Jump to content

HMS_Formidable

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    1,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3960
  • Clan

    [SCRAP]

Community Reputation

441 Excellent

About HMS_Formidable

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

4 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

920 profile views
  1. I want my Dido, and I want it now!

    Charybdis: poor 4in armament but well rigged with AA directors, radars, control facilities... (read potential for gimmicks) = T5 IMHO Dido: With the 10x5.25 configuration / two x triple torpedo tubes (one each side), she could probably hold her own with similar gimmicks to Leander and Perth = T6 Black Prince (Belonna later production group): while only 8x 5.25, she did get a lot more 40mm mounts ... as well as radar and control rooms like the earlier Charbydis (so potential for gimmicks) = T7? All would need HE/AP options, not just the SAP gimmick of the RN cruiser line atm.
  2. Radar is has ruined this game

    I think the same complaint was made by the Germans, Italians and Japanese during WW2 Admittedly, it couldn't' see through mountains... And AEGIS ship-to-ship networking was quite a few decades away.
  3. I want my Dido, and I want it now!

    I'm not sure the performance of the 5.25s on the RN battleships should be used as baseline for the Dido class ... secondaries seem to have little resemblance to the same gun on other ships as primary armament in WoWs. Also, the Dido's were not originally envisaged as dedicated AA cruisers. They were always described as multi-purpose cruisers doing everything from scouting to escort to fleet work. And, as such, AA was an important new role. Their job was what they were used for - escorting formations through areas with a high threat of aircraft, torpedo boats, destroyers and cruiser forays. The Bellona sub-group was more anti-aircraft weighted (redesigned to include more extensive radar suites and fighter control rooms). And the two Dido's given 4in mounts due to delays in completing the 5.25s were made dedicated AA as that is what they could do... But, hey: I think they look cool.
  4. Britain's 'Midway'?

    History shows that not all of the above were 'mission kill' problems. ASV was used by aircraft at the time to find ships, not guide torpedo attacks. The highest-profile case being locating and tracking Bismark. And night can be quite bright - depending on the moon, weather and wake phosphorescence conditions. The carrier homing system at the time was adequate: all surviving aircraft returned at night from the night raid on Taranto for example. The only failure during the Bismark chase was the loss of two Fulmars after heavy weather shorted the beacon for a time (after all Swordfish had been landed-on). And there were quite a few night operations in the Mediterranean (against Tripoli, for example) and homing was not an issue there either. Night torpedo and recon operations was something the FAA trained for. They developed the doctrine for such action in the 1930s. I agree it would have been very, very difficult to pull-off. The odds against success were high. But to dismiss it as impossible is also incorrect.
  5. I want my Dido, and I want it now!

    We have had Atlantas now for some time. Not to mention Minotaurs. And now the US equivalent. Sooo.... Where's my Dido? Ok, so she wasn't a dedicated AA ship. But she was a multi-role cruiser with AA as one of its primary abilities. And yes the 5.25s didn't perform entirely up to expectations. But they were very useful ships that were in the thick of the action for the entire 1939-1945 war.
  6. Main guns listed as AA

    Roll-on the Didos!
  7. Main guns listed as AA

    I do wish that the in-game gimmick Defensive AA Fire boost would only apply to vessels with DP main armaments, and disable their anti-surface ability while active... Sometimes this game is just TOO arcade...
  8. mofton's Tidbit's - British Battleships in WWII

    The "R" class had their 15in guns upgraded to operate the "supercharge" shells, but were not given the extra elevation. I cannot remember the reasons given (they were essentially the same turrets as on the QEs), but it may have been as mentioned above - they were slated for replacement. And with the breakout of war in 1939, giving them modified shells was much quicker than the lengthy rebuild needed for the turret elevation. The "R"s had been allowed to 'run down' in the late 30s. They were in generally poor condition. And their freshwater condensers only enabled them to stay at sea about 3 days. Had they somehow closed that 100km gap at the Battle of Ceylon ... It is hard to predict the outcome. Somerville's idea to commit to night battle was certainly the only (slightly) viable option available to him. Warspite and some of the cruisers had radar. While the RN was well practised in night combat, they were not aware that the Japanese had also recently developed that skillset... But the potential was there - mostly thanks to the air-surface radar on a handful of Albacores, and their ability to launch night torpedo attacks - with Fulmars providing additional night recon.
  9. British / UK Carriers Clases

    Hermes was classified as an 'experimental' carrier and therefore not included in the treaty tonnage quotas. Designed and built at a time when the choice between seaplanes and wheeled planes for naval use was still not certain, she was regarded as an escort carrier when she went to war - mostly used in surface raider patrols and ASW convoy escorts.
  10. British Heavy Cruiser Design Notes

    Very true. The same argument applies to the Crown Colony class. But these hangars did offer one advantage - space for command-and-control rooms for the exploding radar outfits, fighter control etc. One hangar would be devoted to several levels of this activity. The other would be used as a recreation space. And the catapult mechanism was removed, allowing space - and weight - for bigger light AA mounts. The Swiftsures abandoned the hangar space during construction: essentially they were cut-down and more closely integrated with the main control space from the outset. Something similar could/would have happened with the London class conversions IMHO. But it is of course speculation (though you can see this trend in the concept drawings for new designs above anyway).
  11. British Heavy Cruiser Design Notes

    Here's an extensive walk-around of HMS London edited out of a WW2 propaganda recruitment film (sound removed) It's not often we get such a good look at a WW2 ship ...
  12. That's been my gameplay experience lately. Everybody hides. Battleships snuggled up against islands they can't shoot over. Cruisers cuddling up to every rock they can find. Destroyers wondering what the hell they can do with no support at any level. The only things moving are aircraft... It's far worse than "World of Tanks on a Lake" It's now "Hide and Seek", pure and simple. Bring back the Open Ocean map at all tiers ... It'll teach these gutless wonders what real naval combat was about.
  13. HMAS Sydney

    Australia's Defence Science and Technology organisation have done a pretty comprehenive battle damage analysis based on surveys of the wreck. Here's an article Here's their report Essentially, HMAS Sydney coped with the hammering from the guns (heavy casualties of course). But her bow broke off a couple of hours after the engagement as a result of the torpedo hit forward of A turret. This peeled back the hull, exposing her intact engine and boiler rooms to the sea.
  14. British / UK Carriers Clases

    Why only apply this rule to the British tree?
  15. Platforms on Perth

    Ok, re HMAS Hobart's 1945 configuration: The forward double 4in mounts were moved even further forward (adjacent the forward funnel) and the entire platform above the torpedo tubes. The 40mm mounts were actually put amidships. Quite an interesting arrangement
×