Jump to content


HMAS Canberra

Battle of Savo Island

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

Hot_tamale25 #21 Posted 14 May 2017 - 03:40 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 154
  • Member since:
    02-06-2016

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 14 May 2017 - 01:19 AM, said:

 

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.

 

So could you have premium wise for Commonwealth cruisers/battlecruisers:

 

II- HMAS Sydney

III- New Zealand

V- Achilles in 1945 configuration (would be an AA ship with DFAA, Achilles's X turret was destroyed and was replaced by AA)

VI- Perth or maybe Sydney II

VII- Canberra or Australia

VIII- Perhaps a London refit with significant buffs could work here? 



HMS_Formidable #22 Posted 14 May 2017 - 10:56 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

My fail: London isn't Commonwealth. It's RN. I was thinking in terms of RN heavy cruiser designs...

 

You could also slot in Black Prince and Royalist as RNZN cruisers ... but Wargaming seem to be in denial as to the existence of the Dido-class multipurpose cruisers (the single most numerous class of cruisers in the WW2 RN).


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 14 May 2017 - 10:56 PM.

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 #23 Posted 15 May 2017 - 07:25 AM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,855
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015
I don't think they are in denial, I think that they have no business in the tech tree.  It's not like they have given us a cubic buttload of RN premium cruisers.


HMS_Formidable #24 Posted 15 May 2017 - 06:46 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

Leander should have been at 5, Dido at 6, Southampton/Fiji 7

No reason at all Dido cannot be in tree to represent the most built WW2 RN cruiser.

And they fought hard enough.

Sure she only has 10 5.25s against Cleveland's 12 6in at that tier. But i dont believe the 'Tweaking and gimmicks' would have been as heavy as forcing Leander into T6

With the bonus of offering Reasonable support AA, give her a bit of a rate-of-fire buff and Dido would do fine doing what Leander already does at that tier. Sure it breaks the ridiculous armour-piercing only 'flavour', but so what?

Dido's no Atlanta. But she doesnt need to be.


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 #25 Posted 16 May 2017 - 12:29 AM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,855
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

The problem is going from 6-inch to 5.25-inch to 6-inch again.  it's just as crummy of a progressing as Cleveland being slammed into T6.

 

I agree with you that Leander is a T5.  I agree with you that Dido is a T6.  I just disagree that she should be part of the tree.  I feel like she should be a premium.  Like Atlanta, she's not like a "regular" cruiser and is thus suited for premium duty.


Edited by crzyhawk, 16 May 2017 - 12:29 AM.


Lord_Magus #26 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:01 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,571
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016

View PostRabidnid3, on 05 May 2017 - 04:34 PM, said:

HMAS Australia is another candidate.

 

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

 

Australia undoubtedly had a more impressive war record, and was also just a better ship (survived long enough to get AA upgrades, and had decent belt armor added in 1939). Canbera would need to be a T6 given how flimsy she was, while Australia could be T7.

 

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

 

Well I for one am hoping we get the original HMAS Sydney as a T3 premium. Then I can reenact the clobbering of SMS Emden.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users