Sventex

Capital ships are meant to be sunk. If the RN thought that capital ships were invincible, it would have been pointless to confront the German fleet at Jutland. For certain, they were looking for a Trafalgar style victory at Jutland, hoping that the German fleet would be sunk. They weren't out there to just cripple. The same principle applies in WWII, the RN had more capital ships than Germany, it could to lose the same number of capital ships as Germany and still come out triumphant.

This right here is why I've stopped playing the game. The game revolves around consumables too much! Now WGing think they can lazily just add a consumable and just uptier an already modeled ship. They really need to rethink this development strategy, World of Warships isn't suppose to be a Yu-Gi-Oh game.

But can you double stack the same guns on top of each other? I imagine you can save weight if double the guns are sharing the same barbette.

But then, adding a second barbette and a superfiring turret behind turret #1 should theoretically add far more weight in total right? Since the second turret has to be higher turret #1, the same stability issues should be cropping up right with the South Carolina class right? Or does the second barbette keep some of the center of mass low and improve stability? edit: oh wait, we're talking about secondary turrets. Nevermind.

And what was stopping the idea of putting the same caliber guns on top of each other? I made this as a joke, but I've yet been unable to explain why such a thing couldn't be possible/ideal.

Maybe someone can answer this for me since information is hard to come by. I've read and heard it said that superimposed turrets were a bad idea, but I'm not heard as to why they were bad. It's not really talked about why these were a dead end concept.

Finally my antics with photoshop has paid off!

What's the difference? The first hit a Medium Tank delivers to another Medium Tank will likely be fatal and decide the engagement. Why does that mean Medium Tanks were designed to fight each other, and Battlecruisers are not?

Is that a flawed concept? A Sherman tank can be taken out by a Panzer IV tank and a Panver IV tank can be taken out by a Sherman. Is the Medium Tank a flawed concept? Are Medium Tanks only meant to be used by other nations that do not possess Medium Tanks?

That does seem like a terrible design flaw.

It has been discussed before that the armor of the RN Battlecruisers was adequate at Jutland, and that it was the extremely unsafe cordite handling and subverted safety features that doomed those British Battlecruisers. I've not heard any evidence that HMS Hood was utilizing the same cordite handling practices during WWII.

Against Germany's 11" naval guns, plunging fire wouldn't be that much of a problem to HMS Hood, which given her Battlecruiser designation, would have been the ships she was suppose to be going after. The undergunned German Battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, Prinz Eugen and the Pocket Battleships. That is what a Battlecruiser is suppose to be hunting, not top of the line Battleships. Even if the line is blurry between "Battlecruiser" and "Fast Battleship", the fact that the line is blurry means she was out of her class compared to Bismarck, a non-debatable "Fast Battleship".

Your forgetting that HMS Hood was built and was always designated as a Battlecruiser, which was by design, suppose to use it's speed to get away from any 15" or 16" shells. In theory, it shouldn't matter that the USN had Battleships with 16" guns, HMS Hood wasn't supposed to confront them by design. It would be like demanding light tanks like the M3 Stuart be up-armored to resist the Tiger Tank's 88, entirely missing the point of the designated vehicle type.

The Mark III Swordfish, introduced in 1943 were equipped with large centrimetric radar units, and would be used to hunt German U-Boats. Operational sorties of the Swordfish continued into January 1945; the last active missions are believed to have been anti-shipping operations conducted off the coast of Norway by FAA Squadrons 835 and 813, where the Swordfish's manoeuvrability was essential. My knowledge of RN history is a bit hazy after WWII, I'm not sure the Royal Navy had cause to use CV launched torpedo bombers since. If so, there would be no reason to keep those old Swordfish around anymore.

War technology was constantly being tested because there wasn't a lot a peace time period of the Russo–Japanese War, WWI, the Soviet-Polish War, Sino-Japanese War and WWII. Much of today's military tech will probably be obsolete on Day 1 because no one is quite sure what the next major war will look like, or how it'll unfold. The world has been going through a long period of peace, so it's hard to say which is obsolete and which isn't. We can't even say with confidence whether or not the new USN's super-CVs are obsolete or not. They might be really easy to sink, or they might be an invaluable weapon of war. Still, for the Swordfish, I would say they weren't obsolete because of occam's razor: A. The Swordfish got the job done, they crippled the Largest Battleship in the World at the time. B. Germany doomed itself with superior, over-engineered high tech vehicles they couldn't actually afford to build. It's so easy to fall into the trap in history to think that the superior weapon is always better. Russia is the perfect example of following the successful philosophy of "'Perfect' weapons are overrated, a large number of 'good enough' weapons is the path to victory." A Swordfish would have been cheaper than a higher tech alternative, and the UK would be bankrupt after WWII. It's important to keep that in mind.