Remove ads

Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

Reader mode
Always Late said:
Enough control/effectiveness to remain a pocket of resistance until Early/mid '44, despite multiple investigations by SS Intelligence/Gestapo. Sure, they botched the job in North Africa and pre-Barbarossa USSR, and the brits knew all their codes since '41, but their loyalty to the regime was never one of solid conviction, not to mention competition with the SS Intelligence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
and owned all their agents in Britain since 1940...
 
Spectre said:
the mostly destroyers and cruisers with a QRF of Ranger, Texas, New York, And Arkansas. Bismarck could handle all three of the later at the same time and still have a good chance of winning, let alone with Blutcher and Pringles backing her up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Probably not, actually. Remember, Bismarck running into Hood and PoW when the latter was already having mechanical issues with the guns and then sinking the former was probably the luckiest break in the history of naval warfare. By all rights, Prinz and Bismarck should have been decisively defeated in that battle, outclassed as they were by BOTH enemy vessels. Fighting off three modernized New Yorks and an aircraft carrier? Bismarck's got better chances of circumnavigating the glove on a single tank of gas, even with cruiser support.
 
spartan448 said:
Probably not, actually. Remember, Bismarck running into Hood and PoW when the latter was already having mechanical issues with the guns and then sinking the former was probably the luckiest break in the history of naval warfare. By all rights, Prinz and Bismarck should have been decisively defeated in that battle, outclassed as they were by BOTH enemy vessels. Fighting off three modernized New Yorks and an aircraft carrier? Bismarck's got better chances of circumnavigating the glove on a single tank of gas, even with cruiser support.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Biscuit was a tough gal, though. She had to be scuttled, despite all the damage she took from her pursuers.
 
spartan448 said:
Probably not, actually. Remember, Bismarck running into Hood and PoW when the latter was already having mechanical issues with the guns and then sinking the former was probably the luckiest break in the history of naval warfare. By all rights, Prinz and Bismarck should have been decisively defeated in that battle, outclassed as they were by BOTH enemy vessels. Fighting off three modernized New Yorks and an aircraft carrier? Bismarck's got better chances of circumnavigating the glove on a single tank of gas, even with cruiser support.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
the new yorks were never modernized to fight a distance battle, and never got the modified turrets, most of their modernization went to AA and turbine upgrades with the only real improvement being deck armor. Even with that Biscuit could pen Arkansas belt and deck from over 30,000 yards and the New Yorks at 25,000, well outside the range of any of their main guns.
 
Spectre said:
the new yorks were never modernized to fight a distance battle, and never got the modified turrets, most of their modernization went to AA and turbine upgrades with the only real improvement being deck armor. Even with that Biscuit could pen Arkansas belt and deck from over 30,000 yards and the New Yorks at 25,000, well outside the range of any of their main guns.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Which is irrelevant because they never would have engaged at that range long enough for it to matter. Bismarck didn't sink Hood until they were within 15000 yards, and even then penetration isn't necessarily guaranteed - Bismarck should have been fully capable of putting shells through Prince of Wales' belt at that range as well, yet not a single shell from Bismarck penetrated PoW's armored deck.

The fact is that Bismarck's guns were unreliable at best. Even with integrated radar their guns couldn't hit a damn thing, and even when they did hit, the shells weren't guaranteed to go off either - again as evidenced by the fight with PoW. On the other hand, the American warships all have much better gunnery, and will be able to deliver several punishing hits to Bismarck in reasonably short order. Because don't forget, one of the reasons Bismarck made it out of the Denmark Strait was because it got lucky and was in a position where it had more guns and bigger guns than its OPFOR.

With Arkansas, Texas, and New York vs Bismarck on its own? You're talking twenty-two 14-inch rifles and another twelve 12-inch rifles, for a total of thirty-two heavy rifles pointed right at Bismarck - which means that every salvo those Standards fire back is a chance for Bismarck to be struck with a maximum of 40,000lbs of ordnance. That's not counting what Ranger's bombers will bring to the fight.

If Schreiber goes up against the Neutrality Taskforce, Bismarck is going to have every single hole stuffed by the big cannons those Standards carry, with Ranger and the DDs off to the side ready to cover her with their own explosive payloads.
 
Spectre said:
the new yorks were never modernized to fight a distance battle, and never got the modified turrets, most of their modernization went to AA and turbine upgrades with the only real improvement being deck armor. Even with that Biscuit could pen Arkansas belt and deck from over 30,000 yards and the New Yorks at 25,000, well outside the range of any of their main guns.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Noononnonoononoonnno. You cant even begin to compare pre-War ship designs with the designs made during the conflict. Through the conclusion of the first world war the concept of Battleships didn't exist. There were Cruiser's and Dreadnaughts and there were a few of these weird ships called Aircraft Carries were just a fad and never going to catch on. After the Great War concluded and before the US got involved in WWII technology advanced so much that the idea of a dreadnaught that could just sail ever close to the enemy continually saying come at me bro, and being nearly invulnerable to enemy AP shells because Dreadnaughts were essentially mobile fortresses. I will write more on this later but I need to go to bed.
 
It would be rather interesting if the coast guard excepted the idea of ship girls more fully than the regular navy. The coast guard's job practically requires that they have a closer bond with their ships than most. I am not saying that navy sailors will form the same bond over time. The fact is the coast guard has to go out in all conditions makes them much more open to the idea. Plus sailors by their nature have always been a bit superstitious.
 
EFW3 said:
Noononnonoononoonnno. You cant even begin to compare pre-War ship designs with the designs made during the conflict. Through the conclusion of the first world war the concept of Battleships didn't exist. There were Cruiser's and Dreadnaughts and there were a few of these weird ships called Aircraft Carries were just a fad and never going to catch on. After the Great War concluded and before the US got involved in WWII technology advanced so much that the idea of a dreadnaught that could just sail ever close to the enemy continually saying come at me bro, and being nearly invulnerable to enemy AP shells because Dreadnaughts were essentially mobile fortresses. I will write more on this later but I need to go to bed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Uh... could someone translate this for me? Because as it is, it'/ not making a whole lot of sense.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Uh... could someone translate this for me? Because as it is, it'/ not making a whole lot of sense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lemme put it through my 'arrogant half-assed reply' translator:
You cannot compare pre-WWI designs like the New York-class and WWII designs like the Bismarck.
This is because 'battleships' did not exist until after the end of WWI. You had 'Dreadnoughts'. You also had Cruisers, and these wierd aircraft-launching things that people thought were never going to amount to anything.
Between the wars, technology advanced so much that a dreadnaught could no longer sail into its engagement range because the newer AP shells made its role as a slow, heavily-armored, mobile sea fortress obsolete. (Word that seems to be missing.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Note, I do not agree with or condone anything EFW3 says. This is just what I think he's trying and utterly failing to lecture us on.
 
EFW3 said:
Noononnonoononoonnno. You cant even begin to compare pre-War ship designs with the designs made during the conflict. Through the conclusion of the first world war the concept of Battleships didn't exist. There were Cruiser's and Dreadnaughts and there were a few of these weird ships called Aircraft Carries were just a fad and never going to catch on. After the Great War concluded and before the US got involved in WWII technology advanced so much that the idea of a dreadnaught that could just sail ever close to the enemy continually saying come at me bro, and being nearly invulnerable to enemy AP shells because Dreadnaughts were essentially mobile fortresses. I will write more on this later but I need to go to bed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Wat?
You can't begin to compare predreads battleships to dreadnought battleships. The concept of battleships has been around since the Age of Sail, although the design of a battleship has changed pretty dramatically. WW1 dreadnoughts are battleships. As far as I know, the only time metal warship's armor was advanced enough to almost completely ignore incoming fire was during the days of early ironclads. Afterwards, gunnery technology and capabilities began to outstrip armor capabilities fairly rapidly. Dreadnoughts were fairly resistant to large caliber fire, but they weren't invulnerable.
 
EFW3 said:
Noononnonoononoonnno. You cant even begin to compare pre-War ship designs with the designs made during the conflict. Through the conclusion of the first world war the concept of Battleships didn't exist. There were Cruiser's and Dreadnaughts and there were a few of these weird ships called Aircraft Carries were just a fad and never going to catch on. After the Great War concluded and before the US got involved in WWII technology advanced so much that the idea of a dreadnaught that could just sail ever close to the enemy continually saying come at me bro, and being nearly invulnerable to enemy AP shells because Dreadnaughts were essentially mobile fortresses. I will write more on this later but I need to go to bed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
*facepalm*

Did you get your history from a bad book or are you reading this wrong because what you just said contradicted everything about the dreadnought era and naval history in general.
 
SquireHarbour said:
Yeah, that rant basically tried to derail naval history as all possible from the looks of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Never post when you're drunk, high, sleepy, or furiously enraged kids! Or you might have your assholery/ignorance forever immortalized in the great eternal archive that is The Internet!
Because The Internet Is Forever. :V
 
As you wish
And this children is how you troll tens of people into replying to your obviously wrong post boosting it'seems reply count and adding pages to the thread.
 
Last edited:
Warning: Warning
  • Staff Post
    • EFW3 said:
    And this children is how you troll tens of people into replying to your obviously wrong post boosting it'seems reply count and adding pages to the thread.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    warning This is clearly a transparent attempt to salvage your reputation after saying something dumb, but if you want to claim to be trolling you can wear the associated infraction with pride.
     
  • Staff Post
    • Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top