for what was counted and what wasn't, but I'd imagine whatever metric used was standardized for all the theaters.

 

Spoiler

 

I would not be surprised if it only included actions involving ships of a size of corvettes and larger, as people tend to forget how many actions there were fought by smaller warships, because the bigger capital ship on capital ship actions tend to draw all the attention.

 

The book the table comes from is this;

 

https://www.amazon.c...5/dp/1591141966

 


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


HMS_Formidable #17 Posted 10 May 2017 - 12:22 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,012
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

Pacific certainly had more bigger actions.

 

Med was a hotbed of convoy / counter-convoy actions involving small groups of cruisers and / or destroyers. Particularly in the Sicily-Malta-Tripoli area where RN and Axis supply lines crossed. But also in the Greece-Crete-Tobruk triangle. Most of which can only be read about in old / obscure publications.

 

The one linked above is a rare new account. But a good summarisation of five years worth of surface combat.


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 10 May 2017 - 12:25 AM.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


Phoenix_jz #18 Posted 13 May 2017 - 03:31 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,322
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View Postcrzyhawk, on 09 May 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

Are you counting PT boat actions?  55 seems awfully high.

 

Sorry it took a while to confirm, but the number includes actions of only minesweeper sized and upwards.

Specifically, the minimum specification is to have weaponry if at least 3.5", be capable of at least 15 knots, and be at least 500 tons


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


212thAttackBattalion #19 Posted 13 May 2017 - 03:54 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,025
  • Member since:
    10-10-2012

personally I'd prefer to see HMAS Australia II come into the game because of her historical significance and the name... she'd be the first ship named for a country put into the game, a special and unique distinction for us Aussies.

 

(edit: Fiji doesn't count because when HMNZS Fiji was commissioned, Fiji was a colony, not an independent country like Australia)


Edited by 212thAttackBattalion, 13 May 2017 - 03:55 PM.

I really am just your average, every-man World of Warships player. My play style according to Warships today:

  • Mostly plays cruisers, especially medium-tier and is very good in them
  • Deals an above average amount of damage
  • Extremely rarely uses torpedoes
  • Key vehicle - Fiji

HMS_Formidable #20 Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:19 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,012
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View Post212thAttackBattalion, on 14 May 2017 - 01:24 AM, said:

personally I'd prefer to see HMAS Australia II come into the game because of her historical significance and the name... she'd be the first ship named for a country put into the game, a special and unique distinction for us Aussies.

 

(edit: Fiji doesn't count because when HMNZS Fiji was commissioned, Fiji was a colony, not an independent country like Australia)

 

Yeah, the argument is that for some reason HMAS Australia (I) - the battlecruiser - would be a better premium. I don't think so personally, she was just representative of a fairly numerous line of battlecruisers - including HMS New Zealand!
HMAS Australia (II) at least had something of a war record to point at as a premium.

Personally, even as an Aussie, I'd vote HMS London (rebuilt) as the Heavy Cruiser premium.


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 14 May 2017 - 01:28 AM.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users