Remove ads

Belated Battleships (KanColle) [REHOST]

Reader mode
I did a lot of thinking about this when I was planning omakes involving another certain Standard. No, not West, but I thought about West a bit.

HEADCANON FOLLOWS. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO IGNORE.

West Virginia has dark blonde hair and light grey eyes. She speaks with a soft, lazy backwoods twang, and when she's not on the water she seems almost withdrawn, retiring. But her gaze is sharp, focused on the horizon in a markswoman's stare- she had a reputation for gunnery even before Pearl Harbor.

Twenty years' interwar practice with squadrons upon squadrons of her half-sister Standards, most of it as the flagship, left a mark on her. In actions with a few ships she's nothing so remarkable, but in anything like a line of battle she is in her element. Almost without thinking about it, she starts giving quiet orders with terse hand signals... and a lot of shipgirls tend to listen.

Instead of the holstered pistols that seem to come with most of the American shipgirls, West carries a Springfield '03 slung over her back. And radar or no radar, her shooting is something to watch. The Colorados were splendid gunnery ships, and West Virginia was the best.

She's probably less surprised to be summoned than most. It's not the first time she's come back from the dead.

And how did I deduce all this about her? Why, it's all more or less inevitable, given her parentage.

South Carolina: "Ah, well... It was just a few months after the Armistice, you see, and Ah met the most charming sergeant in Brest..."

[the superfiring dreadnought blushes ferociously, fanning herself, glancing up at a collection of ships-in-bottles, including a lovingly detailed reproduction of USS New Ironsides]
_____________________

Anyway, West Virginia as-summoned would indeed have a light AA fit, but her gun range is about thirty-five thousand yards, and she can reach out with sixteen-inch shells towards the limit of that range quite well, thankyouverymuch. Better deck armor, too; Arizona didn't get that until her interwar refit.

West Virginia Kai has a spotting plane, basic search radar, more heavy AA guns but not the WWII-vintage light AA.

West Virginia Kai Ni, now, would be her post-Pearl refit, with more flak than a small army and radar to boost her gunnery up into "watch your tailfeathers, Jersey you whippersnapper" territory... :D
______________________

Footnote: my choice of song may seem somewhat unsuited because it is associated with a specific state- and NOT the state of West Virginia. On the other hand, I think it also does an excellent job of capturing the kind of rural mountain culture, and how that culture approaches warfare, which did a lot to inspire my character sketch of West in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
I did a lot of thinking about this when I was planning omakes involving another certain Standard. No, not West, but I thought about West a bit.

HEADCANON FOLLOWS. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO IGNORE.

West Virginia has dark blonde hair and light grey eyes. She speaks with a soft, lazy backwoods twang, and when she's not on the water she seems almost withdrawn, retiring. But her gaze is sharp, focused on the horizon in a markswoman's stare- she had a reputation for gunnery even before Pearl Harbor.

Twenty years' interwar practice with squadrons upon squadrons of her half-sister Standards, most of it as the flagship, left a mark on her. In actions with a few ships she's nothing so remarkable, but in anything like a line of battle she is in her element. Almost without thinking about it, she starts giving quiet orders with terse hand signals... and a lot of shipgirls tend to listen.

Instead of the holstered pistols that seem to come with most of the American shipgirls, West carries a Springfield '03 slung over her back. And radar or no radar, her shooting is something to watch. The Colorados were splendid gunnery ships, and West Virginia was the best.

She's probably less surprised to be summoned than most. It's not the first time she's come back from the dead.

And how did I deduce all this about her? Why, it's all more or less inevitable, given her parentage.

South Carolina: "Ah, well... It was just a few months after the Armistice, you see, and Ah met the most charming sergeant in Brest..."

[the superfiring dreadnought blushes ferociously, fanning herself, glancing up at a collection of ships-in-bottles, including a lovingly detailed reproduction of USS New Ironsides]
_____________________

Anyway, West Virginia as-summoned would indeed have a light AA fit, but her gun range is about thirty-five thousand yards, and she can reach out with sixteen-inch shells towards the limit of that range quite well, thankyouverymuch. Better deck armor, too; Arizona didn't get that until her interwar refit.

West Virginia Kai has a spotting plane, basic search radar, more heavy AA guns but not the WWII-vintage light AA.

West Virginia Kai Ni, now, would be her post-Pearl refit, with more flak than a small army and radar to boost her gunnery up into "watch your tailfeathers, Jersey you whippersnapper" territory... :D
______________________

Footnote: my choice of song may seem somewhat unsuited because it is associated with a specific state- and NOT the state of West Virginia. On the other hand, I think it also does an excellent job of capturing the kind of rural mountain culture, and how that culture approaches warfare, which did a lot to inspire my character sketch of West in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Didn't USS Colorado struggle when it came to gunnery? I know that USS West Virginia was the best and that USS Maryland was the middle road, but I remember seeing a picture somewhere where it showed Gunnery Results and Colorado got only like one hit.
 
That was a specific gunnery exercise. I'm talking about the overall characteristics of the ships.

West Virginia was always a good shot, both in the interwar era and in the Radar Master Race era.* Maryland did quite well. Colorado may or may not have had troubles at some particular time, but if so it would most likely have been a problem with the officers and crew, not with the hardware.

*Just ask Yamashiro...
 
I've already got exactly what I need, song and all, to write Sara. Just...have to wait. And see.
 
Granted the armor on the Standards is just plain spectacular, I know this for a fact from World of Warships, it's a real pain to citadel those warships. They maybe slow, but they got it where it counts elsewhere, in the main gun department and once you upgrade them, to a degree in the AA Dakka Department.
 
Under the design philosophy of the Standards, low speed isn't really much of a handicap. In spite of all that armor plate, they are offensive-minded ships, intended to suit the Mahan-based strategic doctrine of the WWI-era United States Navy.

The idea was always, always for them to operate as a coordinated battleline so powerful that the enemy would be forced to give battle against it. The real risk was of getting into the battle... and then losing. Hence the emphasis on gunnery and armor protection, at the expense of speed. Because...

Maryland:
"Wars aren't won by rushing all over at umpty hundred knots putting out fires wherever the enemy hit you last. No, buddy, wars are won by walking up to the enemy's front porch, smashing his door down, grabbing him by the throat, and giving him a good hard kick in the... teeth."

[Mary coughs]

So anyway. if you're already at the enemy's front door, so that he has to come into gun range and fight you whether he likes it or not, it matters a good deal less whether you're moving at thirty knots, twenty-five, or twenty-one.

Or that was the theory.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I actually forgot about that fact. Then again, it's been awhile since I have reviewed the reason why the Americans built the Standard-Type Battleships.
 
Last edited:
People tend to assume the Standards are slow for stupid reasons, or that it was just plain a bad idea, because 21-knot battleships weren't very useful in the specific context of World War Two. But that is mostly because very few World War Two naval actions involved more than a couple of battleships on either side, and the ability of individual battleships to race around covering territory and dodging patrols mattered more than their coordinated effectiveness as a fleet.

In the context of Jutland-style fleet actions, which might very well have been the dominant paradigm had a naval war broken out in the '20s or early to mid-30s... A 21-knot battleline makes a lot more sense.
 
Simon_Jester said:
People tend to assume the Standards are slow for stupid reasons, or that it was just plain a bad idea, because 21-knot battleships weren't very useful in the specific context of World War Two. But that is mostly because very few World War Two naval actions involved more than a couple of battleships on either side, and the ability of individual battleships to race around covering territory and dodging patrols mattered more than their coordinated effectiveness as a fleet.

In the context of Jutland-style fleet actions, which might very well have been the dominant paradigm had a naval war broken out in the '20s or early to mid-30s... A 21-knot battleline makes a lot more sense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yep, that is so very much true. In the context of a war like the Great War, then the Standards make a lot of sense, not so much in terms of World War II.

In relating to the story, the Standards would certainly be very useful for bullying any Abyssal Force that is slowed down by ships that are of the same speed or slightly faster or slower than Standards. Granted, a Standard does have the ability to spank almost any battleship or battlecruiser afloat fairly effortlessly.
 
I wouldn't take that too far. The Standards' armor scheme, good though it is, does not provide reliable protection against 16" gunfire- depending on the precise type of shell there may be an immune zone or there may not. This is one of the reasons the US viewed 16" guns as such an escalation and hesitated to start putting them back on ships towards the end of the Washington Treaty era.

And while they are well protected and fairly well armed by the standards of post-WWI capital ships, they're not beyond those ships, especially not when compared to the fast battleships of the 1930s, many of which managed to be better protected AND better armed AND faster, by virtue of simply having more tonnage all around.
 
Also, the Standards didn't start out slow. 21 knots was a very respectable speed when they first came out, they just didn't change with the times.
 
Simon_Jester said:
I wouldn't take that too far. The Standards' armor scheme, good though it is, does not provide reliable protection against 16" gunfire- depending on the precise type of shell there may be an immune zone or there may not. This is one of the reasons the US viewed 16" guns as such an escalation and hesitated to start putting them back on ships towards the end of the Washington Treaty era.

And while they are well protected and fairly well armed by the standards of post-WWI capital ships, they're not beyond those ships, especially not when compared to the fast battleships of the 1930s, many of which managed to be better protected AND better armed AND faster, by virtue of simply having more tonnage all around.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

However it also depends on the class, the Colorado class had All or Nothing armor which was meant to take hits up to and including 16in/45 caliber AP rounds, unlike the rest of the standards which were armored to stop 14in/45 and 14in/50, granted not Super-Heavy Rounds, but lightweight stuff would have a hard-time penetrating that citadel.

Their speed for their time they were some of the fastest battleships afloat, with only like two or three classes, plus the Battlecruisers being quicker.
 
theJMPer said:
Also, the Standards didn't start out slow. 21 knots was a very respectable speed when they first came out, they just didn't change with the times.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, the trend towards fast battleships was present in most people's fleets by that time.

21 knots was a fairly ordinary speed for a turbine-engined battleship (Dreadnought was a 21-knot ship too, for instance), and almost immedaitely most people tried to make ships that were faster. The British followed the battlecruiser development path. The Germans evolved their armored cruisers into what were, in effect, "chibi fast battleships," with battleship-grade armor, better speed, and by World War One standards the guns of a second class battleship. The Japanese had ships like the Kongous, et cetera.

The US was virtually unique in not even bothering to try building any capital ships faster than its 21-knot line combatants until it became obvious that literally everyone else was already doing it... at which point they sighed and designed the Lexingtons.

Thorthemighty said:
However it also depends on the class, the Colorado class had All or Nothing armor which was meant to take hits up to and including 16in/45 caliber AP rounds, unlike the rest of the standards which were armored to stop 14in/45 and 14in/50, granted not Super-Heavy Rounds, but lightweight stuff would have a hard-time penetrating that citadel.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Go to Wikipedia. Look at the numbers for belt and deck armor. The Colorados had roughly the same armor scheme as the earlier Standards, which is unsurprising since they were only slightly heavier. In actual service, none of those ships would have been reliably protected against 16" gunfire. Maybe they were designed with the hopes that they would be (using WWI-era 16" ammunition with lesser penetration characteristics), but they wouldn't actually stand up that well.

This is why Abyssalized Tosa (Battleship Princess) is indeed a very serious threat to Arizona in Old Iron's pieces. The other Japanese ships mostly have rice paper for armor compared to Ari, but Ari isn't really fit to tank 16" shellfire either.

Their speed for their time they were some of the fastest battleships afloat, with only like two or three classes, plus the Battlecruisers being quicker.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again, HMS Dreadnought, roughly 10-15 years older than the Standards, was within half a knot of their top speed. As were all the dozens of subsequent WWI British dreadnoughts. As were the German dreadnoughts. As were the Japanese dreadnoughts.

Don't exaggerate your case.

By the standards of the world when they were commissioned, the Standards were of utterly, utterly ordinary speed- and when everyone scrapped the obsolete pre-WWI ships, the Standards became some of the slowest battleships in the world, if only by a relatively narrow margin. That margin grew a lot wider after the Japanese up-armored the Kongous to battleship standards, and after various nations started building capital ships again in the 1930s... but the Standards were never, ever fast.

...

The flip side of this is that this entire strategy was in fact deliberate and fit into a specific concept of warfare. The Standards do not feel the need to be fast, they are not insecure about their speed, they are working exactly as intended when they leisurely motor up to you and kick you in the, ahem, teeth.
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
The US was virtually unique in not even bothering to try building any capital ships faster than its 21-knot line combatants until it became obvious that literally everyone else was already doing it... at which point they sighed and designed the Lexingtons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Building faster ships would have meant scrapping all the standards. If you mix fast and slow ships, the fast ships will have to hold themselves back to stay with the slow ones. If you're not gonna be able to use that speed, you might as well put the tonnage into more armor. (Or just build more ships.)
 
theJMPer said:
Building faster ships would have meant scrapping all the standards. If you mix fast and slow ships, the fast ships will have to hold themselves back to stay with the slow ones. If you're not gonna be able to use that speed, you might as well put the tonnage into more armor. (Or just build more ships.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That was the line of reasoning, but on the other hand literally everyone else did exactly that (build a fast-slow mix). The trick was that they used the fast ships for scouting and 'vanguard' duties ahead of the battleline. The fast ships were useful, but risked defeat in detail if they ever got close enough to the enemy's battleline to be fired upon (witness what happened to Beatty at Jutland).

The US was largely unique in assuming there was NOT a need for exceptionally fast capital ships in the 1910-1920 timeframe, using the reasoning you just cited.
 
theJMPer said:
Building faster ships would have meant scrapping all the standards. If you mix fast and slow ships, the fast ships will have to hold themselves back to stay with the slow ones. If you're not gonna be able to use that speed, you might as well put the tonnage into more armor. (Or just build more ships.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Which was an enormous advantage, because while other Navies developed both Slow and Fast BBs, America focused on slow Battleships, with the intention that the battleline of Slow Standard Battleships could be simply an unstoppable juggernaught, pounding the crap out of whatever they catch and forcing what they couldn't catch to constantly be running for it's life until they are forced to turn and fight.

Also, armor-angling is a legitimate tactic. A very legitimate tactic, because angles increase armor thickness for less weight. It's why for example Musashi, she has a belt that's 16 inches thick, but it's angled at 20 degrees, which makes it more like -I am seriously hoping my math is right here- 17 to 18 inches of armor.
 
Last edited:
I see your paddling, unwise Gruberman Thor, and raise you...

Boot to the head!

Some will question TheJMPer, arguing that a ship broadside-on is a BIG target, not a small one. They have not thought that one step further.

Thing is, in a naval battle you are a lot more likely to get the elevation wrong (misjudge the range to the target) than to get the azimuth wrong (and put your shell to the left or right of where the enemy really is). A ship that is approaching you is 200-300 yards long, so if your range estimate is wrong by 100 yards you still have a good chance of hitting. A ship that is sailing broadside-on is only 20-30 yards wide, and if you misjudge the range, the shells are very likely to either fall in the water short of the target, or 'go long' and whistle harmlessly over the deck to fall in the ocean on the other side.

Did I get that right, TheJMPer?

landcollector said:
You just need to angle the belt armor, Ari!
/WOWS logic.:p
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Amusingly this actually sort of works, but means totally sacrificing any control over the range of the engagement, significantly complicating your firing solutions, and forcing you to fire your main guns at an angle where they cause more blast damage to your own superstructure.

All these are bigger issues in real life, where gun range is longer, shell velocity is slower, blast damage is a thing, and controlling the range of engagement is more critical.

And it doesn't do a damn bit of good against plunging fire, in any event.

Thorthemighty said:
Which was an enormous advantage, because while other Navies developed both Slow and Fast BBs, America focused on slow Battleships, with the intention that the battleline of Slow Standard Battleships could be simply an unstoppable juggernaught, pounding the crap out of whatever they catch and forcing what they couldn't catch to constantly be running for it's life until they are forced to turn and fight.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, you are now repeating what other people already said, only in more excitable terms. Time to take a rest and a chill pill.

Also, armor-angling is a legitimate tactic. A very legitimate tactic, because angles increase armor thickness for less weight. It's why for example Musashi, she has a belt that's 16 inches thick, but it's angled at 20 degrees, which makes it more like -I am seriously hoping my math is right here- 17 to 18 inches of armor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Angling armor in that it is built into the ship at a non-vertical angle is different from sailing at a funny angle towards the enemy, which is what Landcollector was talking about.
 
Last edited:
Going through more of my late grandfather's photos, and found more pictures from his naval service:






 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top