flyingtaco

Yes the non aegis and often nuclear cgs. Good ships that were retired when they were up for refueling due to budget cuts

There is a bit in... maybe debt of honor where that is alluded to ... seems like a bunch of boomers with names mirroring the battle line at surigeo strait end up in the same spot.

I dont mind the concept but think that it would be much better executed as a campaign like the ones for halsey etc .... I dont know that you could use the same building all the time mechanic .... people would do one task and just wait... but even tying each stage of construction to a task is more predictable and fair than the voodoo economics at play currently

Yeah I wish they would stop making Krazy Kamos and at least give us the option of earning/buying historical ones a permanent camos

There is a difference between postwar built and postwar designs. Ticonderoga cg-47 is a postwar design. Gearing , des Moines etc all were being built while shooting was still going on. The issue is they are running out of ways to make things different for each ship/nation. The ships are starting to to resemble those figures they made after they ran out of variations for the tmnt line... a duck with a leather jacket cool... um what else... uh...we can do an ant eater but he is former NYC DJ... there is only so much they can do since they went down this road. Every single Italian cruiser feels like a battleship in maneuverability, an Omaha in durability, a russian cruiser in accuracy , and a Japanese cruiser in reloads. How many times can they juggle things like this before they cone together in some horrible combination that everyone hates?

I noticed this too but thought it was a bug in my client because I ould hear all the other horns

Tell it to the ships nil AA and no possibility of fighter cover

John d alden's steel navy ... there were some books by edgar stanton Mackay that are hard roto come by now... development of the monitor and the steam navy... all to some extent deal with what you are asking about but US sources are problematic because from 1865 to around 1883 development just stopped as the US turned inward. John Sumedas in defense of naval supremacy is good for British stuff. I think there is a book called building the Victorian navy... any book that talks about the Victorian navy will be relevant. It's kind of a hodgepodge because you are talking about an era that's bookended by two more popular ones. Benjamin Franklin coolings grey steel and blue water deals with the tech catchup the US had to do so it acts as a bit of a census on all the powers . The navy year books that the US goverment printed from around 1883- sometime in the 1900s often included a appendix of foreign developments. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/203479/dawn-battleship also this

Carriers were not that great at supporting landings in a consistent manner... that's not to say they could not... but gunfire scratches a different itch. The greatest assets a carrier has is its reach and mobility ... both of which are wasted if you tether them to beachheads. (When they were they were often escort carriers) ... also led to the big fight at guadalcanal about how long the carriers would stay. ... it was never as simple as just replacing one type with another.... at least in WWii. The doctrine was very flexible and was actually written by black shoes. I'm trying to remember the name of it.. but basically it envisioned all groups as being mutually supporting so that they were close enough to mix and match components as the situation dictated. TF34 was formed on one such occasion.

No where in the op was essex class mentioned

So it was the North Carolina's and South Dakotas at surigao strait... nothing about the existence of newer models precludes the use of old ones.

Question was if the hornet was sunk in coral sea or another battle... so the answer since the question did not specific which ship was being discussed is ... another battle or neither ... not sure where midway comes into it.

Yeah the kearsarge and alabama were named as a pair after the two ships that fought off cherbourg in the American civil war... supposedly they bore matching plates affixed somewhere on the superstructure commemorating this . My quote did not pick up the bit about the previous ships that I was trying to get.

Though .... it could be a trick question there have been two Hornets that served in the us navy in ww2. The second is still afloat and recovered theapollo 11 astronauts.

Thr Brits are a naval nation and at the time despite the ideas of ( ....I forget his name a brit that argued keeping the sea open was more important than large battles ) Britain as a whole was still very much in the mahan mindset which distilled says you fight a climatic battle and then use the sea to influence events ashore... it seemed to have been backed up by trafalgar and more recently Tsushima ....so it's possible that the importance of a single action was given too much weight. Subs were not as effective in WWI and even then sonar was not in general use ...so they represented a dice roll for both sides rather than a guarantee. Jutland was pre US entry so the statement was probably more accurate before 1917. US represented a influx of fresh troops and materials into a conflict that had more or less exhausted both sides. It's kind of like arguing the CSA could have won the Civil War at Gettysburg.... it invites debate ... but most data is weighted against it.