Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JackBinary

Just cause I'm tired of hearing it.

112 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

74
[JTF67]
Members
85 posts
4,186 battles
6 hours ago, legozer said:

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! NEVER conflate Ontario with Alberta! AS beautiful as Alberta is, it's full of filthy Albertans*. You, at least, blackflies be damned, are from a reasonable place in the world.

 

For those of you good American folk following along, Alberta is a province that is like the Canadian version of Florida, but with crappy weather and if most Floridians thought they were Texans for some reason. Just the worst. Nice mountains, though. And Drumheller is a pretty cool place. Look it up.

 

*Albertans aren't really filthy. I guess some are bound to be, but on the whole, they're just like everyone else, just dumber**.

** Albertans aren't actually dumb. Well, a lot are, but that's normal everywhere. Saskatchewaners, on the other hand.....I'd say something about how they aren't really dumb either, but I don't believe most can read anyway, so who's it gonna chafe?

What! What's not to like about Florida? We have alligators, poisonous snakes and spiders, sinkholes, tornadoes, hurricanes, sharks, tourists, ticks with lymes disease, massive palmetto bugs, sand fleas, panthers, bears, rednecks, snowbirds, insurance fraud, gridlocked traffic and finally...Disney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,527
[5BS]
Members
7,951 posts
15 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

Respectfully I disagree, could destroyers just waltz up to a battleship and sink them, of course not. Was attacking a battleship very dangerous, of course. However in the right situation yes destroyers were a big threat to battleships. There is a reason battleships had such heavy secondary batteries, to deal with destroyers.

Proof is in the pudding: it only ever worked *once.* USN Destroyers that tried it at the 2nd Naval Battle Of Guadalcanal, Battle Off Samar, and Savo Island all were sunk with heavy loss of life while recording NO hits one enemy BB's (cruisers yes, but no BB hits). Conversely at the same-said battles, IJN DD's attempting to land torp hits on USN BB's were 100% unsuccessful and only at the 2NBoG managed to land main battery shells on a USN BB (and were then fired upon, and sunk, in return). The RN nearly lost DD's during the chase of the Bismarck, the final Battle of the Scharnhorst, and did lose DD's while attempting to attack Italian BB's. Conversely Italian DD's attempting to attack the Queen Elizabeths at Matapan were destroyed completely (Seriously, no one ever talks about the Battle at Matapan even though it was basically the USS Washington whomping the Kirishima at close range, except MUCH closer (~3 km (Washington was *8*km)) and sinking 5 ships in about 6 minutes by 3 Queen Elizabeth Battleships).

I cannot stress this enough: there are PLENTY of examples of DD's trying to attack BB's, and only *1* event, The USS Melvin, where it succeeded. It was a *bad* idea to attack a BB due to how the realities of ranged combat work. And BB secondaries were designed LESS to deal with Destroyers, but MORE to deal with *TORPEDO* Boats, which are, and I know many people forget this, NOT the same thing.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,056
[TDRB]
Members
3,153 posts
9,532 battles
Quote

Yamashiro also ate two Torpedoes from US Destroyers before sinking, though one could argue about her sinking only because of the shell fire from earlier.

My point is both the Fuso & Yamashiro were damaged by aircraft or other ships before destroyers finished them off. Giving the coup de gras is not the same as winning a one on one battle. I am not denying DD's were a danger nor or am I say they couldn't sink a BB one on one. I'm saying it never happened. In game we have seen DD's sink BB's with 100% HP's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
24 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Just so you are aware, the Melvin is the only time a DD torped and sunk a BB. Out of ~55 BB's since the Launch of HMS Dreadnought to be sunk, only *1* of those was from a Destroyer. The vast majority were from enemy planes, mines, and Submarines. A few more were gunned to pieces, and 3-4 were sunk by *TORPEDO BOATS* actual torpedo boats, but only 1, Fuso, was sunk by a DD.

So point of fact, DD's were not a danger to BB's and historically, it ended very, very badly for those DD's that tried front on attacks on BB's; the flip side to the story of the Battle Off Samar is that all 3 of the DD's present (and they did not damage the enemy BB's, just pushed them out of position) were sunk and/or HEAVILY damaged with huge losses of life. It was a *bad* idea to attack a capital ship in a DD and almost always ended in a tactical loss.

Tactics are everything, in the battle off Samar three destroyers attacked a force consisting of four battleships, eight cruisers, and eleven destroyers. Of course, they didn't sink a battleship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,527
[5BS]
Members
7,951 posts
6 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

Tactics are everything, in the battle off Samar three destroyers attacked a force consisting of four battleships, eight cruisers, and eleven destroyers. Of course, they didn't sink a battleship.

The point still stands: it doesn't work. You can go around the bend forever, but the *facts* are the facts: out of DOZENS of attempts by DD's across various nations and *3* wars, only 1 BB was ever sunk by a destroyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,558 posts
6,926 battles
7 hours ago, daVinci761st said:

 

You and I must be reading two different WoWs forums because the rage against BBs has been very salty the last several weeks. Case in point you made thread to single out that BB players are complaining. I've not noticed much "crying" about destroyers and torpedo reloads. 

This. The thread is nothing but an elaborate troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
15 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Proof is in the pudding: it only ever worked *once.* USN Destroyers that tried it at the 2nd Naval Battle Of Guadalcanal, Battle Off Samar, and Savo Island all were sunk with heavy loss of life while recording NO hits one enemy BB's (cruisers yes, but no BB hits). Conversely at the same-said battles, IJN DD's attempting to land torp hits on USN BB's were 100% unsuccessful and only at the 2NBoG managed to land main battery shells on a USN BB (and were then fired upon, and sunk, in return). The RN nearly lost DD's during the chase of the Bismarck, the final Battle of the Scharnhorst, and did lose DD's while attempting to attack Italian BB's. Conversely Italian DD's attempting to attack the Queen Elizabeths at Matapan were destroyed completely (Seriously, no one ever talks about the Battle at Matapan even though it was basically the USS Washington whomping the Kirishima at close range, except MUCH closer (~3 km (Washington was *8*km)) and sinking 5 ships in about 6 minutes by 3 Queen Elizabeth Battleships).

I cannot stress this enough: there are PLENTY of examples of DD's trying to attack BB's, and only *1* event, The USS Melvin, where it succeeded. It was a *bad* idea to attack a BB due to how the realities of ranged combat work. And BB secondaries were designed LESS to deal with Destroyers, but MORE to deal with *TORPEDO* Boats, which are, and I know many people forget this, NOT the same thing.

I am going to have to dig it up, in one of the books I was reading on battleships. It may have been Norman Freedman's book US Battleships an Illustrated design history. The planners and the Navy were arguing over the proposed secondary armament. The Navy was arguing that the proposed secondary armament did not have the stopping power against destroyers. I don't remember exactly what was said but I will look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[BEARS]
Members
256 posts
8,928 battles

I distinctly recall only one thread that talks about the subject of destroyers and the amount of torps they carry.

 

But when you have a persecution complex sometimes you see things that arent even there.

 

also it seems from the footage that you could see the torpedo wake coming from much farther away than people (dd mains) would like you to believe....

https://archive.org/details/NPC-1719

 

also the nelson class british battleships carried torps....and those torps were the only known case of a battleship firing torpedos at another battleship.....ie the rodney vs the bismark.

I dont play a nelson...do thy have torps compared to the german line of battleships?

Edited by MokrieDela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,527
[5BS]
Members
7,951 posts
4 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I am going to have to dig it up, in one of the books I was reading on battleships. It may have been Norman Freedman's book US Battleships an Illustrated design history. The planners and the Navy were arguing over the proposed secondary armament. The Navy was arguing that the proposed secondary armament did not have the stopping power against destroyers. I don't remember exactly what was said but I will look it up.

Secondary guns on a BB (or Cruiser) were not designed to fight DD's because DD's are not small or maneuverable enough (in reality) to where the MAIN BATTERY on a BB is not sufficient. Again, Matapan and 2NBoG are pretty suffice examples of what happens when a DD approaches or is approached by a BB at fighting stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
11 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

The point still stands: it doesn't work. You can go around the bend forever, but the *facts* are the facts: out of DOZENS of attempts by DD's across various nations and *3* wars, only 1 BB was ever sunk by a destroyer.

lol much like World of warships a single unescorted battleship would be vulnerable to destroyers, a battleship escorted by cruisers and destroyers has little to fear from them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
3 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Secondary guns on a BB (or Cruiser) were not designed to fight DD's because DD's are not small or maneuverable enough (in reality) to where the MAIN BATTERY on a BB is not sufficient. Again, Matapan and 2NBoG are pretty suffice examples of what happens when a DD approaches or is approached by a BB at fighting stations.

The original purpose of Destroyers was to destroy PT boats. Their original name was PT Boat destroyers. As destroyers got larger and their mission expanded they dropped the PT boat from their name. Now, what was a Destroyer escort and what was its function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,527
[5BS]
Members
7,951 posts
4 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

lol much like World of warships a single unescorted battleship would be vulnerable to destroyers, a battleship escorted by cruisers and destroyers has little to fear from them. 

2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal disagrees: by the time the Washington started engaging the Japanese it was *totally* alone, with all it's escorting DD's destroyer or retreating, and the SoDok retiring as well. And yet it sank an enemy DD and damaged another by itself, out in the open, against an enemy adept at night fighting.

4 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

The original purpose of Destroyers was to destroy PT boats. Their original name was PT Boat destroyers. As destroyers got larger and their mission expanded they dropped the PT boat from their name. Now, what was a Destroyer escort and what was its function.

Gee, I just brought up Matapan, 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and you think I don't know what a Destroyer is in relation to a MTB? DD's are defensive ships, as I said before, not OFFENSIVE ones. Secondary batteries are LIKEWISE defensive, not OFFENSIVE (strictly) for dealing with enemy MTB's, not DD's. As many, many, MANY battles have shown, BB main batteries could deal with DD's VERY well and as such, their secondaries were not needed for it. But main batteries CANNOT deal with MTB's well due to their small size, fast maneuvering, and rapid change in direction. Hence, secondary guns. But you don't need a 6" or 5" gun to kill a DD, the main 14-15-16-18 inch guns do JUST fine.

And DE's were for escorting Convoys; "Destroyer Escort" really just the US not being clever enough to realize an existing name already existed for that type of ship: Frigate.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
2 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal disagrees: by the time the Washington started engaging the Japanese it was *totally* alone, with all it's escorting DD's destroyer or retreating, and the SoDok retiring as well. And yet it sank an enemy DD and damaged another by itself, out in the open, against an enemy adept at night fighting.

Gee, I just brought up Matapan, 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and you think I don't know what a Destroyer is in relation to a MTB? DD's are defensive ships, as I said before, not OFFENSIVE ones. Secondary batteries are LIKEWISE defensive, not OFFENSIVE (strictly) for dealing with enemy MTB's, not DD's. As many, many, MANY battles have shown, BB main batteries could deal with DD's VERY well and as such, their secondaries were not needed for it. But main batteries CANNOT deal with MTB's well due to their small size, fast maneuvering, and rapid change in direction. Hence, secondary guns. But you don't need a 6" or 5" gun to kill a DD, the main 14-15-16-18 inch guns do JUST fine.

And DE's were for escorting Convoys; "Destroyer Escort" really just the US not being clever enough to realize an existing name already existed for that type of ship: Frigate.

I apologize if you think I was implying that you didn't know that Destroyers were originally intended at torpedo boat destroyers, my statement was more of a two-part question leading into what the heck destroyer escorts were and what was their function. I was wondering if they took over the role of torpedo boat destroyer because destroyers were getting bigger and bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,527
[5BS]
Members
7,951 posts
2 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I apologize if you think I was implying that you didn't know that Destroyers were originally intended at torpedo boat destroyers, my statement was more of a two-part question leading into what the heck destroyer escorts were and what was their function. I was wondering if they took over the role of torpedo boat destroyer because destroyers were getting bigger and bigger.

DE's are Frigates; slower, smaller armed, but highly maneuverable (compared to other fleet sized ships) capable of rapidly turning about so as to maximize their ability to saturate an area with depth charges. Since what they escort cannot typically exceed 15 knots, and what they fight (Subs) typically don't exceed 10 knots submerged, they typically didnt exceed 20 knots.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
10 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

DE's are Frigates; slower, smaller armed, but highly maneuverable (compared to other fleet sized ships) capable of rapidly turning about so as to maximize their ability to saturate an area with depth charges. Since what they escort cannot typically exceed 15 knots, and what they fight (Subs) typically don't exceed 10 knots submerged, they typically didnt exceed 20 knots.

I guess they are an underappreciated class of ships. With as many books as I have read on WW2 Naval stuff I know next to nothing about them. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Members
344 posts
3,713 battles
8 hours ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Nothing But I don't like the BB comment  Those type of comments are to many generalizations. I play all three ship Types  and find it rather annoying the lumping of stereotypes. 

Yup

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
14 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

DE's are Frigates; slower, smaller armed, but highly maneuverable (compared to other fleet sized ships) capable of rapidly turning about so as to maximize their ability to saturate an area with depth charges. Since what they escort cannot typically exceed 15 knots, and what they fight (Subs) typically don't exceed 10 knots submerged, they typically didnt exceed 20 knots.

I am reading about them on Wikapedia, 1250 tons, 314 feet long 36 feet wide and 176 crew for the USS Dealey....wow talk about cramped quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
3 minutes ago, InventedThought said:

Yup

 

Yep as a battleship player, I do not mind Destroyers having reloads. It makes the cat and mouse game a lot more fun. I sink a surprising amount of destroyers in my Battleship.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,527
[5BS]
Members
7,951 posts
3 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I guess they are an underappreciated class of ships. With as many books as I have read on WW2 Naval stuff I know next to nothing about them. 

You cannot apply WWII and earlier 'styles' on to Modern Ship classifications, as they do not hold true anymore.

If we look objectively at modern fleets, designated roles and operational abilities:

Modern DD/DDG's are actually Cruisers. Not because of displacement (although most do displace as much as a Cruiser), but role: modern DDG's are used to operate not just as part of battlegroups (and not as 'escorts' in the strictest sense in those cases, that's what Frigates/LCS(the modern US Designation for Frigates (although I think they are bringing back the FF designation and rerating their LCS's as FF's))) but to cruise throughout the ocean, independently, protecting national interests. Historically, we'd call that a cruiser.

Modern FF's/LCS's are filling the role, ironically, of Destroyers, being fast and nimble enough to chase down and protect fleets from pirate skiffs and smaller threats, while carrying primarily DEFENSIVE ordinance in the form of Point Defense Missiles, anti-submarine torps, and a wider array of small caliber, rapid fire guns (20mm chain guns) to deal with speed boats.

The few CCG's are the tough ones to rate, as they are not quite battleships in the strictest sense, but they are not quite Cruisers anymore. Probably Battlecruiser is the closest WWII era analogy, but even that does not suffice. In all fairness, modern Missile Cruisers represent a new type of ship unaffiliated with old ratings.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Members
344 posts
3,713 battles
2 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

Yep as a battleship player, I do not mind Destroyers having reloads. It makes the cat and mouse game a lot more fun. I sink a surprising amount of destroyers in my Battleship.

Me as well getting that shot at range is somehow just ..Satisfying. I started to play Destroyers so that I could learn better how to play against them. Funny started having fun in those ae well.:Smile_teethhappy: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,369 posts
16,554 battles
7 hours ago, legozer said:

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! NEVER conflate Ontario with Alberta! AS beautiful as Alberta is, it's full of filthy Albertans*. You, at least, blackflies be damned, are from a reasonable place in the world.

 

For those of you good American folk following along, Alberta is a province that is like the Canadian version of Florida, but with crappy weather and if most Floridians thought they were Texans for some reason. Just the worst. Nice mountains, though. And Drumheller is a pretty cool place. Look it up.

 

*Albertans aren't really filthy. I guess some are bound to be, but on the whole, they're just like everyone else, just dumber**.

** Albertans aren't actually dumb. Well, a lot are, but that's normal everywhere. Saskatchewaners, on the other hand.....I'd say something about how they aren't really dumb either, but I don't believe most can read anyway, so who's it gonna chafe?

LOL methinks that anything east  of British Columbia is a downgrade......(tongue firmly in cheek!)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
3 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

You cannot apply WWII and earlier 'styles' on to Modern Ship classifications, as they do not hold true anymore.

If we look objectively at modern fleets, designated roles and operational abilities:

Modern DD/DDG's are actually Cruisers. Not because of displacement (although most do displace as much as a Cruiser), but role: modern DDG's are used to operate not just as part of battlegroups (and not as 'escorts' in the strictest sense in those cases, that's what Frigates/LCS(the modern US Designation for Frigates (although I think they are bringing back the FF designation and rerating their LCS's as FF's))) but to cruise throughout the ocean, independently, protecting national interests. Historically, we'd call that a cruiser.

Modern FF's/LCS's are filling the role, ironically, of Destroyers, being fast and nimble enough to chase down and protect fleets from pirate skiffs and smaller threats, while carrying primarily DEFENSIVE ordinance in the form of Point Defense Missiles, anti-submarine torps, and a wider array of small caliber, rapid fire guns (20mm chain guns) to deal with speed boats.

The few CCG's are the tough ones to rate, as they are not quite battleships in the strictest sense, but they are not quite Cruisers anymore. Probably Battlecruiser is the closest WWII era analogy, but even that does not suffice. In all fairness, modern Missile Cruisers represent a new type of ship unaffiliated with old ratings.

I know the Kirov's represent a new ship but personally, I have always thought of them as battlecruisers. The massive amount of firepower those ships have would require multiple ships to deal with it. It is not relevant to the discussion but I think the Kirov's are some of the most beautiful modern warships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,056
[TDRB]
Members
3,153 posts
9,532 battles
Quote

Yep as a battleship player, I do not mind Destroyers having reloads. It makes the cat and mouse game a lot more fun. I sink a surprising amount of destroyers in my Battleship.

Yes it does. I do believe WG does a good job of balancing the ships overall. This is a game, not a simulator.

 

 

12 minutes ago, InventedThought said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
8 minutes ago, InventedThought said:

Me as well getting that shot at range is somehow just ..Satisfying. I started to play Destroyers so that I could learn better how to play against them. Funny started having fun in those ae well.:Smile_teethhappy: 

I have found that if you wait until the destroyer is coming right at you, you can punch them in the nose and delete them and you don't get the constant overpens that you do when they are broadside.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
698
[NOBS]
Members
1,119 posts
8,277 battles

As a BB main, it would be stupid if DD's only have 1 set of torps, what are they supposed to do the rest of the time, wait to eat a salvo from my mains and die. 

 

And if it was reality, CV's would be the "one"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×