Admiral_Thrawn_1

I’d go out on a limb and guess Shikishima…. If excluding tier 11 ships, Shikishima featuring 6x 510mm main guns in 3 turrets plus other secondary turrets of decent size would by necessity of design make it a larger hull than even the Yamato class BB. So by several accounts it would be the largest gun caliber, ship tonnage, width, and possibly length unless Montana or something is longer. But even if a ship was slightly longer than Shikishima.

I know War Grave wrecks are internationally protected by many nations. But how does wreck like Titanic classify? Also if a sub with people onboard were in theory to of gotten trapped inside by a wreck shift and perished., would they need to be left inside as additional victims or extracted? This latter question also applies if it was a war grave like Arizona or Bismarck. I found it was grim morality puzzle since if a site is considered a tomb site and new people much later on are killed directly by a site you might say they are victims of the wreck much like the original people were. Plus if freeing the bodies of the new deceased victims might involve cutting up a site, rather than leave it be if you are and can be 100% certain they are gone. So thought I’d ask since admittedly always more I can learn and I’m no maritime legal expert.

Yeah only a percentage of German trucks and ground vehicles were German, much of the rest came from conquered or annexed nations. Would have loved to of seen their maintenance work with so many vehicle types from various nations. I’m sure it had to of gotten creative at times.

Some explosives require special electrical detonations, so you could always have the arming / disarming safety switch inside the tank tank. Would probably only be activated in situations that are out of control chaos, but would otherwise be in safe mode.

At the risk of politics that we should annd can avoid, have to say yes there has been a few urban tank battles very recently. As in over the last 12 months. Part of the reason I got wondering about the recent plastering of all sorts of modern defensive upgrades onto tanks. Pretty sure US Military is expecting more urban combat as well since replacement for the Abrams tank is said to have a short main gun barrel, losing a bit of the sheer range for better urban abilities. Which sort of makes sense when US military has lots of long ranged strike assets, so what you really need is that troops support, not strike way far away.

So no defense then to a Korean War situation where you have thousands of enemy soldiers swarming the tanks then. With all all modern tech it should be simple enough to have the reactive panels be set to go off when a particular charge gets pressure on it. Would be very handy for the more desperate chaotic close quarters war zones such as urban or dense forest / jungle. I’ve heard some newer ranges getting designed with shorter main gun lengths to help somewhat, but even so you’d need other protection. Did hear of a WWII German tank close defense mortar system, forget if it was Tiger II or Jagdpanther I saw that mortar thing on, but the historian was impressed that bit of original equipment had survived intact to this day. And yes troops in theory are supposed to close quarters defend your tank, but so many ways to neutralize unprotected humans from machine gun fire covering swarming enemy troops, sound weapons, toxins, the lost goes on. So troops while hopefully present can’t always be counted on, hence why I wonder.

Aside from machine guns and maybe ramming targets, are there other close quarters defenses for tanks? Heard some have like short range mortars? But I have to also look at reactive explosive tank armor and wonder if the charges can be set to go off if enemy climbs on top of the tank to try and pry open hatches to cause harm? I mean looking at some of these modern tanks you have to admit it does raise such questions, also what keeps said charges from going off with friendly forces crawling around on tanks? IMG_7807.webp IMG_7808.webp IMG_7813.webp

Yes imagine a magnificent battleship that the public hangs onto the news of its great triumphs, then having to explain how command staff managed to put it out of commotion for a while via an avoidable iceberg hit. Yeah that would not go over well at at all to put it mildly.

Lol did they finally add those things?

Seeing as how a warship getting sunk is typically not a time the crew chose to have a warship be sunk, unless scuttled. Warships might go down with unsecured ordinance, or even weapons that were about to be fired at the time of the sinking. So question is can a wrecked ship fire a shell or even a tornado at unexpected later date assuming the components have both stayed intact and decayed in just the right ways? Some propellants I know have ti be dry to explode, but if memory serves there are also some that can work even if waterlogged. I’ve seen danger signs before in photos about wrecks having unexploded / unsecured explosives. So does raise the question of just how dangerous could a wreck be for a while?

Yes it was a thing, not sure if still is though, might have been phased out with the flooding nerf as yet another crazy adjust having to be made in the CV rework they did. Aircraft we’re setting perma floods because of how quickly they could keep launching torpedoes and AA had been nerfed so badly during that live server testing.

Big question would be how thick the hull of the DD is and how much penetration those 20mm shells have. But if it’s the AA auto cannons doing the damage it would only require enough penetrating force to even inflict lot of pinpoint holes let alone 20mm sized ones.

There were some spots even years ago that you could hit, but were rare to have happen.

I agree the feeling you have run aground is part of the experience, so long as you can reverse engines and get unstuck it’s 100% fine.even being able to do that is great luxury many irl ships did not always have. Island sliding mechanic I can predict already is going to get seriously abused if I’m right on how it will work. You could very easily have crazy odd angle movements that are totally unnatural.

If the picture is accurate which it may or may not be. It’s possible it took keel damage like what some reports of Titanic having received which can be very nasty blow to a ship. Only some ships received extra reinforcement along the keel as it was not expected to take damage by the designers unless of course a given design team was concerned enough to add extra reinforcing. Or even refits could include such reinforcement.