Jump to content

Danyir_Amore

Members
  • Content Сount

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4042

Community Reputation

30 Neutral

About Danyir_Amore

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Yes I would call that disingenuous. Neither of these are examples of "accuracy". While the Scharnhorst scored a hit on her third salvo you forget to mention it took her another twenty minutes to score another hit, not exactly consistent. Warspite was over-shooting the Cesare and happened to hit the funnel because it got in the way of what would otherwise have been a miss. The Straddling of the DD's you mentioned is also deceptive. Just because they landed close enough to throw splinters on the DD's does not mean they were close enough to potentially hit a BB. Even a much smaller land based 155mm can throw potentially deadly splinters over an area the size of a BB let alone a BB caliber shell. This in no way indicates accuracy capable of threatening a protected magazine.
  2. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    And what FCS were being used at the time that these ships received their armor refits? What was being used when Dunkerque was built? This kinda matters for the discussion since the ships in question were built/rebuilt and designed based on the capabilities at their time. The Kongo class's refit had enough horizontal armor to handle plunging fire from any realistic scenario involving the battleships the IJN planned on having them fight. By the time any FCS was in common service that could engage at such a range in WWII even the fast battleships were obsolete as anything other than AA escorts and shore bombardment. Even when the opportunity was presented they still did not engage BB's at such ranges. This is disingenuous, such fights were rare because the new systems were themselves rare and fights between BB's were also rare because they had been rendered obsolete by aircraft and Submarine. Despite this the USN had a very clear opportunity to shoot at BB's at such range at Surigao strait. Admiral Oldendorfs ships had the fancy radar fire control systems by then that picked up the Japanese fleet at a range of 38km which our resident armchair admiral assures us was "critical danger" range. For some strange reason Admiral Oldendorf had his ships hold their fire until they were under 21km. Could it be that maybe he understood the likelihood of striking a magazine at that range was basically nil, and it would be idiotic to attempt it? Hell at the range they did engage at according to our armchair admiral's wonderful charts and tables, the two Fuso class BB's and the Mogami should not have had any protection against the 14" and 16" shells when they were engaged, yet somehow all three ships survived the gunfire to be torpedoed by DD's or sunk by aircraft.
  3. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    I mean if you think you are smarter than every gunnery officer in the history of ever, then I don't think I've got enough crayons to explain it anyway. Really? They didn't see the need to respond to the Scharnhorst in order to save weight? Look, you've tried pretty damn hard to argue against it, but you can't escape the fact that BC's were made to run away from BB's. Whereas by the beginning of WWII, The Kongo's, the Dunkerques, the Renowns, and the Hood were all meant to go towards BBs and had been designed with that in mind or received refits for the purpose. They were the beginning of the fast Battleships.
  4. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    So you are leaving out that the Dunkerque would be on an intercept course, unless Scharnhorst was running straight away or coming directly at Dunkerque they would be somewhat offset. Not to mention Scharnhorst would have the exact same problem but have fewer guns. More importantly most of the magazine would be protected by the fact it was below the waterline, there was only a small area where a shell could pass through both the water and the armor to hit the magazine without going to high. Not to mention that the shell would also pass through her liquid ballast which was in the spaces marked C and B on that diagram. So yeah there was a weakness to her armor, but it was small and more to the present in all battleships certainly not an "easy" shot. Scharnhorst herself was lost because she took such a hit from the Duke of York (a KGV) to her rear that knocked out a boiler. Prince of Wales (another KGV), took a hit below her belt from Bismarck that passed through the water and would have taken out her boilers if it had exploded, Bismarck in turn received a hit from Prince of Wales that knocked out one of her boilers which resulted in her doom since she lost the speed to return to France. Were these ships just battlecruisers as well since they had flawed protection from other BB's? No Battleship had perfect protection against other battleships, that was simply beyond possibility. Instead their protection was meant to give them a reasonable chance of survival and victory.
  5. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Yeah Pheonix already corrected me on that. But the principal still remains the same, The Dunkerques were meant to fight BB's as well as hunt the Panzerschiffs. This extended mission scope brings them beyond what BC's were meant to do.
  6. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    No ship in the history of ever, has hit another ship at that range. I'm actually an FO, so I know a thing or two about gunnery. Unfortunately I can't really explain it all to you since its classified, but there are reasons why, despite all the silly charts you may see, the record for the longest ever hit was 24 km and involved a lot of luck. That is hitting the entire ship, not a specific point on the ship. There is a reason why most engagements took place at much closer ranges and still involved a lot of missing. Frankly I'm a bit suspicious that you are being disingenuous, since the same sort of sites that are giving you this gunnery information likely also mention that the USN doctrine was to begin opening fire at 25k yds. As for Dunkerque, they stuck all her guns on the fore end for a reason. There was also a reason why they didn't bother to build a ship in response to Scharnhorst, but did build ships in response to the Littorios.
  7. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Same idea, they wanted a ship that could fight the Italian battleships of the time in addition to the Panzerschiffes. The idea of having an expensive BC around when there weren't many CA around to chase down wasn't well received.
  8. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    "The 283 mm SK C/34 gun was relatively fast loading, compared with other armament of this size. It could deliver a shot every 17 seconds. The ballistic properties of the guns made them effective against the new French Dunkerque class, which had an armored belt 225–283 mm, barbettes of 310–340 mm, at standard fighting distances." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_cm_SK_C/34_naval_gun On paper only. You and whoever wrote that misinformed statement are completely ignoring the fact that Dunkerque was designed to approach head on which meant her armor was more than capable of protecting against 11" shells at such angles. Umm again no, the ship was not uncontrollably flooding as a result of four hits, not two. the two that penetrated its armor caused moderate damage as reported by the captain. The ship was did not sink until it was hit by aerial torpedo, not gunfire. And again the point here being that not having impervious armor was shared with the Battleship, that there has never been a battleship with impenetrable armor. And all you did was copy some penetration statistics which completely ignore the realities of combat. shells don't hit nice and flat surfaces in combat, they can hit at some extreme angles which greatly increase the effective thickness of armor, precisely why the Kongos had a complex armor scheme with diagonal bulkheads. As for the Kongo being in "critical danger" at a range of 27500m I would go with no, since those ships weren't capable of hitting each other at all at such ranges let alone the extremely small area they would have to hit the magazine. Furthermore the toughness of the armor scheme was proved by Kirishima, despite suffering at least 11 16"/45 hits (8 visually confirmed by USS Washington, 3 underwater hits confirmed by examination of the wreck, very possibly more) at extremely close range (which no battleship armor would have stopped without being angled) she did not sink for a few hours which allowed most of her crew to survive. This is all moot anyway. The extra armor was not put on these ships so that they could fight heavy cruisers. It was put on in anticipation of fighting other capital ships, this takes them away from the mission of a BC and makes them fast battleships. Yes the Dunkerques were not made to fight those battleships but the older Italian battleships which had 320mm armament. They responded to the later BB's with the Richelieu class.
  9. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    "Vice Admiral Durand-Viel became Chief of Staff in January 1931 and ordered a study replacing the 305mm/55 guns with 330 mm/50 guns to outmatch the old Italian battleships, which carried 320mm/45 guns. This increased displacement by 3000 tons to 26,500 tons, length by 2 metres, beam by 2,5 metres, and reduced speed to 29.5 knots. Two more double 130mm DP turrets were added, and the thickness of the armoured belt and decks were increased slightly.[13][14] This design was approved by Parliamentary committees in early 1932, and Dunkerque was ordered on October 26, and laid down on December 24." They were in fact made to fight actual Battleships, the slightly longer 11" guns of the German BB's were still adequately protected against "Repulse began a major refit at Portsmouth on 17 December 1918[27] intended to drastically improve her armour protection. Her existing 6-inch armour belt was replaced by 9-inch (229 mm) armour plates made surplus by the conversion of the battleship Almirante Cochrane" "Renown was recommissioned in September 1921 for a tour of India and Japan by the Prince of Wales and sailed from Portsmouth in October. The ship arrived back in Portsmouth in June 1922 and she was placed in reserve the following month.[35] The ship began a reconstruction that same month along the lines of her sister, although changes were made based on the experiences with Repulse. Renown's main armour belt was removed and a new 9-inch belt was installed, using up the remaining plates left over from Almirante Cochrane as well as new armour, but installed about 3 feet (0.9 m) higher than on Repulse to offset any increase in draught. A strake of tapered armour was fitted underneath the main belt to deflect any shell that dived beneath the water's surface; it was 9-inches thick at top and thinned to 2 inches (51 mm) at the bottom. The ship's deck armour was heavily reinforced adjacent to its machinery spaces and magazines." 8.9" is similar to 9" "Kongō's armor was also extensively upgraded. Her main belt was strengthened to a uniform thickness of eight inches (up from varying thicknesses of six to eight inches), and also diagonal bulkheads of depths ranging from 5 to 8 inches (127 to 203 mm) were added to reinforce the main armored belt.[22] The turret armor was strengthened to 10 inches (254 mm), while 4 inches (102 mm) were added to portions of the deck armor.[22] Kongō's ammunition magazine protection was also strengthened to 4.0 inches (10 cm).[8] This reconstruction was finished on 8 January 1937.[1] Capable of greater than 30 knots (56 km/h), despite the significant increase in her hull displacement, Kongō was now reclassified as a fast battleship.[13]" While Kongo's main belt was only 8" it was reinforced by another 5-8" in critical areas to give the best weight to protection balance Dunkerque did not sink, and anyway my intention of pointing this out was not to say that Dunkerque was immune to BB's but that BB's were not immune to other BB's either. As pointed out above, yes actually the Kongo's would have protection from those guns in critical areas. You are also conveniently forgetting that the 330's had better penetration than the old 14" guns found on the USN's older BB's, which is what the Kongo's were meant to fight. "The French did decide to go forward with 23,333 tons as a compromise between an inadequately armored 17,000-ton ship and a prohibitively expensive 35,000-ton ship. The design was 213 m long with a 27.5 m beam, and was armed with two quadruple 305 mm/55 caliber turrets forward and three quad 130 mm dual purpose (DP) turrets aft. It had a 230 mm armored belt with 150 mm horizontal protection, and was designed for a speed of 30 knots. This was submitted to Parliament in May, but was rejected after two months of debate – it seemed excessive to counter the (official) 10,000-ton Deutschland with a ship of twice that size. In July, the navy was allowed to carry out revisions for resubmission." This was the design which preceded the aforementioned one. It was shot down precisely because the design was only meant to counter the Deutschland class. The Dunkerque was not approved until its design also made it capable against the Italian Battleships then in service.
  10. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Um yes they could the Dunkerques were designed specifically to protect against those guns and the 320's found on the old Italian BB's that they would likely face. The Kongo's, and the Renown's had similar protection. You seem to be confusing the idea of protecting against a certain caliber with making a ship impervious to a caliber. Most BB's were not in fact immune to fire from their contemporaries, the idea was to Armor the most critical areas of a ship and angle it in such a way that fire from certain areas would be likely to bounce off or not hit anything critical, basically to reduce the damage a shell would cause rather than outright stop it. To this end the additional armor applied to the Kongo's and Renown's and the Armor of the Dunkerques did give significant protection against Battleship caliber weapons. This was demonstrated at Mers el Kebir, it was the BB that exploded to a magazine hit, while the Dunkerque and Strasbourg survived. These ships were specifically given armor to allow them to engage other capital ships, which was a distinct mission change from the original purpose of a BC to hunt down heavy cruisers. The additional armor also made them less effective at their original role. The original idea died because it no longer had a use, the RN had achieved such supremacy that surface raiding with cruisers was no longer feasible to anyone but Japan. The IJN had no need for BC's since they just violated the treaty limits with their CA's (so did the KM with their Panzerschiffes). This is why no one really cared to make a distinction between BC's and BB's in the treaties, no one actually wanted a capital ship that could only fight cruisers.
  11. Danyir_Amore

    Amagi — Japanese Tier VIII battleship.

    its good but it is not tanky, bouncing a Yammy just means the Yammy didn't know where to aim. You wont bounce a Yammy that knows where to shoot.
  12. Danyir_Amore

    Isn't the Amagi Supposed to be Accurate?

    It is accurate, for a battleship. I have no problems engaging targets at about 18km though I generally prefer 15km. Compared to German BB's with about 12km that's pretty accurate. NC is more accurate but the shells are floaty which gives time to dodge.
  13. Danyir_Amore

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    The defining characteristic of the Battlecruiser concept was the speed to chase down Heavy Cruisers and sink them, the armor of a BC was meant only to protect against a Heavy cruiser and was woefully inadequate against a BB. The refits and designs of all those ships were such that they had far greater armor than necessary for protection from a cruiser, and it also made them slower than a Heavy cruiser. While their armor would not make them impervious to the latest BB's which had 16" guns it would have provided significant protection and it was certainly capable of good protection against the older BB's still in service with 14" armament.
  14. Danyir_Amore

    Is US Cruiser gameplay.. "sad"

    This is what I think gives it away that dude hasn't got a clue what he is talking about. AFAIK the only two cruisers in game that can overmatch their peers are the Fruity Taco, and the Spee.
  15. Danyir_Amore

    Not liking Fletcher at all

    It very much does matter if he sacrificed vision control in order to get those hits, and given that the team lost despite his high damage this likely occurred. Vision control does in fact result in more damage being done to the enemy than a single ship is actually capable of and far greater survivability of friendlies. It is far more than the simple spotting damage counter measures as well. when a team has better intel it lets them set up in advantageous positions before the fight starts and avoid disadvantageous positions. That survivability of friendlies is probably more important than anything else a DD does because it makes them responsible for all of the damage done by friendlies after they otherwise would have died. Unfortunately there really isn't a good way to measure this which is why it is such a thankless job, and why DD's that don't have such good numbers Think of it like this, would you rather have one player on your team perform 100% better than average, or all 12 players perform at 10% better than average. This is a lesson I learned on the Mahan. If you look up my stats you will see that I did almost twice the average damage per match but my win-rate was still only 50%. If you look at the Benson, Fletcher, and Gearing you will see that while I don't do as much over the average damage (I still do a lot, I mean I gotta brag some) my win-rates are much higher at 62.5%, 57.14%, and 72.41% respectively (like I said, bragging)
×