Remove ads

Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

Reader mode
BF110C4 said:
Mothballing might be even worse if the shipgirl does not fall into an automatic coma during their stay on the inactive reserve fleet. Depending on how good is the maintenance the shipgirl in question might be feeling how she is slowly rotting away while being completely useless to her country.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My headcanon is that the "normal" ends for ships(scrapping, museums, mothballs, combat losses, weapons tests, etc) are all viewed kinda positively by shipgirls- as long as they served honorably. To someone like Utah, scrapping would be a well-deserved rest. To someone who spent the war in dock, doing nkthnot, it might be viewed more negatively.
 
Well, besides the fact that shipgirls are not human, even if they look the part, and have different outlooks on life, there is the point to consider that they are immersed in a human society, with human values, which will shape what fate shipgirls will have.

One thing that's for sure is that Operation Crossroads will not be happening.

Now, there are two kinds of shipgirls, the tsukumogami-like shipgirls, still tied to their hulls, and the summoned shipgirls, which are independent of their hulls. Currently in story, only Utah belongs to the second category. But there is a war going on, and more ships are going to sink, on both sides. That's just a fact of the war.

So, when the war ends, there will be more Summoned shipgirls. Those are easy, as there is no need for hull maintenance, and they can live on just from human food and join society and do civilian or military things as they choose.

Sending a ship to the breakers does not mean the shipgirl dies. It just means she can be summoned later, if there is a need for it. I feel that summoning for the sake of summoning will not work.

So, the shipgirls tied to their hulls are the ones that will pose a problem. Those hulls need maintenance and regular checks against the worst enemy of any steel ship: sea corrosion. The ideal solution is turning them into museum ships, but in a lot of cases that is not practical. You cannot have all the surviving Fletchers as museum ships, for example. The Iowas, for another example, could, because there is only four of them, and they actually were deemed useful after the war.

The solution, which is kind of obvious, is to ask the shipgirl what she wants to do after her hull is deemed not fit for additional upgrades, and not needed for service. I get the feeling that most would choose being scrapped if they are no longer needed, to ease the burden for the military forces of the country.

Shipgirls do have a sense of duty to their nation, and will accept whatever fate the nation decides for them. Asking them is the polite thing to do. But it will be the humans that will be a problem. Some will see scrapping them as murdering them callously and in cold blood. Some won't care, except when it comes to their shipgirl, like sailors that served aboard a particular ship, or had relatives that served on her.
 
CV12Hornet said:
It also depends on how Sky writes shipgirls reacting to scrapping. They could be okay with it, or most emphatically NOT OKAY with it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well considering how sky has depicted ships have not been treated the best, examples being Tosa and Seydlitz. I think he has even referenced in this story how in the future where are time travelers were originally from Seydlitz was an abyssal.
 
Ash19256 said:
Well, I can see a lot more WWII ships becoming museum ships. I also could definitely see the Navy having to help foot the bill to keep those ships maintained, or the Federal Government footing same. If they didn't, all it would take is a bit of public outcry, and possibly some Soviet propaganda about treating their ships better, to make avoiding that a political suicide.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It won't be the Navy footing the bill. I'm pretty sure that the way it would be handled is that, logically, providing for the needs of shipgirls of decommissioned ships would fall upon the Veterans' Administration. After all, they're US service veterans, just not human vets.

Also note that most of the ships decommissioned and disposed of immediately after WW2 were already older ships that would have been approaching their retirement by then even without the years of hard war service. The vast majority of the war-built ships are deemed to still be useful postwar, even if surplus to peacetime requirements, and will instead be put into reserve. Attempts to dispose of most didn't start happening until the mid-50s, when the cost of the Polaris program saw the Navy budget strained to the point of SECNAV choosing to start selling off everything from DEs up through CLs to friendly nations; disposal of major units didn't really start until 1960, when the "Big Five" battleships of the Colorado and Tennessee classes were scrapped, while plans to dispose of the NCs and SoDaks started to be put into place (1962). The bulk of the scrappings and SINKEXes wouldn't be conducted until the 1970s, as the USN faced the Block Obsolescence Problem From Hell. (This is also why the USN saw so much bulk construction in the 70s... and why our fleet has been shrinking rapidly over the last few years, as those 70s-built ships experience block obsolescence, themselves, and there's not enough shipbuilding money to replace them fully.)
 
But that leaves all your pre-war ships, mostly old destroyers and standard battleships like Arizona. They have pretty much no value beyond maybe training ships or maybe in the coast guard. The useful war-built ships could all mostly see post-war upgrades, so we might see those post war missile upgrades for the battleships and cruisers. Also shipgirls that have split from their hull probably have an unlimited shelf life and as you can probably keep them fed and happy i don't think there will be much cost, besides the cost of feeding an entire battalion going to one person. The navy supply corps might throw a fit when their coffers empty out.
 
Last edited:
Darth Thanatos said:
I feel that summoning for the sake of summoning will not work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If it does though it would solve pretty much all the problems.
asqwerty3345 said:
But that leaves all your pre-war ships, mostly old destroyers and standard battleships like Arizona. They have pretty much no value beyond maybe training ships or maybe in the coast guard. The useful war-built ships could all mostly see post-war upgrades, so we might see those post war missile upgrades for the battleships and cruisers. Also shipgirls that have split from their hull probably have an unlimited shelf life and as you can probably keep them fed and happy i don't think there will be much cost, besides the cost of feeding an entire battalion going to one person. The navy supply corps might throw a fit when their coffers empty out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As terrifying as the thought of handing the Arizona over to the Coast Guard is, it still runs into the same problem as with giving them to minor nations. They're expensive to operate, difficult to crew, and additionally are often ill suited to the job requirements. I don't remember the last time the Coast Guard needed 12" guns.
 
MarkAren said:
As terrifying as the thought of handing the Arizona over to the Coast Guard is, it still runs into the same problem as with giving them to minor nations. They're expensive to operate, difficult to crew, and additionally are often ill suited to the job requirements. I don't remember the last time the Coast Guard needed 12" guns.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was thinking about the battleships becoming training ships and the coast guard getting all the old destroyers. Hell the coast guard might even welcome the influx of destroyers since that would mean that they would be getting a lot of new cutters with out the need to fight for a bigger budget to build their own.
 
Last edited:
Another thought, we've been talking about the fate US navy ships but what about captured enemy ships. A few japanese destroyers were dispersed among US allies like the Republic of China but what of any captured capital ships like Nagato.
 
Darth Thanatos said:
The solution, which is kind of obvious, is to ask the shipgirl what she wants to do after her hull is deemed not fit for additional upgrades, and not needed for service. I get the feeling that most would choose being scrapped if they are no longer needed, to ease the burden for the military forces of the country.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That is going to be the obvious step, yes.

rdfox said:
It won't be the Navy footing the bill. I'm pretty sure that the way it would be handled is that, logically, providing for the needs of shipgirls of decommissioned ships would fall upon the Veterans' Administration. After all, they're US service veterans, just not human vets.

Also note that most of the ships decommissioned and disposed of immediately after WW2 were already older ships that would have been approaching their retirement by then even without the years of hard war service. The vast majority of the war-built ships are deemed to still be useful postwar, even if surplus to peacetime requirements, and will instead be put into reserve. Attempts to dispose of most didn't start happening until the mid-50s, when the cost of the Polaris program saw the Navy budget strained to the point of SECNAV choosing to start selling off everything from DEs up through CLs to friendly nations; disposal of major units didn't really start until 1960, when the "Big Five" battleships of the Colorado and Tennessee classes were scrapped, while plans to dispose of the NCs and SoDaks started to be put into place (1962). The bulk of the scrappings and SINKEXes wouldn't be conducted until the 1970s, as the USN faced the Block Obsolescence Problem From Hell. (This is also why the USN saw so much bulk construction in the 70s... and why our fleet has been shrinking rapidly over the last few years, as those 70s-built ships experience block obsolescence, themselves, and there's not enough shipbuilding money to replace them fully.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Also being able to interact with the girl and have her be the 'face' of fundraising efforts to save her as a museum ship will definitely boost the efforts substantially. I suspect in this timeline CV-6 will be saved as a museum ship, probably with Little E as a permanent member of the board of the USS Enterprise Memorial Foundation, and an awesome museum ship tour guide. Seriously, she can tell future generations all about Second Wake (or Midway, Santa Cruz, or Eastern Solomons) because she was literally there as an eyewitness to history.

Same with Saratoga as well, I suspect. While her younger cousins and daughters will be the core of the postwar Navy, Sara will probably be given the option of retirement to become a museum ship someplace.

The ones who will have it hard are the Royal Navy girls, though. Since while the US should come out of WWII economically dominant again, England will be in real financial trouble and have a large fleet to decide what to do with. Plus there is the normal no holds death match between the Admiralty and HM Treasury to deal with.

One other thing that might come into play down the road is that if one of their crew performs a supremely heroic and self-sacrifical act (such as flooding the magazine they are trapped in by an uncontrollable fire to prevent an explosion), it is very likely that the girl might be able to attest to their bravery as a witness when the time comes to make medal recommendations to SECNAV.
 
asqwerty3345 said:
I was thinking about the battleships becoming training ships and the coast guard getting all the old destroyers. Hell the coast guard might even welcome the influx of destroyers since that would mean that they would be getting a lot of new cutters with out the need to fight for a bigger budget to build their own.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The ships would need to be retired from any sort of service before long. Warships have definite fatigue lives; their structures are under high stress at all times (particularly in storms) and metal fatigue is a genuine issue. Add in that seawater is horribly corrosive, and the hull can only be useful for so long. Indeed, Friedman's U.S. Battleships cites the Arkansas as a classic example of the long lifespan of US-built hulls, being built before WW1 and then lasting 33 years in active service before being expended at Crossroads in 1946, which is about ten years longer than any other navy's contemporary capital ships. The biggest reason Enterprise CVN-65 was retired recently wasn't the cost of refueling her again; it was that, at an age of 55 years, her hull and machinery was so worn out that keeping her in service was getting to be more expensive than building a new ship to replace her. What's more, smaller ships are built much more lightly, with shorter design lives.

Same reason people tend to replace their cars after ten-ish years or so; age-related wear and tear accumulates to the point where keeping it on the road starts "nickel and dime"ing you to death, spending as much on little fixes as it would cost to replace them. The Coasties might like getting an influx of prewar DDs to serve as cutters... but they'd be lucky to get much more than 5-10 years more service out of them before they need replacement.

MSSB can do a lot, but it can't do anything about physics; the hull can only serve for so long before it becomes too worn out to be safe.
 
rdfox said:
The ships would need to be retired from any sort of service before long. Warships have definite fatigue lives; their structures are under high stress at all times (particularly in storms) and metal fatigue is a genuine issue. Add in that seawater is horribly corrosive, and the hull can only be useful for so long. Indeed, Friedman's U.S. Battleships cites the Arkansas as a classic example of the long lifespan of US-built hulls, being built before WW1 and then lasting 33 years in active service before being expended at Crossroads in 1946, which is about ten years longer than any other navy's contemporary capital ships. The biggest reason Enterprise CVN-65 was retired recently wasn't the cost of refueling her again; it was that, at an age of 55 years, her hull and machinery was so worn out that keeping her in service was getting to be more expensive than building a new ship to replace her. What's more, smaller ships are built much more lightly, with shorter design lives.

Same reason people tend to replace their cars after ten-ish years or so; age-related wear and tear accumulates to the point where keeping it on the road starts "nickel and dime"ing you to death, spending as much on little fixes as it would cost to replace them. The Coasties might like getting an influx of prewar DDs to serve as cutters... but they'd be lucky to get much more than 5-10 years more service out of them before they need replacement.

MSSB can do a lot, but it can't do anything about physics; the hull can only serve for so long before it becomes too worn out to be safe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, that depends. The interpretation usually seen is that the repair fluid in the docks really can. Including literally regrowing parts that have been blown off. For a fraction of the cost and time real repairs would take. So, if they actually go full shipgirl like Utah did, then things become rather different.
 
Arawn_Emrys said:
Well, that depends. The interpretation usually seen is that the repair fluid in the docks really can. Including literally regrowing parts that have been blown off. For a fraction of the cost and time real repairs would take. So, if they actually go full shipgirl like Utah did, then things become rather different.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Repair buckets don't really exist? The closest real life comparison you could probably get is either a comprehensive repair job in a amazingly short time frame, or to make a more human comparison, surgical replacement of body parts. The second one is probably the most realistic choice, but that still comes with the issue that you can't replace everything forever, and even if you could, the mind will deteriorate.

Most people at the end of their lives aren't fighting to live anymore. They have lived a long and filling life, and are accepting of their coming end. I see no reason why a shipgirl wouldn't be the same way. Even though they look human, they are still not. They are ships in a different body. Even if they become enlightened to the fact that there is more than fighting and dying for their country, they will still know what they are, and what that means.
 
Personally I figure that post WWII if they haven't already figured out how to transform ship spirits into independent shipgirls there will be a concentrated effort to do so.

Shipgirls have logistical requirements thousands to tens of thousands of times smaller then their warship counterparts. They are significantly more mobile (land transport alone even if they can't be flown or travel aboard a small fast ship) then their warship counterparts. They have all the MSSB that comes with being a ship and a girl simultaneously.

So there are moral reasons (frees the girls from being pinned to their hulls), economic reasons (shipgirls cost a lot less to support then ship spirits), strategic reasons (shipgirls are more versatile and dangerous), and tactical reasons (shipgirls generally outperform their ship counterparts) why pretty much every nation would be very interested in trying to convert ships into shpigirls.

Plus from a narrative perspective freeing spirits from their hulls means the Thompson/Saratoga ship will have a happy ending. Same applies for the Halsey/Enterprise father-daughter relationship and all the other human/ship-spirit connections.
 
One question to consider for the post war world. Would a Shipgirl be considered a Tactical or Strategic weapon? I could see the soviets using their ship girls a spreadhead infront of their tank hordes pushing through the Fulda Gap. The deployment of a shipgirl onto battlefields could see tactical nuclear weapons being fielded.
 
Last edited:
asqwerty3345 said:
One question to consider for the post war world. Would a Shipgirl be considered a Tactical or Strategic weapon? I could see the soviets using their ship girls a a spreadhead infront of their tank hordes pushing through the Fulda Gap. The deployment of a shipgirl onto battlefields could see tactical nuclear weapons being fielded.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A destroyer shipgirl alone is a combination of a machine gun nest on steroids and a battery of self-propelled guns. Cruisers, carriers, and battleships are even more powerful.

The way I see it, destroyers, being more in line with existing land capabilities and more common to boot, would be tactical assets, while the heavier ships would be operational assets.
 
asqwerty3345 said:
One question to consider for the post war world. Would a Shipgirl be considered a Tactical or Strategic weapon? I could see the soviets using their ship girls a a spreadhead infront of their tank hordes pushing through the Fulda Gap. The deployment of a shipgirl onto battlefields could see tactical nuclear weapons being fielded.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"Our mission is to keep the Russians busy until the shipgirls arrive."

The new unofficial Bundeswehr creed during the Cold War
 
Last edited:
asqwerty3345 said:
I could see the soviets using their ship girls a a spreadhead infront of their tank hordes pushing through the Fulda Gap.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Two things wrong, maybe only one.

1) (The thing I'm sure of) They're SHIP girls. They're most definitely going to be at their worst on land and you would not use them in such a fashion.

2) (The thing I'm not so sure of) I have heard that the whole 'Russian Hordes through Fulda Gap' was mis-direction on the Russians part. No idea of what the actual plan was, but not through where NATO was pointing all its guns.
 
asqwerty3345 said:
A hundred pound cannon ball could wreck pretty much anything but tanks and other well armored vehicles but for everything that isn't designed to defend against tank shells would be easy pickings for say the USS Monitor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was thinking more of the ability to tank machine gun fire while charging said gun and then beating it's wielded to death with it, but that works too!
 
Blade failure in a turbine is mostly a wear and tear thing - it's bad that it happened, yes,but it's a side effect of how much deferred maintenance Hood had. She really needed the major refit she was scheduled for immediately after Denmark Strait.
 
PAGDTenno said:
Blade failure in a turbine is mostly a wear and tear thing - it's bad that it happened, yes,but it's a side effect of how much deferred maintenance Hood had. She really needed the major refit she was scheduled for immediately after Denmark Strait.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I was more referring to the decision to attack the French anchorage, though that has been discussed back and forth to Hell and gone.

The turbine was likely just wear, as you say, though in this 'verse it could easily be Hood's own effort to stop the madness any way she can.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top