Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

I think the TBF Avengers are already on their way, just that they're still a work in progress? I would think they already recognized the Devastator as obsolete ever since a few years ago.

The important part that Thompson's people would need is skill and doctrine, something he can do something about, and has already made progress in. (e.g. Carrier tactics, Thach Weave).

Those Avengers needed people to get skilled with them before they could really contribute to the war, iirc.
 
Last edited:
Righto, I wanted to be working on Lexie!Quest, but let's get this headed off before a mod needs to hop in...

In order:

1.
The Sherman is a perfectly satisfactory design. The Firefly, to use an example, is better at killing tanks. But the basic Sherman has a better HE round, which makes it more versatile. This is the classic catch-22 situation. You can have a dedicated tank killer, or a more multi-purpose vehicle. You know what the US chose? Both.

We have tank destroyers for hunting tanks. The Shermans can fight enemy tanks, but they're much more meant to be the jack-of-all-trades vehicles, while the TDs (Wolverine, Hellcat, so on) hunt tanks explicitly. You can upgun a Sherman, the various modifications show this. But it's an arguably practical option when getting more of them on the field quicker is a goal.

Leaving out that Thompson is a naval officer to begin with and any and all suggestions related to land combat are going to be suspect at best. Even if he did pull the future knowledge thing and not get tossed in the loony bin.

Furthermore, the Germans built something like 1300 Tigers. Take most of those and stick them on the Eastern Front, so you've probably got somewhere between 5-700 Tigers at best on the West. I'm not as familiar with the land side of things, so I can't say for sure. The point though, is that even if you lose three Shermans for each Tiger...

You only need a few thousand of them to win anyway, leaving out all the other tanks and TDs and guys with bazookas and artillery and airpower and...

The point should be obvious, yes?

Also, the Matilda was a perfectly functional infantry tank, but a breakthrough tank it is not. It worked for early war, but it would be bad to try and push that design.

2. Hood refits. I'm not going to say exactly what she's going to get, clearly. But it's not going to be a total and complete rebuild along the lines of the Kongous. Remember, the Brits sent Hood to FREEDOM LAND because they wanted her back in service as quickly as possible, but couldn't do it at home without using up valuable dock space...

...remember, Hood is about the length of a Yamato...

...that was needed for other ships. It was a question of repair Hood and fix her myriad of issues, while leaving Renown or Repulse unable to go in for maintenance. Or sending her to America, who is not in the war, to fix her up and leave the space clear for keeping ships fit for combat...well, fit for combat. The Royal Navy made the practical choice of keeping their active ships active, while letting the bloody Yanks fix up their flagship.

They're still, as Harrington and Patterson commented on, going to want her back in action as quickly as humanely possible though. They know they need Hood to counter Bismarck, even if they don't know the full capabilities of said battleship. It's safe to say they'd rather the KGVs do the job, but this is the WW2-era RN. They sent Hood out even in her historically bad shape to hunt Bismarck, even if they hoped she wouldn't run into the German. Because Hood is the only ship fast enough, with strong enough guns, to make a difference. Renown and Repulse don't have the armor to do it reliably.

As such, trying to do something as radical as upgunning Hood or completely stripping her down (LEWD.Haruna.jpeg) to rebuild her from the ground up isn't going to fly. Everyone involved knows that. Everyone involved also knows that the Admirals aren't going there to actually make suggestions on refitting her, of which only Richardson is really qualified to do. And his engineering experience (remember his time on Delaware that let him see Utah) is tilted to boilers, turbines and all that than anything else.

Hood will be refit, but it won't be as dramatic as some of these suggestions.

Finally, we don't know what actually sunk her. There are many theories, and all are pretty much impossible to prove because of the violence of her end. Was it the fire set by Pringles touching off her secondary mags, that then set off her nearby primaries? Was it a direct hit to her mags by Bisko? Was it unsafe powder in either secondary or primary mags? Was it her fuel going up (this one definitely happened, the state of her wreck confirms the explosion blew out her starboard fuel tanks)? All we know for sure is her aft magazines blew, that then blew her starboard side clean open.

So any argument of increasing her safety against Bisko is going to be hypothetical, at best.

3. Changing designs. There have been good points brought up before of monkeying around with the Essex design, and that is something that Thompson could suggest without being out of left field. But as I've said before, he can't do much more than suggest things. If I made him an engineer who could point at the Essex and say 'hey, angle the deck like this and do it this *insert engineering jargon here* way and you'll make a better ship!' then he'd be verging on Sue territory.

The man can make suggestions, but he can't do them himself. And the validity of his suggestions to anyone comes down on how much they are willing to listen. Tactics are one thing, engineering is an entirely different kettle of fish.

He could say that the ships need more anti-aircraft guns, and to fast-track Bofors production. This is reasonable.

He could say that the torpedo bulges that Sara and E historically got are needed, which would do a lot of good for Hornet and Yorktown.

He could even say that we need more escorts for the carriers, or more carriers in general.

But if Thompson starts going off on funky tangents and trying to push for things that don't make sense in the time period, he's going to run into trouble. One could say it would push people to look at the designs, and maybe it would. But it would also get our Admiral committed to a loony bin at worst, constantly looked at with suspicion and mistrust at best. Going out of your way to try and do a bunch of radical things and only being able to say 'umm...well...this may work...?' when pressed is not a good thing.

In other words, don't expect him to start sprouting random things that don't make sense with the '40s tech base. Even if theoretically, and I emphasize the theoretically, possible.

Now, this is WoG on the subject.\

EDIT:
Also, Hood is already the next best thing to a fast battleship. No amount of work is going to change that, fundamentally.

WoG on a few of the subjects that are being discused again. Long story short: Sherman good, Thompson is a Naval Officer, and changing stuff is not applicable really. He can't just go out and say that he's a timetraveller and should be listened to.
 
"They were both meltdowns, the cooling systems broke down and the reactor shutdown continued to put off enough heat from decay products to melt the reactors. That region in the USSR remained abandoned for many years." Is still a useful note, as in "Well, we have some confirmation, boys! If the cooling system doesn't cool the shut down reactor enough before it fails... well, let's try to figure out what we can do to reduce the risk... like not building these on the West Coast perhaps."
Once again, you're being selective with my arguments, and are taking things out of context. Thompson is not a nuclear engineer. He does not know those particular details, because they were irrelevant to his particular line of work, which was captaining a conventionally-powered guided missile destroyer. Please stop this.
 
I'm going to flat out tell you it's at least a foot taller than it has to be.
If you shunt the turret to the back and engine to the front beside or in front of the driver (lay engine on its side, gearbox beside it, under the cramped front portion of the glacis, you can plausibly shorten the length by a foot too. It's too wide to go through British rail tunnels regardless, so that's not as much of a concern, and width should possibly be able to stay about the same. However, those are MINOR things compared to the GODDAMNED CRANKSHAFT:
See that drive shaft? The turret could be MUCH lower. Like this is just astoundingly bad given the Hellcat simply coupled it to a floor-level crankshaft...

For track tension distribution reasons, it's best to have front drive sprocket, which means IMHO that the most efficient layout is front engine, ideally next to driver but in front is acceptable
The M4 Sherman's height is not caused by the driveshaft. The driveshaft is a symptom, the cause is what's the driveshaft is supposed to do: The transmission is at the front of the vehicle, and needs to connect to the radiator, that yellow fan thing in the image that's much higher up. If the drive sprocket and transmission is in the rear, like on modern tanks such as the Abrams, that is how you get the ability to slope the armor to the degree you're looking for, because there's not much else but the driver's station left up there.

On the subject of the engine, you seem to think that using the engine up front has no consequences whatsoever. Most tanks hooked up the ability to traverse the turret to the engine, done by that small back cylindrical generator connected to the driveshaft by a set of gears, so you don't have to turn the big heavy turret with a small crank. When you put the engine on the front of the tank, you are saying you're fine with the entire tank being rendered combat ineffective by a single frontal penetration. Not just immobilized, but just as unable to contribute to the fight as all the crew being killed. Assuming you still hold the field and can get a recovery vehicle to drag it back to the motorpool, you now have to take out the entire engine and transmission to replace it. And given HEAT isn't part of the normal ammo fired by tanks yet, you probably also need an entirely new crew and all sorts of items that go in the fighting compartment because the shell went right through the engine.

As for height, look at the Abrams compared to the Sherman. The overall height of the tank was lowered by taking as much out of the front hull as possible.
 
Shermans came in radial, V8, and some other engined models... uh, it's not exactly un-reengineerable.
I'm saying the non-radial engines can be on their side ahead of the driver, or the radial turned 90 degrees (around an axis perpendicular to the floor of the tank) and placed beside the driver (though that means a taller tank than a V8 with crankshaft parallel to the axle).

The most common variant of the Sherman used the Ford GAA V8. The GAA cannot be "just turned on its side". It will overheat, seize, overheat and seize, stall out, or all four just to spite you if you try to run it on its side for extended durations without redesigning it. And radials, by definition, are radially symmetrical. Turning it around the crankshaft isn't going to change its width or height.

Stop talking about shit you don't know anything about as if you're some kind of expert , and stop ignoring the point that design changes require retooling the production facilities, which means significant to major production delays for very minor improvements, which is going to get you laughed out of the building and told to never come back if you actually suggest it.

Does it ever occur to you that the engineers that designed these vehicles might have considered and rejected everything you've brought up, and, being at the very least as intelligent as you, and with relevant training and experience, rejected them, and not just because they didn't feel like it? Or do you think it was because they were too stupid to consider the possibility?

They were both meltdowns, the cooling systems broke down and the reactor shutdown continued to put off enough heat from decay products to melt the reactors. That region in the USSR remained abandoned for many years." Is still a useful note, as in "Well, we have some confirmation, boys! If the cooling system doesn't cool the shut down reactor enough before it fails... well, let's try to figure out what we can do to reduce the risk... like not building these on the West Coast perhaps."

You are not adding any information that is not already well known by people who do nuclear reactor design for a living. There are very good reasons for the differences between US and Soviet reactor design, and those reasons are why Three Mile Island is the worst that can physically happen at a US reactor. My source works at the USNRC, and completed Nuclear Power School before being medicaled out of the Navy after he busted his knee. I happen to trust his judgement.
 
Last edited:
I think the TBF Avengers are already on their way, just that they're still a work in progress? I would think they already recognized the Devastator as obsolete ever since a few years ago.
Funnily enough, the Avenger and the factory that produced it was unveiled to the public on December 7, 1941. They subtly kicked everyone out early and started hunting for possible saboteurs after they heard about Pearl Harbor. According to my sources, the first production Avenger was delivered to the navy on January 31, and the first squadron arrived at Pearl Harbor the last week of May. I would assume that is the same squadron that was sent to Midway.

So basically they're stuck with the Devastator until June/July.
 
And even then the factory still has to ramp up to full production on the Avenger. It is going to take some time just to get the workforce needed to implement the assuredly increased orders from the Navy and Marine Corps. IOTL, Midway got their hands on I believe it was 8 of the first Avengers just in time. I'd say in this ATL it will still be about September 42 before the fleet carriers can replace their Devastator squadrons completely.
 
And even then the factory still has to ramp up to full production on the Avenger. It is going to take some time just to get the workforce needed to implement the assuredly increased orders from the Navy and Marine Corps. IOTL, Midway got their hands on I believe it was 8 of the first Avengers just in time. I'd say in this ATL it will still be about September 42 before the fleet carriers can replace their Devastator squadrons completely.
Much of the hiring needed for the Grumman plant building the Avengers was done in 1941, a year in which Grumman's work force more than tripled. Sure, it's still hiring about a thousand people a month but keep in mind they were also working on producing the Wildcat and building the factory for the Hellcat. General Motors won't begin production of the Avenger until 1943.

I don't have the hard data on when the Avenger went into full service, but it was sometime between June and August, as they weren't on the carriers at Midway but were on the carriers covering the landings at Guadalcanal in late August.
 
With regards to all the comments about the sherman being changed.

1. Thompson has no power even if he can somehow convince them that he is from the future and not mentally insane so that people will actually listen.

2. The chassis for the Sherman was already designed since it is the same chassis as the M2 medium tank and by extension the M3 Lee.

3. Upgunning the Sherman wouldn't happen until late in the war because of the US tank doctrine. They deliberately chose not to put a 76mm gun in it because fighting tanks wasn't the purpose for the Sherman.
 
3. Upgunning the Sherman wouldn't happen until late in the war because of the US tank doctrine. They deliberately chose not to put a 76mm gun in it because fighting tanks wasn't the purpose for the Sherman.
Also, the 75mm was the superior HE-thrower and adequate in the armor-piercing department for most of the German AFV park. It was mostly the cats and derivatives that gave them trouble, and they were never the majority of AFVs encountered.
 
The 105mm derp gun was a lot more fun in World of Tanks, I'll tell you that. Also a much better HE-thrower... and in IRL terms would easily handle any German AFV it hit of Panzer IV or lighter type, or incapacitate any Cat it caught from the side or in the turret.

Are you seriously citing an arcade game as evidence of a gun's superiority?

Please don't rage so much.

Maybe try not ignoring what people with more relevant expertise than you say? This is a pattern with you. You make a ignorant claim, which is no crime, then go "nuh-UH!" when someone with relevant expertise explains why you are wrong, or shift the goalposts, or otherwise engage in incredible mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you were wrong, which is, at its best, quite rude. And at worst, your behavior is actively disingenuous. There is a reason I described your design changes as "ill advised forays into Internet munchkinry", and you have repeatedly misconstrued both my and CompassJimbo's explanations of why you are wrong.

Cut it out.
 
and in IRL terms would easily handle any German AFV it hit of Panzer IV or lighter type, or incapacitate any Cat it caught from the side or in the turret.
but why make another turret for another gun when the 75 works fine anyways. if you need a cat killed you call in the wolverines or hellcats or you just mark on the map and go around, because odds are its not moving. or if it has to go, two play bait two flank and two contain. Because it's a Sherman and there's literally thousands of them.

At any rate, it's not worth retooling literally all the tank plants just for a minor increase. Shermans were easy to work on, easy to operate and did good enough at everything.
 
The 105mm derp gun was a lot more fun in World of Tanks, I'll tell you that. Also a much better HE-thrower... and in IRL terms would easily handle any German AFV it hit of Panzer IV or lighter type, or incapacitate any Cat it caught from the side or in the turret.

They had a bad enough time trying to shoehorn in the 17-pounder for the Firefly. This is ridiculous!
 
You guys are seriously debating the qualities of a Sherman tank in a thread that's about the navy and ship having souls that happen to look like cute girls.

Why?
 
You guys are seriously debating the qualities of a Sherman tank in a thread that's about the navy and ship having souls that happen to look like cute girls.

It's an alternate history fic. If you don't expect lots of debating about effects on high tech development from people KNOWING ABOUT A TIME TRAVELLER, well I got a bridge to Terebithia to sell ya.


Because I don't like the feeling I'm being flamed, and should be less sensitive about it.
Screw it, deleting all my posts before this.
 
Please point out where someone has come up with a good reason why the exact same lowered drive shaft as applied to the Hellcat physically could not be applied to a later-production Sherman.

Could it? Yes. Would it? No. Because it's an unnecessary change that introduces needless production delays. Lowering the driveshaft will not magically turn the Sherman from a bad tank into a good tank, it will (maybe) turn it from a good tank into a marginally better tank. You are willfully ignoring the realities of mass production of complex integrated systems such as tanks, one of which is "If it works, don't change it for the sake of marginal improvements"

Ah, but you VERY HARSHLY STATED that Thompson IS NOT a professional nuclear engineer, and of course he can't consult with one.
I'm not a professional nuclear engineer, and can't consult with one. Two check marks there
You are (presumably) not either, but you CAN consult with one. One (?) check mark there.

You are raging at me... from a position further from Thompson's.

At this time, Chicago Pile 1 is still almost a year from activation. Even the scraps and leavings of common knowledge blowing around the corners of a modern mind on some of the dangers is still valuable to these people!

Put simply, you are accusing US nuclear engineers of mistakes they did not make. And no the "scraps and leavings of common knowledge blowing around the corners of a modern mind", are not valuable to these people. Because they're going to say, "Hey, great. Thanks mister line officer, go back to breaking the perfectly good ships and aircraft we built for you." and ignore him unless he presents them with hard data, because engineers are well aware that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", even when the anecdotes come for a time traveler. Hell, they'd be averse to listening to a time traveling professional nuclear engineer, unless he came along with the data to back up his statements. At most, a professional nuclear engineer would be listened to on how to design experiments to get the data to back up his statements.

You are inventing from whole cloth standing and useful knowledge that Thompson does not possess or have reason to possess.
 
If you don't expect lots of debating about effects on high tech development from people KNOWING ABOUT A TIME TRAVELLER, well I got a bridge to Terebithia to sell ya.
when Sky has said that there won't be serious tech advances other than doctrine because Thompson is an admiral and not a theoretical physicist or engineer or a million other jobs that actually do with designing and implementing tech, no I really don't expect it and it's tiresome to continue going through the same debates.
 
I don't know what the hell people are arguing about, and I'm not particularly interested in knowing it either. There's no reason for people to scream at each other for like... 8 pages.
 
Because I don't like the feeling I'm being flamed, and should be less sensitive about it.
Screw it, deleting all my posts before this.
Nobody is flaming you (yet, anyhow :V), but I'm reminded of the Malay saying: "for he that eateth of the chilli shalt taste the heat upon his tongue."

If you want to petulantly flounce out and make a big show of things that's totally up to you, but it doesn't actually do much for selling your cause in the court of public opinion. :V
 
when Sky has said that there won't be serious tech advances other than doctrine because Thompson is an admiral and not a theoretical physicist or engineer or a million other jobs that actually do with designing and implementing tech, no I really don't expect it and it's tiresome to continue going through the same debates.

What BAFFLES me is that people assume doctrine changes can simply be discussed by a board of admirals without the admirals going "hold on one goddamned second, these doctrines rest on these assumptions which means these technologies are possible... and potentially currently feasible."

Things like "We should try pushing even harder on fire control computers!", "PROXIMITY FUSES FTW!!11!!", "Helicopters!" and "we can make IR-seeking missiles by the end of the 1940s? Hmm..." are not, in fact, minor ripples.

Exhibit A: Air-dropped ASW torpedoes, like the Mark 24 FIDO, are things Thompson will have knowledge of.
Mark 24 mine - Wikipedia
Notice this:
The US Navy began studies into an air-dropped anti-submarine torpedo in the autumn of 1941. Based on a formal set of requirements, Harvard Underwater Sound Lab (HUSL) and Bell Telephone Labs began development in December 1941.
*snip*
In June 1942, the US Navy decided to take the torpedo into production, even though there was still major testing work remaining on the project, including air-drop testing. The Bell Labs version of the guidance system was selected for production, with proportional homing. Testing of the pre-production prototypes continued on into December 1942, and the US Navy received the first production models in March 1943.

The admirals are going to listen to Thompson speak on ASW doctrine, and then decide that air-dropped seeking torpedoes should receive even more funding and priority. Instead of June 1942 decision to produce, the US Navy is likely to issue a decision to produce not later than February 1942. Which in turn means the first production models could be pushed up potentially as early as late January to early February 1943.

Exhibit B: Sonobuoys, as modern ASW absolutely requires them
Sonobuoy - Wikipedia
In 1931, the Coast and Geodetic Survey proposed the replacement of manned station ships with "radio-sonobuoys", and placed the new buoys in service beginning in July 1936. These buoys weighed 700 pounds (317.5 kg), could be deployed or recovered by Coast and Geodetic Survey ships in five minutes, and were equipped with subsurface hydrophones, batteries, and radio transmitters that automatically sent a radio signal when their hydrophones detected the sound of a ranging explosion. These "radio-sonobuoys" were the ancestors of the sonobuoys that began to appear in the 1940s.
*snip*
Early sonobuoys had limited range, limited battery life and were overwhelmed by the noise of the ocean. They first appeared during World War II, in which they first were used in July 1942 by RAF Coastal Command under the code name 'High Tea', the first squadron to use them operationally being No. 210 Squadron RAF, operating Sunderlands.

I'm expecting the US to mass-produce sonobuoys by late 1942 in this timeline, as they've been identified as a "Yeah, it actually works." topic.

Exhibit C: Towed Sonar
Towed array sonar - Wikipedia

During World War I, a towed sonar array known as the "Electric Eel" was developed by Harvey Hayes, a U.S. Navy physicist. This system is believed to be the first towed sonar array design. It employed two cables, each with a dozen hydrophones attached. The project was discontinued after the war.[2]

The U.S. Navy resumed development of towed array technology during the 1960s in response to the development of nuclear-powered submarines by the Soviet Union.

This is an issue of "Hmm it seems we shouldn't have abandoned it in the 20s. Well, at least current submarines don't REQUIRE it to track them underwater, hull sonar can still work for now. But we'll put it aside for development after the war."

I don't know what the hell people are arguing about, and I'm not particularly interested in knowing it either. There's no reason for people to scream at each other for like... 8 pages.

When people in-story learn "there is a time traveller among us", there is naturally going to be speculation on what they'll do with the information they can mine from him.
 
That's my point. Thompson lacks the specialized knowledge to meaningfully accelerate technological development. All he has is conceptual knowledge, and the concepts are already out there. Thompson is in 1941, not 1841.
This is something that a lot of people don't quite realise. The USN's systems with which it asserts its dominance today have their conceptual genesis in the 1940s and 1950s. The main difference between late Cold War tech and early Cold War tech is that the late Cold War tech finally works.

As an example, as early as the mid 1940s the Coast Guard was already trying to use helicopters for ASW and SAR work.
 
Back
Top