Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

515 Excellent


About Murotsu

  • Rank
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

3,551 profile views
  1. Murotsu

    The REAL reason Bismarck sunk

    Well, if the crew hadn't drank all the schnapps and bier aboard then the water couldn't have gotten in and flooded the ship...
  2. If this scenario were to happen, the US would have likely built the six Lexington class battlecruisers and six S. Dakota (1922) class battleships they'd started on. Then, they'd have rebuilt them to more modern standards keeping them up-to-date while the Japanese ships slowly became increasingly obsolete. Japan simply couldn't win an arms race with the US.
  3. The Japanese had enough aircraft to fill two additional carriers out, even if some of these would have been older planes that were obsolescent. What they didn't have were enough pilots to fly them. They could have had the pilots had their training system not been so pedantic and typically Japanese OCD. For example, any failure, even a small error or mistake was often enough to get a prospective pilot washed out of the program--particularly on the enlisted side. Enlisted who failed were sent to mechanic schools and such to become ground maintenance crew while officers were relegated to administrative jobs where their career was essentially over. These candidates and the point to which they were trained often were far better than pilots trained after Midway where the IJN had to massively lower standards to replace the lost pilots and air crew. As for Hiryu, both strikes on Yorktown were decimated by the US CAP. Both were met well away from the carrier and worked over by Wildcats for as much as twenty minutes resulting in heavy losses. (sorry, feeling lazy and don't want to get Lundstrom off the shelf to look up the exact losses but they were unsustainable).
  4. SS-N-3 Shaddock missile launchers. These ships were supposed to carry a total of 16, eight in the two launchers and a set of reloads housed in the superstructure. The problem was the missiles weighed so much and the ship was undersized in displacement that most of the time they carried just 8 or sometimes none at all to improve stability. There is a set of triple torpedo (533 mm) tubes amidships. The stability problem was brought on by added weights and armament designers had to incorporate into the ship during construction. This resulted in the class being seriously overweight--they were originally supposed to be large destroyers but got reclassified as missile cruisers to inflate their prestige and status. All that added weight made them dangerously unstable in a seaway. Since reloading the missile launchers was to be done manually rather than by some mechanized means, the reload missiles were the first to go in an attempt to make the ships more stable. Then even the ones in the launchers were often left ashore when the ship went to sea to help improve sea handling more. Right up at the bow are two RBU launchers for rocket propelled depth charges. Behind them is a twin arm SA-N-1 Goa SAM launcher. This was a navalized version of the SA-3 missile The Kynda class were not considered successful ships and only four of a planned sixteen were completed.
  5. Madness of a sort. It was really another Pygmalion of sorts. That is, the Jeane École argued that small, agile torpedo boats could defeat a larger conventional navy. History says otherwise. Previous attempts at a coast defense navy worked no better. For example, the Jeffersonian period in US history saw a rise in building gunboats for much the same idea and purpose. It too was a failure. The major problem with the Jeane École is that it is a defensive strategy at best. Without a proper ocean going navy there was no way to put pressure on such a navy nor to cut its lines of communication or commerce. The little torpedo boats and maybe, small cruisers, were not going to be able to wage a guerre de course of commerce raiding in a vast ocean. They were coastal at best. Submarines were the inheritors of the commerce raiding mission by virtue of their being able to hide from pursuit. They had the range and capacity to go to sea and stay well out to sea to accomplish that mission. Torpedo boats of the pre-WW 1 era didn't, and little missile boats and corvettes today likewise don't. It simply wasn't a viable naval strategy for a nation wanting the capability to defeat a naval power.
  6. Murotsu

    Book recommendations about Ships of the Line?

    The single best book I've ever seen on this subject is The Line of Battle The Sailing Warship 1650-1840 Robert Gardiner ed. LINE OF BATTLE: The Sailing Warship 1650-1840 (Conway's History of the Ship Series): Gardiner, Robin: 9780851779546: Amazon.com: Books This book is comprehensive and sufficiently detailed that it will more than satisfy your request. It covers in detail construction, rigs, weapons, tactics, sailing, and every other subject you want to know on this period. Definitely worth every penny you pay for a copy.
  7. Murotsu

    WW2 Battlecruiser ranking

    Absolutely. And the reason can be argued that they were the most expendable, least useful (in terms of combat power in a battle line), capital ships in the IJN. That isn't to denigrate them for their utility. They proved highly useful. But as capital ships they also proved near worthless when actually engaged in combat. Two were lost in succession off Guadalcanal while in turn doing nothing to their enemies really. The IJN cruisers and destroyers proved to be the real killers. Their ability to conduct shore bombardment was hampered by doing it at night and a poor technical and doctrinal combination of fire control. So, while the Kongo's were everywhere, they went nowhere.
  8. Murotsu

    WW2 Battlecruiser ranking

    My take (in no particular order) is: Hood: By WW 2 she is suffering from age. The fire controls are inadequate for a long range gunfight, but this was a British choice as they expected to mostly be fighting in the Atlantic with poorer visibility. The armor arrangement, like that on most of the ships on this list is barely adequate too. Hood desperately needed a major refit to bring her up to standards for use in WW 2. The main armament is really a mixed bag. The 15" Mk 1 has pedestrian performance but is a very accurate gun. It isn't bad for a capital ship weapon, but it isn't outstanding either. Dunkerque and Strasbourg: These two were designed and built for a very specific role: Defeating German ships like the Deutschland class pocket battleships and the Scharnhorst / Gneisenau in the Atlantic, as well as for hunting down commerce raiders. For their role, they are excellent designs. They have a good balance of armor and firepower with a heavy secondary battery. That said, they have some serious limitations when they are removed from that role and used in other ones. Renown and Repulse: These two ships are some of the weakest on the list, particularly Repulse. I'll start with her. Repulse never got a full refit. By WW 2, the secondary armament of triple 4" guns was obsolete. The antiaircraft battery consisting of six single 4" AA guns without director control, and three 8 barrel pompoms, was completely inadequate bordering on obsolete for a capital ship by 1940. The Renown on the other hand had a full refit. The 4.5" BD mounts were both high quality and in sufficient number to give the ship an excellent AA battery. They also represent a big improvement over the previous triple 4" that were decidedly poor gun mounts and adjudged so almost immediately upon entering service. Somewhat better armor arrangements and other upgrades made the Renown an excellent choice for escorting a carrier battle group or other duties where a fast capital ship was required to operate against cruisers. Kongo class: These ships were obsolescent by 1940. They were kept in service by Japan because they couldn't be replaced. Their armor was inadequate for a capital ship. Their secondary armament of casemate 5.5" guns was obsolescent at best, obsolete at worst. The AA battery was mediocre at best, her 5" AA mounts being of average quality with rather iffy fire controls. The 25mm AA guns provided were of poor quality by 1940 and obsolete by 1943. The Kongo's had mediocre torpedo protection and an obsolete layout of compartmentation. One serious weakness, shared by many other nation's older capital ships, was that watertight doors were still installed down to the lowest decks. This created a major progressive flooding hazard on these ships. While the main battery was certainly adequate in size and number of guns, the fire controls were obsolescent and proved so in the few surface engagements this class was in. Alaska class: These are not battlecruisers. They are large cruisers with 12" guns. Thing of them as super Baltimore's rather than actual battlecruisers. Their biggest weakness was they handled poorly at sea. Their turning circle was huge, and rudder response sluggish. As they had the same secondary battery as other newer US cruisers they offered little or nothing over them in terms of escorting carrier battlegroups, their primary function. If anything, the class were unwanted white elephants. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau: In typical German fashion they built two fast capital ships that were under-armed for their size. These "sisters" were two of the toughest ships in this list. Their great failing was being armed with 11" guns that were wholly inadequate for their role as battlecruisers. The planned up-arming of them to twin 15" turrets would have solved this making them very superior to the Renown / Repulse and more capable of taking on the Dunkerque class. They could have also benefitted from a more uniform secondary battery and more reliable AA gun mounts than were fitted.
  9. The reality is it really makes little difference. Neither Kongo nor Renown has sufficient armor to prevent a penetration of the other's guns at any normal combat range. The British 15" gun is one of their better naval pieces. It is quite accurate and hard hitting. Oh, both Warspite and Renown use the exact same gun, shells, charges, and have the same 30 degree elevation modification by WW 2. The Japanese 14" is good too and the difference between the two is really not significant. As for range, neither ship is going to hit much of anything using optical fire control beyond about 20,000 yards except by almost sheer luck, so the slight difference in maximum range (32,000 yards for Renown v. 38,700 for Kongo) makes zero difference to the outcome. Once again, it would come down to who's on target first. Given the real life historical firing results from battleships of both navies, it is highly likely the British will be on target first and that pretty much ends Kongo. As few as a half dozen solid hits on Kongo would degrade the ship's combat capacity sufficiently to make it hors de combat (the same with Renown too). So, if Renown got say 2 or 3 solid hits on Kongo before suffering any serious hits herself, Kongo is done as the Renown would now have a significant combat advantage.
  10. B-17 Bombers drop airborne lifeboats (1944) - YouTube
  11. Yes, and he put his best radar set cruiser, Helena at the end of his column where she was least effective. It wasn't that Callaghan distrusted radar so much as he simply didn't understand it and the potential it had.
  12. In S. Dakota's case the ship's FC radar wasn't destroyed. The initial problem was in #3 5" Mk 38 fire control director. There was a ground causing breakers to trip. The ship's electrician's cut out the circuit but failed to cut out the alternate power. The FC men in that director switched to alternate and caused a cascade failure of the switchgear they were connected to. Been there seen that personally. Topsiders like fire controlmen haven't got a clue where their power comes from other than they have a normal and alternate. They have no idea what the significance of having a ground or short in their gear will do. They tried to keep their gear online in a battle and that's understandable. Because they couldn't see the bigger picture they ended up rendering the ship helpless right as combat started. Kirishima was wrecked by Washington in a matter of minutes. Atago's fire on the S. Dakota was scattered and ineffective for all intents. The 8" shells from Atago, as you can see, really did little damage overall.
  13. The Alaska's fire control system is somewhere between 10 and 20 times more accurate than the Kongo's. This means within two salvos the Alaska will have shells on target and that's the end of the match. That is how much more advanced and accurate the Alaska's fire controls are. Day or night, the Kongo is going to get creamed in short order. Quibble over armor penetration and such all you like but the first ship on target with hits is pretty much the winner of such a match. It really doesn't matter if the Alaska's shells make penetrations or not. It's enough they wreck fire controls, command and control systems, start fires and flooding, and in general cause damage. That's enough to render the Japanese ship hors de combat in short order.
  14. Murotsu

    Video: Life Aboard USS Ohio (Boomer Sub)

    I like to keep this sort of video real. Life on board a navy ship (2019) - YouTube
  15. Murotsu

    How feasible are the high tier Italian BBs?

    They certainly do with ships. There are lots and lots of ships that would be winners for them in terms of salability. How many players would want those circular Russian battleships for instance just for the weird-cool value? You could have the whole smoothbore versus rifle debate going (more hitting power, faster loading, but poorer accuracy vs more accuracy and penetration but less hitting power and slower loading). Quick fire, breechloading, muzzle loading, and everything in between. There are battleships with monster 18" + guns. Towards the end of this period you get torpedo boats. There's also the nationality / pride angle. There are all sorts of viable ships from countries that'll never get a ship in the game as it is. Make them like an "Other" category where you work up a tech tree for different nations but can cross from one to another as you go. Something like the Pan Asian line, say a South American line or a Scandinavian line. Having viable Danish, Swedish, Dutch, Norwegian, even Finnish ships would give a great mix. Then there's the whole large cruiser thing of this period. Towards the end there's a bunch of great large armored cruisers that would make for fun play. Since we know they're not going to start adding missiles and modern ships, going back to these earlier ones would be great fun and open a whole new aspect to the game.