Remove ads

Belated Battleships (KanColle) [REHOST]

Reader mode
Girl adopted: Musashi
Sent: Lou Malnati's frozen deep dish pizzas (one each of cheese, sausage, pepperoni, spinach, veggie, and a random 'gluten free' pizza [the crust is sausage, not dough]); Mega Blocks USS Enterprise-D model, with decals altered to read USS Yamato; oh, and some 3XLT t-shirts so she wear something that won't restrict breathing.

Also, on the concept of Battleships needing to prove themselves, can we get a few more Standards summoned. What I mean is that it is a common thought that (if people are even aware of any battleships beyond the Iowas) the Standards were mistakes because they could only go a maximum speed of ~21 knots. Everything else they were good at is forgotten.
 
Sir_Gaea said:
Also, on the concept of Battleships needing to prove themselves, can we get a few more Standards summoned. What I mean is that it is a common thought that (if people are even aware of any battleships beyond the Iowas) the Standards were mistakes because they could only go a maximum speed of ~21 knots. Everything else they were good at is forgotten.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I definitely agree we need more standards. But I don't recall anyone considering them to be mistakes, except maybe the isolationists who thought all battleships were mistakes. Now by the time wwii and the new designs came into play they were about 20-30 years behind in technology, which is why you hear them called outdated or older battleships and some people have referred to them as being used in secondary roles.

Really the only job they didn't do was carrier escort because they couldn't keep up with the carriers and didn't have the same quality AA that Iowa's, South Dakotas, and North Carolina's had. But they did nearly everything else. Operation Torch, D-day, retaking the Philippines, all the pacific island campaigns, all relied on Standards and even a few old Dreadnaughts like Texas, New York, and Arkansas.
 
Sir_Gaea said:
What I mean is that it is a common thought that (if people are even aware of any battleships beyond the Iowas) the Standards were mistakes because they could only go a maximum speed of ~21 knots. Everything else they were good at is forgotten.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Personally, while I believe the Standards to be very well designed, I dislike the doctrine behind their creation. I favor maneuver warfare over attrition warfare. Why bother with a battleline when you can outflank the enemy and tear them to shreds?
 
Darth Herobrine said:
Personally, while I believe the Standards to be very well designed, I dislike the doctrine behind their creation. I favor maneuver warfare over attrition warfare. Why bother with a battleline when you can outflank the enemy and tear them to shreds?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why bother outflanking the enemy when you can force an emgagement against something important?
 
HMSFearlessCL-56 said:
Hey, America runs on it! :grin:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
America doesn't run on that pig swill, Dunkin just wants you to think it does.
Edit:
Sir_Gaea said:
Also, on the concept of Battleships needing to prove themselves, can we get a few more Standards summoned. What I mean is that it is a common thought that (if people are even aware of any battleships beyond the Iowas) the Standards were mistakes because they could only go a maximum speed of ~21 knots. Everything else they were good at is forgotten.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Standards are, pardon the pun, the standard of "Fuck You, I'm a Battleship" that Jersey subscribes to. They are the naval equivalent of pursuit predation, implacable, unstoppable, relentless, chasing until you run out of fuel or break down and enter their gun range. And then you're dead.
 
Last edited:
...crap, I thought of adopting Kongou in the SB thread, and was going to give her a Warhammer 40K box set, along with paints and glue...and some chocolate and top Gear UK dvds...
 
Darth Herobrine said:
Personally, while I believe the Standards to be very well designed, I dislike the doctrine behind their creation. I favor maneuver warfare over attrition warfare. Why bother with a battleline when you can outflank the enemy and tear them to shreds?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There are times that you aren't able to dance, and the only thing you can do is go nose to nose and beat the crap out of your opponent.

The standards are designed and built to do the whole knife-fight-in-a-phone-booth thing. They've got the armor and the heavy artillery for it.
 
Jrandom said:
There are times that you aren't able to dance, and the only thing you can do is go nose to nose and beat the crap out of your opponent.

The standards are designed and built to do the whole knife-fight-in-a-phone-booth thing. They've got the armor and the heavy artillery for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As I said, I have no problems with the design (other than the poor turning radius), I just am not a fan of the attrition-based Mahan Doctrine that spawned them.
 
Darth Herobrine said:
As I said, I have no problems with the design (other than the poor turning radius), I just am not a fan of the attrition-based Mahan Doctrine that spawned them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Two things. Standards have excellent maneuver characteristics, with an absurdly small tactical radius of 700 yards.

Second, Mahanian doctrine isn't attrition-based. It's a doctrine of strength.

To use an analogy: Every tactical problem is trying to crack the shell of a walnut.

The Standards/Mahanian doctrine are a steam hammer. This is ideal, as you never want to get fancy trying to crack a walnut if you have a steam hammer available. If you submit a tactical solution that doesn't involve using that steam hammer at a tactics course, the instructor will fail you, assuming you're in a situation where the steam hammer is available.

Simplicity is a virtue in military planning. Complex plans introduce lots of things that can go wrong, or be made to go wrong by the enemy.
 
Last edited:
PAGDTenno said:
Two things. Standards have excellent maneuver characteristics, with an absurdly small tactical radius of 700 yards.

Second, Mahanian doctrine isn't attrition-based. It's a doctrine of strength.

To use an analogy: Every tactical problem is trying to crack the shell of a walnut.

The Standards/Mahanian doctrine are a steam hammer. This is ideal, as you never want to get fancy trying to crack a walnut if you have a steam hammer available. If you submit a tactical solution that doesn't involve using that steam hammer at a tactics course, you will fail, assuming you're in a situation where the steam hammer is available.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If the steam hammer is not available, your immediate goal is to make the steam hammer available. The part I like about the Mahanian doctrine is that you keep your force together, then park it in the enemies naval base. Who cares how fast the enemy is if they have no home to return to. (See German cruiser warfare in South East Asia in WW1 before the Japanese took their home port.)
 
Simplicity is a virtue in military planning. Complex plans introduce lots of things that can go wrong, or be made to go wrong by the enemy.​
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But, in wartime, even simple things become difficult, so the simpler the better.

And very few solutions have failed, because they applied too much force.

Above all else, including being a policy tool, warfare is the application of military force.
 
Last edited:
Personally, while I believe the Standards to be very well designed, I dislike the ​
doctrine​
behind their creation. I favor maneuver warfare over attrition warfare. Why bother with a battleline when you can outflank the enemy and tear them to shreds? ​
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To me, this sounds too much like Sir John Fisher constantly saying "Speed is Armor!" History has shown how well that worked out.
 
PAGDTenno said:
Second, Mahanian doctrine isn't attrition-based. It's a doctrine of strength.

To use an analogy: Every tactical problem is trying to crack the shell of a walnut.

The Standards/Mahanian doctrine are a steam hammer. This is ideal, as you never want to get fancy trying to crack a walnut if you have a steam hammer available. If you submit a tactical solution that doesn't involve using that steam hammer at a tactics course, the instructor will fail you, assuming you're in a situation where the steam hammer is available.

Simplicity is a virtue in military planning. Complex plans introduce lots of things that can go wrong, or be made to go wrong by the enemy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The core of the Mahan Doctrine is the Decisive Battle, in which two fleets slug it out until one side is either destroyed or retreat. In the age of Dreadnought and WWII, this never happened as such battles are easily avoided outside of blockades. My preference is to bleed the enemy with multiple fast attack groups. To use your analogue, it would be a compressed air vice. Cracks the walnut just the same as the steam hammer, but with more control.
Jrandom said:
To me, this sounds too much like Sir John Fisher constantly saying "Speed is Armor!" History has shown how well that worked out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The battlecruiser failed not because it was a bad idea, but because they were treated as interchangeable with dreadnoughts. And I was more thinking of something like an improved and up armored Alaska CB with faster firing guns.
 
Last edited:
So, you prefer the French concept of Jeune École then? Torpedoes from fast ships as party favors to everyone?
 
Well, no.Mahanian doctrine treats the Decisive Battle as a tool. It's how you get rid of the other side's battle-line - by assaulting a position it must defend, and crushing it against that objective. Then, once the enemy battle line has been removed, your cruisers, destroyers, etc. take control of the sea lanes, and you win.

For instance, you park your battle-line outside the enemy's homeport, out of range of their coastal defenses, and wait. They either come to fight you, you kick their teeth in, and you win, or their battle-line stays parked in port, and you win. The objective is to remove the enemy battle-line from the equation at sea, and it doesn't matter if you do that by sinking them or if they're unwilling to leave their homeport to come fight you.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top