Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Jan_van_Galen

Historical Ships

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

65
[CSN]
Members
18 posts

Wouldn't it be nice to be in a battle without fleets of ships that never left the drawing board or ships that only made it to hull status? Im so sick of seeing the stupid Montana I could just puke.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,888
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,070 posts
19,197 battles
11 minutes ago, Jan_van_Galen said:

Wouldn't it be nice to be in a battle without fleets of ships that never left the drawing board or ships that only made it to hull status?

I don't know; I'm busy playing A GAME!! (You remember those things that aren't real life!!)

12 minutes ago, Jan_van_Galen said:

Im so sick of seeing the stupid Montana I could just puke.

Some Monty player scuff you up again?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts
13 minutes ago, Jan_van_Galen said:

Wouldn't it be nice to be in a battle without fleets of ships that never left the drawing board or ships that only made it to hull status? Im so sick of seeing the stupid Montana I could just puke.

It would be great to have historical battles with the real ships. But never gona happen.

We still can't get SBD on the Ranger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,546
[O7]
Members
1,493 posts
10,804 battles

this is a game though new content and balance come first, if you want realism  the history channel does world war documentaries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
234 posts
8,331 battles
27 minutes ago, Jan_van_Galen said:

Wouldn't it be nice to be in a battle without fleets of ships that never left the drawing board or ships that only made it to hull status?

Uh oh. Possible soviet rant incomming....

 

28 minutes ago, Jan_van_Galen said:

Im so sick of seeing the stupid Montana I could just puke.

They Had Us In the First Half | Know Your Meme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,168
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,883 posts
11,568 battles
32 minutes ago, Jan_van_Galen said:

Im so sick of seeing the stupid Montana I could just puke.

to somewhat quote the movie Christine " You want to watch what you call my ship, she's real sensitive"

you-want-to-watch-what-you-call-my-car-e

Edited by tcbaker777
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,818
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,592 posts
1 hour ago, Jan_van_Galen said:

 I'm so sick of seeing the stupid Montana I could just puke.

At least the Montana-class ships were actually going to be built and if the US had more shipyard capacity at the time they would have been built.

Quote

The Navy ordered the ships in May 1942, but the Montana class was placed on hold because the Iowa-class battleships and the Essex-class aircraft carriers were under construction in the shipyards intended to build the Montanas.

By the time the shipyards were free it was understood that the Navy did not need more battleships but instead carriers and carrier-group support craft plus landing craft transports.

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,575
[WOLF3]
Members
26,963 posts
23,767 battles

If we capped things to historical ships that entered military service prior to Japan's surrender, a lot of the ship lines out there would end real early or have next to nothing.

 

Be ready.

 

The Germans who never have fielded a Carrier into service, not even post-WWII, are getting a full carrier line! :Smile_teethhappy:

Maybe the Royal Mongolian Navy can get a Battleship Line also!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
157
[PRMUS]
Members
943 posts
2,312 battles
42 minutes ago, ITZ_ACE_BABY said:

this is a game though new content and balance come first, if you want realism  the history channel does world war documentaries

 

The history channel is a joke in historical circles. Come on be serious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
157
[PRMUS]
Members
943 posts
2,312 battles
59 minutes ago, Umikami said:

I don't know; I'm busy playing A GAME!! (You remember those things that aren't real life!!)

Some Monty player scuff you up again?

It's a game but to a lot of us the history and bringing these ships to life is it's main appeal. It being a game is your priority but without the history it'd just be another MMO and to many of us the history is the priority.

Not that I agree with the OP's sentiments about the Monatana class. I'm fine with paper ships bringing ships to life that never were stopped by the treaty's or disarmament is cool too but WG goes much further than that. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,888
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,070 posts
19,197 battles
4 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

It's a game but to a lot of us the history and bringing these ships to life is it's main appeal. It being a game is your priority but without the history it'd just be another MMO and to many of us the history is the priority.

Then you are seriously deluding yourself because this game actually has very little to do with real history. Many of the ships never existed, and even more have been given fake refits or capabilities. Almost every ship in the game has attributes which have nothing at all to do with reality. And in the final analysis, when it comes down to whether history is catered to or not, the deciding factor is most often what is most profitable for WG. 

8 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

Not that I agree with the OP's sentiments about the Monatana class. I'm fine with paper ships bringing ships to life that never were stopped by the treaty's or disarmament is cool too but WG goes much further than that. 

WG is so far beyond that, you can't even see it in the rear view mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332
[NWOC]
[NWOC]
Members
1,016 posts
12,302 battles
34 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Maybe the Royal Mongolian Navy can get a Battleship Line also!

Yup, they are Haze, but only after the Sultan of Central Saharan dry Wadi, sand powered submarines are introduced.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,821
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,383 posts
14,152 battles
2 hours ago, Jan_van_Galen said:

Wouldn't it be nice to be in a battle without fleets of ships that never left the drawing board or ships that only made it to hull status? Im so sick of seeing the stupid Montana I could just puke.

I am fine with ships that were ordered or laid down but I would like to see fewer ships that never got to that stage but that would toss out a large chunk of the RU trees.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,818
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,592 posts
57 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

The history channel is a joke in historical circles. Come on be serious. 

I got fed up with most of those so-called "history" and "science" channels long ago. If you are interested in history though, you can find some pretty good amateur researchers on YouTube, as well as several lectures by professors and other actual historians. I'm not a history major per se but I have taken dozens of hours in the subject over my twenty years of college education. Dad also taught history for 40 years so I grew up around history books. My favorite type of speculative fiction is time travel. Reading history is as close to actually being able to travel into the past as I can get. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,818
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,592 posts

I especially like reading the history of events where someone I knew or an ancestor actually participated. 

Here is my home town during the Dust Bowl.

image_asset_25305.jpg

Here is my grandpa's cousin with a bunch of US Marshals during Prohibition.

eNI5jyIyR25awGuvzPc9QVOGn9afbuu5U-T8OwEf

My great-great grandpa was in this unit during the Civil War.

union-soldiers-1st-arkansas-cavalry.jpg

If it were not for the history involved in this game, I would never have played it. I watched Jingles' channel for the ship models and history for a year before I installed the game.

Speaking of grandpa's cousin, he married this guy's daughter.

20378662_118775449183.jpg 

That's colonel Jackson McCurtain, CSA, chief of the Choctaw Nation.

 

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
497
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,475 posts
5,088 battles
2 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

At least the Montana-class ships were actually going to be built and if the US had more shipyard capacity at the time they would have been built.

By the time the shipyards were free it was understood that the Navy did not need more battleships but instead carriers and carrier-group support craft plus landing craft transports.

We agree on a lot snarg, but I disagree here somewhat.

Montana was never gonna see the light of day after Midway. As you said, the navy was finally moving away from the 'gun club' and realizing that BBs 

were not cost effective. Aside from the shipyard issues, there was a significant shortage of BB armor plate by 1943; the Iowa's were always going to be the end of the road. If memory serves (it often doesnt at my advanced age lol) they discuss that in Friedman's US Battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
497
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,475 posts
5,088 battles
45 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I especially like reading the history of events where someone I knew or an ancestor actually participated. 

Here is my home town during the Dust Bowl.

image_asset_25305.jpg

Here is my grandpa's cousin with a bunch of US Marshals during Prohibition.

eNI5jyIyR25awGuvzPc9QVOGn9afbuu5U-T8OwEf

My great-great grandpa was in this unit during the Civil War.

union-soldiers-1st-arkansas-cavalry.jpg

If it were not for the history involved in this game, I would never have played it. I watched Jingles' channel for the ship models and history for a year before I installed the game.

Speaking of grandpa's cousin, he married this guy's daughter.

20378662_118775449183.jpg 

That's colonel Jackson McCurtain, CSA, chief of the Choctaw Nation.

 

Wow...awesome stuff, Snarg!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
157
[PRMUS]
Members
943 posts
2,312 battles
9 minutes ago, BBsquid said:

We agree on a lot snarg, but I disagree here somewhat.

Montana was never gonna see the light of day after Midway. As you said, the navy was finally moving away from the 'gun club' and realizing that BBs 

were not cost effective. Aside from the shipyard issues, there was a significant shortage of BB armor plate by 1943; the Iowa's were always going to be the end of the road. If memory serves (it often doesnt at my advanced age lol) they discuss that in Friedman's US Battleships.

 

Maybe the entire class being commissioned would be a bit deluded but incomplete classes of these giant resource intensive ships are quite common. Look at the UK building the Vanguard around the same period. Now Vanguard's short life struggling to find things to do and being scrapped barely a decade after commissioning would prove those people right of course, but with a little more will a Montana or two could have made it into existence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,818
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,592 posts
9 minutes ago, BBsquid said:

Montana was never gonna see the light of day after Midway. As you said, the navy was finally moving away from the 'gun club' and realizing that BBs were not cost effective

Things do change, don't they. Apparently the US Marines are getting rid of their tanks and going back to being more of an amphibious warfare branch.

https://news.usni.org/2020/03/23/new-marine-corps-cuts-will-slash-all-tanks-many-heavy-weapons-as-focus-shifts-to-lighter-littoral-forces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
539 posts
3 hours ago, Jan_van_Galen said:

Wouldn't it be nice to be in a battle without fleets of ships that never left the drawing board or ships that only made it to hull status? Im so sick of seeing the stupid Montana I could just puke.

Lots of issues.  It makes this look much more fun.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,575
[WOLF3]
Members
26,963 posts
23,767 battles
53 minutes ago, BBsquid said:

We agree on a lot snarg, but I disagree here somewhat.

Montana was never gonna see the light of day after Midway. As you said, the navy was finally moving away from the 'gun club' and realizing that BBs 

were not cost effective. Aside from the shipyard issues, there was a significant shortage of BB armor plate by 1943; the Iowa's were always going to be the end of the road. If memory serves (it often doesnt at my advanced age lol) they discuss that in Friedman's US Battleships.

Not only were CVs more important, they were quicker to build as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
497
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,475 posts
5,088 battles
1 hour ago, Snargfargle said:

Things do change, don't they. Apparently the US Marines are getting rid of their tanks and going back to being more of an amphibious warfare branch.

https://news.usni.org/2020/03/23/new-marine-corps-cuts-will-slash-all-tanks-many-heavy-weapons-as-focus-shifts-to-lighter-littoral-forces

Damn...didnt the Devil Dogs fight tooth and nail to get M1's to replace their M60s. 

Yep...dem times...they be a changin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,414
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
2,989 posts
5,943 battles
3 minutes ago, BBsquid said:

Damn...didnt the Devil Dogs fight tooth and nail to get M1's to replace their M60s. 

Yep...dem times...they be a changin'

Dan Carlin has an extremely interesting quote about this phenomenon (which I'm sure was said before but that's where I heard it).  

In the 17-1800's, you could decide on a "rifle" design and be pretty good for as long as those rifles would be around or even longer.  But during the dreadnought era, if you missed even a few years of advancements, your bank busting fleet of capital ships could be obsolete even before the last one hits the water.  

Very, very tricky waters to navigate.  CVs should beware :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,575
[WOLF3]
Members
26,963 posts
23,767 battles
19 minutes ago, BBsquid said:

Damn...didnt the Devil Dogs fight tooth and nail to get M1's to replace their M60s. 

Yep...dem times...they be a changin'

Things change in the military all the time, otherwise the service gets stagnant.  Of the major services the Corps is on a tighter budget.  Capabilities still have to meet the mission expected out of the service.

 

When I entered the USMC in the 90s, and through that decade of Post-Cold War drawdowns, the service was around 175k Marines.  That spiked up with the War on Terror, OEF, OIF, and beyond to as high as 201k Marines in 2011.  I think the Corps has to go back to the 90s-era numbers.  It's not just the tanks getting axed.  If you read the article, a bunch of Air Wing units are getting shut down.  Even the new F-35 JSF squadrons are going to have less authorized aircraft from 16 to 10.  Traditionally when I was with F/A-18 Hornets, you had extra aircraft to maintain good operations tempo while being able to rotate aircraft in / out of maintenance and inspection cycles.  The JSF squadrons will have less room to play with now.

 

The USMC is being tailored for a Pacific conflict in the future.  Stuff is getting shut down for different capabilities.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,818
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,592 posts
5 hours ago, CommodoreKang said:

 But during the dreadnought era, if you missed even a few years of advancements, your bank busting fleet of capital ships could be obsolete even before the last one hits the water.  

What's amazing to me is that, by the time it is retired, the B-52 will have been in US service for nearly a hundred years

Quote

The B-52 is the long rifle of the air age.

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×